Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, during our week of mourning for President Ronald Reagan, I want to take a moment to honor the life and memory of a great Reagan Republican, Jack Vaughan, who died June 11, 1994, at the age of 33. Jack campaigned for Ronald Reagan on both Presidential campaigns, worked for Newt Gingrich out of college, and served three terms in the Georgia General Assembly before falling victim to cancer 10 years ago.

Jack was a College Republican who really took Reagan's message of optimism to heart. His love for his country and State propelled him into public service and led him to three unopposed terms in the Georgia State House of Representatives. He was a leader to Cobb County, the State of Georgia, and served as inspiration for young Republicans seeking careers in public service.

Since his death in 1994, the Georgia Republican party has named their young Republican of the year award after Jack Vaughan, for the most distinguished individual going above and beyond his or her means to serve party and country.

Jack Vaughan was the son of Gretchen and Jack Vaughan; he is survived by his wife Diane Vaughan Rainey and son John Vaughan III.

Although Mr. Vaughn is no longer with us, his spirit of hard work and dedication lives on in the hearts and memories of all those who wish to better our country and see the worth and value of the American people and citizens of Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I am humble to be one of the many Americans from all across our Nation who are paying tribute to President Ronald Reagan this week.

Members of Congress, including myself, came to this floor in February to celebrate President Reagan's 93rd birthday, but it is with a sad heart tonight that we come to the floor of the House of Representatives to eulogize one of our greatest Presidents.

It was appropriate that Ronald Reagan, a small-town American from Dixon, Illinois, would make a career and a home in California, would represent the very best of American life. As Governor of California, President Reagan became adept at representing the diverse nature of our country and cared deeply for all Americans.

As he is laid to rest, Ronald Reagan's legacy for America will carry on eternally in the annals of history. Not since Lincoln and Roosevelt has one man touched the core of what it means to be an American: Through unity and strength, we can achieve peace; and through self- determination, responsibility and character, we can live the American dream.

Ronald Reagan restored faith in America during one of our darkest hours of self-doubt. He gave us hope and promise when we needed it most. Reagan's true legacy is the restoration of the dream that is America. Even with his passing, Reagan's sense of hope and strength lives on.

As someone who has been inspired by his leadership and courage in the face of the evil empire of the Soviet Union, I deeply thank President Reagan for restoring our Nation's confidence and our hope.

God bless you, Ronald Reagan, and may God continue to bless the America whose spirit of eternal optimism you helped renew.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the proud history of Newnan, Georgia, the Coweta County Seat, and the beautiful courthouse that has resided there for a century.

Mr. Speaker, on February 12, 1825, a group of Creek Indians led by General William McIntosh signed the Treaty of Indians Springs, in which they ceded their remaining land to Georgia. Subsequently, the Georgia General Assembly divided the land into five parcels, which would later become the counties of Lee, Muscogee, Troup, Coweta, and Carroll.

Coweta County was named for a group of Creek Native Americans that lived in and around Coweta, one of the largest and most important towns of the Lower Creek Nation, and to honor General McIntosh, the chief of the Coweta Towns. The official act of naming the county on December 11, 1826, took place in the home of James Caldwell, which then became the very first official courthouse of Coweta County.

For two more years, the Coweta County courts would meet in Mr. Caldwell's home until Newnan was designated the county seat and an official log courthouse was constructed in 1828. In 1904, the spectacular building that now stands was built.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the Coweta County Courthouse has a long and proud history and it has come a long way from its humble beginnings in a log cabin. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in commending the great work of the people who have dedicated so much to keep this courthouse beautiful and its history alive. I am proud to represent the good people of Coweta County in the House of Representatives and I look forward to being with them during this 100-year celebration.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, and I appreciate his great work on this legislation, as well as the gentleman from Michigan for this bipartisan bill.

I rise today in support of H.R. 4409, the Teacher Enhancement Act. It is a

bill I am proud to offer on behalf of our Nation's school teachers. H.R. 4409 will help ensure teacher-training programs produce well- prepared teachers to meet the needs of America's students.

The goals of the Teacher Training Enhancement Act are to increase student achievement, academic achievement, improve the quality of the current and future teacher workforce by improving teacher preparation and enhancing professional development activities, hold teacher- preparation programs accountable for preparing highly qualified teachers, and recruit highly qualified individuals from diverse ethnic and occupational backgrounds into the teaching profession.

As in current law, H.R. 4409 authorizes three types of competitive grant programs: the State grants, partnership grants, and teacher recruitment grants. The State grant funds must be used to reform teacher-preparation requirements, coordinate with the activities set forth under title II of the No Child Left Behind Act, and ensure that current and future teachers are indeed highly qualified. Programs administered through State grants will focus on effective teacher preparation, placing a renewed emphasis on the skills needed to meet the highly qualified standard.

The partnership grants allow effective partners to join together, combining strengths and resources to train highly qualified teachers and to achieve success in the classroom. Eligible partnerships now must include four partners: a high qualified teacher-preparation program at an institution of higher education; second, a college of arts and sciences; third, a high-need local education agency; and, this is new, fourth, a public or a private education organization.

These partnerships will require the faculty of the teacher- preparation program to serve with a highly qualified teacher in the classroom, allowing effective in-class experience to ensure that we do have highly qualified teachers who are truly prepared to teach.

As we work to hold teacher-preparation programs accountable for preparing teachers, the need to recruit individuals into the teaching profession will only increase. Teacher recruitment grants will help bring high-quality individuals into teaching programs and ultimately put more highly qualified teachers into the classroom. H.R. 4409 recognizes the need to ensure high-need local educational agencies are able to effectively recruit highly qualified teachers and will help answer that need by increasing the number of teachers being trained.

This bill also includes a new program which is based on provisions submitted to the Committee on Education and the Workforce by the United Negro College Fund and the Hispanic Education Coalition to authorize a teacher-preparation Center of Excellence at minority-serving institutions. This program will increase teacher recruitment and make institutional improvements to teacher-preparation programs at minority- serving institutions.

