Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am not bound by the rule that if it passes in the Senate 2 to 1, it is a good idea. That may come later in my life, but not right now. This is not reform. When I signed up in 1996, I never envisioned that reform would be that we would require a local TV station to sell some Federal politician an ad at a cheap rate during the Super Bowl almost a year before the election. That is not reform. And that should not kill any effort to reform the way we do our campaigns. By making the campaigns start a year earlier, or 7 or 8 or 9 months earlier, and giving a Federal politician a better deal than we give somebody living in our own State, that is not reform, that is bad business. Vote for the amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, a couple of statements. Saddam Hussein kicked out the U.N. inspection team in 1998 in breach of the cease-fire agreement. If you think we are moving too fast, vote no. Last time I checked, it is December 2001. So if we are going too fast to make you feel comfortable, vote no. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) says that Saddam Hussein is a minor threat to this country. If you believe that, vote no. But you ought to go visit the CIA, and you ought to talk to our intelligence communities. He is building missiles beyond the agreement, cease-fire agreement, for a purpose, to kill people. I admire the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) so much because he suffered from the politics of appeasement. This is not 1964. This is the late 30's. This is Neville Chamberlain coming back. Peace in our time. What a joke. There will be no peace in our time as long as we have the politics of appeasement and let a guy like Saddam Hussein get away with building mobile biological weapons systems, larger missiles, procuring materials that could only be used in nuclear weapons. For us to sit back would be a national travesty, a world travesty. Never again shall we do this. The hour is at hand. Immediate action must be taken by this Congress to support our President. We should have U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground now. And if he says no, that is a mounting threat to this country because he is procuring, as I speak, weapons of mass destruction. No more head-in-the-sand politics. Act now or pay later, America. Let us act now to get rid of the tyrant who has abused and killed his own people, who is procuring weapons of mass destruction, substantial evidence to that fact. A failure to do so, we will pay dearly later. Have we learned anything from September 11? I think we have, and I have every confidence in this body that they will reject the notion that we are moving too fast and that Saddam Hussein is a minor threat. This resolution makes common sense. It makes legal sense. It is the morally right thing to do. America is a great country, and as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said, we have to act greatly when we are threatened. This is not about any other nation. It is about us. We are the target of Saddam Hussein. Us and Israel and his Arab neighbors. Anybody who does not want to do business they way he does. We are a threat. Let us stand up to this dictator. No more of the politics of appeasement. Let us vote as a united body. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) have shown us we can work together for the common good. They are an example for all of us to follow. Please vote. Act now or we will pay later.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I will lend my voice to the chorus. I feel like we are preaching the eulogy for the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) here; and they are still alive and well, for people listening in. But these two gentlemen deserve our praise, and they are going to add much more to the future of education to come. This is not the end of our work day; this is just the beginning. But it was a great job well done in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Speaker, this is a great move forward; but at the end of the day, local control is still dominant in education. We have increased funding dramatically under the bill; but 90 percent-plus of funds for education come from the local area, from the State area. The formula for education excellence has not changed at all. It is a parent and a child with a good teacher and a caring community, and that is still the formula for success. But what we have tried to do is build on that formula and change the way we do business in Washington. The President gave Congress a test when he came into power. He asked us, is the current situation okay? And the right answer was, ``no.'' So we passed the test. The answer was ``reform.'' This bill is big on reform, and the students are at the center of everything we have done. There is more money, but that is not the answer. There is more accountability; that is not the answer. The two together are the answer: more accountability and the funds to get there. I am proud to be part of this work product. Our children are going to benefit. We have a good mix of local control with national standards to be implemented at the local level, and we are going to actually see how our children are doing in the area of math and reading from the third through the eighth grade nationwide, and let each State move forward. If we have a school district that fails our children, we are not going to just sit on the sidelines anymore; we are going to make that school district better, and we are going to give some options they never had. We are getting close to the holidays, and I think this is Congress' holiday present to the American people and the schoolchildren of this country: a bill that focuses on the student and not on bureaucracy; more money, more accountability. I am proud to be part of a Congress that actually delivered and passed the test.