Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee from the Keystone State of Pennsylvania, Mr. Joe Pitts.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Lubbock, Texas, home of the Texas Tech Red Raiders (Mr. Neugebauer) for 1 minute. (Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the former Governor of the first State of our great Nation, the State of Delaware, to the Republican sponsor of this legislation, Mr. Castle.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished physician from Denton and Flower Mound, Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire on the time remaining on each side?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished congressman from Allentown, Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), home of the Allentown Canaries.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Trenton, New Jersey, the Honorable Chris Smith, who is generally acknowledged as the pro-life leader in the House since Henry Hyde retired.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Westminster, South Carolina, which is near the home of the Fighting Clemson Tigers, the starting catcher on the Republican charity baseball team, Mr. Gresham Barrett.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Highland Park, Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for 2 minutes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Golden State of California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the former Attorney General of California.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2446, the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007. This bill reauthorizes the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, which has made a huge impact in the stability and security of a new democracy in that country. Since 2002, we've seen major reconstruction of schools and infrastructure in that country, as well as the birth of a democratic nation. Reauthorization of this bill is crucial ensuring that Afghanistan continues to strengthen its government and that its people start to feel safe and secure in a nation that has been riddled with so much violence and terrorism. H.R. 2446 also makes some important enhancements to the original Act by dealing with a rising narcotics problem related to heroine and poppy production that is threatening to endanger Afghanistan's security. H.R. 2446 also takes a strong step towards building international diplomacy and shared responsibility in the region with our allies. The Act expresses the sense of Congress that greater humanitarian assistance is needed in the country for civilians, that the United Nations should play a larger role in assisting the people of Afghanistan and also provides means to train military from foreign countries to share responsibility in Afghanistan. We also set strong benchmarks for accountability in the region by requiring more reporting, a better overall strategy for Afghanistan, and by pursuing policies that foster regional cooperation. This bill will make Afghanistan stronger and more secure while securing our own homeland in the fight against global terrorism. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I don't normally come to the floor to talk on suspension bills because normally, suspension bills have been cleared by the majority with the minority and they are bills that we have if not unanimous agreement on, we have general agreement on. But I feel very strongly about this particular bill and the way it is being done. The gentlelady, who is the chief sponsor of the bill, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) is a good friend of mine. When I was chairman, I helped her and Mr. Castle bring to the floor the stem cell bill which was very controversial and which the President ultimately vetoed. I voted for that bill, and spoke for the bill on the floor. We had an arrangement between Mr. Dingell and myself about how we were going to bring that bill to the floor. Ms. DeGette and Mr. Castle were part of that discussion. This bill was introduced after 7 p.m. last night. John Dingell didn't call me. Diane DeGette didn't call me. We can't find anybody from the majority who called anybody on the minority. There have been no hearings on the bill. There has been no markup of the bill. We just basically take the gentlelady's word that it is what it is. We know that cloning is controversial. We know that most of us in this body are opposed to human cloning, for whatever purpose. There is a good chance if we had a legislative hearing, we had a markup, we could probably come to a consensus on a bill that Mr. Weldon could support and Mr. Smith could support and Ms. DeGette could support; but not this bill. Not this process. A bill is introduced at 7:30 one night and is on the floor of the suspension calendar the next day, there have been no hearings, no process, and you can't amend it because it is under suspension of the rules. I think that is a subversion of the process. It is a way to give some Members a vote for political cover because tomorrow when the main stem cell bill comes up, which was noticed last week, the last time the stem cell bill was on the floor, the minority who has the right to offer a motion to recommit, part of the motion to recommit dealt with cloning, and some of the Members in the majority voted for it. So this is a way for the majority to give some Members of their party a way to vote for a cloning bill so they can vote against the motion to recommit tomorrow, if that's what it is. So I understand the political strategy, but I don't understand the process of ignoring the Energy and Commerce Committee repeatedly, and I don't understand a bill as controversial as this being brought under suspension with no hearings and a bill that wasn't even introduced until after dark last night. That's wrong. I hope we vote ``no,'' N-O, ``no.''