While current higher education law contains annual reporting and accountability requirements for institutions of higher education, these measures have proven ineffective in determining the true quality of teacher-preparation programs. H.R. 4409 adds an accountability provision to the Higher Education Act that will strengthen these current law provisions and hold teacher-preparation programs accountable for providing accurate and useful information about the quality of their program.

The bill is specifically designed to align teacher-preparation programs with the high standards for accountability on the results provided for in No Child Left Behind. The Teacher Training Enhancement Act places a strong focus on the quality of teacher preparation, and a renewed emphasis on the skills needed to meet the ``highly qualified'' definition found in No Child Left Behind.

H.R. 4409 recognizes flexibility should exist in the methods used for training highly qualified teachers, and it allows funds to be used for innovative teacher-preparation programs such as charter colleges which can provide an alternative gateway for teachers to become highly qualified.

The future competitiveness of our Nation will depend on our ability to strengthen education at all levels. We need to prepare our teachers so that they may fulfill the high standards for students' achievement outlined in the No Child Left Behind Act.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be offering this bill today which takes a step in the right direction to ensure that the teachers of tomorrow have access to the high-quality training they need and deserve. And I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill and stand in support of America's teachers.

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice, as I am sure many of my colleagues who are in the Chamber this evening noticed, the remarks of the gentleman from Washington State just a few minutes ago, talking about what Amnesty International thinks. Well, I want to remind my colleagues that Amnesty International is about as objective as the gentleman from Washington State; and if be anybody feels disgust toward this President, it is because of the harping and carping of people like that who really do not care about this country. They want to believe the Saddam Husseins of the world and not the President and Commander in Chief of this great country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening primarily to talk about----

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk a little bit about the situation in Baghdad at that Abu Ghraib prison and the reports of abuse by certain prison guards in one cell block.

A lot of the media, Mr. Speaker, has been suggesting that the reason this occurred was because General Miller had come from Guantanamo Bay where, over 2 years ago, we set up that facility for the enemy combatants that were captured in Afghanistan to detain them and that General Miller went over to Baghdad to Iraq to Abu Ghraib to advise them on how to obtain intelligence, actionable intelligence from the detainees, and because of that advice, this so-called ``GTMO-izing'' the operation in Iraq, this is what led to the abuse, that these miscreant few in this one cell block were not responsible because they were just simply following orders.

Well, Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to explain to my colleagues the opportunity that I had a week ago Tuesday to go to Guantanamo Bay, along with my colleague from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Florida. We were both asked to go by our chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, the honorable gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

So we had an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to go to Guantanamo Bay and see that operation firsthand. And I am proud, as I know and I feel very confident in listening to and talking with my colleague from Florida, that we did not see any abuse in Guantanamo Bay. We did not see any water torture. We did not see any use of dogs. We did not see any prisoner injury or abuse.

Mr. Speaker, what we saw, rather, was a very well-conceived, well- designed operation that included interrogation, yes, the obtaining of actionable intelligence in a humane way and in a very sophisticated way, and yet a detention facility that took into consideration the prayer activities of the detainees from Afghanistan. Indeed, in each and every cell, there was an arrow pointing to Mecca, to the east. There

were prayer beads, there were prayer caps, there was a Koran, and each of these detainees were treated in a very humane fashion.

So I would say this to my colleagues, that, indeed, if we are ``GTMO- izing'' the operation in Iraq, amen. That is what we need to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). I thank the gentleman from Kansas for reserving this hour and giving us this opportunity to talk about lifelong learning and preparing our men and women, indeed our children, our students for the 21st century workplace.

It is kind of interesting, we hear all this criticism. It seems like in this Presidential election cycle the big word is the O word, ``outsourcing,'' the outsourcing of jobs and decrying that. What is left out of that argument, of course, is the fact that with a global economy, with fair trade, you also balance that outsourcing, even though we wish no jobs would leave this country, with a lot of good jobs from insourcing.

I am a native Georgian and I represent, Mr. Speaker, the 11th District of Georgia; but I actually grew up in South Carolina just across the Savannah River on the State line, if you will. And I have seen that State, while losing over the years, the last 20 or 30 years, in fact, a number of textile jobs, unskilled jobs, in fact whole towns

were affected. The town of Graniteville, South Carolina, where my dad grew up, every job in that town was a textile job, of a cut and sew, highly unskilled job from generation to generation. And all those jobs were lost.

But, thank goodness because of a global economy today, in the State of South Carolina I know my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) just mentioned it, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) the good work that he has done representing my mom and my brother in South Carolina, I am sure if he were with us tonight he would talk about that BMW plant in Spartanburg, South Carolina, as I could talk about the Pirelli Tire Company up in Rome in my 11th District in Georgia.

So there is a balance. I think it is important that we make a point there, that we are concerned about losing jobs, but we are mighty thankful that there has been a lot of insourcing. And hopefully one day soon we will have more jobs coming into this country than we have had leaving the country. They will be better jobs. They will be better- paying jobs with better benefits.

But as my colleagues pointed out, we cannot attract those companies, we cannot provide these jobs unless we have an educated, highly skilled workforce. And what has happened in the past with our youngsters coming out of school without good skills in math and science and information technology, computer skills, what you see, of course, is in so many instances you do not have all these operators, you do not go back to the old television series, I Love Lucy, Mr. Speaker, when Lucy and Ethel were on that assembly line trying to keep up with those donuts. You do not have that anymore. You have a lot less need for people on the line, on the production line because they have to be skilled and they are running the computer. And a lot of this stuff is done by computer. These are good-paying jobs, but they require more skills than what we have had in the past.

That is what this hour really is all about, to talk about what this leadership, what this administration has brought forward. And certainly we lost some jobs since 9/11, nobody could control that; but the efforts that this Republican leadership, this Congress has put forward over just the 2 years that I have been here as a freshman Member. I am very proud to have had an opportunity to vote in support of things that help the lifelong learning process.