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, for years too many Americans have suffered the ravaging effects of Diabetes. While there have been many promising advancements in the diabetes research field, there have also been many disappointing setbacks. One key to proper treatment of Diabetes has been the development and the use of new medications. However, the Congress, questions have been raised about the safety of Rezulin and other medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this use. In my home state of South Carolina, Mrs. Francis Geddings took Rezulin as a treatment from April 1997 to January 1998. She was hospitalized in 1999 and tragically passed away from liver failure last year. She left behind her husband, Eugene, and many questions about the safety of this drug. Rezulin was eventually removed from the market, but many questions remain. To avoid future tragedies like the one that visited the Geddings family, we must continually review how medication is made available for public use. Attached are documents that show only a small part of the Rezulin story. It is up to Congress to continue doing everything we can to make the FDA approval process as safe and open as possible. Americans need to know that according to an FDA document created by several of the FDAs premier scientists, 1 in 1,000 patients who took Rezulin for more than one year will die of fatal liver disease. Pharmaceuticals companies everywhere can learn from the tragic history of Rezulin. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. December 19, 2000. From: David J. Graham, MD, MPH, Associate Director for Science, Office of Postmarketing Drug Risk Assessment (HFD- 400), Lanh Green, RPh. MPH, Safety Evaluator, Division of Drug Risk Evaluation II (HFD-400). Through: Martin Himmel, MD, MPH, Deputy Director, Office of Postmarketing Drug Risk Assessment (HFD-400). To: David G. Orloff, MD, Director, Division of Metabolic and Endocrine Drug Products (HFD-510). Subject: Final Report: Liver Failure Risk with Troglitazone (Rezulin'), NDA: 20-720. Executive Summary The following report summarizes the activities of the Office of Postmarketing Drug Risk Assessment and its evaluation of the risk of acute liver failure (ALF) with the use of troglitazone for the treatment of diabetes. The report is divided into topical areas related to varying aspects of the issue. We estimated the background rate of acute liver failure in the general population to the about 1 case per million persons per year (person-years). Using case reports data supplemented by usage data from a large multi-slate managed care organization, we estimated the rate of ALF with troglitazone to be about 1 case per 1000 person-years (accounting for underreporting). From three postmarketing clinical studies, the incidence of ALF ranged from about 1,200 to 17,000 per million person-years. Survival analysis suggested that the cumulative risk of ALF with troglitazone increased with continuing use of the drug. The implications of this for a product intended to bee used for decades should not be overlooked. Based on a number of different analyses, underreporting of ALF with troglitazone was extensive. This highlights the limitations of voluntary (spontaneous) reporting systems. It also illustrates the danger of using changes in reporting over time as a message of success of an intervention. Reporting naturally decreases quickly after the start of marketing so that one cannot cite a decline in number of case reports as evidence that a safety problem has been successfully managed. Multiple labeling revisions and ``Dear Healthcare Professional'' letters recommending monthly liver enzyme monitoring did not improve the safety profile of troglitazone. Enzyme monitoring was not performed regularly or reliably even after the July 1998 relabeling. Analysis of case reports suggested that even had monitoring been performed, it probably would not have prevented many, or perhaps any, cases of troglitazone-induced ALF. The ``point of no return,'' that is, of irreversibility and inevitable progression to liver failure appeared to be reached within about a month or less of a time when liver enzymes were normal. Troglitazone appeared to confer a substantially greater risk of ALF than rosiglitazone. However, the risk of ALF with rosiglitazone appeared to be higher than the expected background rate. Background on acute liver failure Acute liver failure is a rapidly progressive disorder characterized by hepatic encephalopathy, and frequently, coagulopathy (both platelets and clotting factors), methobilic derangements (lactic acidosis, hypoglycemia, electrolyte abnormalities), high output hypovolemic heart failure, renal failure and sepsis. Survival without transplant is below 25%. Drug-induced ALF is usually more aggressive than viral forms, with survival rates around 10% without transplant. There are several competing classification systems for ALF, each relying on the length of time it takes for a patient to progress from initial symptoms (US) or jaundice (UK, France) to hepatic encephalopathy. The U.S. definition classifies ALF as progressive from initial symptoms of liver dysfunction to encephalopathy within 6 months. In Europe, progression from jaundice to encephalopathy within 12 weeks is classified as ALF. In subsequent work, we used the European criteria. We choose the latter criteria because their shorter time-window more closely reflected the fulminant nature of the cases we were receiving. Also, the onset of jaundice is a clearer and more definite time-point from which to begin counting