Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Telecommunications Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include for the Record a letter from the Fraternal Order of Police opposing this legislation. National Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC, January 23, 2009 Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the full committee and the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman continue to reserve his time?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want the American people to know that the Republicans want to solve this problem. If we defeat this bill tomorrow under suspension, then hopefully we can reach across the aisle and work with our friends in the new Democrat majority to do things that actually solve the problem. We can actually say that money that is in the Treasury that hasn't been spent on redemptions of coupons can be used to issue new coupons. We could even eliminate the coupon requirement. We could provide a small amount of additional funding. I have a bill that I introduced this week that does most of those things. But if we need to do something differently, I pledge to the American people and my friends on the majority side that once we defeat this delay bill tomorrow, we still have time to work together on a bipartisan basis to put together a bill that does solve the problem, without delaying the hard date of February 17. So, with all due respect, I would ask that we defeat S. 328, vote tomorrow not to suspend the rules, and then let's work together the rest of this week and next week to solve the problem. Vote ``no'' on S. 328. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to one of our new members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1 minute to our very newest member of the Energy and Commerce Committee on the Republican side, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so- called stimulus bill for a number of reasons, both process and procedural. On the process, we had 1 day to consider 270 pages of text in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Five Republican amendments were accepted during the markup; three of those five were stricken from the bill before it came to the floor, and the fourth one, which is in the bill, is in the bill in a different form than which it was agreed upon during the negotiations during the markup. I don't think that is really good form. On the substance of the bill, most of the Energy and Commerce title is really social program policy and spending. It may be good, but it is not stimulative in and of itself in terms of what we are here to do. There is one title in the energy section which I think my friends on the majority side need to know about; it is something called decoupling. It gives a utility the right to petition a State that if the consumers in that State do all these energy efficient measures and they decrease their use of electricity, by decoupling what the consumers pay for it the utility has a revenue guarantee: Use less, pay more. I mean, as insane as that sounds, it is in this bill. I offered an amendment to strike that from the bill in the committee and it was on a party line vote rejected. Every Democrat voted to keep that in the bill; every Republican voted to remove it. So if this actually becomes law, if a governor of a State acts positively on a petition from a utility in that State, the utility can decouple what it charges your voters for what you pay for electricity regardless of how much you use. If somebody cuts their electricity use 20 percent, they pay the same. Now, I don't know about most voters, but I know my voters, if they conserve and consume less electricity, they want to pay less; but under this bill, they are going to pay more. How is that stimulative to the economy? I think that is actually destructive of the economy. So, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, while there is some good in this bill, there is so much that is really not stimulative, and there is some stuff that is just really harmful that we should vote ``no.'' There is one other thing. Under this bill, they struck the amendment by Mr. Stearns that says if a millionaire wants to get on COBRA and get his health care paid for two-thirds of the premium, he has got to prove that he is not a millionaire, that he doesn't have income and he doesn't have assets. They accepted that on a voice vote in the committee, but they struck it out. So there is no income test, there is no means test. Basically, Mr. Madoff, who just defrauded billions and billions of dollars, is going to be eligible for COBRA assistance under this bill. Vote ``no.''

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, as we debate this new SCHIP bill, I think it is important to figure out what we know about the bill and the undemocratic methods that produced it. First, we know that few, if any, Members of Congress actually have read the bill. Despite the promises made by Majority Leader Hoyer on Friday that we would get at least 48 hours to review the bill, the new, 285 page SCHIP bill only turned up yesterday at 11:20. The 48 hours that Majority Leader Hoyer promised somehow shrank to less than 24 hours. The Rules Committee met without an official score from the Congressional Budget Office. I will stipulate that Members may not always read the legislation they vote on, but most of us at least read the summaries and analyses that our staff members prepare. And every one of us has a right to the time required to know what these bills contain. That's what the regular legislative process is all about--listening, thinking, proposing, thinking some more, amending and debating. Implicit in normal process is the notion that all useful ideas may not reside exclusively in the minds of the Speaker's assistants. And all this careful listening and critical thinking by House Members is supposed