Just today, just today, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) mentioned, we had the opportunity to bring forward H.R. 4409, the Teacher Training Enhancement Act. Now, this is a bill that improves the skills of our teachers. And it is hand in glove with the No Child Left Behind Act that was passed in 2002, the year before I arrived here. And that was nothing but the reauthorization of elementary and secondary education, which was long overdue, which finally had some accountability in it and required that Federal dollars are being well spent at the local level. But there needs to be some accountability.

So if we are going to expect that no child will be left behind by the tenets of that legislation, then it is appropriate for us to also say colleges that teach our teachers, education colleges, you need to provide the highly skilled teachers that that law, No Child Left Behind, requires, that you produce these highly qualified teachers in the classroom by date certain. And they need to also be accountable just as we are expecting our superintendents and our teachers and principals at the local level to be accountable.

So this bill, and again, Mr. Speaker, I am proud that it was passed with wide, strong bipartisan support, as well it should be, because this just enhances the State grants, these partnership grants, teacher recruitment grants to make sure that not only are we doing a better job of teaching teachers, indeed making them highly qualified so that our youngsters in secondary education, before they get to higher ed, if they decide they want to go out into the workplace and take these highly skilled jobs that we are producing, then they are ready, they are ready to go. It is just very important that we do that.

So, again, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for allowing me to come and share some of my thoughts. And again it is bills like H.R. 4409 and other things that this Congress has done, this Republican leadership, that is going to result in not only almost a million jobs that we have created in the last 8 months but certainly we are going to continue to do that. I just commend my colleagues for that effort.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield, sure.

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the gentleman brought that up. There is no question that in my profession, as he pointed out as a physician, we are actually required on a 2-year cycle to take a certain number of hours of continuing education. And it has to be good hours. It is not a vacation meeting. It really has to be good continuing education requirement.

And this is, as my colleague points out, as it should be, because things change. And if we practice the same medicine in the 21st century that our great forefathers practiced back in the days of Little House on the Prairie when there were no antibiotics and you only did surgery as a last resort, today if we practiced in that manner, we would be practicing below the standard of care. And we would be subject to severe penalties, maybe even lose our license.

So it is very important. And just as you say, you cannot rely on those things that you learned when you are 10, 15 and even 20 years old. You have got to continue to upgrade your skills in any profession.

There is no question about that. And it makes me think, too, we are talking about this issue of outsourcing and the weeping and gnashing of teeth over that. But the very same people that are crying about outsourcing are the ones who for my profession will not give us an opportunity for a level playing field in regard to tort reform, will not help us pass meaningful legislation to bring fairness into class action lawsuits or product liability and put all these burdens on our small businesses, men and women who employ most of the people in this country. They create the jobs.

But yet it is not just wages that is causing us to lose these jobs. It is a lot of these burdensome rules and regulations that our competitors offshore do not have to abide by. So you are absolutely right.

We want people, my patients, I always want them to know. Whenever I completed that cycle, that 2-year cycle of particular education, I would put that little diploma in my office, hang it right there on the wall or in one of the exam rooms so they could look and see where I trained and am I up to date, absolutely essential.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for putting this time together for us tonight to make sure the Members of this body understand how important this new benefit is. And the gentlewoman's mention, of course, that I am a physician by profession, and I did that job for 30 years and certainly had lots of seniors, lots of Medicare patients and understand some of the hardships that they are going through, as she points out. She knows as well as I do, because her husband was also an OB-GYN physician for many years.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention something. I could not help as I came to this Chamber hearing one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Ohio, talking about how bad this program is and how the bill was passed in the dark of night after hours of debate. Mr. Speaker, as the gentlewoman said, I am an OB-GYN physician. I can tell you right now that my patients, they might have come in in the dark of night and delivered in the bright of day or they came in the bright of day and delivered in the dark of night. It does not matter. Just like an obstetrician, the Members of this body work 24 hours a day; and when we finally delivered a product, it was a beautiful baby. Just because it came at 5 o'clock in the morning, for the gentleman to suggest that we were trying to put something over on somebody.

And he also said, that gentleman from Ohio, talked about the pressure that the leadership on our side of the aisle put on three freshmen Members, freshmen Republicans, Mr. Speaker. I want to remind the gentleman from Ohio that there were about five freshmen on his sides of the aisle sitting in that front row just waiting until that vote changed so they could switch their no votes to a yes.

It is also important, Mr. Speaker, for the Members of this body and anybody who happens to have the opportunity to be paying attention, I hope the whole Nation is, that this bill, although in the House when it passed, December of last year, it was a close vote, absolutely a very close vote, but it was not a partisan vote. They are suggesting that this is a Republican bill. Well, certainly the Republican leadership had the guts to bring it forward, as did this President, the courage

to deliver on a promise, but this was a bipartisan bill. In fact, on our side of the aisle there was some 25 Republicans who voted no.

So certainly for them to suggest and to try to play this class warfare game, it goes back in fact to the elections of 2000, the old sorry loser man crowd, weeping and gnashing their teeth over the fact that they could not get the job done.

Mr. Speaker, people talk about how much you can get done, what a group of people or an organization can get done if nobody cares who gets the credit. It would seems to me that this harping and carping that we hear constantly from the other side of the aisle would suggest that they do care about who gets the credit or discredit. They are trying to discredit this program.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of any reason, none whatsoever, why a senior would not sign up for this prescription drug discounts card program that is going to be available to them over the next 18 months.

In fact, when I do my town hall meetings, and I just came from Columbus, Georgia, in my district, the 11th of Georgia, this morning we had a great town hall meeting at the senior center there. I talked to my seniors and said, look, if you can think of any reason, I want you to let me know. Because I want to bring that information back to the Committee on Ways and Means, back to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) back to the Subcommittee on Health, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), and I want to tell them about it. I want to make sure we have not missed anything. But I can tell my colleagues with a straight face, Mr. Speaker, that I can think of no reason.

