Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the life of a true American hero, Specialist Justin Johnson from Floyd County, Georgia. Specialist Johnson was killed in action on April 10, 2004, when he was hit by shrapnel from a roadside bomb in Iraq. He is the first soldier from Floyd County to fall in our effort to free the Iraqi people.

Like countless others after 9/11, Justin felt called to serve and protect his country, so he enlisted in the Army. Prior to enlisting in the Army, Justin worked construction with his father, Joe, who was himself a retired soldier. By enlisting, Justin proudly followed in the footsteps of his father and his older brother, Josh, who is currently stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Like his father, Justin was a forward artillery observer.

On April 10 Justin had only been in Baghdad 8 days when he was riding gunner on a Humvee and paid the ultimate price. His mother received word of his death when she returned home from church on Easter Sunday and just 2 weeks after undergoing major surgery. The news came to her as her husband, Justin's father, was joining a National Guard unit in Washington State that was preparing to deploy to Iraq so as to be with his son in the defense of our Nation. As they had earlier on the construction site, Justin and his father would have worked together, worked in the rebuilding of Iraq and assuring their freedom and protecting the world from terrorism.

I recently had the opportunity to visit with Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, and I was moved by their reaction to this tragic event. When I spoke to them, all they could say was that their loss had only made them more resolute in their conviction about the rightness of this war; and Mrs. Johnson was especially vocal about how America's efforts have given her, and all Americans, a freedom from fear. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson remain firm in their support of President Bush's stand in Iraq and declared that he is a ``true man of God.''

At Specialist Johnson's funeral, when a bugler began to play taps and the honor guard fired a rifle volley, Joe Johnson saluted his son for the last time as they laid him to rest. Justin was posthumously awarded a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for his heroic service.

Mr. Chairman, this is a proud American family giving all that they have to their country and more. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson are to be commended and honored for their sacrifice, and my thoughts and prayers remain with them as they endure this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3970) to provide for the implementation of a Green Chemistry Research and Development Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3970.

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert); the ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon); the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), and all of my Committee on Science colleagues for their hard work in bringing this important bipartisan piece of legislation through committee and before the House floor today.

In particular, I would like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and their staffs for continuing to work with us on this legislation.

The resulting manager's amendment is truly a bipartisan bill. Defined as the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances, green chemistry represents an emerging field with much promise.

As a chemistry major trained in traditional chemistry at the Georgia Institute of Technology, I am very excited about the potential environmental, economic and human health benefits of green chemistry. Preventing pollution and waste in the first place is

often cheaper than mitigating and cleaning it up later, and the development of new products and processes will help spur economic growth.

Currently, many chemical processes are conducted at extreme temperature and/or pressure, two conditions that present a risk for workers. Also, many chemical processes involve toxic substances. Green chemistry aims to design processes that can be conducted at or near room temperature and pressure and that actually use benign materials. Both of these steps improve working conditions for employees. Yet, despite all of the promises of green chemistry, the Federal Government invests very little in this area.

H.R. 3970, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act, will establish a research and development program to promote and coordinate Federal green chemistry research, development, demonstration, education and technology transfer activities within the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy.

This legislation provides modest and prudent focus in an area that, frankly, deserves greater Federal attention. The program will support research and development grants, including grants for university, industry, and nonprofit partnerships. It will support green chemistry research at Federal labs, promote education through curricula development and fellowships, and collect and disseminate information about green chemistry.

H.R. 3970 is fiscally prudent in these times of budgetary constraints by obtaining funding for this program from sums already authorized to be appropriated at the four agencies I mentioned, and it does not authorize the expenditure of any new money.

Traditional chemical companies, pharmaceutical companies, carpet and rug manufacturers and biotechnology corporations, all who we have heard from in committee hearings, have endorsed H.R. 3970, showing a broad range of support for the merits of this legislation. They all realize that the advancement of green chemistry is positive for their industries, the environment, the economy as a whole, and all of our Nation's citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), who is a cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the honorable chairman of the House Committee on Science.