compared with initial symptoms, the onset of which might be vague and hence unlikely to be reported accurately in case reports. The etiology of ALF varies somewhat by country (slide 2). Until recently, about 70% of ALF in the U.S. was due to viral hepatitis (primarily hepatitis B), with 15% due to acetaminophen and about 10% due to other drugs and toxins. * * * * * The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) was a NIH-sponsored clinical trial performed on patients with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), but not diabetes. Its purpose was to study whether treatment of IGT with oral hypoglycemic agents could prevent or delay the onset of diabetes. One arm of the trial included 585 patients treated with troglitazone on average for one year. From this group, one patient died of fulminant ALF, for an incidence rate of 1,724 per 106 person-years (95% confidence interval 44-9,569). The REACH study was a Warner-Lambert/Parke-Davis sponsored postmarketing study to collect additional information on efficacy and safety of troglitazone. At the time when 2,433 patients were enrolled in the study, with an average duration of treatment <4 months, one patient died of fulminant ALF, for an incidence rate of 1,274 per 106 person- years (95% CI 32-7,077). Another Warner-Lambert/Parke-Davis postmarketing study, Protocol II, was conducted to study the effect of troglitazone use on the insulin does required by diabetic patients enrolled in the study. There were 233 patients enrolled in this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, each treated for a maximum of 6 months. Of this group, one died of liver failure. Of note, this patient developed liver enzyme abnormalities in November 1998 and was withdrawn from the study. His liver enzymes did not normalize and in early March 1999, the blind was broken for this patient to see whether he had received troglitazone or placebo. He had been treated with troglitazone. He was in hospital for evaluation of his liver disease on the day of the March 1999 advisory meeting, and died of liver failure three days after the meeting. Assuming that 50% of randomized patients were treated with troglitazone for a maximum of 6 months, the incidence rate in this study was about 16,949 per 106 person-years (95% CI 429-90,855). In each of these three studies, fatal liver failure was observed at an extremely high rate, ranging from 1,274 to 16,949 per 106 person-years. Based on data from the published literature discussed above, we would expect about 1 case of ALF per 106 person-years meaning that the occurrence of liver failure in these studies was from about 1,300/ to 17,000/times greater than would be expected by chance. In the original troglitazone NDA, there were 2 cases of jaundice/hepatitis (one of which was hospitalized) and 1 other patient hospitalized with drug-induced hepatitis, but no cases meeting our definition of ALF. This finding is still compatible with an ALF incidence rate of 2,584 per 106 person-years. These studies demonstrate that liver enzyme monitoring on a monthly basis does not prevent the occurrence of ALF with troglitazone. Furthermore, they collectively support the conclusion that the underlying incidence rate of ALF due to troglitazone is extremely high, probably in the range of 1,000 to 2,000 per 106 person-years, representing about a 1,000- to 2,000-fold increase in liver failure risk. Another way of stating this is that 1-2 out of every 1,000 patients (1/500=-1/1,000) who use troglitazone for one year will die of ALF. * * * * * Discussion The data presented here provide a comprehensive picture of liver failure risk with troglitazone. Premarketing clinical trial data from the company's NDA for troglitazone showed that ALT elevation above 3 ULN occurred in 1.9% of treated patients. More importantly, it provided an estimate of the incidence of hospitalized drug-induced hepatitis that was more than 50-fold greater than the background rate suggested by the literature. Soon after US marketing began, FDA began receiving case reports of ALF in patients who were using troglitazone. A series of labeling revisions and ``Dear Healthcare Professional'' letters followed, recommending increasing performance of liver enzyme monitoring as a means of reducing or eliminating risk of ALF. Despite those interventions, cases continued to be steadily reported to FDA. Our analyses of the original 43 US cases found that there were no apparent risk factors by which to identify patients who might be at increased risk of developing ALF while using troglitazone. Furthermore, the onset of liver disease was usually heralded by the appearance of jaundice, by which time, irreversibility had been passed in these cases who usually progressed quickly to encephalopathy: Examination of 12 cases with adequate liver enzyme monitoring prior to onset of liver disease showed that in 75%, patients went from having normal liver enzymes to irreversible progression towards liver failure within the recommended monitoring interval. In the three other cases, the patients remained on troglitazone after the first recorded enzyme abnormally so that it was not possible to identify when the point of irreversibility was passed. Of note, there were no differences between the 12 ``rapid risers'' and the remaining 31 cases for whom we lacked data on the time-course of their liver enzyme elevations. From these data, we concluded that it was not possible to prevent ALF by patient selection or to predict who was at risk. Also, monthly liver enzyme monitoring would probably fail to prevent at least 75% and perhaps 100% of cases. The cases reported to FDA were also used to estimate the pattern of ALF risk over time of continued use of troglitazone. This too was