Now when we get to the part D, the new Medicare prescription drug insurance program, optional program under traditional, as you know it, Medicare, or the Medicare advantage, seniors have a choice of that. And there will be maybe 40, 50 percent of them who will find that they already have something that is better, whether that is Medigap insurance coverage or they have health insurance coverage with a prescription drug benefit from a previous employer that they worked for for 30 or 40 years or whether they have TRICARE for life. There will be a number of seniors who decide that they already have something that is serving them perfectly well, and they decline this optional Medicare prescription drug benefit.

But to decline this card today, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) points out, if you are low income, and we estimate that a third of the 41 million seniors who are on Medicare will be eligible for this credit, this $600 credit plus the discount that will be affected on their medications up to 15 to 20 percent, why in the world would the other side of the aisle, the minority leader, tell her Members, go out and tell your constituents, tell your seniors not to sign up for the prescription drug card?

Well, I am going to tell you what. If they do that, let them do that. That is fine. When their constituents find out that their friends and neighbors and other seniors across this country are getting this discount, and many of them are getting the $600 credit, not just for 1 year but for 2 years, then I am telling you they are going to charge their Members with malfeasance of office is what they are going to do.

I think it is so unfair to suggest to just block something because they are so concerned about who gets the credit. I do not care who gets the credit. As I say, this was a Republican and a Democratic bill, a bipartisan bill, both in this Chamber and in the other Chamber. So let us get over that. Let us get over this sore loser man stuff and let us try to bring the benefits to the seniors. Because they have been waiting a long time. In fact, they have waiting 39 years. That is how long it has been since the original Medicare, when the first person to sign up for part B was former President Truman.

There is so much and the gentlewoman from Connecticut is so kind to give me some time, and I do not want to abuse that opportunity. I appreciate her letting me speak on this tonight. It is very, very important for people to understand that this discount card can only help you.

As the gentlewoman pointed out, you go to 1-800-Medicare, and the Secretary, Mr. Thompson, has hired 1,200 new people to man those phone lines, or go on line at www.Medicare.gov. It is simple as she said. You put in the zip code. And the most important thing is when you go on line or on the telephone is to know what medications you are on, know that price, know how often you take it, what the strength is. And then you see what cards are available to you and what cards give you the best discount. It is that simple.

I really appreciate the gentlewoman giving me the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, tonight to talk about this. It is so important. There are a few of us physician Members in this body. We do not have all the answers. In fact, I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut has a whole lot more answers than we do, as all the members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy of Commerce, I commend them for the work they have put in to giving us this interim program as we wait for the full Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2006.

Mr. Speaker, since May 3, the first day that seniors could sign up for a Medicare prescription drug discount card, I have had the opportunity to hold workshops at senior centers in Smyrna, Cedartown, Rome, Cartersville, Talbotton, and Thomaston, all cities in Georgia's 11th Congressional District.

Here is what I tell the people at these town hall meetings: call 1- 800-Medicare, everybody can do that, or visit www.medicare.gov on the Web and find out which card will save you the most money and sign up ASAP. It is that simple. All the naysayers want to convince seniors that signing up for the card is too confusing or will not save them any money. I cannot think of any reason why any senior should not sign up for the card.

Beneficiaries with incomes of less than $12,000 for an individual or $16,000 for a couple, they get $600 in addition to the discount on the card. That is a total of almost $20 million in additional help for 16,500 seniors in Georgia's 11th District for 2004 and 2005.

Yes, we have already seen the power of market forces at work. The prices are coming down, and it is not by government price controls. For seniors who have struggled to buy drugs, they certainly are better off now than they were 4 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time.

What a fantastic way to recognize the veterans of all of our wars, but of course this, as we know, the wearing of the poppy, it all started after World War I, and it is talked about in the resolution.

But it was a physician from Canada, Dr. John McCrae, who had a friend who was killed in Belgium and was buried at Flanders Fields, and Dr. McCrae himself, later on, in that war to end all wars, died of pneumonia on the battlefield and never made it back to his practice in Canada. But before he died, of course, he wrote that great poem that we will know today ``In Flanders Field,'' and the last stanza of that poem I think went something like:

``To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be it yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.''

And what Dr. McCrae was saying to us and to future generations and to all generations was, never forget, no matter what battle it was, whether it was the Civil War or Operation Iraqi Freedom today, these young men and women are dying for a cause; and whether one agrees with them or not, they had no choice.

In many cases, they were conscripted. Today, we have an all-volunteer military, but they are there defending our freedom, and many of them are paying the ultimate sacrifice.

So that is what this poppy says. And for me to have a little opportunity today just before Memorial Day to talk about this and to support H. Con. Res. 424, I am very proud to do that. What a wonderful way to honor our men and women in the military.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4200, and I would like to commend the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Missouri for their tireless efforts in support of our soldiers, our sailors, airmen and Marines who are bravely defending us at home and abroad.

Mr. Chairman, this is the Year of the Soldier. The bill before us clearly reflects that objective. The bill does a remarkable job of covering a wide scope of issues that are vitally important to our armed services. From survivor benefit improvements to the 3.5 percent across- the-board pay raise that H.R. 4200 authorizes, this bill addresses the most pressing needs of our troops in a very trying time for this country. For our Reservists who experience a reduction in their income while away from their civilian jobs, there are income replacement payments. For our deployed soldiers, H.R. 4200 contains almost $830 million for up-armored Humvees and $358 million for vehicle add-on armor kits.

I am also grateful for the work that the Committee on Armed Services has done to fully fund the F/A-22 program this year. In particular, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), my subcommittee chairman, for doing this and making sure that we got this vitally important program fully funded.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman from California for the full funding for these 24 planes. It will go a long way toward providing stability for that program and ensuring that America maintains air dominance for the next 30 years.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Missouri for their hard work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to claim the time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Georgian who has lived to witness almost half our State's history. Born in 1902, Mrs. Mae Bell Carter of Woodland, Georgia, will turn 102 years young on May 29.

