Floor Statements

Walter Lippmann stated, ``The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind in other men the conviction and will to carry on.'' Congressman Larry Combest leaves not only conviction and will for others to follow but also an example of representational leadership. His unique style of leadership has brought about positive change for his constituency, for the state of Texas, and for each position he has held as a member of Congress.

Serving as only the third Representative in history from the 19th Texas Congressional District, Congressman Combest has honored the statesmen who preceded him in office. Always accessible and a constant voice for the people, his guiding strength and influence have become standard signatures for his work in Congress, including the drafting of the 2002 Farm Bill, the advocacy of medical and scientific advances through Texas Tech University initiatives, and promotion of the Vietnam Women's Memorial.

Congressman Combest leaves behind the conviction to distinguish the need of the people from the will of the people and the courage to carry on with the good of the people.

He is a trusted colleague and a proven leader. Congressman Larry Combest will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, the Jobs and Growth Tax Act of 2003 includes relief from the marriage tax, child care tax credits, small business expensing, and a dividend tax reduction.

According to an analysis by the Heritage Foundation, the bill creates approximately 1.2 million jobs by the end of 2004. This includes 61,000 jobs in Texas. In addition, it will inject $200 billion into the economy to help drive consumer spending and job creation.

A key piece of this legislation is dividend relief. It also promotes investment by reducing the tax on capital gains. These two modifications simplify the tax code by creating similar tax treatment for both capital gains and dividends.

Eighty-four million or over 50 percent of adult Americans invest in the stock market. And over 70 million own a home. The Jobs and Growth Tax Act puts dollars back into the pockets of millions of families by reducing the tax on dividends and capital gains to 5 percent for the lowest two tax brackets and 15 percent for the remaining brackets. This increases economic growth, as well as the incomes of working Americans.

Seniors, who tend to own a larger share of stocks than other age group will benefit greatly from the much-needed tax relief in this bill.

What does our economy need? The answer is before the House today: more jobs and tax relief. We must create more jobs and the best way to help companies, investors and entrepreneurs to create good, private- sector jobs is to reduce taxes across-the-board. And the best way to refuel the economy and ensure our ability to compete is to reduce taxes.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 766, which authorizes a national nanotechnology research initiative. This bill funds more research into this ``small science'' that does big things.

As a science, nanotechnology is crucial to the future of information technology. As a benefit for the average person, nanotechnology has already led to applications that can be used on a daily basis, such as hard transparent coating for eyewear, nano-enhanced computer chips, and drugs more easily absorbed by the human body. Each innovation serves as a building block for new directions and applications. The possibilities are as endless as the human imagination.

Continued research plays an important role in the further development of nanotechnology. This science is still in its infancy and it will take many years of sustained investment and investigation for this field to achieve maturity.

Nanotechnology has evolved from advances in chemical, physical, biological, engineering, medical, and materials research. It will continue to contribute to the science and technology workforce for years to come.

The National Science Foundation predicts nanotechnology will represent $1 trillion in global goods and services in little over a decade. According to a study of international nanotechnology research efforts sponsored by the National Science and Technology Council, the United States is at risk of falling behind its international competitors, including Japan, South Korea, and Europe, if it fails to sustain broad based interests in nanotechnology.

H.R. 766 authorizes $2.36 billion in research and development funding. This legislation establishes new technology goals and research directions, coordinates nanotechnology programs through federal agencies, universities across the country, and high-tech companies, to assure America's continued ability to lead the global exploration of nanotechnology.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report contains several important provisions that protect the most vulnerable among us, that is, our children.

One of those provisions is an amendment I offered to the bill, which was approved by a vote of 406 to 15. That provision addresses the Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which held that the Federal law to combat computer-generated pornography was too broad.

The overturning of this law to combat child pornography has emboldened those who abuse children. A General Accounting Office report just 2 weeks ago found that in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, child pornographers are now increasing their presence on the Internet and are engaging in their depraved actions with relative ease.