to happen before we vote. Democrats seem to think that's got it backwards. They want to vote first and think later. It's all about bills written in private, delivered at night, and ramrodded through here with the blink of an eye. Now, I recognize that a strong majority can do things that way, and Republicans aren't without sin. But when secrecy and arrogance are combined with perfect efficiency, the country always seems to pay a heavy price. On this bill especially, I've been treated better by used car salesmen. They didn't want me looking too closely at their products, but they didn't dump a wreck on my front lawn after sundown and tell me I had to buy it or else. The Democrats don't want anyone to inspect their product, either, and maybe that's because it has the qualities of a used Edsel. There has been no process, much less any fair process. Evidently changes have been made to the bill from 2 years ago, but what are they? There have still been no committee markups on any SCHIP legislation and no legislative hearings. And I can't find evidence that a single one of the numerous suggested improvements to past SCHIP bills has been incorporated into this one. The majority is interested in what it wants and nothing else. We also know, Madam Speaker, that today is largely a political exercise. The Senate is actually going to have a real markup in the Senate Finance Committee. I'll say that again to make sure my friends on the other side of the aisle heard what I said: The Senate is actually going to put their SCHIP bill through the full committee process, including considering ideas from people not on the Democrat leadership staff. It's possible to legislate the right way, and it's pitiful that the people's House is reduced to taking lessons in democracy from our friends in the Senate. Over here, the tricks don't stop with tactics. Every Member of this body understands that they will be vilified if they don't fall in line and support this bill. If you don't vote for the Democrats' SCHIP bill, your constituents will be told that you hate kids. Your people will be told that the only way to ensure that kids get health care is by supporting the bill produced by the Democrat leadership without a whisper of a complaint. They want the people to believe that there are no other ideas and no other options. Well, Madam Speaker, I want to make clear to the American people that my Republican colleagues and I do want to reauthorize the SCHIP program. We have repeatedly reached out to the Democrats and have asked for a chance to sit down with them and work on a compromise that can become law. Last year, we heard many impassioned speeches about how important it was to override the President's veto of the Democrats' bills, but after these votes those same people were literally applauding when the veto was not overridden. That's right, Madam Speaker, there were Democrats applauding on the floor of the House when the bill they supported was rejected. That's more than partisan politics, that is cynicism and deception at their ugliest. Madam Speaker, when the Democrats stop making this about political advantage at the expense of low-income children, and decide to actually produce a serious, passable SCHIP program, I am still ready to work with them. As it stands now, I urge all Members to reject this cynical ploy and vote ``no'' on this deeply flawed and highly partisan bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss an unrelated issue that has been neatly tucked into this bill. The issue is timely access to quality hospital care in our Nation's communities. The Majority says we don't need any regular legislative process with this bill because everyone knows what's in it. Well, my staff received this 285-page bill at 11:20 a.m. yesterday. Even with full knowledge of what went into previous versions of this legislation, it isn't reasonable to expect that people will be able to gain a good understanding of the new bill with that sort of time constraint. I would also note that since the last time the House voted on an SCHIP bill, we've added more than 60 new Members. This is politics as usual, and it should give every new Member great pause before voting for this bill, or any bill. I don't believe that any of our new Members comes from a background where they were expected to approve a major policy on the basis of the idea that, well, it's been here before, so we don't need to read it or understand it. In fact, didn't most of us run against that sort of deceptive politics in Washington? I want to point out to the new Members that your vote today could also cause hospitals in your district to close. Hospitals that are under construction now and intended to serve your constituents soon may never see a patient. And why will that happen? Because a few Members of your conference with clout believe physicians in your communities shouldn't own hospitals. They say that the people who care for and about their communities, who have a personal stake in the care that is delivered, those people should not be trusted. We have had no hearings on the issue of physician ownership of hospitals in the last two Congresses. The Health Subcommittee did have one hearing last year to discuss health disparities and we heard from a physician from Louisiana. His story illustrates what can happen when physicians are able to help their communities. After Katrina, hospitals were closing and residents couldn't get care. The doctors in these communities made a difference by coming together to make sure people could continue to receive health care. Why on earth would we want to eliminate people's ability to serve their community? Why are the opponents of physician-owned hospitals so antagonistic? I'm not sure, because these hospitals provide higher quality care at lower costs than other hospitals. They have higher patient satisfaction rates and don't experience workforce shortages like other hospitals do. I offered an amendment along with Congressman Johnson and Dr. Burgess to strike the section that was written to eliminate physician-owned hospitals. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee rejected that idea. Congressman Boren and Congresswoman Jackson-Lee proposed a very fair amendment that would have delayed the implementation of Section 623 to July 1, 2010, so hospitals that are currently under construction could finish being completed and serve patients. That amendment also was rejected. Last week, the House changed the rules on motions to recommit stating we could continue to have the committee and amendment process to voice our concerns. Madam Speaker, this has had neither, and it is a shame because the provision of quality hospital care is too important to be eliminated due to some philosophical bent of a couple of your senior Members. New Members, this is an early to important test: do you vote your district or do you vote your leadership? Do you vote your hospitals or do you vote for a policy that was concocted in private in Washington. Madam Speaker, in 1997, the Republican Congress enacted the State Children's Health Insurance Program to help children's families near poverty. But now, true to their big government agenda, the Democrat Congress wants to send the President-elect a massive increase in the SCHIP Program that will usher in a new era of socialized medicine in America. This bill will take a program designed to help children near the poverty level and expand it to include families with incomes of up to $84,000 a year. And Democrats will pay for this middle class entitlement with a 61 cent--$1 per pack tax increase on cigarettes. Let's provide health insurance for children of the poor, but let's reject a liberal Democratic Congress attempt to create middle class entitlements on the backs of American smokers. Since Congress has already reauthorized and fully funded SCHIP through March 31, 2009, we should work in a bipartisan manner to thoughtfully develop a longer-term reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. While I have been pleased to support SCHIP in the past, and continue to support its original intention to cover needy children who do not qualify for Medicaid, the bill being considered today hardly resembles the bipartisan compromise reached in 1997. My Republican colleagues and I are eager to work with Democrats--as we did more than 10 years ago--to ensure that needy children receive health care coverage. As the program expands, health care for needy children is jeopardized. Republicans will work tirelessly to see that every currently eligible child is covered first and that taxes are not raised on the poorest among us. The Democrats' SCHIP bill spends billions of dollars to substitute private health insurance coverage with government-run healthcare coverage. The Democrats' SCHIP bill taxes the poor to benefit the middle class. The bill uses the funding gained from taxing the poor to pay for expanding SCHIP eligibility to higher-income families. The Democrats' SCHIP bill focuses on enrolling higher-income kids instead of low-income, uninsured kids. The Democrats' SCHIP bill enables illegal aliens to fraudulently enroll in Medicaid and SCHIP. Short of finding at least 22.4 million new smokers (the number required to adequately fund SCHIP) Democrats will be forced to either kick millions of children off of health insurance or raise taxes on all of us by tens of billions of dollars. It is irresponsible to fund a children's health program, particularly one targeted at vulnerable children, with a declining revenue stream. The revenue to fund this expansion will soon disappear, causing all of us to pay more in taxes. The percentage of Americans who smoke has been dropping for decades. And research and logic both show that raising the prices of cigarettes will lead to less smoking, and therefore less revenue. The Democrat expansion of SCHIP takes money from taxpayers in States like Indiana to pay for middle class children in wealthier States. I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the ``Sharing Dr. King's Dream Celebration'' in Arlington, Texas, which marks its 20th Anniversary this year. It is one of the longest Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Celebrations in the country, with citywide events taking place over four days starting January 16th The city's first MLK, Jr., celebration was held back in 1989. The organizing committee included groups from all over the community, including the Arlington Chamber of Commerce, City of Arlington, Arlington Independent School District, Arlington Ministerial Association, Black Citizen's Advisory Council, U.S. Postal Service, Marion Anderson Society, Fort Worth Star Telegram, The University of Texas at Arlington and Tarrant County College--South East campus. That first event attracted nearly 1,000 participants. Over the years ``Sharing the Dream'' has continued to grow and it now includes diversity training, sensitivity workshops, banquets, festivals and other multicultural events. This celebration truly embodies what Dr. King's vision was all about and that is a reflection of all communities coming together. And Arlington's MLK, Jr. Celebration committee continues to expand the event. Each year, in cooperation with the United States Postal Service, they produce an official cachet envelope and a special pictorial cancellation postmark to commemorate the citywide celebration. These special envelopes and postmarks have become favorites of collectors all over the nation. The theme for this year's cachet envelope and postmark is ``20th Anniversary--Sharing the Dream''. The design is always chosen from student submissions to various art or essay contests organized by the Arlington Independent School District. The celebration also recognizes special individuals who have taken the time to make a difference within their respective communities in the areas of Education, Community Service and Government. This is a unique and very special celebration that each year honors the contribution's of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and on its 20th Anniversary, I am proud to recognize the individuals and organizations that have helped make this event possible over the years and all of the people who have shared Dr. King's dream by attending.