presented at the March 1999 advisory meeting. Analysis showed a marked rise in risk beginning with the first month of troglitazone use. With continued follow-up after the advisory meeting, our expectation was confirmed that heightened ALF risk continued for as long as troglitazone was used. In other words, the risk of ALF did not disappear after the first few months or even first 18 months of use. The pattern suggested that cumulative risk of ALF would continue to rise for as long as troglitazone was used, having important implications for a drug intended to be used for 20, 30 or 40 years or longer. Against this backdrop of case reports, epidemiologic data suggested that the expected incidence rate of ALF in the general population was about 1 case per million per year. The data from case reports were markedly higher than this. At the March 1999 advisory meeting, we presented data showing that if we assumed there was no underreporting, the cumulative risk of ALF was about 1 case per 15,000 patients who used troglitazone for at least 8 months. If we factored into the analysis that only 10% of cases had been reported, the cumulative risk became 1 case per 1,500 at 8 months (about 1 case per 1,000 per year). With an additional year's worth of case reports (through December 1999), the cumulative risk was 1 case per 7,000 patients after 18 months of troglitazone use, assuming no underreporting. With 10% reporting, this would be 1 case per 700 patients at 18 months (about 1 case per 1000 per year). The first analysis through 8 months of use led us to conclude prior to the March 1999 advisory meeting that the risk of ALF with troglitazone was probably increased at least 1000-fold over the expected background rate. Independent population-based data prior to the March 1999 advisory meeting supported this. In two separate postmarketing clinical studies, one conducted by the National Institutes of Health and one conducted by the company, a case of fatal ALF occurred among small numbers of patients treated with troglitazone. This was highly statistically significant, and suggested that the incidence rate of ALF with troglitazone could range from 1,200 to 1,700 per million per year, with upper bounds approaching 10,000 cases per million per year. These data, in combination with case reports data, formed the basis for this medical officer's recommendation prior to the March 1999 advisory meeting that troglitazone be removed from the market. Subsequent to the advisory meeting, FDA learned of a third postmarketing study, this one randomized and double blinded, in which a patient treated with troglitazone died of ALF just three days after the advisory meeting. The incidence rate of ALF in this study was over 17,000 per million per year. An important component in the troglitazone analysis was an assessment of the effect of FDA interventions in the form of labeling changes recommending periodic liver enzyme monitoring as a means of managing the ALF risk of troglitazone. The FDA study from UnitedHealth Group found that monitoring was not regularly or reliably performed and that repeated labeling revisions had not meaningfully improved the performance of monthly liver enzyme testing. Based on the data at hand prior to the March 1999 advisory meeting, we concluded that FDA labeling had not had a clinically important effect on medical practice and that monthly enzyme testing was largely not being performed. From our case analysis, we concluded that monitoring, were it performed, would fail to prevent most or all cases of troglitazone ALF. * * * * *

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I too join the choir here of support for our President. This is an historic moment in our country, a sad moment. But I would just like to express a thought for the future. We are kidding ourselves if we think this will be easy, and I do not believe anybody understands it to be easy. We are going to call up thousands of reservists soon, and we are going to put men and women in harm's way soon. This will not be a 100-hour ground campaign; this will not be an air war we watch on TV. This will affect every American family even deeper than it has now, but it is worth it. This is the right thing to do. Let us end it now. Let us stand behind our President and go after the organizations from top to bottom who perpetrated such a heinous act. We can do it as a Nation if we stay together and keep the spirit of September 11 alive. Do not give in to terrorism.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, from what I hear on television, we may have found our first example of how America will rise to the occasion. Apparently, the passengers on United Flight 93, the Pennsylvania flight, were talking to their relatives and the picture was becoming clear to them what their fate was about to be. The story goes, according to recent reports, that one of the passengers told his wife that we just voted among ourselves to take on the hijackers. I think that gives the best example of what awaits the terrorists. We will soon vote here, Republicans and Democrats. We will vote to take on the terrorists who tried to destroy freedom and our way of life. Our allies today in NATO voted to consider the attack on the United States as an attack on NATO. The message that was trying to be sent by the fanatics who orchestrated this I am not sure of, but the message we are going to send them will be very clear. Our forefathers defeated tyranny; so shall we. Mr. Speaker, the story goes when the staff of Admiral Yamamoto congratulated him on the bombing of Pearl Harbor, he replied, ``I am afraid all we have done is awoken a sleeping giant.'' Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what happened yesterday. America sleeps no more.