The Internet has proved a useful tool for pedophiles and sex predators as they distribute child pornography, engage in sexually explicit conversations with children, and hunt for victims in chatrooms. Unfortunately, the new playground for child pornographers is the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, every parent should be concerned about what their children see and do on line. We need to protect our children. If this legislation becomes law, child pornographers will be deterred or prosecuted. I hope my colleagues will again vote to reduce child pornography on the Internet and support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses the April 16, 2002, Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft versus Free

Speech Coalition. That decision struck down in 1996 a law written to combat computer-generated pornography because it was too broad.

The overturning of this law to combat child pornography has emboldened those who would have used children. Regrettably, the prediction of the president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has come true. He said, ``The court's decision will result in the proliferation of child pornography in America unlike anything we have seen in more than 20 years.''

A Government Accounting Office report just 2 weeks ago found that in the weight of the Supreme Court decision, child pornographers now are increasing their presence on the Internet and are engaging in their depraved actions with relative ease. The Internet has proved a useful tool for pedophiles and sex predators as they distribute child pornography, engage in sexually explicit conversations with children, and hunt for victims in chat rooms.

Every parent should know what their children see and do online. Unfortunately, the new playground for child pornographers is the Internet.

Our children are the most vulnerable among us, and we need to protect them. If this amendment becomes law, child pornographers will be a mere click away from a lengthy prison sentence. This amendment increases penalties and provides prosecutors with the tools they need to win convictions against child pornographers, and it responds to the Supreme Court's constitutional concerns by narrowing the definition of child pornography and includes an affirmative defense when real children are not depicted.

This amendment passed the House as separate legislation last year by a vote of 413 to 8, but the Senate failed to act. I hope my colleagues again will support the provisions in this amendment which will reduce child pornography on the Internet.

Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record the analysis of the constitutionality of this legislation.

Constitutional Analysis of the Smith Amendment to H.R. 1104--the

``Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act''

On April 16, 2002, the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Free

Speech Coalition, held that two of Federal definitions of

child pornography unconstitutional. Sec. 18 U.S.C.

Sec. 2256(8)(B), defined child pornography to include wholly

computer generated pictures that appear to be of a minor

engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Sec. 18 U.S.C.

Sec. 2256(8)(D), defined child pornography to include a

visual depiction where it is advertised, promoted, or

presented, to convey the impression that the material

contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually

explicit conduct.

The Court's decision does not bar Congress from outlawing

virtual child pornography when the prohibition is narrowly-

drawn to promote a compelling government interest. In fact,

the Court in its opinion, expressly left that option open for

Congress. The Court stated: ``We need not decide, however,

whether the Government could impose this burden on a speaker.

Even if an affirmative defense can save a statute from First

Amendment challenge, here the defense is incomplete and

insufficient, even on its own terms.'' Justice Thomas,

concurring, stated that the ``Court does leave open the

possibility that a more complete affirmative defense could

save a statute's constitutionality, see ante, at 1405,

implicitly accepting that some regulation of virtual child

pornography might be constitutional.'' No member of the Court

took exception with his conclusion.

Congress clearly has a compelling interest to protect

children from sexual exploitation. That interest extends to

the prosecution of those who exploit children. These

prosecutions are seriously threatened by the mere possibility

that technology exists to create a depiction of a virtual

child. This possibility allows those who harm real children

to claim that the child pornography they possess does not

contain real children.

Computer technology already exists today to disguise

depictions of real children to make them unidentifiable and

to make depictions of real children appear computer

generated. Furthermore, evidence was presented to the

Congress that the technology may already exist to depict

virtual children to look real and completely

indistinguishable.

Compounding the problem, is the fact that the vast majority

of child pornography prosecutions today involve images

contained on computer hard drives, computer disks, or related

media and that a computer image seized from a child

pornographer is rarely a first-generation product. These

pictures are e-mailed over and over again or scanned in from

photographs of real children being abused and exploited. The

transmission of images over an e-mail system can alter the

image and make it impossible even for an expert to know

whether or not a particular image depicts a real child. If

the original image has been scanned from a paper version into

a digital format, this task can be even harder since

proper forensic delineation may depend on the quality of

the image scanned and the tools used to scan it.

To prove a child is real will require identifying the

actual child. This is usually an impossible task. The

quandary is that while there is no substantial evidence that

any of the child pornography images being trafficked today

were made in any other way than by the abuse of real

children, technological advances are leading many criminal

defendants to suggest otherwise. These defendants are

claiming that the images they possess are not those of real

children, insisting that the government prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that the images are not computer-generated.

