Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the matter under consideration.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I know that H.R. 503 is an emotional issue for many people. It is my hope that this debate will give us a chance to look beyond the emotion and actually explore the facts of the issue in this particular bill. It is important that this discussion be fair, that it be open; and to that end the committee that I chair, the Energy and Commerce Committee, held a hearing a month ago that included witnesses from both sides and was fair and balanced. We put together a completely balanced hearing; and at the end of that hearing, it was clear to me that the majority of the experts have spoken, and they have spoken that H.R. 503 is bad policy and that it is bad for horses. It is not a secret that I am opposed to the bill in its current form. Despite what may have been said, it is not because I do not like horses. It is not because I had some bad experience when I was young. In fact, I had and continue to have very positive experiences with horses. My opposition to this bill stems from the simple fact that it comes with negative consequences that I believe are being overlooked. Ever since the bill has been introduced, I have been bombarded by calls, letters, and meeting requests from people both in my district and all over the country on both sides of the issue. I have heard from ranchers and horse owners as well as the American Quarter Horse Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Association of Equine Practitioners, American Farm Bureau, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association. The list goes on and on. I have also been approached by proponents of the bill that are very supportive and very emotionally and strongly attached to this particular bill. Unfortunately for those folks, I must say that I am opposed to the bill because the majority of the evidence is that it is a bad bill. In fact, over 200 national organizations oppose the bill. Yesterday, even the United States Department of Agriculture came out in opposition to the bill. These are groups that, frankly, I consider to be representative of rural America, and they have all said the same thing: H.R. 503 will lead to a miserable existence for thousands of horses and is an outright attack at animal agriculture. The care and the overall health of the animals, and notably the rights of their owners, should always be the primary concern when taking up legislation of this nature. Processing unmanageable and unwanted horses provides a humane alternative to continuing a life of discomfort, inadequate care, or possibly even abandonment for thousands of horses. Mandatory United States Department of Agriculture inspection, which abides by strict laws monitoring the welfare of animals in the processing facility, assures that horses that are going to slaughter are treated humanely. It is also important to note that since last year's agriculture appropriations bill was enacted, the three American processing plants pay for those inspectors out of their own pockets. No expense to the taxpayer. I might say on this note that the proponents of the bill have said repeatedly that the Cattlemen's Association gets $3 for every horse that is taken to slaughter. That is a true statement. But the reason that $3 is paid is because it is the Cattlemen's Association, at least in Texas, that is actually paying for the inspectors to inspect the horses that are brought to the slaughterhouse in Texas. So that is why you have the $3-per-horse fee. It is because in last year's agriculture appropriations bill, we said that those inspectors could not be paid for with Federal funds; therefore, an arrangement has been made between the slaughterhouses in Texas and the Cattlemen's Association that the inspectors will be paid for by providing this fee to the Cattlemen's Association that pays the inspectors. H.R. 503 provides no alternative for thousands of horse owners for whom continued care of an animal is no longer economical or in some cases humane. The other concern the bill raises for me is one of private property rights. While a majority of my constituents live in the Arlington/Fort Worth area down in Texas, the geography of the district that I represent is almost entirely rural. Animal agriculture is a large part of the economy for much of my district, and agriculture is already one of the most extensively regulated industries in the United States of America. In the name of animal welfare, the United States Department of Agriculture right now tells owners how they can and cannot transport their animals. In the name of consumer safety, the United States Department of Agriculture right now tells them what they can and cannot feed their animals. This bill would tell producers to whom they can and cannot sell their horses. As a long-time proponent of limited government, I take issue with this last statement. The horse owners in question have fed, housed, and cared for their animals, in some cases for decades, at great personal expense. When an animal reaches the point when he or she is no longer productive for the owner, who are we then to deny an owner the opportunity to recover some small portion of their costs that they have incurred in caring for the animal so far in its life? Why should they not be allowed to sell their animal to a legal, humane, and closely regulated processing facility? Now, I understand that there are many groups that strongly support this particular bill and some of the thoroughbred associations are strongly in support of H.R. 503. If they