Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent). (Mr. DENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), for the tenor of the debate today and for granting extended time and making sure all points of view have been heard on this important issue. Although I am going to vote for Castle/DeGette, I do not necessarily speak as an advocate for its passage as much as I want to speak about why I have decided to vote for it. I respect Members on both sides of this issue. I made sure that members of the committee I chair, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, regardless of their position, had an opportunity to speak and put their comments on the record. I come at this as a 100 percent pro-life, lifetime, voting Member of Congress. As I said earlier, this will be my second vote this year where I have not adopted the pro-life position. So I am not quite 100 percent any more, but I would think that 99.8 percent over 21 years qualifies me as a pro-life Congressman. I have also voted numerous times for our defense bill, where we have voted hundreds of billions of dollars to defend our Nation and put our young men and women at risk, some of them that might have to give up their lives. I have voted for many bills for our law enforcement officials, where again they may have to give up their lives to protect the common good. Now, you might say, yes, but in those instances they were adults and they had free will and they voluntarily made a choice that they might have to sacrifice their lives. Well, I accept and support that an embryo is a life. I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) that we were all embryos once. I understand that. And, obviously, at 7 days or 14 days, embryos do not have consciousness. They do not have free will. They do not have the neuro cells or brain cells to make a decision whether they want to voluntarily make a sacrifice. I understand that. But I would say this: If they did, out of the 400,000 that we think may be in existence, if you narrow that down to the 2.8 percent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) talked about that are probably not going to be used for reproductive purposes, if they did, would not some of them, knowing the stakes, volunteer? It only takes one, the right one, that magic silver bullet embryo that creates that magic stem cell that can be replicated into any of the 200 cell lines that make up the human body. If I had that opportunity, might I not take advantage of it? Somebody would. And since they cannot, because they do not have consciousness, under a traditional law in this United States of America we give custody to the parents. A parent will make a decision at some point in time, or a family member will make a decision at some point in time that perhaps they do not want to put up for adoption, which is the decision I would make. Why not? In addition to the cord blood bill that we have just passed, why not make it possible for some of these under the conditions in the Castle/DeGette bill for some to be used for research purposes. It does not take many. I respect those who say, no, you cannot do it at all. But I also say given a choice, let us err on the side of opportunity. That is why I am going to vote ``yes.''

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a prepared statement I am going to put into the record on this bill, H.R. 810, but I am going to actually speak from the heart because I think that this is a very important issue. Most of the issues that come before this body, there is an automatic position on. It may be the Republican position, the Democrat position, the Texas position, or it could be the committee position. And we come to the floor and we, almost by rote, say what is the particular position, and that is the way we vote. But every now and then an issue comes up that is really an issue of conscience. It is an issue that deserves to be thoughtfully considered, debated, and decided on its own merit. Now, there are many Members today that believe this particular issue is an issue that they feel so strongly about, on either side, that this is an easy issue for them, it is an automatic issue. They are going to be for it or against it for very valid reasons. But there are some of us, and I am in that camp today, that believe it is not an easy issue. I come to the floor as a 100 percent lifetime voting member on prolife issues, minus one vote, in over 21 years. On all the votes that the prolife coalition at the State and Federal levels have scored as scorable votes, my record until this year was 100 percent, and I voted the wrong way on one issue so far this year from the prolife position. So that is not a bad record, 100 percent minus one. And after this vote today, I am going to be 100 percent minus two. Why is that? Well, part of it is personal and part of it deals with tragedies in my family in the past. My father died of complications of diabetes at the age of 71. My brother, Jon Kevin Barton, died of liver cancer at the age of 44. My first granddaughter, Bryn Barton, died in the womb 2 days before delivery with complications of the umbilical cord, which had become crimped, and she was actually born dead. Maybe the research we are debating today could not have helped any of those diseases or could not have helped my granddaughter, but maybe it could. I am also going to vote for Castle-DeGette because of the future, not just the past. My wife Terri and I are expecting a baby in September, Jack Kevin Barton, named after her late father and my late brother, Jon Kevin Barton. He may come into this world with some disease. Hopefully not. I have three children that are already alive, Brad, Alison, and Kristin. I have two stepchildren, Lindsay and Cullen. I have three grandchildren that are living, Blake, Brent and Bailey Barton. Maybe they will live healthy, productive lives and they will never need some therapeutic breakthrough, but maybe they will. Maybe they will. Now, we just voted for an expansion of cord blood and bone marrow research, which is a very, very good deal, and it deals with adult stem cells. And maybe the breakthrough is going to come in adult stem cells. I hope it does. I would love