Mrs. Carter was born in Woodland, married in Woodland, and raised her family in Woodland. Needless to say, she is a fixture in that community and the mother of the mayor and a member of the city council. Mrs. Carter obviously instilled in her children the heart for public service that she has personified for her entire life.

Mr. Speaker, she was long a member of the ``Mothers Board'' that performed missionary work for the people of Talbot County, nursing the sick and bringing food to the less fortunate. Perhaps her enthusiasm for mission work springs from her long affiliation with the aptly named Friendship Baptist Church in Woodland where she has been a member for at least 90 years.

Her family says in all her years she has been as fashionable as she has been charitable. She is always finely attired and actually walked every day to the post office wearing high-heel shoes. I can attest to this, Mr. Speaker. I met with her recently during a Medicare prescription drug card town hall meeting down in Talbot County. What a fine, distinguished lady she is and a credit to my district, to the State of Georgia, and to the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my fellow House Members on behalf of the people of Talbot County and Georgia's 11th Congressional District, the district that I am so privileged to represent in west Georgia, to join me tonight in wishing Mrs. Mae Bell Carter a happy and a blessed 102nd birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for organizing this Special Order tonight.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to pay tribute really to the courage, the commitment, and the endurance of our service men and women. And specifically I would like to spend a few moments kind of reflecting on the tremendous job that our troops have been doing in Iraq.

We must never forget that our American forces are primarily responsible for one of the most complex and awesome military successes in history. And the overwhelming majority of our troops did it with compassion, with care for the dignity and the basic human rights of the Iraqi people.

Remember that our military, our military, liberated 25 million Iraqi citizens in just over 3 short weeks. And when we include Afghanistan, American troops have now liberated over 50 million people from oppressive regimes.

Yet despite this military success story, Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of another time in which so much precious time and treasure have been invested in the reconstruction of another country. An international coalition led by America is now building new, modern power plants, a totally new phone system, and nearly 2,500 schools.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan I know has been to Iraq several times, has been to Afghanistan, been to Libya. He has seen what I saw

the one opportunity that I had to visit Iraq just before Christmas of 2003, and at that time Fallujah was a little more peaceful than it is today. And I remember General Swanick took us on a patrol. We were in a situation where things were relatively stable. We obviously could not do that today, but we went in those Humvees with those soldiers of the 101st, and we visited a school, which by our standards, Mr. Speaker, one probably would not want their child in a building that has no air conditioning and no heat. It is lighted, but there is not a nice playground or anything like that. But, by golly, there is a chalkboard, and those kids were there and not only little male children but of course for the first time probably in 30 years little precious female children were able to get an education. They were sitting there. They were bright eyed, and they were hopeful. And that is what we were doing in Fallujah before Sadr and all of these terrorist thugs started killing everybody just wantonly and the mass destruction that is going on there right now.

But, I mean, this is the kind of thing that we were doing. More than 8.7 million textbooks have been printed and distributed throughout Iraq; 32,000 secondary school teachers and administrative staff have been trained to teach Iraqi children; 240 hospitals; 1,200 health clinics. Health care spending in Iraq has increased 30 times over its prewar. Five million children have been immunized for measles, mumps, and rubella. That is because of the liberation and the compassion that this country has brought to Iraq.

And I know the gentleman from Michigan has seen so much of that and agrees with me that the good stories are not being told. All of us are appalled with the activity of a miscreant few in that Abu Ghraib prison there in Baghdad and what they did is unforgivable. There is no excuse for that, and they will pay the price.

But it is a shame that we have got 165,000 brave men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and 25,000 coalition forces that are laying it on the line and indeed sometimes paying the ultimate sacrifice to do the right thing, and that is the message that of course does not get the soundbites on this 24-hour news that we have to literally put up with every day in this country. But we are here tonight, and I am just so pleased to have an opportunity. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for allowing me to join with him and talk about the good things that we are doing, and at the end of the day we will succeed in this mission.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank him, too, I really appreciate the historical perspective that he brings to this debate, because we learn from our history. God help us if we do not learn from our history. We repeat the same mistakes.

But the bottom line here is, as the gentleman from Michigan was explaining at the top of the hour, we had 10 years, we had a lot of time, where the gentleman mentioned the USS Cole, the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the embassies, and it goes on and on. What did we do? It was a series of drawing a line in the sand, and let me suggest not a very deep one, and a series of double-dog-dare-you.

And what happened? The Twin Towers attack on September 11, 2001. I want to remind, Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues, that that indeed was not the first attack. It happened in 1993. And what did we do? It is just like, you bomb an aspirin factory?

The gentleman from Michigan put it in such great perspective. We are hearing from the other side, and you are going to hear it for the next 6 months of this presidential election year, we know it, we have heard it, we have heard all about campaign rhetoric, are you better off than you were 4 years ago? They are trying to borrow a phrase from a great president, President Reagan. And what a wonderful job he did, probably one of the greatest presidents we ever had.

I will tell you, like the gentleman from Michigan said, we are better off than we were 4 years ago. But it is not so much important are we better off, but the world is better off. The world is a better place. It is kind of like borrowing from Charles Dickens in the Tale of Two Cities, on that first page, the first paragraph, when he said, It is the worst of times, it is the best of times.

Well, in many ways it is the worst of times. It is always a bad time, a very bad time when we are losing men and women who are paying the ultimate sacrifice defending this country. Even though we agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said that every now and then the Tree of Liberty has to be nourished again by the blood of patriots.

That is what is going on today. Those are the worst of times, but they are the best of times, because we, by the grace of God, have a Commander-in-Chief, a leader of this country, that is a man of faith, a God-fearing President with resolute determination, and he will lead this country out of the morass that we find ourselves in, because it is the right thing to do.