This is not a new defense, but without a narrowly drafted

statute intended to prohibit the use of virtual child

pornography that an ordinary person viewing the depiction

could not distinguish from a depiction of a real child, it

will be impossible for the government to prosecute child

pornography cases involving computer images. Some in the

Court are cognizant that technology may threaten the

Government's compelling state interest of effective

prosecution of those who sexually exploit children and thus

threaten the Government's ability to protect children.

A representative from the Department of Justice testified:

As Justice Thomas noted in his concurring opinion, ``if

technological advances thwart prosecution of `unlawful

speech,' the Government may well have a compelling interest

in barring or otherwise regulating some narrow category of

`lawful speech' in order to enforce effectively laws against

pornography made through the abuse of real children.'' 122 S.

Ct. at 1406-07 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment).

Similarly, Justice O'Connor noted in her opinion concurring

in part and dissenting in part that, ``given the rapid pace

of advances in computer-graphics technology, the Government's

concern is reasonable.'' Id. at 1409. Moreover, to avert

serious harms, Congress may rely on reasonable predictive

judgments, even when legislating in an area implicating

freedom of speech. See Turner Broad. Sys. Inc. v. FCC 520

U.S. 180, 210-11 (1997). We believe that Congress has a

strong basis for concluding that the very existence of

sexually explicit computer images that are virtually

indistinguishable from images of real minors engaged in

sexually explicit conduct poses a serious danger to future

prosecutions involving child pornography. Indeed, we already

have some sense of the impact of the Court's decision. The

Ninth Circuit had invalidated the same provisions of law in

1999, and all accounts indicate that the number and scope of

child pornography prosecutions brought by our prosecutors in

the Ninth Circuit has been adversely impacted.

Since the Supreme Court's decision in Free Speech

Coalition, evidence of this growing threat is clear as

defendants in almost every child pornography case contend

that the depictions could be virtual, requiring the

prosecutors to prove that the children depicted are real.

Some of the defense efforts are succeeding. For example,

after Free Speech Coalition, a court granted the defendant's

motion to withdraw a guilty plea and held that the government

must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew

that the images depicted real children.

Moreover, the existence of computer generated images of

child pornography that is indistinguishable from depictions

of real children will bolster the child pornography market

and those who abuse children to produce such pictures. The

majority opinion in Free speech Coalition stated, in dicta,

that ``if virtual images were identical to illegal child

pornography, the illegal images would be driven from the

market by the indistinguishable substitutes.'' Contrary to

that belief, the President and CEO of NCMEC ``believe[s] that

the Court's decision will result in the proliferation of

child pornography in America, unlike anything we have seen in

more than twenty years.'' He concluded that ``as a result of

the Court's decision, thousands of children will be sexually

victimized, most of whom will not report the offense.''

The Court stated that ``[f]ew pornographers would risk

prosecution by abusing real children if fictional,

computerized images would suffice.'' This conclusion is

simply wrong. The individuals who produce, trade, and

exchange child pornography are rarely profit motivated.

Pictures of abuse of real children are sold, but they are

also traded and displayed--they are trophies and signs of

validation for deviant behavior.

While the Supreme Court has certainly opened the door for

the adult entertainment industry to enter the child

pornography market, legalizing virtual child pornography will

not reduce the market for real children. Rather, the result

will be a market that contains both real and virtual children

(as it does now). The only difference is that now child

molesters will be able to hide their abuse with altered or

merely e-mailed photographs of their victims and the market

will no longer be underground but will return to the public

``adult book stores.''

Child pornography--virtual or otherwise--is detrimental to

the nation's most precious and vulnerable asset, our

children. Regardless of the method of its production, child

pornography is used to promote and incite deviant and

dangerous behavior in our society. As the President and CEO

of the NCMEC

testified ``there is compelling evidence that visual

depictions of sexually explicit conduct involving children

cause real physical, emotional and psychological damage not

only to depicted children but also to non-depicted children.

It is just as insidious, whether it is a photographic record

of a child's actual victimization, or a photographic

depiction used as a tool or device to subsequently victimize

other children.''

