Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2754) to derive human pluripotent stem cell lines using techniques that do not knowingly harm embryos.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for the alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapy Enhancement Act. Now, that is a mouthful. As an advocate of increased funding for health care research, I am eager to support legislation that would continue funding for this groundbreaking research that shows great promise for translating research into real cures for people who suffer from debilitating illnesses like diabetes and Parkinson's. As I have said in the past on this floor, I feel strongly that Congress should do its best without delay to ensure that our American citizens benefit from the latest advancements in medical research. Great advancements are possible from research on adult stem cells and other pluripotent cells, and such research should be encouraged. This legislation would provide valuable dollars to promote stem cell research into new and promising areas. And it should be recognized as an important compromise measure that addresses the many ethical issues deeply held by many Members in this body on both sides of the issue that are associated with the question of Federal funding for stem cell research. With this legislation, the important research can continue to expand. With time, I am hopeful that we will see some of the miracle cures that all of us have been so fervently praying for for many years. Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will seize the opportunity to advance scientific and medical research in a morally ethical way by voting in favor of S. 2754. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt). (Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, to close on this very important piece of legislation, I yield to the House sponsor of the companion bill, Dr. Dave Weldon of Florida.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We only have one other speaker, so if you would like to close for your side.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the leaders in the pro-life community.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the First State, Delaware (Mr. Castle), the distinguished former Governor, to speak on this particular bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of this bill along with my good friend, Congresswoman DeGette of Colorado. I rise today in the strongest possible support of S. 3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. Every so often, we deal with a subject on this floor that is so ugly that the language almost is unable to qualify and quantify that ugliness. Today is one of those moments. When you know what fetus farming is, words like obnoxious and repugnant seem timid. As we know, fetus farming is the gruesome idea of creating a human fetus purely for research to harvest its organs. This bill would ban that practice, and we cannot ban it, in my opinion, soon enough. Most scientists today share the belief that human life should not be created just for the purposes of experimentation, or for harvesting the organs of one person to be given to another. The vast majority of scientists in our Nation uphold the ethical and moral principles on which our country forever rests, the inalienable right to life and the inherent value of human life in whatever form it may take. These scientists are working tirelessly with the knowledge that their efforts are to benefit life, benefit humanity, not to benefit one person for profit at the detriment of another person. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have seen clear examples in other countries that some scientists see things somewhat differently. It is towards these scientists that the pending legislation is directed. Rather than waiting for a horror story to appear on the front pages or allowing for the possibility of scientific advancement taking us down a slippery slope, this bill gives a clear signal that fetus farming in all of its forms will not be tolerated in the United States, nor will we allow human fetuses or embryos to be bought and sold for research like cattle. This legislation will ensure that nobody gains financially when unborn children are exploited for fetal tissue research. This legislation sends the right message on the importance of human dignity and life at the right time. Before the Pandora's box of fetus farming is opened and it is too late for us to do something about it, I will urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3504) to amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes, and for other purposes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 1876, the United States was still celebrating its centennial as Engine No. 20 rolled down the freshly laid tracks of the Texas and Pacific Railroad built to extend rail service west from Dallas. The railroad had hired frontier surveyor and Presbyterian minister Andrew Hayter to locate and lay out a 1- square-mile township as a wood and water stop midway between Dallas and Fort Worth. Entrepreneur James Ditto immediately established a general store in the center of the new town, which had quickly become a shipping point for local cotton farmers and merchants. Hayter and Ditto named the town Arlington in honor of General Robert E. Lee's home in Virginia, and Ditto became the town's first postmaster. Today, Arlington is the 49th largest city in the United States with a population of more than 360,000 people. It is home to a major General Motors assembly plant, a National Semiconductor wafer plant, a number of Fortune 500 facilities, the fastest growing university in Texas--the University of Texas at Arlington--and an entertainment complex that is one of the top tourist destinations in the country. The original Six Flags amusement park, Hurricane Harbor water park, and the Texas Rangers Baseball Club are located there. And in 2009, when the new stadium is completed, it will become the new home of the Dallas Cowboys football team. Arlington is and has always been one of the best places in Texas to live, work, and play, to get a quality education and to start a new business. Recent surveys tell us that Arlington is also one of the fittest cities of its size in the Nation, as well as one of the best educated. As the representative to Congress from Arlington, TX, I want to join the citizens of this great city in celebrating its 130th birthday, recognize the city for its outstanding achievements over the past 130 years, and pray God's blessings on its people for the next 130 years.