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), one of Floyd's closest friends.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a true American hero and a former POW.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), a ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, being from South Carolina and in politics, having people around for awhile is not an unusual circumstance. Senator Thurmond, most people recognize his name, was elected in 1954; I was born in 1955. We tend to keep people around. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) led this debate, and I know that the family is very appreciative of all of the kind words. In South Carolina we pride ourselves on being a delegation that comes together for the good of the State, and remembers our upbringing pretty well. Every now and then we fuss and fight, but I doubt if my colleagues will find any Democrat or Republican in this body that ever had a disagreement with Floyd, that they walked away from that disagreement believing anything less of the man. That is something we are losing in the country. I have been in politics since 1994. It has been a contentious time, but we have done a lot. In a delegation this small, Members get to know each other pretty well, and Floyd Spence was the nicest person I have ever met in political life. That is saying a lot coming from my State, because most of us try to be nice to each other. And the fact that so many Members came to speak of his kindness and his commitment to the men and women in the military proves that Members can be quiet and make loud statements. Floyd will not be known by the volume that he carried, but by what was in his heart. Floyd did change parties. At the time that was tough, but I do not know of any Democrats back home that thought that Floyd Spence was anything other than a gentleman. Any disagreements with Floyd were political, never personal. He had a devoted wife, Debbie, and many Members know about that situation. The marriage that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) was referring to was to his second wife, Debbie Spence, who was a devoted wife and friend to Floyd, and they were married in the hospital right after his historic double-lung transplant. I have never met anyone more devoted to their spouse than Debbie. Floyd often said he was blessed to have two special women in his life. Floyd was also very proud of his four sons. He said he had four boys that all married female women. To know Floyd, that made sense. He was very proud of his family and his grandchildren. In the 10 years-plus after he received a double-lung transplant and eventually a kidney transplant, he said, this is my second life. Mr. Speaker, Floyd appreciated every day the good Lord gave him. He has a group of grandchildren, varied ages, some of them very, very young. They have something exciting to behold in their life. They will not be able to know their grandfather like we knew him. They will hear about him through family and friends. They will hear about Floyd through a thousand different ways. They will hear about their grandfather from statements in the post office, ``Was your grandfather Floyd Spence?'' And they will say, ``Yes.'' People will say, ``Let me tell a story, how he helped me.'' I do not think there is any better legacy than what Floyd left behind: kindness to everybody, a smile on his face. This body has lost a real gentleman and a true friend to the men and women who serve in the military. Mr. Speaker, if we could all be more like Floyd Spence, we would be a better Nation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, also on the note earlier echoed by the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Buyer, we will Miss Floyd but he has made us all richer. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mrs. Irene Dickerson Rogers of Pelzer, South Carolina. Mrs. Rogers has lead an extraordinary life of service to our state and to our country. An educator for the past 61 years, Mrs. Rogers has extended her time and talents to students ranging from elementary to high school. Of her 61 years spent teaching, 43 were in the public school system of Anderson County, the rest of the time she lead adult education classes. A mathematics major with a degree from Lander University in Greenwood, South Carolina, Mrs. Rogers has spent the majority of her career as an educator in the field of mathematics. While most of her years teaching mathematics were spent with middle and high school students, Mrs. Rogers has also generously given her time teaching classes to help better prepare adults entering into job fields associated with higher mathematic skills. I am exceptionally proud, Mr. Speaker, to make special note that Mrs. Rogers was recently and deservedly awarded the Order of the Silver Crescent, one of the most prestigious awards from the South Carolina Governor. The order of the Silver Crescent is reserved for those South Carolinians who have demonstrated service to our state well beyond their call of duty. With over 61 years of service in education to the Palmetto State, Mrs. Rogers has not only demonstrated remarkable energy and love of her job, but has set an example for all of us to follow. Her belief that each student should be given the maximum opportunity to succeed has left a mark on the schools for whom she has worked, and more importantly, on the students, parents, and communities to whom she has given so much of her time. I believe it to be of the utmost importance to recognize that not only did Mrs. Rogers directly impact the education of the students in her classroom, but her dedication to her students has impacted the lives of the families and communities within and around the schools. As a teacher, Mrs. Rogers imparted valuable knowledge to her students; as a South Carolinian she has demonstrated drive and dedication in ensuring a bright future for our state that makes us all proud. Today Mrs. Rogers is an active member of the Pelzer, South Carolina community. A mother of three and a grandmother of two, Mrs. Rogers continues to pass along her love of teaching to her family and friends. Mr. Speaker, I hope that this body will join me today in honoring Mrs. Irene Dickerson Rogers.