have the money to pay for their horses, if they have the money to take care of their horses, that is fine. They do not have to take them to a slaughterhouse. That is freedom of choice. But for many ordinary Americans who do not have the resources that some of the more well-heeled thoroughbred associations and horse farms have, I think having a slaughterhouse option is a humane option. Again, I understand that this is an emotional issue for many people. But I do not think Congress should vote purely on emotion. I think there should be common sense brought into the equation. And when you really look at the bill in that light, the obvious vote, at least for me, is a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 503, and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my good friends who have spoken on this motion to recommit. I know all three of the gentlemen, and they are fine fellows and fine public servants and believe passionately in what they speak of. If I were a doctor on this debate, I believe I would have to recommend they take a Valium and just calm down. We do not get this fixed if there is a problem. Whatever the law is today on medical record privacy, the law is going to be tomorrow on medical record privacy. Nothing in this bill changes that. This is a health information technology bill. We are actually trying to get medical records in our country, the greatest Nation the world has ever known, to use technology that many other industries and many other groups have already incorporated into their daily business routine. Now, there is an ongoing study at HHS on privacy. They have received over 50,000 public comments so far. This bill before us, if it becomes law, has an implementation period. There is going to be adequate time to come back, if we need to, with a specific medical technology privacy bill. In past Congresses, Mr. Markey and I have been co-chairmen of the Privacy Caucus in the House, along with Senator Shelby and Senator Dodd in the Senate. I am as strong an advocate of protecting personal privacy as anybody in this body. I would say Mr. Markey and others share the passion just as strongly as I do. The bill before us today is not a privacy bill. This motion to recommit is a privacy amendment. We should reject it and then move the underlying bill. And if and when we need to address medical privacy as a stand-alone issue, there will be adequate time and adequate resources devoted to that.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, they are covered under adequate laws, and HIPAA is the medical privacy law. Please vote against the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the subcommittee chairman from the Ways and Means Committee, who has worked so tirelessly on this bill, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the Vice Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the brightest bloom to come out of Laurel, Mississippi, Chip Pickering.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Okay. That is what Congresswoman Johnson also says. I was not informed of that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished physician member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Dr. Murphy of Pennsylvania.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I know the rules. I'm supposed to be standing up. I apologize.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished congressman from the Pelican State of Louisiana, who is a cardiovascular surgeon, Dr. Boustany.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to Congressman Clay of Missouri, let me compliment Subcommittee Chairman Deal for his efforts on this bill. He cannot be here today because his mother is ill, but he worked very hard. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished congressman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds before I yield to Mr. Castle. Under the current law, called HIPAA, we have very strict privacy protection guidelines. Those guidelines are currently under review. There have been over 50,000 comments filed with HHS for some proposed changes in those. Nothing in the Senate bill, that is a companion bill to this bill, deals with privacy. Privacy is an important issue, but more important is that we get a health information system technology in place, and that is what this bill does. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the former Governor of the First State, the great State of Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who is also a medical physician, Dr. Burgess of Texas.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the distinguished majority whip from the Show-Me State of Missouri, the Honorable Mr. Blunt.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the House today is going to consider H.R. 4157, the Health Information Technology Promotion Act of 2006. This legislation should help move our health care system into the modern era and the modern information age. We all remember a time when e-mail was a dream and getting the legislative text from the House of Representatives Web site was impossible because it simply did not exist. As information systems have moved into the digital age, Congress and most of the private sector have embraced it. We have found that we could get information much more efficiently and quickly at much less cost. The health care system, for whatever reason, has not done that. For all of its medical genius and astonishing technology in terms of surgery and orthopedics and diagnosis, American health care is still stuck back in the 19th century, with a paper record system that is