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, the Energy and Commerce Committee is vested with the responsibility for overseeing sports, and that includes the current process for determining a national college football champion: the BCS system. College football is more than an exhilarating sport, it's a billion-dollar business. I'm introducing legislation today because despite every effort to fix the problems of BCS, college seasons still end in sniping and controversy, rather than clear winners and losers determined on the field. The BCS system was created to identify a broadly accepted national champion, but 50 percent of the time it has failed to do so. Most coaches who lose half their games would also lose their jobs. Yet that's what we settle for in determining a champion today. The BCS system of determining America's top collegiate team was established in 1998 and has been plagued by controversy almost ever since. In some years the sport's national championship winner was left unsettled, and at least one school was left out of the many millions of dollars in revenue that accompany the title. Despite repeated efforts to improve the system, the controversy rages on. In the 2003 season, the University of Oklahoma and Louisiana State University were selected to play in the title game, even though the University of Southern California arguably had an equal claim. LSU beat Oklahoma and USC also won its bowl game, leaving both schools claiming to be national champions and further chafing millions of college football fans, especially USC alumni. As a direct result of LSU's selection by BCS, the school's merchandise sales in both 2003 and 2004 were more than double previous levels, producing millions of dollars in additional revenue for the school. In the 2004 season, again three equally qualified and, in this case, undefeated teams--Auburn, Oklahoma and USC--fought for the two slots in the title game, which once again produced an uneven outcome as USC defeated Oklahoma handily. Auburn won its game, but had no opportunity to play for a national championship and the millions of dollars that accompany it. This year, we again have two teams with one loss each playing for the ``championship'' while two undefeated teams and four additional teams with only one loss will play in bowl games, but none can become ``champion.'' The distinction of being the best brings millions of dollars in revenue, but the BCS method of determining who is number one consistently misfires. When we held our first hearing on BCS in 2005, I didn't have legislation in mind, and I hoped none would be necessary. Simply exposing the flaws and subjecting them to discussion, however, hasn't led to improvement by those who run the system. The legislation I am introducing along with Congressmen Bobby Rush and Michael McCaul recognizes the flaws of this system. Consumers, whether the millions who watch the game on TV or the lucky few who pay for a ticket to the computer-designated ``championship'' game, are being deceived. The BCS championship game is not a championship game under any sensible interpretation of the manner in which sports champions are determined. The legislation we are introducing today will prohibit the marketing, promotion, and advertising of a post-season game as a ``national championship'' football game, unless it is the result of a playoff system. Violations of the prohibition will be treated as violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act as an unfair or deceptive act or practice, and provides the FTC with civil penalty authority. The legislation does not specify the details of the playoff system; rather, it ensures that that all Division I, Football Bowl Subdivision, teams should be initially eligible at the start of every season. The existing bowl structure could easily be incorporated into or as the basis for such a playoff system. We're never going to abolish all controversy, and who'd really want to be rid of it, anyway? People will argue about who should be in and out of playoffs, too, but I am confident when more of the most deserving teams can compete, a true national champion is much likelier to emerge.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation this evening. I think it's important that members of the Republican Party in the House be for Main Street and the workers of America as much as sometimes we are for Wall Street and the financiers of America. I have the privilege to represent over 2,500 GM assembly workers and managers at the GM assembly plant in Arlington, Texas. They produce the highest quality products, SUV, hybrids, pickups in the world. They export a fair number of the products that they manufacture, and they manufacture over 200,000 vehicles on an annual basis every year. It would be an absolute shame if we either force these companies into bankruptcy or watch them totally go out of business because they had the misfortune to be in a business cycle where gasoline was $4 a gallon and their product sale fell 40 percent on average in 1 year. If I lost 40 percent of my votes in this last election in 2008, I would not be coming back as a Member-elect of the next Congress. If we can give the AIGs and the Wells Fargos and the J.P. Morgans of the world, each of those individual companies, between 40 and $25 billion, in what amounts to some sort of a very unsecured loan, to be generous