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for always keeping our eyes focused. It is funny what people see when they look at countries or events. When we look to China, we see a quick buck. That is what we look at. What did the students in Tiananmen Square see when they looked at America? They built a statue modeled after the Statue of Liberty. When you come into my office, the first thing you will see is the young man standing in front of the two tanks. He is dead. We debate faith-based initiatives today and what role religious organizations ought to have in our public life, and we jealously guard separation of church and state. What do they do in China? They will kill you if you step out of line. We debate passionately a woman's right to choose. There is no debate in this country about the government forcing somebody to have an abortion, but that is the norm in China. When you talk about normal relations, you better understand who you are talking about. Slave labor. We debate worker safety, environmental protections; and we have different views. But nobody in this House would allow one American to live like the Chinese people live under Communist tyranny. Time Magazine, not my favorite magazine, is banned in China. It is banned in China because they wrote something the Communist Chinese dictators did not like. Trade with China. You show me one agreement we have made with them, and I will tell you how they cheat. They are destroying the textile industry because they cheat. If during the Reagan years we had done with the former Soviet Union what we are doing with China, communism would still be alive and well because we would give the Communist dictators in the former Soviet Union the money to stay in business. The money going to China does not go to the people. It goes to their government. What is a normal relationship with China? The normal day-to-day operations in China should make most Americans feel ashamed that we are doing business with them.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, if anyone had asked me during the month preceding the last election if the House could have come together in this fashion to pass 384 to 45 a major reform initiative on education, I would not have taken the bet. Those were tough, dark times for the country. It was the longest election in history. Yet here we stand several months later talking about something long overdue. The magic of this event to me is that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), have brought a committee that has been divisive at times together, along with the President, after many meetings at the White House, to take a new look at education. There are so many debates going on in education right now about how best to fix the problem. Some people say we need more money. More money is in this bill, a lot more money. Some of us believe just throwing money at the problem alone will not work, and our voices were heard. But the money is going to be spent in a new fashion. We are going to hold people accountable. Before we hold them accountable, we are going to provide them with the resources and the latitude and the flexibility to fix the problem, and we are going to monitor what happens. We are going to look at those children who have been left behind traditionally; and they are going to report to us, the school districts are that receive Federal money, as to how each group is doing. We are going to have a monitoring process for the first time in a long time, and we will actually find out where our money is going and if it is working. For those school districts who have been helped and who have been monitored and they continue to fail, we are going to do something new. We are just not going to continue to throw money, giving it to the same group of people, expecting different results. I remember one thing that President Clinton said. He said insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. We are going to make sure the money is monitored; we are going to give people flexibility, the resources necessary to improve education; and if after 3 years things are not getting better we are going to take a new look at how to make them better. We are going to allow parents to choose other public schools to go to. Charter schools. We are going to give parents some choices. This bill requires curriculum reporting. It will empower those parents who care. It will try to get people more involved in the education process. There is some significant differences between the House and Senate bill, but I predict now that these differences will be quickly resolved and this Congress will go on record as being the first Congress in maybe 35 or 40 years to do something bold in the area of education. The Federal level provides about 7 or 8 percent of education funding. No longer will that money be given blindly. We will expect results for our contribution, and we will try to create an atmosphere where school districts who want to experiment and try new things can do so with the Federal money. All in all, if you asked me in October preceding the last election if this could have ever come about I would say no. If you asked me in December, I would say heck no. But here we are. It is a testament to the good hearts of the people on this committee and the leaders on this committee, along with the President. We are about to do something new, long overdue; and the beneficiaries will not be politicians. It will be parents and children.