it. But maybe, just maybe, it is going to come because of embryonic stem cells. Now, the President adopted a position in early 2001 that said the existing stem cell lines then in existence could be federally funded for research. They thought there were about 78 lines. It turned out that there were 22 they are using, there are 16 that are frozen, and there may be one or two more that might be used. But in any event, none of those lines that are currently allowed to be used for research purposes at the Federal level have been shown to have that breakthrough stem cell. There are 200 adult cells in the body. The hope of stem cell research, whether it is adult or embryonic, is that we will find that one perfect cell that can be replicated into any of the other cells. It is assumed, and it is an assumption, not a fact, that the plasticity of the embryonic cell is better and that there is a greater likelihood, although the research has only been done for the last 7 or 8 years, that there is a likelihood there might be a greater potential. And I want to emphasize might be. So where I come down is, let us look at all the avenues. We just voted for Smith-Barton-Young. Let us also vote for Castle- DeGette and look at all of our resources. That is why I am going to vote ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I rise to manage the time of debate on H.R. 810, legislation designed to expand the number of sources of embryonic stem cell lines that may be the subject of federally funded research. The bill is straightforward, yet the policy concerns surrounding this bill are anything but black and white. Before I yield time to my colleagues, I want to clarify a few of the following facts. What the sponsors of this bill are trying to do is create enough lines of embryonic stem cells to allow basic scientific research to move forward. Many scientists believe that once we can identify a perfect, undifferentiated stem call, it will lead to significant scientific breakthroughs and the discovery of cures for many diseases. Currently, there are approximately 22 lines of embryonic stem cells that are available for federally funded research. This number is far below the estimated number of stem cell lines that were thought to exist in August of 2001, when the President announced his stem cell policy. When President Bush announced that Federal research dollars could be used for the first time on then existing stem cells, 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, not all of these potential lines are now available for research. We will also eventually need additional embryonic stem cell lines to make further scientific advances. In recent conversations with leading stem cell researchers, they indicated to me that all lines of embryonic stem cells eventually become exhausted. In order to produce clinical therapies, it is likely that researchers will also need more embryonic stem cell lines, of different genetic variations, than are presently eligible to receive Federal support. In addition, the majority of the existing embryonic stem cell lines eligible for Federal support use mouse feeder cells, which will make it nearly impossible for these embryonic stem cell lines to be adopted in clinical use. For all of these reasons, researchers believe that the current number of embryonic stem cell lines will have to be increased. It is difficult to take an ideologically pure position on this issue. President Bush recognized this on August 9, 2001. On recognizing the profound potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research, President Bush permitted for the first time Federal taxpayer dollars to be spent on embryonic stem cell research. For my entire career in Congress, I have been a staunch defender of the culture of life and opposed all forms of abortion. At the same time, I believe we have an obligation to improve existing lives and do what we can to make them better in the future. Today, on this difficult issue, Members will need to vote their consciences. My decision to support this bill was a difficult one, which I came to only after much personal struggle and reflection. My decision was shaped, in part, by the painful experiences of my own family. We lost my brother Jon in 2000, at the age of 44, after a long struggle with liver cancer. My father died after suffering from complications resulting from diabetes. Let me tell you for a moment about my brother, Jon. He was younger than me. He and his wife, Jennifer, had two children, Jake and Jace. He was a State district judge in Texas. They told Jon he had liver cancer when he was just 41 years old. We tried everything and, in fact, his cancer went into remission. The next year, it came back. Jon died in just three months short of his 44th birthday. I offered to give him part of my liver, but the doctors said he was too far-gone and it wouldn't work. That was five years ago. Jake is now 15, and Jace is 12. Every time I see them and their Mom, I think of Jon and wonder what stem cell research could have done for our family. I cannot know the truth with absolute certainty, but my heart says that my brother and my father might be with me today if their doctors had access to treatments from stem cell research. Their lives were precious to me and to our family. I come to my decision on this vote because I believe in life, and in the future. If a vote today can save other families from losing brothers and fathers, my conscience will not permit any other decision. I fully understand that some will say I am just wrong, or blinded by personal emotion. Many who disagree with me are my friends, and I completely respect their views and their advice. They are good people, and good people with the same facts sometimes come to different conclusions. Now, a few others will say that death is simply a part of life. No, it is not. I do not believe that we can ever accept that proposition without setting out on an extraordinary and dangerous path. Life is to be cherished and extended, and death is to be fought and never accepted. My father and my brother died because illnesses took them. If I can do something to cure illness and thwart death for other families, I will because I