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Research.

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

Mr. Speaker, while the full potential of green chemistry is yet to be realized, H.R. 3970 will place us, as the chairman just said, on the right path to research in reaching that potential. I urge all of my colleagues to support the bipartisan Green Chemistry Research and Development Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to celebrate the life of a great Georgia citizen. Alfred Mansour of LaGrange, Georgia, passed away April 17, 2004. He was a great example of how love for church, family and business can unify, strengthen and better an entire community.

Alfred Mansour was a man of family and faith who lived a life of service to his community. In the business world, Alfred Mansour was the first president of Mansour's, Incorporated, which included his family's business, Mansour's Department Store, a cornerstone of the LaGrange business community.

After serving his country during World War II, Mr. Mansour returned to LaGrange as a community leader, a loving husband, and a devoted father of five children. He was a member of the St. Peter's Catholic Church, where I have had the opportunity to worship with him and his wife Nini. He was a Member of the Knights of Columbus, a past president of LaGrange Lions Club, a founding member of the Chattahoochee Valley Art Association, a member of the LaGrange/Troup County Chamber of Commerce and a member of the Highland Country Club.

Friends and those who knew him described Alfred Mansour as a humble man of God and an astute businessman. Most importantly, those who loved him as a husband and a father, Nini and children Priscilla, Martha, Rita, Fred and Larry, knew him as a man of unremitting love and passion.

Indeed, Alfred Mansour will be so missed for his service to God, family and community.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Isakson amendment, which would seek to simply elevate the scope of the minimum guarantee from 84 percent in TEA LU up to 93 percent, the level in TEA 21. Basically, for the State of Georgia this means instead of

getting 76 cents back on every dollar, the citizens of Georgia would get 84 cents back on every dollar. That is our money, and it is only fair.

I strongly support the Isakson amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding me this time and for bringing this bill, H.R. 3966, before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of H.R. 3966, which would require that colleges and universities give military recruiters the same access to students as other employers.

We as a Nation depend on the brave service of our military to protect our homeland, but do we honestly think that we are going to recruit the best and the brightest young men and women to serve if their schools are not even letting recruiters in the door? And that, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what is happening. That is why we need this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we rely on an all-voluntary force, which means that students choose whether or not to serve in the military or to pursue a civilian career. I hope that we can all agree that for our safety and the safety of our children and our grandchildren we want to have the smartest and the most capable military possible. But, remarkably, some schools choose to leave military recruiters out in the cold. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3966 will serve to right this terrible policy of excluding military recruiters from our campuses.

Again, I commend the chairman, I commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), and I rise in 100 percent support of it, and I hope we have bipartisan support and pass H.R. 3966.

Mr. Speaker, I represent Fort Benning, the home of the Infantry in Columbus, Georgia, and I rise in support of the resolution to pay tribute to those Americans serving in uniform who have brought liberty to 24 million Iraqi citizens. It is their courage, commitment, and endurance that made possible the unprecedented success that we have witnessed halfway across the world.

While soldiers are hunting down leaders of Saddam's regime, Americans and Iraqis are working together to construct hospitals and schools and establish a new Iraqi government. As a physician, I know what it takes to provide health care for a large number of patients. That is why it amazes me to learn 52 clinics have been renovated and over 600 have been reequipped to provide primary health care.

Mr. Speaker, I call attention to this chart which shows that more than 22 million doses of vaccines have been delivered to 4.2 million Iraqi children and 700,000 pregnant women. In fact, by the end of 2004, over 90 percent of Iraqi children under the age of 5 will be immunized against diseases such as polio, tuberculosis, and measles.

In February alone, 800 tons of high-protein meals were delivered to malnourished children. Sadly, those who oppose us are not idle. I do not know how long the war on terrorism will last, but I know America is right and our military and humanitarian efforts must continue until this evil is eradicated not only in the Middle East but in the entire world.