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Sergeant Harold F. Adkison Chapter of the Korean War Veterans Association for recently receiving their formal charter. On June 25, 2001, as a result of their tireless efforts, this chapter was officially established. This chapter had fifty charter members before its petition for a charter was submitted, an unprecedented show of commitment. For this, the Sergeant Harold F. Adkison Chapter should certainly be commended. America's Armed Forces are exceptional, because unlike other nations our military not only defends the homeland and our people, but we protect the freedom of all men. In World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and in the Desert Storm our men and women have gone to fight for freedom. The Korean War, regrettably, has often been referred to as the ``forgotten war'' because it came so quickly after World War II and was overshadowed on the homefront by the Vietnam War and its associated protests. At the outbreak of hostilities, many feared that this tiny peninsula would be the setting for the eruption of World War III as the United Nations joined with the United States and the Republic of South Korea to stop the invasion of the North Koreans backed by both the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. The great sacrifice to the world made by the members of this newly established chapter of the Korean War Veterans Association, and their more than 54,000 peers, was a huge gift to the cause of freedom. As the Korean War Veterans Memorial on the Mall reads: ``Our nation honors her sons and daughters who answered the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met.'' The charter members of this new chapter should be proud of their sacrifices to defend freedom. Many of them lost friends to the horrors of combat. Their lives were changed in ways that no one can imagine, but they also changed the world in ways that we all can clearly see. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating these veterans on the establishment of the Sergeant Harold F. Adkison Chapter and in thanking them for their outstanding service to our nation. We owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude, one that we can never repay.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Fujifilm for recently receiving the Smithsonian Institution's 2001 Corporate Leadership Award for its role as lead sponsor of Mei Xiang and Tian Tian, the new giant panda pair at the Smithsonian's National Zoo. The award recognizes the gift made on behalf of Fujifilm's 8,000 U.S. associates at 47 separate facilities. Additionally, I would like to commend Fujifilm for the significant contribution that organization has made to the Smithsonian's National Zoo in donating $7.8 million, the largest donation in the Zoo's distinguished history. Fujifilm's generous gift and lead sponsorship of the project to bring a new giant panda pair to the Zoo and to construct the Fujifilm Giant Panda Conservation Habitat which will serve as the new, permanent home for the pandas. Mei Xiang and Tian Tian have quickly become national treasures. Their arrival at the Zoo, as well as the extensive giant panda education and research activities, initiated through their sponsorship, have been beneficial to the visiting public. Fujifilm hopes that its involvement will create a gateway that will help people better understand the broader issues of species conservation worldwide. Additionally, many items from Fujifilm's wide range of state-of-the-art imaging, data storage and information products will be used by Zoo researchers as they conduct their projects in the study of the giant pandas. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in lauding the outstanding corporate citizenship of Fujifilm and its leadership in conservation efforts. Additionally, I would hope that the members of this body will join me in thanking Fujifilm's 8,000 U.S. associates for their valuable gift to the National Zoo, its visitors, and its researchers.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to report to the House of Representatives the death of Patrick B. Harris of Anderson, South Carolina. He is survived by his wife of more than 60 years, Elizabeth. I had the distinct honor of serving with `Mr. Pat' in the South Carolina House of Representatives where he served for more than twenty years. It truly was an honor to serve with him as he was a tireless advocate on behalf of senior citizens and people with mental illness. Among his numerous accomplishments in public office were the creation of a property-tax homestead exemption for people older than 65, creating a sales tax exemption on prescription drugs for those age 50 and older, making elder abuse a crime, and allowing people age 65 and older to attend state colleges and universities tuition-free. Born in Mount Carmel in 1911, Mr. Pat attended Anderson Boys High School where he played both football and baseball. He began work when he left Presbyterian College in Clinton, South Carolina to work in a textile mill during the Great Depression. He also owned and operated a local gas company and for many years was involved in real estate. Mr. Pat was awarded numerous honors and awards during his life including an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Erskine College and the Order of the Palmetto from former Governor Carroll Campbell. With the passing of Pat Harris South Carolina has lost an extraordinary statesman and gentleman. I'm sure other Members of the House join me in sending our condolences to his family and loved ones.