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I rise today in support of H. Res. 861 and our efforts in Iraq. Democracy's biggest strength is also its biggest weakness. Democracy is the strongest form of government when the people and allied governments are united in a common goal. Because the United States worked hand-in-hand with Europe, we were able to defeat fascism in World War II and the totalitarian threat of Hitler and imperial Japan. Conversely, democracy's weakness arises when the people do not wholeheartedly believe in the cause. For example, Vietnam included a hazy mission and the drafting of unwilling participants. Policy was diverted due to powerful public opinion. We are not in Iraq and Afghanistan today because the President seeks for us to be. We are there because the public was outraged after the attacks of September 11, and rightly so. We were deliberately attacked by a terrorist regime seeking to cripple the United States. It was the dramatic escalation of decades of terrorist attacks. We felt these attacks deeply in our financial center of New York, at the Pentagon, and were almost hit at the heart of our Government, the Capitol building, were it not for the brave passengers of Flight 93. But as a nation, we chose to not lie dormant anymore. We chose to show the resolve of America and defeat the enemy of terrorist regimes and the countries that harbor them. I support the policy of not giving in to totalitarianism or terrorist threats. And I support the military if force becomes the necessary method of resolution. Progress is being made in Iraq, and our troops will be successful in supporting this new democratic government. We are not propping up a dictatorial regime; we are working to help democracy take hold in the Middle East. And our efforts are paying off. The idea that all people desire to be free is a powerful one. This idea is our single biggest weapon, and will ultimately bring success to this fight. The government that allows its citizens to steer their own course is undeniably stronger and more peaceful. I believe our troops are making incredible progress and so are the people in Iraq who are working for an inclusive, stable government. I remain committed to supporting all of their good works.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 12, 2006, I was unable to fly to Washington, D.C. for votes. As a result, I missed votes on this day and some votes before returning Tuesday, June 13, 2006. I would have voted on the following rollcall votes, had I been present. Monday, June 12, 2006: AYE: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended: 362-1 (Roll Call 251). Recognizing the 17th anniversary of the massacre in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, in the People's Republic of China, and for other purposes. AYE: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended: 362-1 (Roll Call 252). Condemning the unauthorized, inappropriate, and coerced ordination of Catholic bishops by the People's Republic of China. AYE: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended: 363-1 (Roll Call 253). Condemning the escalating levels of religious persecution in the People's Republic of China. AYE: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: 364-0 (Roll Call 254). Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the activities of Islamist terrorist organizations in the Western Hemisphere. AYE: On Ordering the Previous Question: 204-165 (Roll Call 255). Waiving points of order against consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. AYE: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended: 409-0 (Roll Call 256). Commending the Government of Canada for its renewed commitment to the Global War on Terror. AYE: On Agreeing to the Conference Report: 351-67 (Roll Call 257). Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. AYE: On Agreeing to the Resolution: 221-194 (Roll Call 258). Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. AYE: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: 415-1 (Roll Call 259). To provide for certain access to national crime information databases by schools and educational agencies for employment purposes, with respect to individuals who work with children. AYE: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended: 407-0 (Roll Call 260). Supporting responsible fatherhood, promoting marriage, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, especially on Father's Day.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Rush of Illinois, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean). (Ms. BEAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Oxley, for his leadership and his statement that he just made. It is greatly appreciated and it I think enlightens the debate.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), my distinguished primary cosponsor on the Democrat side.