about it, certainly we can give the American nameplate automotive industry a $15 billion bridge loan that has a 5 percent interest rate for, I believe, the first 5 years and then a 9 percent interest rate after that; that has an automobile czar appointed by President Bush to oversee the industry, and force them to be accountable on any expenditure over $14 million. I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. And I am not opposed to it for political reasons, I am not opposed to it for partisan reasons, I am not opposed to it for emotional reasons. I am opposed to it because fundamentally it doesn't address the problem that needs to be addressed. We have a crisis in our financial markets, we have a crisis of confidence in our credit markets, and this bill only indirectly addresses those problems. First and foremost, from the taxpayers' standpoint, it is not paid for. The underlying bill is going to raise the national debt ceiling $1.5 trillion. That is $1,500 billion. If you add the tax extender package that came over from the Senate, you end up with a price tag of approximately $2 trillion. Absolutely nothing in the bill addresses how to pay for those $2 trillion that puts taxpayers at risk. Really, for that one reason we should vote against the bill. We have talked a lot about the crisis in the credit markets. My good friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) just put up a chart on the LIBOR rate, which is the overnight interbank loan rate from London. It is at 4 percent. It was at 4.5 percent 1 year ago. It is within its normal range. The spread has gone up between the overnight Treasury rate and the LIBOR rate, but that is because the Treasury rate has gone down to 2 percent. An auto loan that my good friend was talking about, the distinguished Financial Services chairman, the auto rate loan right now is 6.5 percent, about what it was a year ago. The credit markets are working, but there are some people holding back credit, hoping that the taxpayers will bail them out. Fundamentally, we need to address the American economy. This bill doesn't do that. You want the value of the dollar to go up? How about cutting spending and lowering the deficit? You want to do something on auto sales? How about produce more domestic energy to bring gasoline prices down. Madam Speaker, this is not the bill to address the problem. I hope we will vote ``no.''

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and in opposition to the underlying bill. The bill is trying to treat a symptom, not the disease. It's like you have a fire and instead of sending the fire truck to put the fire out, you develop a climate change model to cause it to rain everywhere so some of that rain may put the particular fire out that you're trying to put out. The reason that our economy is in distress is because fundamentally we're becoming less competitive in international markets. If we want to do something to restore the value of the dollar, how about cutting spending here in the Congress? How about coming up with a tax program that encourages entrepreneurship in America? I could go on and on, Madam Speaker. We need to solve this problem, but we need to do it in a targeted way. The underlying bill that has come back to us from the other body is basically the same bill we voted down Monday with some sweeteners to try to bribe enough Members to vote for it so that it will pass. Vote no on the rule and no on the underlying bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. It would be immediately. Is that not at the discretion of the Chair?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I withdraw.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. As the vote currently stands, the ``noes'' have it, and I am on the prevailing side. If I were to move to reconsider, when would the Chair bring the bill back up?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of the ``Protect our Children Act,'' a bill that will authorize funding for law enforcement and the Department of Justice to fight the sexual exploitation of children over the Internet. This bill is the result of over two years of work in the House and the Senate on the issues relating to child sexual exploitation. When I was Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Committee conducted a wide-ranging, comprehensive investigation of Internet child pornography. We had nine hearings and interviewed numerous witnesses involved in the fight against child sexual exploitation: Federal and local law enforcement, Federal and local prosecutors, victims, educators, Internet Service Providers, and financial institutions. What we learned during that investigation was shocking. At that time, three million images of child pornography were on the Internet. Even more disturbing was that law enforcement officers told the Committee that the images were becoming increasingly violent in nature, and that the victims in the photos were getting younger, some as young as two years old. The children shown in those images suffer unspeakable pain and suffering. While law enforcement is working to tackle the epidemic of abuse that existed on the Internet, it was clear to us on the Committee that they did not have the resources to win that fight because child predators were working just as diligently to continue flooding the Internet with images of child sexual abuse. I am proud to be the lead cosponsor of the House version of this bill, H.R. 3845, with Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz. I would like to thank her for her leadership on this issue and her work to get this bill before us today before we adjourn. The Senate did make some changes to the bill we passed last November. While I wish this bill had increased the funding for the law enforcement agencies that work child pornography cases--as our House bill did--this bill provides law enforcement with