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today-- the Towns-Bono SPY Act--is an important piece of legislation to me. We've been working on this bill for 4 years now, before many of us ever heard the term ``spyware.'' I applaud the bipartisan sponsors for their unwavering commitment to pass this legislation. The surreptitious installation of spyware on your computer without your knowledge and without your consent is a little like sneaking into your home and planting a bug: it is an invasion of your privacy and it is clearly wrong. This bill prohibits all the nefarious conduct that is used to harm consumers. The legislation provides the FTC a strong mandate to go after bad actors and their destructive behavior. There are many important and legitimate business functions of the Internet, and I have no problem with businesses trying to compete and sell their goods and services. And I recognize advertising is a part of commerce. But I feel strongly that there is a line that should not be crossed regarding the sharing of my personal information without first obtaining my consent. Consumers have the right to know if they are being profiled, if their personal information is going to be shared, and with whom it might be shared. My computer and my personal information are my property. This legislation will ensure I have control over both. This bill strikes a fair balance between the need to protect the functions of legitimate business tools and punishing bad actors. In closing, I want to thank Chairman Rush, Chairman Dingell, and Ranking Member Stearns for moving the bill through the Committee. I commend Mary Bono and Ed Towns for their tireless efforts to address this insidious activity. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this important piece of legislation and hope that our Senate colleagues will do the same.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, Congressman Burgess of Texas.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have two speakers. I think we have 2 minutes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have on this side?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. One minute remaining. Then we have one speaker left. I yield the balance of the time on the minority side to the distinguished minority whip, who is a member of the committee, on leave, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Congressman Murphy of Pennsylvania, a member of the committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the minority sponsor of this piece of legislation, the Honorable Sam Johnson of Plano, Texas.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. No, Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume briefly. We support the underlying concept of the bill, and, as I said, if it passes on a voice vote, we won't ask for a roll call vote. I do stand by what I said, though, in terms of the committee process. We've got two bills on the suspension calendar from the Energy and Commerce Committee. Neither bill had a legislative hearing. Neither bill had a markup at subcommittee or full committee. Neither bill was introduced in its current form as of 2:45 yesterday afternoon. Both bills are on the floor today on the suspension calendar. That does call into question whether we even need an Energy and Commerce Committee, given that everything apparently comes to the floor without going through the committee process. But we support the underlying principles of this bill, and we certainly support the patriotism and courage of the two sponsors. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Then I stand corrected. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill on substance and in adamant opposition of the process. Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the substance of this bill. It has two distinguished cosponsors, one in the majority party, one in the minority party. The underlying substance is eminently fair, and we are not going to ask for a rollcall vote. If it passes on a voice vote, so be it. But having said that, I want to say in the strongest possible terms how extremely disappointed, and I mean extremely disappointed, that we have a bill that is in two committees of jurisdiction, the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the bill had not even been introduced, had not even been introduced until this morning. There was no bill number. Now, when you put a bill on the Suspension Calendar, theoretically the majority party, the chairman or chairmen or chairwomen ask the ranking member of the minority party if there is any problem with the bill. If there is not, then they approve it. Then the Speaker of the House or the majority leader of the House calls the minority leader of the House and says, ``We want to put this bill on the Suspension Calendar.'' And you do it. Now, we have a bill before us that was not even introduced until the House convened this morning. There has been no hearing, there is no record, there has been no phone call. Chairman Dingell did not call me yesterday, he did not call me this morning. I don't know if Chairman Rangel called Ranking Member McCrery. I do know that Nancy Pelosi or Steny Hoyer did not call John Boehner. So we are now in a situation, we have a little extra time, let's introduce a bill and pass it in the next 30 minutes. We did not do that when we were in the majority. Now, this is a good bill. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Johnson deserve accolades for seeing a flaw in the current Social Security law, the Medicare law, and rectifying it. That is not the issue. The new majority campaigned on a platform of fairness and openness. Is this fair? Is this open? This happens to be a good bill. What if it weren't? What if it weren't? The only two Members that really know anything about it are the two cosponsors, and thankfully they are both decent, honorable men, and we have read the substance of the bill and it is okay. But this is not the way the House of Representatives should be run. It is just wrong, W-R- O-N-G, wrong. So I support the substance of the bill, but I am adamantly opposed to the process. I hope this thing goes on a voice vote. If it is a rollcall vote, I am going to vote ``present'' and express, when I see Mr. Dingell, in the strongest possible terms how upset I am about the process.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Did he call Mr. McCrery?