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in that case, I yield 2 minutes on behalf of Mr. Rush to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. So I can't do it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I wish to propound a parliamentary inquiry. I would like to yield 10 minutes to my Democrat sponsor, Mr. Rush, to control in the general debate in the Committee of the Whole. Is that possible, or how might I do that?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the full committee and the distinguished Chairman of the Veterans' Committee, Mr. Buyer of Indiana.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me just recapitulate. Under current law, if you are a satellite provider, you don't have to pay any franchise fee, any at all. Now, if you are a landlocked cable provider, you do have to pay some of these fees. They can be up to 5 percent, and they can charge some in-kind contribution for these pay channels. That is current law. Under the pending bill, if it were to become law, you get the existing franchise fees that are paid by the incumbent cable provider, plus the city can charge a 1 percent fee to the incumbent plus these new entrants are going to be automatically assessed up to 5 percent plus an additional 1 percent unless the city makes a different deal. Okay? Cities are going to have more money, more revenue sources. And the independent studies that have already come out say that, in most cases, city and local revenues are expected to grow as much as 30 percent. And I think they may be even higher than that. Ladies and gentlemen, that is not an unfunded mandate. That is not an unfunded mandate. So I strongly oppose this point of order and hope that we sustain the base rule and move forward to debate the underlying bill. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, next week the President of the United States is expected to sign in the Oval Office or the Rose Garden a bill that increases fines for utterances of an obscene nature over the public airwaves. That is Chairman Upton's bill, and I am a sponsor and strong supporter of it. If C-SPAN were over the public airways and not cable, I would probably be the first victim fined, the first violator of that bill because of my reaction, not to the gentlewoman's point of order, which is within the rules of the House, but because of the underlying premise that the Congressional Budget Office has propounded that there is an unfunded mandate in this bill. The thing that I can say that is printable is that is hogwash. Now, we went down to the dictionary that is always here in the House of Representatives and looked up the word ``mandate.'' The number one definition, a command to act in a particular way on a public issue. That is the number one definition for mandate in that dictionary: a command to act in a particular way on a public issue. Now, if the bill before us had told the cities that they had to provide cable service themselves to every citizen in their community and not compensated for it with Federal dollars, that would be a mandate. If the bill had said that every Member of Congress in the House and the Senate had to be provided an office with a television studio by the cities, that would be a mandate; and it would be unfunded. It is not in this bill. What is the Congressional Budget Office definition of an unfunded mandate? It is an Alice in Wonderland definition. It is a reverse definition. Here is what the bill actually does: it says every city that is currently collecting fees gets to continue to collect those fees, or it can negotiate a better deal if they want to. It says that every new entrant that wants to get the so-called national franchise, if they let the city know that they want to provide video services to that city, they have to pay that city up to 5 percent, plus an additional 1 percent for all of these PEG channels, public education and governmental channels, that the gentlewoman from Wisconsin was just talking about. It says these new entrants have to pay that. There are studies out that says because of this provision that these new entrants are going to have to pay the cities additional revenue; that the cities, in total, may get up to 40 percent or more of additional revenues, more money not less money. That is not an unfunded mandate. That is what we in Texas call found money. Oh, here's another $150,000 for next year, or two million or whatever it is. The bill before us allows the cities to charge an additional 1 percent. I didn't want to do that. I was opposed to that. But Mr. Upton and some of my friends on the Democratic side that were negotiating on the bill thought that was a fair thing to do. And so it is in the bill. If there is one thing that I am sure of, it is that there is no unfunded mandate in this bill. Now, I will tell you how energized I am about this. I am going to go out and draft me a CBO reform bill and I am going to introduce it and I am going to get the committee of jurisdiction, which I think is the Budget Committee, to try to hold a hearing on it or move it or do something about it. I am tired of a CBO that looks like an Alice in Wonderland operation. If there really were an unfunded mandate in this bill, I would oppose it. But there is not. And so I strongly, I respect the rights of the minority to use every parliamentary procedure they have, and the CBO did issue a report that does say there is an unfunded mandate. That is a true statement. But what the CBO calls an unfunded mandate is absolute hogwash. So I oppose this point of order, and hope that we will sustain the underlying rule and move forward on the base bill and have an honest debate on the merits of the bill later this afternoon and tomorrow.