must. Scientists believe that expanded embryonic stem cell research holds the potential to find cures for diseases like cancer or diabetes. It is my hope that supporting this bill will mean that many other American families will never have to endure the suffering and loss that my family went through. I believe that my obligation is to help advance science to make human life better now and in the future, in a manner that is consistent with Judeo-Christian ethics. As we move forward with debate on this bill, my only request is that my colleagues try to respect one another and the deeply held beliefs on both sides of this very complex issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2520) to provide for the collection and maintenance of human cord blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and research, and to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Palm Springs, California (Mrs. Bono), the author of the original bill, who knows more about these types of issues than anybody on the committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the Record the companies and the organizations that support H.R. 29. This is with letters on the Record where they have written to me and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) that they support the legislation: the Business Software Alliance; the Center For Democracy and Technology; the Council For Marketing and Opinion Research; Dell Corporation; DoubleClick, Incorporated, and ValueClick, Incorporated; eBay, Incorporated; Fidelity; Humana, Incorporated; Microsoft; 180 Solutions; the Recording Industry of America; Time Warner/AOL; United States Telecom Association; Webroot Software, Incorporated; WhenU; and Yahoo. These companies all officially on the record support H.R. 29. Mr. Speaker, I think as the debate has shown, there is broad bipartisan support for this. There is also a need for this. I have spoken with Senator Burns of the other body. He is preparing to move a companion bill. We have also obviously talked to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), on their bill; and we are prepared to work with them to merge the bills at the appropriate time. This is an issue whose time has come. Almost every American household now has a personal computer, and almost every one of those computers has spyware on them; and in most cases the owner of that computer does not know it. It is time to put a stop to that foolishness. It is time to say enough is enough. It is time to pass H.R. 29, work with the other body to pass a companion bill, go to conference, create a compromise bill, and then send the bill to the President's desk. So I would encourage a ``yes'' vote, Mr. Speaker, and before I yield back, compliment you on your work on this. I think we should say the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) also has been tireless in his support for the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 29) to protect users of the Internet from unknowing transmission of their personally identifiable information through spyware programs, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), subcommittee chairman. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider legislation to prohibit Internet spying. Spyware is a growing danger to Internet users and one that demands our immediate attention. Recent statistics indicate that spyware is on the rise, with the highest areas of growth in Trojans, keystroke loggers and system monitors, the worst-of-the-worst spyware technologies. The Committee on Energy and Commerce has worked expeditiously this Congress to move antispyware legislation through the committee for consideration by the House. This legislation is largely the same as H.R. 2929 from the 108th Congress, a bill that passed the House by a vote of 399-1. It is my hope that H.R. 29 will receive a similar endorsement today on this floor. The changes that have been made to the SPY ACT since the last Congress are of two general types. The Committee on Energy and Commerce worked hard to refine the legislation to take into account legitimate and benign business functions, as well as standard functionalities of the Internet while preserving meaningful consumer notice and consent. The committee has also continued to strengthen the antifraud provisions of the bill by giving the Federal Trade Commission better enforcement tools against the ever-increasing types of fraudulent behavior associated with Internet spying. The legislation that we are considering today, number one, prohibits unfair and deceptive practices like home page hijacking, keystroke logging, and Web-based phishing; two, provides for a prominent opt-in for consumers prior to the collection of personally identifiable information by monitoring spyware. This is a very, very important provision of the bill. Three, provides for a prominent opt-in for consumers prior to the collection of information regarding Web pages accessed and the subsequent delivery of advertisements based on that information; four, requires that monitoring software be easily disabled at the direction of the consumer; five, requires companies that are sending ads to computers to identify with each ad the information collection program that is generating the ad. With this disclosure, consumers will know who is bombarding them with ads and will be able to make decisions about those pieces of software accordingly. Number six, provides for FTC enforcement with significant monetary penalties for those who knowingly violate the act; and, seven, sets up a uniform national rule. Internet commerce is inherently interstate in nature. We need one set of rules for such commerce, not 50. We have just today also passed a bill that makes explicit some criminal penalties for purveyors of the worst kinds of spyware. I think it is appropriate that in certain instances, such as deceptive phishing leading to identity theft, the perpetrators need to go to jail. I want to thank the Committee on the Judiciary for their work in that area. However, I believe we need to do more to protect consumers. I believe we need to recognize the right of each consumer to be informed of spying taking place on his or her computer and