tools it did not have before to fight those predators who seek to exploit and abuse children, often for their own financial gain. The bill requires that the Department of Justice develop a national strategy for investigating and prosecuting child exploitation cases. A number of law enforcement agencies are involved in investigating these cases: the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Postal Service, and state law enforcement. With a national strategy, the Justice Department must make sure that this fight is a priority, and that everyone is on the same page so that valuable law enforcement resources are not wasted when pursuing these criminals. A national strategy doesn't work, though, if you don't give law enforcement agents the resources they need. The Energy and Commerce Committee investigation found that just as important as the Federal law enforcement effort against child pornography is the effort of State and local law enforcement Internet Crimes Against Children, or ``ICAC'' task forces. The vast majority of child sexual exploitation cases are prosecuted at the state level, but the funding nowhere near matched the needs of these state task forces. By authorizing $60 million per year over the next five years, the Protect Our Children Act ensures that state ICAC agents will finally receive the support they need. Another key problem identified in our investigation was that law enforcement's ability to find and prosecute those predators who create and distribute child pornography was held up by a backlog at forensic computer labs. This is unacceptable, when the price of that backlog is continued child abuse. We address that problem in this bill by authorizing $2 million per year over the next five years to increase the capacity of these labs. The Protect Our Children Act also includes a few provisions that weren't part of our House bill, but I think they strengthen the bill and the ability of law enforcement to prosecute these cases. The bill makes it a crime to change a photo of a child to produce child pornography. In addition, the bill makes clear that it is a crime to transmit live, or streaming, images of child abuse over the Internet. I think these provisions are just common sense, and I am glad they are included in this bill. The bill also clarifies the responsibilities of Internet Service Providers when it comes to reporting child abuse images to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Current law requires that Internet Service Providers report to the National Center, but it wasn't clear what information should be reported. This bill sets out what must be included in the reports and what the providers are required to do. This will ensure that law enforcement will have all the evidence the providers have when they pursue child predators. I think this is important, because our investigation showed that Internet child pornography is not just a law enforcement problem. If we are to win the war against child sexual exploitation, everyone must do his part, and this includes the Internet Service Providers. We are long overdue in authorizing the resources law enforcement needs to fight the battle against the sexual exploitation of children over the Internet. The children who have been abused by predators, and who have seen images of that abuse spread over the Internet, cannot wait one more day. We must ensure that the efforts of child predators are more than matched by an aggressive law enforcement strategy to bring these criminals to justice. Our children deserve nothing less. I urge my colleagues to support the Protect Our Children Act.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, today, I rise today to honor the life and accomplishments of the late Jack Gillespie. This American, immigrant, veteran, and patriot passed away on April 17th, 2008. Today would have been his 87th birthday and, in his honor, I would like to submit for the record the eulogy his son Ed read at his funeral on April 22nd of this year. In November 1929, young John Patrick Gillespie--called Sean at the time--left his home by the Eanybeg stream at the base of Carnaween Mountain to head into Donegal Town with his mother and brothers and sisters. He was beginning a journey to a new life in a wonderful place where he would find happiness, achieve glory, and eventually discover waiting for him there the woman he was meant to be one with. By the time he came to be called ``Jack'' in his new country, he had figured out what success in America required. He may have read some tips on board the Lititia, the steamer on which he spent two weeks crossing from Ireland to Ellis Island. Many of the boats that sailed that route posted in their galleys a notice with the heading, ``Advice to Irish Emigrants.'' The posting included these words: ``In America, a man's success must altogether rest with himself--it will depend on his industry, sobriety, diligence and virtue . . . and he may rationally expect to raise himself in the world by his labour.'' People who met Jack Gillespie quickly realized that their friend or coworker or fellow soldier was extremely diligent, very industrious, generally virtuous and--most of the time sober. And he certainly wasn't afraid of labor. His high school sweetheart Conny Carroll noticed something else about him--something other pretty lasses tended to notice too. He was a strikingly handsome man. She wrote to him regularly during the war, and clipped newspaper articles on the progress of the 28th Infantry--the famed and feared ``bloody buckets''--and kept the clips in a scrap book. Sergeant John Patrick Gillespie fought for the cause of freedom. He fought for the honor of his country. And though he never fought for the sake of glory, at war's end he was draped in it. After landing in France, his Company L was among the first to confront the hedgerows that made a patchwork of the French