While we hope our allies will not abandon us when we face inevitable hardships, if necessary, we have the courage and the commitment to stand alone.

Mr. Speaker, my prayers remain with the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines deployed around the world, and with their families who wait for them at home with love and patience. I wholeheartedly support this timely resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce an important piece of legislation, ``The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004.'' Many of you may wonder, what is green chemistry? So I will start with a brief explanation. Chemical manufacturing is the source of many products upon which we depend such as medicines, plastics, fuels, and fabrics. However, chemical manufacturing has also resulted in harm to the environment and human health. The goal of green chemistry is to minimize or, ideally, to eliminate this harm. It is defined as the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances. By factoring hazard in to the design of products and processes, chemists can design chemicals to be safe, just as they can design them to have other properties, such as color or texture.

Many private sector industries have recognized the potential of green chemistry. Along

with its inherent human health and environmental advantages, green chemistry can offer many economic advantages. This is because the costs of separating waste from products, complying with regulations, disposing of hazardous wastes and liability protection can be large. Preventing pollution and waste in the first place is often cheaper than mitigating and cleaning it up later.

In my State, Georgia, Shaw Industries, Inc. is showing tremendous returns on their investment in green chemistry. Shaw Industries, Inc. produces carpet tile from their EcoWorx TM compound, which is made from non-toxic starting materials. The carpet tiles are fully recyclable, and Shaw has started to receive the first generation of carpet tiles, introduced in 1999, back in the factory for recycling. Shaw has found that the cost of collection, transportation, and recycling is less than making new carpet tiles from virgin raw materials. Even before Shaw recycled a single carpet tile, they benefited from their investment in green manufacturing. By switching from traditional carpet tile backing to EcoWorx TM, Shaw cut the energy needed to produce carpet tiles in half.

Green chemistry offers other advantages in the areas of worker safety, public safety, and national security. For example, many chemical processes are conducted at extreme temperature and/or pressure, two conditions that present a risk for workers. Also, many chemical processes involve toxic substances. Green chemistry aims to design processes that can be conducted at or near room temperature and pressure, and that use benign materials. Both of these steps improve working conditions for employees. Chemical factories also pose a potential threat to public safety because of the possibility of an accidental release of toxic materials into the surrounding communities. Green chemistry seeks to replace these toxic substances with safe ones, which would not pose a threat to the public if accidentally released. Reducing the number of toxic chemical plants and the transport of toxic chemicals also improves national security by reducing the number of potential terrorist targets.

Yet despite all of the promise of green chemistry, the Federal government invests very little in this area. The most notable effort is a small grant program run jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Green chemistry research in this program is funded at about $4 million dollar per year. The Department of Energy (DOE) and National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) also do a small amount of green chemistry research, however the Federal investment in green chemistry is minimal as compared to the overall investment in chemistry. In addition, each of these agencies has an important role to play in developing green chemistry technologies and facilitating their adoption; however, right now, there is little coordination among agencies.

The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act establishes an interagency research and development (R&D) program to promote and coordinate Federal green chemistry research, development, demonstration, education and technology transfer activities. The Program would support R&D grants, including grants for university- industry partnerships, support green chemistry research at Federal labs, promote education at the undergraduate and graduate levels, and collect and disseminate information about green chemistry. NSF and EPA would lead an Interagency Working Group to coordinate these activities. The Working Group would also include DOE and NIST, as well as any other agency the President designates. The program is authorized at $26 million in Fiscal Year 2005 rising to $30 million in Fiscal Year 2007 from sums otherwise authorized to be appropriated. This bill does not authorize the expenditure of new money.

I think that this bill provides modest and prudent funding in an area that deserves greater Federal attention. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Science Committee, the Administration, and all other interested stakeholders to enact this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, and compliment my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, especially the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), for bringing this important legislation to the Congress.