be able to say no to that spying. This bill does that. The bill that we just passed from the Committee on the Judiciary does not do that. I believe that we need to require of ad companies the responsibility to inform consumers and to get their consent before they start installing devices on consumers' computers that keep track of everything that they do, and their children do, on the Internet. This bill does that. The bill from the Committee on the Judiciary does not do that. And I believe that companies have an obligation to disable spying programs if the consumers no longer want them. A consumer should have more options than just throwing away his computer if it is infected with spyware. This bill does that. The bill that came out of the Committee on the Judiciary does not do that. It is this empowerment of consumers and the recognition that each consumer has the right to control what goes on his or her own computer that makes this bill, H.R. 29, a very important tool to protect consumers against spyware. That consumer protection will be my goal when we go to conference with the Senate. I want to commend a number of Members for their outstanding leadership on this issue. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) who will speak later in the debated introduced the original bill in the last Congress and has been a tireless educator on the dangers of spyware. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) cosponsored the original legislation with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), and he has been great in his bipartisan support of this particular project. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade and Consumer Protection, has been a leader on all the privacy-related issues in the committee and has worked with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) on this legislation. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the full committee, and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who is leading the floor debate on the Democratic side, have worked tirelessly in both the subcommittee and the full committee to perfect this bipartisan legislation. This is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It passed the Committee on Energy and Commerce unanimously. I would urge that it pass the floor later this afternoon with that same level of support. 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 on this legislation and insert extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of places in the manager's amendment to H.R. 11817 that refer to coordination efforts between the Department of Homeland Security with ``other relevant Federal agencies,'' specifically as it relates to protection of critical infrastructure and cybersecurity. I want to ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security if those ``other relevant Federal agencies'' would include the departments and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, including the Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Trade Commission, National Information Agency, and the Environmental Protection Agency?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security for offering my amendment when it would have been very easy for the gentleman to just let it go when I was not here, but being the gentleman he is, he did the honorable decent thing, and I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, let me say that the Dingell-Barton amendment that is before us right now makes a simple but important change to H.R. 1817, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. This bipartisan amendment enshrines a commitment made by the Committee on Homeland Security but which was inadvertently left out of the Cox manager's amendment. There are two primary reasons that the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which I chair, decided to mark up H.R. 1817. First was the creation of Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security. The issue of cybersecurity is one that is core to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Indeed, the committee has existing oversight on telecommunications, nuclear, energy and information networks, systems, facilities and equipment over which any cybersecurity attack would occur as well as the potential effects of cybersecurity incidents on our Nation's interstates and foreign commerce. The other primary reason, and the one for which I am offering this amendment today, is to require, and I want to emphasize require, the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate with other relevant Federal agencies, especially as it pertains to the protection of critical infrastructure. Many of these Federal agencies are taking strong and innovative steps to protect the critical infrastructure they regulate, which is why it is so important for the Department of Homeland Security to closely coordinate with these agencies. Unfortunately, the Committee on Homeland Security which had assured us that this particular language would be a part of the manager's amendment, did not get included, and I understand it was inadvertent. But because of that reason we have had to offer this as an amendment on the floor. It is my understanding that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the committee, fully support this language, and I am not aware that anybody opposes it. I hope at the appropriate time we can pass this by voice vote and all Members voting aye.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for his explanation and look forward to working with him to ensure that all relevant Federal agencies have a role to play in homeland security. And although it is not a part of the colloquy, there may come a day when the gentleman from California is the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and he will be very glad he answered yes to those questions.