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, today the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act. After having voted against this legislation in the Education and Workforce Committee, today I supported President Bush, Chairman Boehner, and Ranking Member Miller and voted in favor of this legislation. I remain concerned that H.R. 1 does not grant local school districts, teachers and parents the degree of flexibility originally contained within President Bush's education plan. Yet, I also feel this legislation was honestly debated and voted upon on the House floor. I am hopeful that through the continuing work of Congress and the Conference Committee on H.R. 1, that certain aspects of the President's original plan will be reinforced or reinserted. I look forward to working with the President and Members of Congress to further improve this legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed working with the gentleman on this amendment. It is often said that knowledge is power, and what we are trying to do is make sure that informed and caring parents know what is going on at school in an appropriate way. What the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) raised, I want to assure him it is not my intent, nor the intent of anyone, to supersede State law that requires teachers or medical personnel to report suspected child abuse, because we do not want to do anything that is going to undermine protecting children. I think we have drafted an amendment that will accomplish that. We are trying to empower parents in three key areas. We want to make sure that parents have some knowledge of what is going on in terms of the curriculum being taught at the school and that they have some information up front, and that they can be informed by the appropriate authorities to know what their child is being taught and have some input. We want to make sure that the parents have access to school material that is going to be taught to their child. Second, if a child is being surveyed about their personal family life, about whether they use drugs, or mental health issues, that we want parents to know what is going on and get parental consent there when a survey is being done because we believe it is important for parents to know what is being asked of their children. Third, we want to make sure that in emergency situations, guidance- counseling situations in its normal fashion, that there is no impediment there. But we do believe that when it comes time to perform medical exams or part of a treatment regime that a school counseling team may come up with, that parents are informed about what is going to happen to their child medically and any mental health counseling that is a result of the normal counseling process. Knowledge is power. We believe this will give parents more knowledge about what goes on in their school. It will create a better relationship between administrators and parents, and we are going to make sure that we do not do anything to impede the right to protect children who are being abused at home.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, as I said in the Committee on the Judiciary, the language that we adopted in the bill is exactly what exists----

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I respectfully disagree with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), my good friend. I am asking my colleagues to vote against the substitute and for the underlying bill. When one writes a bill that says you cannot prosecute someone under the bill who is performing a lawful abortion, you can never prosecute the mother for any of her conduct, you cannot prosecute medical providers, one would think it would not be about abortion. But some people want to talk about that, and that is politics. That is okay. That is the way politics works. I want to talk about the law and common sense. If one is a prosecutor and can pick between the substitute and my bill, I think every prosecutor I know of would pick my bill, because you could really have the full force and effect of the law against the criminal. Abortion rights are not going to be enhanced by voting against my bill and for the substitute. The only person that wins is the criminal. In the Arkansas case, she was begging for her baby's life and the criminal was saying, ``Your baby is dying tonight.'' Let us get together as a Congress in saying, once the woman chooses to have the baby and she is assaulted by a criminal who is paid to terminate her pregnancy through beating her and her baby to death, that that is a crime, not a fiction. She is begging for the baby's life; the man is saying, ``I am going to take your baby away from you tonight.'' Let us have a statute that allows that person to be prosecuted for what they intended to do, and that is, kill the unborn child; and in that statute, you protect Roe v. Wade rights. The pro-choice people who voted for my bill last year, thank you. You can be pro-choice and not pro-abortion. People say that it is possible. This is a case of being pro-choice, but not being pro-abortion because there is no reason to let the criminal go or diminish their punishment with a poorly drafted substitute, simply because one is worried about abortion when it is not covered by the bill. Let us focus our energies on putting criminals in jail when the mother chooses to have the baby. America will be better, prosecutors will have better tools, and we can go home and look pro-life and pro- choice people in the eye and say, Congress responded to a very serious event in a very logical way. Please vote for the bill and against the underlying substitute. A lot is at stake. America will be better if we could pass this bill.