Sex predators produce, trade, and use child pornography for

several insidious purposes. Pedophiles not only like to

create a permanent record for arousal and gratification, but

also like to trade these pictures with other pedophiles to

validate their actions. Additionally, sex offenders use child

pornography to lower children's inhibitions to make them

believe that such behavior is acceptable and normal. There

are also those who sell it for profit.

Prior to 1982, child pornography lined the shelves of many

``adult'' entertainment stores. This changed after the 1982

Supreme Court's New York v. Ferber decision that found child

pornography was not entitled to First Amendment protection.

In Ferber, the Court found that: ``[i]t is evident beyond the

need for elaboration that a State's interest in `safeguarding

the physical and psychological well-being of a minor' is

`compelling.' '' Further the Court found that: ``[t]he

distribution of photographs and films depicting sexual

activity by juveniles is intrinsically related to the sexual

abuse of children in at least two ways. First, the material

produced are a permanent record of the children's

participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by

their circulation. Second, the distribution network for child

pornography must be closed if the production of material

which requires the sexual exploitation of children is to be

effectively controlled.''

While child pornography disappeared from bookstores

following Ferber, it did not disappear from existence.'' The

child pornography market merely went underground, but this

underground market was spurred by the advent of the Internet.

Nevertheless, law enforcement had begun to make enormous

strides in the enforcement and prosecution of child

pornography crimes.

Again, the Government has a compelling state interest in

protecting children from those who sexually exploit them

including both child molesters and child pornographers. The

Supreme Court in New York v. Ferber, concluded that ``[t]he

prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse of children

constitutes a government objective of surpassing

importance.'' In Osborne v. Ohio, the Court recognized that

this compelling state interest extends to stamping out the

vice of child pornography ``at all levels in the distribution

chain.''

It follows that the Government has a compelling interest to

ensure that the criminal prohibitions against child

pornography remain enforceable and effective. As the Court

stated in Ferber, ``[t]he most expeditious if not the only

practical method of law enforcement may be to dry up the

market for this material by imposing severe criminal

penalties on persons selling, advertising, or otherwise

promoting the product.''

It became apparent in the 1990's that advances in

technology threatened the Government's compelling state

interest in protecting real children through the effective

prosecution of the child pornography laws that cover the

visual depictions of real children. In 1996, the Congress

attempted to address this concern with the Child Pornography

Prevention Act. The 1996 language included a prohibition of

any virtual depictions as well as pictures of youthful-

looking adults. The Supreme Court found the 1996 statutory

language overbroad, and therefore, unconstitutional.

This legislation is constitutional as it narrows the

definition in significant ways and strengthens the

affirmative defense. Furthermore, there is a compelling state

interest for the narrowly drawn prohibition. The Government's

compelling state interest is to protect children from

exploitation. And the protection includes the prosecution of

those who would or do exploit children. The Court gave the

Congress an opportunity to addresses its concerns, and the

Congress has an obligation to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for his remarks.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains on our side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) the vice-chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a very active member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote; and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, as war begins in Iraq, Americans are rallying behind our Armed Forces. It is an extraordinary show of support for some of the finest men and women in America. They deserve our support and our gratitude.

Our soldiers confront the gravest threat of our time: the combination of rogue regimes, weapons of mass destruction and the forces of global terrorism. The cause of peace will prevail when terrorists lose a wealthy patron and protector--Saddam Hussein.

There is little doubt that Hussein will be fully disarmed. And the means of his disarmament will be carried out by the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. These are four institutions so identified with their commitment to honor, duty and country that words can never adequately convey their importance to the survival of freedom . . . to the survival of the United States of America.

On the eve of the war, Marine Major-General J.N. Mattis explained the mission to his Corps. They are words every American soldier in the Persian Gulf can embrace.

General Mattis said:

On your young shoulders rest the hopes of mankind. . . .

Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with

members of the Iraqi army who chose to surrender. While we

will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist,

we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry

and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a

lifetime under Saddam's oppression. . . .

For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of

the men who carried the Division's colors in past battle--who

fought for life and never lost their nerve--carry out your

mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world

there is ``No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy'' than a U.S.

Marine.

General Mattis deserves an enduring ``Semper Fi'' for inspiring our soldiers. We hope and pray for their safe return home.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time.