I am so appreciative for having an opportunity to share a little time with the gentleman from Michigan, because the story needs to be told.

That is exactly right. As the gentleman said, back in the previous administration, they scrubbed it to the extent that if you had ever had a history of spitting on the sidewalk or jaywalking, you were ineligible to work for the CIA or work in our intelligence.

You have got to fight fire with fire. These are bad guys. When you think of somebody in retaliation, as they might say, or retribution, because we had a few miscreants mistreating, horribly mistreating, and we do not condone that, in one cell block in Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, so, tit-for-tat, you chop off the head of a 26-year-old young man who is in Baghdad, who has a history of being compassionate and wanting to help people and do the right thing and maybe restore some communication networks in Iraq. That is what we are dealing with.

So, it is absolutely right. We fell asleep at the switch. But not in this administration. Not on this watch and this president. He immediately responded after 9/11 and told us, and reminded us, this war against terrorism, this is not going to end with the capture of Osama bin Laden. This does not end because we have found Saddam Hussein. He told us 2\1/2\ years ago that this war on terrorism is a global war, and it is something that is going to be with us for a long time.

These oceans no longer protect us. It is easy for people to forget.

I want to make one other point, if the gentleman from Michigan will allow me a little bit more time. You know, somebody told me today, I did not realize this, but I went to a movie recently, the premier of ``Ike,'' starring Tom Selleck, a great movie about the lead-up to Normandy, Operation Overlord, and the agony, of course, they went through in trying to time that mission and train the troops on the coast of England.

I did not realize that they actually practiced the invasion of Normandy there on the beaches in England. Of course, a lot of live fire was used practicing that invasion to make sure they got it just right, and over 700 of our soldiers were killed practicing for Normandy, for D-Day, because they were using live fire. There were some accidents that occurred, but we lost over 700 soldiers in the preparation for Normandy.

What if the our Greatest Generation, what if we were in a digital world back then and all that news got out to the 24 hour news network, and, oh my God, what would have happened? Maybe D-Day never would have occurred.

I realize, of course, we have lost over 700 by comparison, maybe 800 now in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we need to put it in perspective. If you ask the Greatest Generation, what should be our exit strategy in Iraq, they would quickly tell you the exit strategy is to win; to win. You do not pull your team off in the fourth quarter because the going gets tough. That is when the tough get going. That is with what made that generation the Greatest Generation.

I think today we may have an even greater generation with these young men and women, these 135,000, 140,000

active component, Guard and Reserve over there laying it on the line for us, spilling their blood to nourish that Tree of Liberty. It makes me very proud of them, and humble as a Member of Congress.

But we have got to stay the course. We have got to continue to, as the gentleman from Michigan has said, to let the American people understand, to know, to put this in the right perspective.

The gentleman is wearing a poppy in his lapel as most of us did today. He continues to wear his, and I am proud of him for that.

Memorial Day is coming up pretty soon, and we all know the symbol of the poppy. And we passed a resolution today honoring those who have served. Our country is almost 230 years old. We have had a lot of conflicts, and that poppy represents our tribute to the fallen many in multiple conflicts.

I cannot help but think about that poem at a time like this that was written by a physician, a surgeon, a Canadian, Doc McCrae, when his best friend was killed in Flanders, Belgium, and buried on their hallowed ground where those poppies grow. It was inspiration to Dr. McCrae to write that poem that we all know so well today.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure my memory reciting poetry is that good, but I do remember that last stanza is, a short poem, a very short poem. It went something like:

``Take up our quarrel with the foe, to you from failing hands we pass the torch, be yours to hold it high, for if you break faith with us who die, we shall not sleep, though poppies grow in Flanders Field.''

Mr. Speaker, it says it all. It is just what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) was referring to. We owe such a debt of gratitude to these brave men and women who have paid it, an ultimate sacrifice, to those soldiers at Walter Reed or at Bethesda who are over there trying to rehabilitate and get used to wearing those prostheses because they have lost a limb or maybe multiple limbs.

It is very easy to stand here in the House, and sometimes some of our colleagues are awfully critical in talking again about the exit strategy, and we will probably hear some of that later on tonight from the other side. But I think that is absolutely despicable when these men and women, no matter what the cause, have paid that price.

You go back and you talk about the Civil War, you talk about the Korean conflict, you talk about Vietnam where we lost 58,000 men and some women in that conflict. But let me, if I can, just to kind of put it in perspective to bring some reality to it.

Yeah, we had some thugs running that cell block in Abu Ghraib that no

matter how much training they may have received, there is no excuse, because what they did, it does not take $50,000 worth of military training to teach them that it is wrong. Any Boy Scout or Girl Scout that follows the creed and knows the Scout oath would never, would never do a thing like that.

But let me just talk a little bit about one, just one of the brave many who serve and, in this particular instance, paid the ultimate sacrifice for his country and does it the right way. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker.

``The President of the United States takes pride in presenting the Silver Star posthumously to Gunnery Sergeant Jeffrey E. Bohr, Jr., United States Marine Corps, for service as set forth in the following citation:

``For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action against the enemy while serving as Company Gunnery Sergeant, Company A, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 5, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on 10 April 2003. With his company assigned the dangerous mission of seizing a presidential palace in Baghdad and concerned that logistical resupply might be slow in reaching his comrades once they reached the objective, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr selflessly volunteered to move in his two soft-skinned vehicles with the company's main armored convoy. While moving through narrow streets toward the main objective, the convoy took intense small arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire. Throughout this movement, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr delivered accurate, effective fires on the enemy, while encouraging his Marines and supplying critical information to his company commander.

``When the lead vehicles of the convoy reached a dead end and were subjected to enemy fire, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr continued to boldly engage the enemy while calmly maneuvering his Marines to safety. Upon learning of a wounded Marine in a forward vehicle, Gunnery Sergent Bohr immediately coordinated medical treatment and evacuation. Moving to the position of the injured Marine, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr continued to lay down a high volume of suppressive fire, while simultaneously guiding the medical evacuation vehicle, until he was mortally wounded by enemy fire.