countryside. His commanding officers spent days hunkered down trying to figure out how to advance over the thick, eight- foot-high lines of brush that separated them from an enemy whose size and strength they had no way of knowing. Eventually a frustrated, impatient Sergeant Gillespie carved toeholds into the knotted hedgerow and told his lieutenant to listen for him after he went over the top. When this fearless soldier dropped to the ground on the other side, he began firing his weapon to find--nobody firing back. Sixty years later, when asked what he did to get his Bronze Star, he laughingly said, ``Nothing, really.'' Of course, it wasn't for nothing. Nor was his subsequent Silver Star for Valor in Combat, earned saving a wounded platoon mate, or the Purple Heart for the bullets that ripped through both his legs in the Hurtgen Forest. He was a successful salesman and a savvy entrepreneur willing to take risks--but calculated ones. He said he never took a chance in business unless he assessed better-than-60 percent odds for success. And he won a lot more often than he lost. He was an opinion leader in his community. Bobby Kennedy was once asked how his brother Jack won the Democratic nomination in 1960. He said that when other campaigns went in to organize a town, they'd ask, ``Who's the Mayor?'' or ``Who's the county party chairman,'' or ``who's the Chamber of Commerce President?'' And we always asked, ``Who's the man to see?'' For a long time in this community, Jack Gillespie was the man to see. What he cared most about was his family--his wife and children. He was a devoted husband. As a father, he was a disciplinarian who gave the greatest gift you can give your children: unconditional love. And sage advice. If Jack Gillespie said ``that's a good house,'' you should buy it. If he said ``you can't trust that guy,'' you couldn't. If he said ``you ought to marry that girl,'' you ought to. Because of the guidance and advice he gave to me, I have been able to give guidance and advice to Congressmen, Senators, governors, Supreme Court Justices, prime ministers and, yes, the President of the United States of America. Remarkable men and women, all. Yet I never felt intimidated in their presence. You see, the most remarkable man I've ever known lies before us here today. John Patrick Gillespie has left home again--on a journey to a new life in a wonderful place, where he will find happiness and achieve eternal glory. And waiting for him there, the woman he was meant to be one with. Farewell, poor immigrant. Farewell, successful businessman. Farewell, brave soldier. Farewell, loving husband, son, brother, uncle, grandfather, and friend. Farewell, Dad.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to submit the following documentation consistent with the new Republican Earmark Standards: Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton. Bill Number: H.R. 2638--The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act. Account: RDTE, DW. Legal Name of Receiving Entity: Raytheon. Address of Receiving Entity: 2501 West University, McKinney, TX, Collin County. Description of Request: I have secured $800,000 in funding in H.R. 2638 in the RDTE, DW account for the Hostile Fire Indicating System, Raytheon. The funding will be used for final development of the Advanced Distributed Aperture System (ADAS) which is a transformational night vision augmentation system to operate in no/low-light conditions (day/ night) and adverse weather. The Hostile Fire Indicator, an integral component of the ADAS system, will allow for the detection and declaration of small arms fire and can geo locate the hostile shooter and present that information to the aircraft crew so they may respond with the aircraft equipped weapons or move outside the effective range of the hostile weapon. This funding will be used specifically to develop and demonstrate an ADAS based HFI system. Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton. Bill Number: H.R. 2638--The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act. Account: RDTE, N. Legal Name of Receiving Entity: Carbon-Carbon Advanced Technologies Inc. (C-CAT). Address of Receiving Entity: 4704 Eden Road, Kennedale, TX, Tarrant County. Description of Request: I have secured $2,400,000 in funding in H.R. 2638 in the RDTE, N account for the Strike Weapon Propulsion (SWEAP), C-CAT. The funding will be used to produce a high-speed weapon to engage long-range targets within 5 to 10 minutes that operate at extremely high temperatures. Previous solutions have been demonstrated, however, affordability is the remaining issue. With the requested funding the team intends to continue fabrication process development and demonstration, improve subscale hardware durability, and conduct a full scale combustor test of the lower cost material in Aerojet's Mach 6 air-breathing test facility in FY09. This program will support 6 jobs at C-CAT. Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton. Bill Number: H.R. 2638--The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act. Account: RDTE, A. Legal Name of Receiving Entity: L3/Link Simulation and Training. Address of Receiving Entity: 2200 Arlington Downs Road, Arlington, TX, Tarrant County. Description of Request: I have secured $1,200,000 in funding in H.R. 2638 in the RDTE, A account for the Integration of the U.S. Army's Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) into the Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (AVCATT), L3/Link Simulation and Training. The funding will be used for integration of the new Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) into the AVCATT simulation thus enhancing the safety of widely dispersed crews and units. The funding will initiate development in providing a LUH simulation training capability within the Army's AVCATT simulation system, utilizing the original equipment manufacturer.