inefficient, wasteful, error-prone and occasionally dangerous. The legislation before us today should change that. With H.R. 4157, records that have been stuffed in a file cabinet and illegible prescriptions that nobody can read scrawled on pieces of paper will finally give way to digital medical records, electronic prescribing, and efficient coordination of care. Sick patients will get better and everybody should save money. The bill before us sets out a framework for endorsing core interoperability guidelines and mandates compliance for a Federal information system within 3 years of endorsement of such guidelines. Of vital importance are provisions contained in the legislation that create safe harbors to the Stark and Anti-kickback laws for the provision of health information technology and services to better coordinate care between hospitals and providers. These changes are long overdue. Hospitals and other health care entities that have invested in systems that are tested and work well should be able to share their experience and purchasing power with physicians. Current laws have prevented these reasonable steps to better coordinate patient care by not allowing the sharing of health information technology systems. Also, I would like to express support for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to look at the list of entities that we make eligible for this safe harbor and to expand upon it, specifically, to include independent clinical laboratories which carry a great deal of health data that should be shared electronically. These safe harbors will allow for economical sharing of health information technology to better coordinate care, reduce medical error, and improve patient outcomes. Medical science in recent years has produced tremendous discoveries that have revolutionized how we treat disease and care for patients. Unfortunately, the medical record information technologies needed to take advantage of these discoveries remain locked in an era of paper and filing cabinets. We can do better, and the legislation before us today will do better. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how is time going to be rotated? Do we do all the Energy and Commerce time and then the Ways and Means time; or do we rotate in sequence?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Okay. Congresswoman Johnson says the Energy and Commerce Committee goes first.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4157.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, although the legislation adds the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security as a co-Vice Chair of CFIUS, I would like to enter into the Record a letter from Chairman King of the Homeland Security Committee. The letter states that this designation does not affect, alter, or add to that Committee's jurisdiction. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC, July 19, 2006. Hon. Michael G. Oxley, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Oxley: I write in regard to H.R. 5337, Reform of National Security Reviews of Foreign Direct Investments Act. I understand that nothing in H.R. 5337 or the amendments to H.R. 5337 affects, alters, or adds to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. Specifically, H.R. 5337's designation of the Department of Homeland Security as a vice- chairperson of CFIUS and the imposition of any additional duties associated with the appointment of the Department of Homeland Security as a vice-chairperson does not affect, alter, or add to my Committee's jurisdiction. I'm pleased that we can continue to move this bill forward, and I look forward to working with you in that process. Sincerely, Peter T. King, Chairman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5337, the Reform of National Security Reviews of Foreign Direct Investment Act. I want more foreign investment in America, not less, but I do not want the kind that threatens our security. CFIUS exists to make the distinction, and we need to know that it's doing a good job. We don't automatically fear foreign investors here in America. The money provided by foreign investors creates jobs, growth, and opportunity here at home. I just want to ensure the investment we attract does not jeopardize national security. H.R. 5337 provides consistent criteria with appropriate discretion and will improve the review process without impairing our ability to attract significant and needed foreign investment. Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Commerce Committee shares jurisdiction over this matter and we marked up the bill in my Committee with some changes. While the amended bill we are considering today contains some differences than the version my Committee reported, I support it. Importantly, it provides for mandatory review of foreign government- controlled transactions. Additionally, it provides clear and consistent review criteria for all other commercial investments, it adds the Secretary of Energy to the Committee, and it makes the Secretary of Commerce a co-vice chair of the Committee. Most important, it adds transparency in the process for Congressional oversight and establishes new reporting requirements many of us feel are essential to this process. I support H.R. 5337 and urge my colleagues to approve the measure.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a 22-year Congressman with a 100 percent prolife voting record, minus two votes, I rise in opposition of the Presidential veto and support the effort to override it. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 810 and overriding the President's earlier veto of this legislation. H.R. 810 would expand the number of sources of embryonic stem cell lines that may be used in federally funded scientific research. The bill would allow the limited use of human embryonic stem cells that are derived from embryos that would otherwise be discarded from fertility clinics. This is not an issue where everyone agrees. There are deeply held views on both sides of the difficult question before us, and I want to emphasize that every one of my colleagues should vote in accordance with their own conscience. I support the bill, and I want to say why. Stem cells are cells that can differentiate into many different kinds of cells used in the body. They can come from several sources, such as adult stem cells, but many scientists believe that the most potential for productive research lies in embryonic stem cells, which could have the capacity to differentiate into any cell in the body. If researchers can find such a perfect stem cell that can differentiate into any other cell type, we may be able to unlock the cures to hundreds of diseases that afflict us today. This is more than a sterile, academic matter to me. Diseases like Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, have stricken millions of Americans and continue to take a heavy toll on all of us. I can tell you that it is a living nightmare to watch a loved one suffer from a terrible illness and know that there is nothing that you can do but be by their side. That was the experience I had when my father died of complications of diabetes at the age of 71. It was also the experience I had when my younger brother, Jon Kevin Barton, died of liver cancer at the age of 44. When my brother was diagnosed, we tried everything. They found his liver cancer when he was just 41 years old. He and his wife, Jennifer, had two children, Jack and Jace. He was a state district judge in Texas. After they told Jon he had liver cancer, we did everything we could, and, in fact, his cancer went into remission for a year. But it came back, and Jon died just three months short of his 44th birthday. That was 6 years ago. Every time I see Jace and Jack and their Mom, I think of Jon and wonder if stem cell research could have allowed him to be alive today. I do not know for sure, but my heart tells me that stem cell research might have led to treatments that could have helped my brother and my father. We cannot be certain, but maybe the answers for finding cures for many of the diseases that afflict us lie in stem cell research. Many scientists believe that once we can identify a perfect, undifferentiated stem cell line, it will lead to significant scientific breakthroughs and the discovery of cures for many diseases. It is the hope of a cure for people suffering today and their families that led me to decide to support this legislation. I believe hope is what led President Bush to take the steps he did in August, 2001, when he permitted for the first time Federal taxpayer dollars to be spent on embryonic stem cell research. He recognized the profound benefits that were possible through embryonic research, and he wanted to let the research go forward in a way that respected life and the moral and ethical views of millions of Americans. The President's decision struck a delicate balance between respecting the life of human embryos and giving hope to the American families who are enduring the suffering and loss of debilitating diseases like diabetes and cancer. But when the President made his announcement in 2001, it was believed that there were at least 60 viable lines of stem cells that could be used for this research. For a variety of reasons, this has turned out not to be the case; not all of these potential lines are now available for research. Currently, there are approximately 22 lines of embryonic stem cells that are available for federally funded research. None of those lines that are currently allowed for Federal research purposes have been shown to have that breakthrough stem cell--the one cell that can differentiate into all 220 cell types in the body. The President's initial decision reflects the difficulty of this issue. However, when new facts arise on the one hand that tell us the embryonic stem cell lines already used for federal research do not hold the promise we once thought, it should require us to reevaluate that initial decision in light of the facts. I continue to support the expansion of cord blood and bone marrow stem cell research, and perhaps the breakthrough we are all hoping for will come from adult stem cells. But at this point, we cannot know for sure where the breakthrough will come from, and it is my belief that we need to keep all of our options open while continuing to go forward in a moral and ethical way. I fully understand that there are people of good conscience that will disagree with me. I completely respect their views and differences of opinion. Like many on the other side of this legislation, I am also strongly pro-life. For over two decades in the United States Congress, I have had a strong pro-life voting record. I remain pro-life, but for the reasons I have given, I intend to vote in favor of this legislation. As my colleagues continue to debate the merits of this bill, I only ask that we try to respect one another's various points of view and that no one is ridiculed for their beliefs on either side of this complex and difficult issue.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are so happy the Senate is working today. It gives us something to do, but I only have one more speaker, the sponsor of the House companion bill, Dr. Weldon.