Our Nation's television and radio airwaves have increasingly become inundated with indecent, obscene, and profane material. The recent Super Bowl half-time show was only the latest in a string of incidents to make front-page headlines. Other performers, celebrities, and shock jocks have coarsely invaded our homes with their language and their antics.

Networks and entertainers must acknowledge that our liberties also require responsibility and that avoidance of this responsibility places our family and our children at risk.

These incidents involving profanity, lewd behavior and language have been occurring with only a slap on the wrist or no response at all from the FCC. With current allowable fines of only a maximum of $27,500 per violation, there is very little incentive for broadcasters to follow the regulations when the rewards of higher ratings, due to their selection of programming, far outweigh those costs.

H.R. 3717 will put some teeth behind the FCC's enforcement of their standards of indecency by increasing the maximum amount of fines to $500,000 per violation and will allow them to enforce their current regulations in a swift and fair manner by removing the warning after a first offense and a capped maximum fine of only $11,000 after the second offense.

We must provide the FCC with the authority that they need to combat this wave of indecency. Our families and our children deserve nothing less.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3717.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 373) expressing the sense of Congress that Kids Love a Mystery is a program that promotes literacy and should be encouraged.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 373.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 373, offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). The concurrent resolution would establish Kids Love a Mystery Month and recognize the importance of encouraging children to read books, and especially mystery stories.

I am pleased that First Lady Laura Bush has agreed to serve as honorary chair of Mystery Writers of America's Kids Love a Mystery Program. Mrs. Bush expressed the appropriate sentiment for us all when she said, ``Our love of reading is what makes us tuck a paperback under our arm on the way

to work; its bedside tables that include piles of books that we read before we fall asleep, or continue reading when we cannot sleep. Oh, the refuge we find in books and reading, and how mystery, history and intrigue draw us back again and again.''

Mr. Speaker, I would dare say there is not one of us who has not had our nose buried in a ``whodunit'' book, letting our imagination soar in wonderment about what the ending will be. Whether it is Sherlock Holmes or Dick Tracy or Harry Potter, or my childhood favorite, the Hardy Boys mysteries, our support for reading and writing mystery books is a worthy cause. Exciting mystery writers over the years have provided untold hours of enjoyment to child and adult alike. Agatha Christie, Ellery Queen, Alfred Hitchcock, Phyllis Whitney, Mickey Spillane, Mary Higgins Clark, and J.K. Rowling have enriched our lives and stimulated our imaginations.

In the Kids Love a Mystery reading program, participants can earn an Eddie Award Certificate by registering with a local sponsor and reading at least one mystery book. Or participants may write their own mystery story and have a panel selected by an author judge the entry.

I commend the Mystery Writers of America for recognizing the value and importance of reading and for observing October each year as Kids Love a Mystery Month.

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting and appropriate then for Congress to celebrate the reading for children and agree to this concurrent resolution establishing Kids Love a Mystery Month. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

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

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

In closing, let me say that nothing is more important to the education of our children than the ability to read and read well. We have often heard it said that we learn to read so we can read to learn. The importance of that needs to be accomplished, indeed, as in the context of No Child Left Behind by the third grade. We will continue to have a strong emphasis on reading programs like this resolution in regard to Kids Love a Mystery. I would just encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and it is nice to have an opportunity to have a good bipartisan piece of legislation that we can all support. We are all behind trying to make sure that all our children can read and read well.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage unanimous support for House Concurrent Resolution 373.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding, and I thank my colleagues for bringing such important information before the Congress tonight on this very, very important issue, the Medicare Modernization Act and Prescription Drug Act of 2003, a promise that was made to seniors a number of years ago and a promise that finally this President, our President, George W. Bush, has delivered on. I am proud, of course, as a physician Member of this Congress to have been very supportive of this Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us realize, we are in an election year, and not just any election year, but, of course, a

presidential election year, and there is a lot of rhetoric going around in these halls and in the respective town halls of districts of Members and a lot of criticism of the administration and this President, and what I like to call MediScare rhetoric, MediScare rhetoric.