Today, America faces a national insurance crisis that is destroying our

health care system. Medical liability insurance rates have soared, causing insurers either to drop their coverage or raise premiums to unaffordable levels. Doctors and other health care providers have been forced to abandon patients and practices, particularly in high-risk specialties such as emergency medicine, brain surgery, and obstetrics and gynecology. This is an intolerable problem that cries out for a solution.

The American people understand the problem. A poll conducted in early February shows that 59 percent of all Americans believe the crisis should be solved either by reining in personal injury lawyers or by placing caps on the amounts juries can award. The obvious cause of skyrocketing medical professional liability premiums is escalating jury verdicts. The median medical malpractice jury award doubled between 1995 and 2000, from a half a million to $1 million. That does not reflect the huge costs of cases that do not result in jury awards. In fact, 70 percent of all medical malpractice claims result in no payments because claims are either dismissed or withdrawn.

The CEO of Methodist Children's Hospital in my hometown of San Antonio has seen his premiums increase from less than $20,000 to $85,000 in less than 10 years. He has been sued three times. In one case, his only interaction with the person suing was that he stopped by her child's hospital room and asked how the child was doing. Each jury cleared him of any wrongdoing, and the total amount of time all three juries spent deliberating was less than 1 hour. Of course, the doctor's insurance company did spend a great deal of time, effort and money in his defense.

Mr. Speaker, Congress can solve the current health care crisis, but it can solve it only by passing the HEALTH Act.

Mr. Chairman, ninety percent of all Americans oppose cloning human beings. And for good reason. The American public recognizes that cloning raises serious ethical questions. Scientists have cloned monkeys, cattle, pigs, mice and other animals. Because of this success, there are a growing number of groups who claim they can, and will, clone a human being. That prospect should worry us. Cloning is a manufacturing process--a scientific assembly line--devoid of procreation. Efforts to improve humanity should never spin out of control and devalue humanity, which is precisely what human cloning does.

Our values of faith and family are slowly eroding. Given that fact, we should be mindful that there are certain ethical lines we should never cross. One of the dehumanizing effects of the cloning process is the failure rate. It is extremely high. Those in favor of cloning humans often downplay that it took 277 stillborn, miscarried or dead sheep to make one Dolly. And what happens to those who survive? Attempts to clone human beings could carry massive risks of producing unhealthy, abnormal, and malformed children.

I favor a total ban on human cloning because if we allow cloning for any reason, we will be unable to control what is done with cloned embryos. No one is going to monitor every research laboratory. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Leadership and Members of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation to the House floor and in concluding the FY 2003 funding process.

This bill provides critical resources for essential and much needed scientific, research and advanced technology initiatives.

As a member of the Research Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, I would like to express appreciation for the continued funding of many valuable research programs, both within the government and for the commercial sector.

Funding continues for the many federal research programs, including NIH, NSF, NOAA, NASA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Within NIST, funding for the Advanced Technology Program is provided. ATP assists in the commercialization of promising technologies and provides federal resources that are much needed and scarce in the current economy and investment climate.

I would like to recommend an additional category for consideration in the use and awards of ATP funds for FY 2002-03 grants. Important advances in digital holographic technology are being developed, with broad applications for commercial as well as governmental uses, both defense and non-defense.

This important scientific work by mostly small companies has been funded through private capital, which is now largely unavailable at this critical period of technology development. With uses of this three-dimensional visualization technology pending in a number of critical areas, capital is needed to accelerate the R&D programs.

I urge NIST to include within the areas under consideration for ATP funding this emerging field of digital holographic technology and its great commercial potential.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced a measure to establish National Inventor's Day as February 11th.

Invention has been a part of our country since it was founded. In fact, today is the birthday of Thomas Edison, who was a great inventor and held over 2,000 patents. He is probably best known for having invented the light bulb, the motion picture camera, and the phonograph. He also discovered incandescent light and invented the electric miner's lamp.

Edison's inventive genius is reflected in many of our other great inventors. Other American inventions include everyday items such as scotch tape, the cell phone, and the sewing machine to technological marvels like the first microprocessor.

I would like to celebrate the inventors of our great country with this resolution.