``By his bold leadership, wise judgment, and complete dedication to duty, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest tradition of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.''

God bless him, Mr. Speaker. We all need to remember people like Gunnery Sergeant Jeffrey Bohr.

The gentleman is so right. He referred earlier about the McDonald's mentality. Of course, meaning no disrespect to a great company. Just suggesting at that time ``quick fix,'' the fast delivery which that company is so well respected for, that is just not what happens in a situation like we are in in Iraq. And in the 24-hour news networks, of course, it is one sound bite after another.

And as the gentleman said, and I asked when I was in Iraq, I asked some of the soldiers, and unfortunately, when they get a break from those patrols or they are in those Humvees, whether they are up-armored or after-market armored or unarmored and they are on those dangerous missions. They probably go 12, 14-hour, 16-hour shifts and they get back to the billet and maybe they have access to relax, knowing that they have to go back out the next day and do it all over again and every day their lives are at risk. So sure they watch television. And it is just unbelievable what they are seeing and the discouragement.

God forbid if they are tuning into some of the coverage of what they hear here in the halls of Congress; you would think that they would get a little bit discouraged. It is funny how sometimes you hear the opposition say, Oh, we support the troops. The troops we love. They are brave men and women. We support the troops, but, hey, you know, the coach sucks.

You just put it in perspective of a high school football team. If the booster club says, We want the boys to go out there. We love them. They are doing a great job, but we do not like the coach. We question all the plays. Pretty soon it gets down to the players and they are not going to win too many games that season and that is what you are seeing here, that sort of thing.

The Iraqi people, they were not as fortunate as we were in this great country called the United States of America. We were born to freedom.

Our Forefathers bought and paid for that, and certainly all of us today never knew anything different. We have freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech. We take it for granted, unfortunately.

These people, the Iraqi people, the 25 million most of whom are good people.

They have never known that. So it is going to take a long time, Mr. Speaker, for them to understand, to get the feel of that, and yet we hear from the other side, well, Mr. President, what is your exit strategy. Indeed, indeed.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman for bringing this hour to our colleagues in the House on both sides of the aisle and for giving me an opportunity to share with him this time because it is so important.

Mr. Speaker, it is so important for not just American people but for those men and women who are over there in harm's way defending our freedom and liberty and allowing us to sleep well at night and to hopefully bring in peace, democracy, liberty, freedom that we enjoy, that we take for granted, to the people in the Middle East.

I think that we just need to remember that our every waking hour and never forget what they are doing for us and we are doing the right thing, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan for being courageous to bring this time to the American people, but especially to those men and women who maybe, yes, they just came off patrol from Fallujah or the Sunni triangle or hottest of the hot spots in Iraq, and they take that backpack off and that body armor off and they take off their boots and they relax a little bit and they turn on the television and hopefully maybe they are watching what we are saying tonight, and I hope they are because they need to know that people like the gentleman from Michigan, a distinct leader in this 108th Congress, we believe in them and we are going to support them, and we are going to stick with them, and we are going to see them to the end, and we are going to have victory for the world, not just for the United States of America.

Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand this ``Dear Colleague'' letter, one of several, actually, from the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). This one is titled ``Keep Science Out of the `Political and Ideological Shredder.' '' It goes on to quote articles in several newspapers, including my own, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

This is what the Atlanta Journal-Constitution said about this President. On the political censoring of a report on health care disparities, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution concluded that, to paraphrase rhythm and blues legend Sam Cooke, top aides in the Bush administration do not know much biology, and I am old enough to remember that song, I did not know much about trigonometry, or the French he took, but he did know that 1 and 1 is 2. The Atlanta Journal- Constitution very conveniently left that part of the verse out, that he did know 1 and 1 is 2.

That cuts right to the matter. All of these rules and regulations and all of this science they are talking about and the politicization of it, what we are talking about is having rules and regulations based on good science that makes sense. We hear from the other side and some of the Members who are supporting this amendment this whole spring, talking about outsourcing of jobs and all of the jobs that are lost by this administration over the last 3 years; and they conveniently forget that we are losing a lot of jobs because of these burdensome rules and regulations, many of which, as Sam Cooke knew years ago when he wrote that song, could be a little bit nonsensical.

But he did know 1 and 1 is 2, and that is what this President and this administration knows, and that is why this bill, H.R. 2432, is a good one and that is why this Waxman-Tierney amendment is a bad one.

The Waxman amendment would not result in paperwork reduction or regulatory improvement. The amendment is purely a political attack on the Bush administration and asserts that political considerations have undermined the quality and use of science.

Listen to what President Bush's science adviser, Dr. Marburger, recently stated, ``The President believes that policies should be made with the best and most complete information possible and expects his administration to conduct its business with integrity and in a way that fulfills that belief.''

Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill and it is a bad amendment. I stand to oppose the amendment and support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) bringing this timely discussion before Congress. As the gentleman has so carefully pointed out, it was yesterday, the very first day that seniors would have an opportunity to go, as the gentleman mentioned, on the Web site or pick up the telephone and just dial 1-800-Medicare, and find out which prescription drug discount cards are offered in their area. You just put in the ZIP Code. For me it is 30064 in Cobb County, Georgia. You find out which cards are offered in your area, and where is the closest drugstore which accepts one of these prescription discount drug cards. We had a great turnout. We probably had 60 seniors at the senior center in my district, the 11th Congressional District of Georgia. I think they were very pleased. There were some great questions.