In the little bit of time I have tonight, let me try to clarify for the Members one such MediScare subject, and that is this, that the allegation that this prescription drug bill for seniors, for our needy seniors is nothing but a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.

Think about that now, nothing but a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. One could have said in 1965 when Medicare was first enacted, some 38 years ago, that Part A, the hospital part of Medicare, was nothing but a giveaway to the hospitals. After all, it is the hospitals that provide the care under Part A.

One could also say that Part B, the physician part, was nothing but a giveaway to the doctors, those doctors who are performing critical surgery, taking care of patients, it is nothing but a giveaway to the physicians, because, after all, they are the ones that provide the care under Part B.

Now, here they come in 2004 saying in their MediScare rhetoric that Medicare Part D, the prescription drug part which our seniors have waited for for years, is nothing but a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.

Obviously, the pharmaceutical companies are going to sell more drugs, no question about that. Nobody else can do that. Nobody else is in that business. Nobody else makes the drugs, the wonderful drugs, because of the research and development that has gone into that, that has provided the best pharmaceutical prescriptions of any country in the world. That is the pharmaceutical companies, and, yes, thank God, finally, they are going to be able to sell more drugs because our seniors, at long last, are going to be able to afford to buy those drugs. But this is not a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.

What is going to happen is because they sell more prescription medication, then we are going to lower the price. Anybody, Mr. Speaker, any Member of this body, anybody who is paying attention to us here tonight, understands the volume discount you get when you sell more of a product, whether it is a new car dealer selling 100 units a month versus 10 units a month, they can sell them at a lower price. That is what this is all about.

It is nothing but a scare tactic on the other side, not willing to give the credit where credit is due, to this President, this Republican leadership, this Congress, for finally delivering on a promise that others have made when they were in control, but they failed to keep that promise.

I want to just mention, Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have got left, about some of the organizations that have been so supportive of this legislation. I do not have enough time to list them all. I could go through every medical sub-specialty, certainly the American Medical Association, my Medical Association of Georgia, in the district that I represent, the senior organizations. The most well-known, of course, which represents some 35 million seniors, including yours truly, Mr. Speaker, the American Association of Retired Persons, the AARP. Listen to what they say. I just want to call your attention to this poster to my left.

``AARP believes that millions of older Americans and their families will be helped by this legislation. This legislation protects poor seniors from future soaring prescription drug costs. The bill will provide prescription drug coverage at little cost to those who need it most. It will provide substantial relief for those with very high drug costs. It also provides a substantial increase in protection for retiree benefits.''

Mr. Speaker, what that says is the American Association of Retired Persons endorsed this bill when they made sure that Medicare would do everything in its power to prevent companies from dropping their healthcare coverage, including a prescription drug benefit, for their retirees who had worked sometimes 35, 40 years, for the company. These companies were dropping these plans or cutting the benefits, and this is what is happening even before this Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act was passed. But it was only when we shored up those companies to prevent them from dropping these plans that the American Association of Retired Persons came on board in support of this bill.

I commend them. No, I am not about to tear up my AARP card. I think they represent seniors well, and I am proud of them for their support.

I could go on and on, and I am not going to do that, because some more of my colleagues are here, and I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for bringing this special hour to the Congress to make sure that the Members understand that we are listening to a lot of rhetoric now during this election season, a lot of scare tactics, but it is unfair to scare our seniors. We are providing a benefit to them that is much needed, and the benefit goes to the very heart and helps those needy seniors the most.

It is an absolute Godsend, Mr. Speaker, for them. I thank the gentlewoman for giving me this opportunity tonight.

Mr. Speaker, there have been over 500 soldiers now killed in action in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and I rise this evening to share with the Members of this body a letter that my office received today in tribute to one of these great American heroes, Command Sergeant Major Eric Cooke.