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the budget resolution that we are going to vote on here in about 30 or 45 minutes because we are a body about solutions. If we do not pass the budget, we have no opportunity to solve some of the problems that face our great Nation. The committee that I chair does have jurisdiction over the Medicaid program and a large portion of the Medicare program, as well as telecommunications and energy. And in the instructions for reconciliation in this budget, we are asked to try to find savings of approximately $20 billion over the next 5 years. For those who are not familiar with the arcane process of reconciliation, it is very similar to what happens when a husband and wife have a spat and they get mad and they do not talk to each other for a while. Eventually they reconcile. They come back together. That is what we do here in this body. We do it between the Committee on Appropriations and the authorizing committees, and we also do it between the House and the Senate. We fight all year, but at the end of the year, we are going to have a reconciliation. We are going to come forward, hopefully on a bipartisan basis; and we are going to say we want some solutions to some of these problems. The Medicaid program is a $300 billion-a-year program. It is about 60 percent funded by the Federal taxpayers and about 40 percent funded by State taxpayers. Twenty-nine States in the last 3 years have frozen their Medicaid populations. The State of Tennessee, for example, has kicked 323,000 people off their Medicaid rolls because they just did not have the money. There are a lot of good ideas out there in terms of things we could do to reform Medicaid. We are not talking about trying to do things to kick people off the rolls. We are talking about things like letting people stay at home instead of having to go to a nursing home to get long-term care. We are talking about giving the States the flexibility perhaps to decide how to price some of their pharmaceuticals. We are talking about commonsense things like people that have some assets, getting them to use reverse mortgages on their homes so they can stay and live at home and not have to hide that or sell that home and then go into a nursing home. So I know it is difficult, but this is a budget about solutions. And I hope that we will pass it so that we can begin the reconciliation process at the appropriate time with the other body. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this budget resolution. On March 17, this House voted 218 to 214 in support of a budget that instructed the Committee on Energy and Commerce to find $20 billion in savings. Members at that time recognized the importance of reducing the rapid rate of growth in entitlement programs like Medicaid. As the House and Senate reconcile our two budgets, we need to continue to be diligent and stay on the path of fiscal responsibility. Opponents of this resolution argue that any budget resolution that allows for Medicaid reforms will cause untold suffering for Medicaid beneficiaries. This argument ignores the fundamental truth that these beneficiaries are already suffering. In Tennessee and Missouri, over three hundred thousand beneficiaries are going to lose their health coverage, due to the out-of-control growth in Medicaid costs. Other States are imposing restrictions on benefits, including limits on the total number of prescriptions a beneficiary can receive per month and restricting access to other basic services. Without Congressional action, these problems are just going to get worse. Mississippi's Medicaid program ran out of money last year, and they were almost unable to pay their providers. Unfortunately, the current Medicaid program traps beneficiaries in a second rate health program, where too often they cannot get access to quality care or manage their chronic conditions. These problems stem in large part from the explosive growth in Medicaid spending. From 2000 to 2003 alone, Medicaid spending grew at an average rate of 10 percent each year. Neither the States nor the Federal Government can sustain these rates of spending growth. That is why Governor Mark Warner (D-VA) recently warned that ``we are on our way to a meltdown'' on Medicaid. By including Medicaid reforms in the budget, we're attempting to save this important program. Our efforts will not cut Medicaid, but only slow its rate of growth. In 1993, Medicaid spending was approximately $132 billion. By 2003, the program had more than doubled, and it is expected to cost $5 trillion over the next 10 years. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) projects that Medicaid will ``grow more rapidly than the economy over the next several decades and . . . add substantially to the overall budget deficit.'' I take Medicaid reform extremely seriously. There are 46 million people out there who depend on the Medicaid program, and I don't want to let them down. That is why I have been working with members of Congress, Secretary Mike Leavitt, and several key Governors to identify solutions to the problems that face Medicaid. Over the next few months, my Committee will hold several additional hearings on different aspects of Medicaid reform. Yesterday, we held our first Medicaid hearing this year on long-term care. These hearings and the additional work we are doing will lead to a reform proposal that can strengthen and improve the Medicaid program. The Energy & Commerce Committee is doing its job. I would urge Members of Congress to do theirs and vote against this budget.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not saying that he stipulated that MBTE had to be used. I am stipulating that he knew it could be used. And he is entitled to change his mind, change his position. It is a free country. But at one time he thought that MBTE could help clean up the air. That is all I am saying.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising these concerns and agree with the gentleman that market transparency is an absolute need for an affordable energy supply and that the protection of proprietary data is a must for the efficient and effective use of U.S. futures markets. Regulation of United States futures exchanges is certainly within the jurisdiction of the CFTC. I give the gentleman my assurances I will work with him on language that reflects the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation's jurisdiction in its vital role in market transparency.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).