And certainly this bill, if you look at the whole of it, and my colleagues have explained it very well tonight, yes, it can be a little bit confusing and that certainly is true. A lot of people, as mentioned, do not like change, and it is going to take a little while to get used to this, but help is there. The Secretary of HHS has hired an additional 1,400 people on the Medicare system just to man these call centers. Yes, those jobs are new jobs created in this country, they are not outsourced jobs. These people are sitting in front of a computer, and seniors who are not so comfortable sitting in front of a computer, all they have to do is respond to the questions, and they will get a list of the cards and they will put in the medications they are on, maybe it is 3 or 5, and the dose, and how many times a day they take those medications, and they will be able to compare.

If there are three cards available in their area, they will know how much discount they get on each one of those prescriptions. Obviously, they will want to choose the card that gives them the best deal.

I want to commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite) because when we first were discussing this bill, how about these pharmaceutical companies that offer discount cards, and usually they give these discounts and incentive programs to those people that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) was talking about, those that are on a fixed income, living at or near the Federal poverty level, so the pharmaceutical companies have helped in that regard. Typically, though, they only offer discounts on the drugs that they sell.

What I tell my seniors, as they look for the Medicare discount card, and maybe it covers 2 out of the 3 medications that they are on that gives a good discount, but on the third, if it does not, it may be that they have a discount card from that pharmaceutical company that makes that drug, and so they can use their cards in combination. Much credit for that goes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) because she made sure that these companies submitted letters. As we were debating passage of the Medicare bill with the prescription drug benefit part D, she ensured that these companies pledge not to drop these programs, and I certainly commend her for that.

Mr. Speaker, one thing more I want to say about this bill. You have heard the expression that a group can accomplish great things, a team can accomplish an unlimited number of things if nobody cares who gets the credit. Now that is true, but I am, unfortunately, learning more and more in politics all too often it is really about who gets the credit. Politicians care too much, especially in a Presidential election year. Some of the opposition we are getting from the other side of the aisle as we debated that bill, and even now, it reminds me of the 2000 Presidential election.

I would say to them, do not go back to that sore-loser mentality. Get over it. Republicans and this President passed a bill that you guys were never able to pass. You made a promise, but you did not deliver on it, and now you are mad because this President did deliver on his promise, and this Republican-led Congress have finally given the seniors something that they have desperately needed.

But I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, join with us, take some of the credit. Indeed, a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted to support the bill. But to continue to scare seniors, to talk about this new Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act that my two colleagues have so carefully outlined the benefits of, to say that that is a fraud on the seniors and it is just an election-year ploy or a sellout to the pharmaceutical industry, this is unconscionable, to scare these seniors. And when we talk to them in our districts, of course, we have to spend maybe the first 15 minutes of the hour trying to overcome some of that negative, inaccurate Mediscare rhetoric.

I would say to my colleagues, it is time. Embrace this bill. It is a wonderful thing. It is not perfect. Few bills are. I do not think I have ever seen any that did not need at some point some tweaking. But it is a great step in the right direction; and as the gentleman from New Mexico has so clearly stated, it gives the best benefit for the seniors who need it the most. In fact, it is an absolute godsend for seniors who have to choose between medication and food and utilities and a roof over their head. That is the safety net.

Yes, we wish we could do more; but as has already been stated, instead of costing, whether you estimated this at $400 billion or $520 billion, what the Democrats wanted to do on the other side of the aisle would have cost $1.75 trillion. Of course, we would like to be able to afford to do these things, but at a time when we are trying to win the war in Iraq and equip and protect our troops and shore up our Department of Homeland Security, there is just not enough money to do that.

I would say to my colleagues, get on board, join with us, take some of the credit and you will deserve it.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Of course, that is a peripheral issue; but certainly it is an issue of great concern. I thank my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, on both sides of the aisle in the House when over a year ago, in fact, H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act of 2003, was passed in this Chamber. What I will always stress, Mr. Speaker, is that the medical liability reform issue, tort reform, if you will, is really all about balancing the playing field, leveling the playing field. I think that is our responsibility as Members of this Congress, to always try to have a balanced playing field and not to give one side a tremendous, unfair advantage to the detriment of the majority. I think that is what is happening now in our legal justice system, particularly in regard to the practice of medicine.

Again, I do not, Mr. Speaker, try to paint with a broad brush every good attorney in this country and some of whom, yes, practice personal injury law and represent their clients well, but there are so many frivolous lawsuits; and as the gentleman from New Mexico says, it is causing us huge problems of access. The bottom line is not so much the physician's bottom line, but it is the patient's bottom line. Of course, when a doctor stops his practice, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman mentioned so many are doing in his district in New Mexico, it is not just a loss of a physician. It is also maybe a loss of 15 or 25 jobs in his or her office. It is a huge issue.

I appreciate the fact that the gentleman mentioned it in the context of talking about health care, talking about the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act. It is all interrelated. This President and this Congress can understand that, this Republican leadership, Mr. Speaker. That is why we wanted to get these things accomplished. We are unfortunately continuing to wait on the other body. But we did get this Medicare bill passed, in fact, by a large majority of the other body.

As I was saying earlier, it is time for our colleagues to get on board. Take some of the credit for some good that you have done even though we had to drag you kicking and screaming. I do appreciate the gentleman bringing it up.

Just on that thought, the other side of the aisle always takes a lot of credit for being the party of women's rights. Yet they are certainly overlooking a tremendous women's right in regard to this particular bill, and I think the gentlewoman from Florida was just alluding to that.

Women live 4 or 5 years longer, maybe 85 years compared to us male counterparts, about 81 years. Many of them who work get into the workforce a little bit late in life, maybe they are choosing to raise a family, to be a mom, to be a grandmom; and they never quite catch up in their income level, even though in some instances they are doing the same work. And so more of them, a disproportionate share of women are the ones who are living and many times single at or near that Federal poverty level. They have got, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of health care needs, of course, and a lot of prescriptions, whether it is something for osteoporosis or high blood pressure, cholesterol or maybe even chemotherapy to control cancer. They are in desperate need.

So I say to my colleagues across the aisle, if you want to truly be the party of women's rights, then you certainly ought to support this bill.