``There seem to be so few heroes today. I wanted to tell you about one: Command Sergeant Major Eric Cooke of the First Armored Division. Command Sergeant Major Cooke died on Christmas Eve when a roadside bomb ripped into his Humvee north of Baghdad on a convoy to Samara. He was 43 years old.

``Just before his death, Command Sergeant Major Cooke had written my uncle, David Hunter, that he had not signed up for the 2-week Christmas leave available to soldiers who were deployed to Iraq because he could not take the leave knowing that one of his men would not be receiving theirs. CSM Cooke said he was lucky to have a loving wife who would understand why he was not coming home for Christmas. He was career United States Army, and she understood his commitment.

``On the day he died, Command Sergeant Major Cooke heard of an injured soldier who was in urgent need of O-positive blood, so he rushed to a nearby field hospital to donate his own. He almost missed that convoy going to Samara. Command Sergeant Major Cooke had the opportunity to have an armored Humvee, but he chose to give it to his men so they would be protected during armed escort duty, patrols and raid operations. His selfless service knew no limits.

``If you or I knew the day we would die, we might change the way we were living as that day approached. Command Sergeant Major Cooke did not need to change a thing. He lived each of his days in a selfless and noble manner. Every soldier's death is a tragedy, but this one seemed especially sad.

``Command Sergeant Major Cooke was buried at Arlington National Cemetery on January 5, 2004 at 3 p.m. with full military honors befitting an American hero.

``Written by Lucy Everett Edmondson of Rocky Mount, North Carolina.''

Mr. Speaker, I knew Command Sergeant Major Cooke. I met him on the tarmac at the Baghdad International Airport on December 22, 2 days before his death. It was my only opportunity to ever be in a theater of combat operations, and it seemed relatively safe there on the tarmac. But as I looked into his crystal clear blue eyes, he told me about his 26 years of service to this country in Kosovo, Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom, and now Operation Iraqi Freedom as well. He was looking forward to his retirement in 4 years, but very proud of his service to his country.

Indeed, Ms. Edmondson, Sergeant Major Eric Cooke was a true American hero.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and in strong opposition to the single-victim substitute.

Let me take my time to try to put a little face on this issue and a human perspective. I want to call my colleagues' attention to the poster to my left. This is a picture of my grandchildren. My granddaughters, Ali and Hannah, are now 6 years old. They were born at 26 weeks, each weighing 1 pound 12 ounces. Thank God their brother, little Hank, who is 3 years old, has two precious siblings. My daughter and son-in-law have three precious children. My wife, Billie, and I are very proud grandparents.

As a physician, I know that Laci Peterson at 8\1/2\ months pregnant, little Conner probably weighed three times as much as my granddaughters did at their birth, weighing 1 pound 12 ounces. A strategically directed blow to her abdomen, or any woman's abdomen, at 8 months pregnant could result in just a minor bruise, a contusion to the mother, yet the death of the child, a child that within weeks would have been born fully well.

Yet in this substitute amendment, what would happen? Instead of the perpetrator of this crime getting slapped on the wrist, they would get slapped on both wrists. Yet that child would be dead, and that family would be robbed of a life. I think it is utterly ridiculous.

They keep saying that we do not care about the mother. There are laws to protect the mother against violence that exist, but we have got another victim in these crimes and this puts a human face on it. I ask my colleagues to reject the substitute amendment and support the bill,

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia, the distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to speak in support of the rule to consider H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and to recognize fetal homicide as a crime, a crime under Federal criminal proceedings. And I want to thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for introducing this legislation, which I believe represents the majority opinion of Americans across this country.

According to a Fox News poll conducted in August of 2003, 79 percent of the electorate believes that prosecutors should be able to charge an assailant with the death of an unborn child resulting from their act of violence. A similar Newsweek poll conducted in May of 2003 revealed that 56 percent of the people believe that if someone kills a fetus still in the womb, as well as the mother, that person should be charged with two murders instead of one.

Considering that 29 States, including my own State of Georgia, have already passed unborn victims of violence laws, it is past time to enact such a law at the Federal level. Let me assure the opposition to the legislation that H.R. 1997 does not supersede State laws, but it rather applies only to already defined Federal crimes. This debate is simply about prosecuting criminals. It is not an abortion bill, but rather a crime bill, and under this bill it is necessary to prove beyond that a defendant had intent to do criminal harm at least towards the mother. The legislation is about identifying victims, and I urge passage of the rule so that we can move on to debating and passing this vital piece of legislation.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does not address the mother.

Well, we have laws to protect the mother in regard to violence and murder.

I want to remind Members on the other side of the aisle who are opposing this legislation also that in regard to the mother and protecting the mother, a strategically directed blow to a mother's abdomen resulting in minimal injury to the mother very well could result in the death of a 6\1/2\- or 7-pound unborn baby, just like Conner Peterson, and the mother's injury could be a minor contusion. So you are going to say you solve that problem by instead of slapping one wrist, slap two? Give me a break.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard since the passage of the Prescription Drug and Medicare Modernization Act that this law is a Republican giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. Why, or maybe more importantly, who is telling American seniors this important legislation is bad for them but good for the drug companies? In this election year, it seems that some individuals are using disingenuous political rhetoric to scare our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss one provision in the bill that is called out as the ``drug company giveaway.'' There is a clause in the legislation that directly states, ``Noninterference. In order to promote competition under this part and in carrying out this part, the Secretary may not interfere with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and prescription drug plan sponsors; and may not require a particular formulary or institute a price structure for the reimbursement of covered drugs under part D.''

Simple enough, right? The government cannot interfere with negotiations between private entities and cannot set price controls. The marketplace, free enterprise, will set the price of prescription drugs and do a much better job of driving down prices than some government bureaucrat.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a new idea. This language has been used in the same context before by one of the prescription drug bill's biggest detractors. This may come as a surprise to many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but it is probably an even bigger surprise to the American people who are listening to the rhetoric from the opponents of the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act.

Let me quote a section from a prescription drug bill introduced in the Senate by the minority leader, Tom Daschle. Mr. Daschle's bill reads: ``Noninterference. In administering the prescription drug benefit established under this part, the Secretary may not require a particular formulary or initiate a price structure for benefits; may not interfere in any way with negotiations between private entities and drug manufacturers or wholesalers; or otherwise interfere with the competitive nature of providing a prescription drug benefit through private entities.''

Democrats have been blasting the ban on negotiations as a giveaway to the drug industry. Yet their Senate minority leader included in his own bill a provision with the exact same effect as the non-negotiation provision found in H.R. 1. It seems to me that the minority leader and the Democrats are not being straight with America's seniors. On the one hand, the Senate minority leader says a non-negotiation clause is

a Republican-led, taxpayer giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry; and on the other hand, he includes the very same provision in his own prescription drug bill. Plain as day, in black and white. It can be no clearer.

As a side note, Mr. Speaker, just in case my colleagues were wondering, the non-negotiation language also appeared in legislation introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), Democratic Representatives, in 2000, a bill by the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) in 2000, which, by the way, 204 Democrats voted for as their floor alternative to H.R. 4680 in the previous Congress; and in the other body, Mr. Speaker, the noninterference or non-negotiation clause was used in legislation authored by Democratic Senator Wyden in 2001 and again in the Jeffords- Breaux-Landrieu legislation in 2002.

A version of the noninterference language also appeared in the underlying Senate Medicare bill that passed the Senate June 27, 2003, by a bipartisan vote of 76 to 21. Thirty-five Democrats voted for it, a number of Senators, and I will not name their names, but a number of Democratic Senators all voted for that bill.

So why, Mr. Speaker, if this language has appeared so many times in legislation sponsored by both sides of the aisle, in both Chambers of Congress, do we continue to hear the negative rhetoric about such a great bill for our seniors? My guess, Mr. Speaker, it is just political posturing during an election year.