Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a valued member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from San Antonio for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to read the resolution congratulating the San Antonio spurs for winning the 2003 NBA Championship. Whereas, on June 15, 2003, the San Antonio Spurs won the National Basketball Association's Championship best-of-seven series with an 88- 77 victory over the New Jersey Nets; Whereas the Spurs' victory over the Nets is their second NBA championship in 5 years; Whereas this year's Spurs-Nets Finals is the first time two former American Basketball Association teams have played for the NBA Championship; Whereas 7-foot center David Robinson joined the Spurs in 1987, and Tim Duncan joined the team in 1997; Whereas last night's match-up was the final game of David Robinson's 14-year career, and his 13 points, 17 rebounds, and two blocked shots will be remembered as his best performance of the season; Whereas Tim Duncan's triple-double, 21 points, 20 rebounds, and 10 assists, and his eight blocked shots will be remembered as one of the greatest individual efforts in finals history; Whereas Tim Duncan won the regular season Most Valuable Player award for the second consecutive year, and he was named the Finals Most Valuable Player following the Spurs victory; Whereas spurs head coach Gregg Popovich was recognized as the NBA Coach of the Year for the 2002-2003 season; Resolved that the House of Representatives congratulates the San Antonio Spurs and Coach of the Year Gregg Popovich for an unforgettable season of basketball excellence and for winning the 2003 National Basketball Association Championship. Mr. Speaker, this year's NBA champions, the San Antonio Spurs, showed America their determination and their character. They never gave in and they never gave up, and that is why they are champions today. Owner Peter Holt, Coach Gregg Popovich, and the Spurs' players provided the City of San Antonio with an unforgettable season of basketball excellence that will be remembered for years. They deserve the thanks of our grateful city. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about Spurs Center David Robinson. It is fitting that he close his storybook career as an NBA champion. Few players represent their teams and their cities with such class and dignity. We all agree that David Robinson achieved greatness on the basketball court, but what is less known to the general public is that David Robinson is a man who cares deeply about the City of San Antonio and the education of our children. Through the David Robinson Foundation, he donated $9 million toward the construction and operation of the Carver Academy, a school on the east side of San Antonio that opened its doors in 2001. David Robinson serves as the school's chairman. This donation is believed to be the largest ever made by a professional athlete. Named for George Washington Carver, the school serves elementary-aged students from a culturally diverse community. The core curriculum focuses on excellence in reading and language arts, social studies, math, science, technology, fine arts, athletics, and foreign languages including German, Japanese, and Spanish. David's community involvement is extensive. At Spurs' home games he reserves special seats for underprivileged families. He has contributed to the homeless, children's charities, and hurricane victims. In 1991, he promised 94 fifth graders at San Antonio's Gates Elementary School a $2,000 college scholarship if they finished high school. Well, in 1998, 50 students graduated at the ceremony that was attended by Robinson himself. In 1992, Robinson and his wife Valerie started their foundation, which supports programs that address the physical and spiritual needs of the family. He said their goal is ``To build a foundation for future generations. We want to make these children the heroes of tomorrow by teaching them principles of integrity, discipline and faith.'' Fittingly, David Robinson has been described as the Goliath of Giving. Every community in America needs a David Robinson. San Antonio has been blessed by his generosity, thoughtfulness and compassion. Mr. Speaker, David Robinson's extraordinary ability will be missed on the basketball court, but it is off the court where his work continues to give others the opportunity to seek a better and brighter future. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), my colleague from San Antonio, for yielding to me.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today the Subcommittee on Immigration will hold a hearing on consular identification cards such as those issued by Mexican consulates to illegal immigrants in the United States. A number of cities and dozens of banks now recognize these cards for identification purposes. In several States, in fact, they can be used to obtain a driver's license. The cards are not reliable, not secure, and make it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. A person's identity is not verified and false identities are easy to obtain. To anyone worried about homeland security, these cards should be seen as a red alert. The Treasury Department recently approved these consular identification cards for bank use, yet no major bank in Mexico accepts them. So we have U.S. banks relying on Mexican identification cards that even Mexico will not recognize. Perhaps the Treasury Department did not hear that the President is concerned about homeland security. Treasury officials may want to call the White House.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act. This bill reforms the class action system and addresses the abuses that harm so many Americans. In recent years, State courts have been flooded with thousands of frivolous lawsuits. Lawyers looking for the most favorable jurisdictions conduct the equivalent of a legal shopping spree. They use loopholes so class action suits can be heard in State courts rather than Federal courts. Today, State courts employ criteria so loosely defined that virtually any controversy can qualify as a class action. We have all heard of the lawsuits in which the plaintiffs walk away with pennies, sometimes literally, while their attorneys walk away with millions of dollars in fees. For instance, in a suit against Chase Manhattan Bank that was referred to by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) a few minutes ago, consumers were awarded 33-cent checks while the attorneys pocketed $4 million in fees. Mr. Chairman, to describe this suit, as well as other class action lawsuits, as ``frivolous'' is an insult to frivolousness. Even The Washington Post has acknowledged that under the present system ``lawyers cash in, while the `clients' get coupons.'' There are many ``magnet'' State courts that have a reputation for doling out enormous judgments. This bill makes it easier to get cases into Federal court to avoid such unfair results. Mr. Chairman, I, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), amended this bill in the Committee on the Judiciary to apply the law to cases that have been filed, but not yet certified as class actions. Cases that gain class certification after the date of enactment will have, in fact, the new rules apply to them. This language eliminates any incentive to rush to the courthouse to avoid the reforms contained in the legislation. It also prevents individuals from being made part of a frivolous suit that has been filed before enactment of the new laws. The widespread abuse of class action lawsuits must be stopped. The Class Action Fairness Act includes bipartisan, sensible reforms that clarify the rights of consumers and restore confidence in America's civil justice system. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I also thank the chairman of the committee for his action in passing this today.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which bans partial-birth abortions unless they are necessary to save a mother's life. Partial birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane procedure. The American Medical Association has stated that partial-birth abortion is ``not an accepted medical practice,'' is ``ethically wrong,'' and is ``never the only appropriate procedure.'' A recent survey of abortion providers estimated that 2,200 partial birth abortions were performed in 2000. Most of these abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. Infants then are usually viable--that is, if they are born premature at this stage, they are born alive and usually enjoy long lives. This makes the procedure even more disturbing. The Senate recently passed this legislation and the American public overwhelmingly supports this ban. A poll this year found that 70 percent of those asked favored a law to make partial birth abortions illegal except in cases where needed to save the life of the mother. This bill is the same text that the House passed last year. Congress has twice approved a ban on partial-birth abortions, but both times the bills were vetoed by President Clinton. Hopefully, this time, because President Bush supports the ban, we will be successful in implementing a new policy. Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. Speaker, this critical legislation would prohibit physicians from performing partial-birth abortions, a horrific and heinous procedure. Mr. Speaker, there is overwhelming evidence that shows that partial- birth abortion is not medically necessary to preserve the health of the woman, but rather poses serious consequences to her health. Even organizations such as the AMA have said that this procedure is ``not good medicine'' and is not medically necessary. Partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane procedure in which the child is forcibly pulled from the mother, with only the head remaining inside the cervical canal. The head of the child is then punctured at the base of the skull, and the brain is removed with a powerful vacuum. This is a barbaric act that is a grave attack against human dignity and justice, and it must be banned. Life is a gift, and it must be embraced and respected at all stages. In a country which espouses the importance of protecting the inherent rights of every person, partial-birth abortion denies the rights of our most innocent and vulnerable members, our children. We, as legislators, must strive to uphold the truths upon which our great Nation was founded, especially that every individual is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Partial-birth abortion is not a sign that women are ``free to choose.'' It is a sign that women have been abandoned. They have not had the support and care that they so desperately need. Rather, abortion is the only option offered. There is increasing evidence that abortion causes extreme emotional and psychological damage. It has been determined that many abortions occur later in pregnancy when women do not want an abortion at all, but rather feel pressure to hid their pregnancy from their boyfriends or parents. We must strive to ensure that each and every person is guaranteed the most basic human rights, the right to life. Women deserve better than to endure the physical and emotional pain and suffering associated with partial-birth abortion, and children deserve the chance to live. I ardently support efforts to protect the dignity of women and children. As women, we have a unique role in society, to nurture and protect that dignity. Such dignity is only possible if it is promoted on every level. It is time for partial-birth abortion to stop. We must have the courage and the strength to fight against the greatest of all human rights violations--partial-birth abortion. Women deserve better than abortion. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 760 the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. A vote for the ban is a vote for life.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Walter Lippmann stated, ``The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind in other men the conviction and will to carry on.'' Congressman Larry Combest leaves not only conviction and will for others to follow but also an example of representational leadership. His unique style of leadership has brought about positive change for his constituency, for the state of Texas, and for each position he has held as a member of Congress. Serving as only the third Representative in history from the 19th Texas Congressional District, Congressman Combest has honored the statesmen who preceded him in office. Always accessible and a constant voice for the people, his guiding strength and influence have become standard signatures for his work in Congress, including the drafting of the 2002 Farm Bill, the advocacy of medical and scientific advances through Texas Tech University initiatives, and promotion of the Vietnam Women's Memorial. Congressman Combest leaves behind the conviction to distinguish the need of the people from the will of the people and the courage to carry on with the good of the people. He is a trusted colleague and a proven leader. Congressman Larry Combest will be missed.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Jobs and Growth Tax Act of 2003 includes relief from the marriage tax, child care tax credits, small business expensing, and a dividend tax reduction. According to an analysis by the Heritage Foundation, the bill creates approximately 1.2 million jobs by the end of 2004. This includes 61,000 jobs in Texas. In addition, it will inject $200 billion into the economy to help drive consumer spending and job creation. A key piece of this legislation is dividend relief. It also promotes investment by reducing the tax on capital gains. These two modifications simplify the tax code by creating similar tax treatment for both capital gains and dividends. Eighty-four million or over 50 percent of adult Americans invest in the stock market. And over 70 million own a home. The Jobs and Growth Tax Act puts dollars back into the pockets of millions of families by reducing the tax on dividends and capital gains to 5 percent for the lowest two tax brackets and 15 percent for the remaining brackets. This increases economic growth, as well as the incomes of working Americans. Seniors, who tend to own a larger share of stocks than other age group will benefit greatly from the much-needed tax relief in this bill. What does our economy need? The answer is before the House today: more jobs and tax relief. We must create more jobs and the best way to help companies, investors and entrepreneurs to create good, private- sector jobs is to reduce taxes across-the-board. And the best way to refuel the economy and ensure our ability to compete is to reduce taxes. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 766, which authorizes a national nanotechnology research initiative. This bill funds more research into this ``small science'' that does big things. As a science, nanotechnology is crucial to the future of information technology. As a benefit for the average person, nanotechnology has already led to applications that can be used on a daily basis, such as hard transparent coating for eyewear, nano-enhanced computer chips, and drugs more easily absorbed by the human body. Each innovation serves as a building block for new directions and applications. The possibilities are as endless as the human imagination. Continued research plays an important role in the further development of nanotechnology. This science is still in its infancy and it will take many years of sustained investment and investigation for this field to achieve maturity. Nanotechnology has evolved from advances in chemical, physical, biological, engineering, medical, and materials research. It will continue to contribute to the science and technology workforce for years to come. The National Science Foundation predicts nanotechnology will represent $1 trillion in global goods and services in little over a decade. According to a study of international nanotechnology research efforts sponsored by the National Science and Technology Council, the United States is at risk of falling behind its international competitors, including Japan, South Korea, and Europe, if it fails to sustain broad based interests in nanotechnology. H.R. 766 authorizes $2.36 billion in research and development funding. This legislation establishes new technology goals and research directions, coordinates nanotechnology programs through federal agencies, universities across the country, and high-tech companies, to assure America's continued ability to lead the global exploration of nanotechnology.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this conference report contains several important provisions that protect the most vulnerable among us, that is, our children. One of those provisions is an amendment I offered to the bill, which was approved by a vote of 406 to 15. That provision addresses the Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which held that the Federal law to combat computer-generated pornography was too broad. The overturning of this law to combat child pornography has emboldened those who abuse children. A General Accounting Office report just 2 weeks ago found that in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, child pornographers are now increasing their presence on the Internet and are engaging in their depraved actions with relative ease. The Internet has proved a useful tool for pedophiles and sex predators as they distribute child pornography, engage in sexually explicit conversations with children, and hunt for victims in chatrooms. Unfortunately, the new playground for child pornographers is the Internet. Mr. Speaker, every parent should be concerned about what their children see and do on line. We need to protect our children. If this legislation becomes law, child pornographers will be deterred or prosecuted. I hope my colleagues will again vote to reduce child pornography on the Internet and support this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for his remarks. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains on our side.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses the April 16, 2002, Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft versus Free Speech Coalition. That decision struck down in 1996 a law written to combat computer-generated pornography because it was too broad. The overturning of this law to combat child pornography has emboldened those who would have used children. Regrettably, the prediction of the president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has come true. He said, ``The court's decision will result in the proliferation of child pornography in America unlike anything we have seen in more than 20 years.'' A Government Accounting Office report just 2 weeks ago found that in the weight of the Supreme Court decision, child pornographers now are increasing their presence on the Internet and are engaging in their depraved actions with relative ease. The Internet has proved a useful tool for pedophiles and sex predators as they distribute child pornography, engage in sexually explicit conversations with children, and hunt for victims in chat rooms. Every parent should know what their children see and do online. Unfortunately, the new playground for child pornographers is the Internet. Our children are the most vulnerable among us, and we need to protect them. If this amendment becomes law, child pornographers will be a mere click away from a lengthy prison sentence. This amendment increases penalties and provides prosecutors with the tools they need to win convictions against child pornographers, and it responds to the Supreme Court's constitutional concerns by narrowing the definition of child pornography and includes an affirmative defense when real children are not depicted. This amendment passed the House as separate legislation last year by a vote of 413 to 8, but the Senate failed to act. I hope my colleagues again will support the provisions in this amendment which will reduce child pornography on the Internet. Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record the analysis of the constitutionality of this legislation. Constitutional Analysis of the Smith Amendment to H.R. 1104--the ``Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act'' On April 16, 2002, the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, held that two of Federal definitions of child pornography unconstitutional. Sec. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256(8)(B), defined child pornography to include wholly computer generated pictures that appear to be of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Sec. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256(8)(D), defined child pornography to include a visual depiction where it is advertised, promoted, or presented, to convey the impression that the material contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The Court's decision does not bar Congress from outlawing virtual child pornography when the prohibition is narrowly- drawn to promote a compelling government interest. In fact, the Court in its opinion, expressly left that option open for Congress. The Court stated: ``We need not decide, however, whether the Government could impose this burden on a speaker. Even if an affirmative defense can save a statute from First Amendment challenge, here the defense is incomplete and insufficient, even on its own terms.'' Justice Thomas, concurring, stated that the ``Court does leave open the possibility that a more complete affirmative defense could save a statute's constitutionality, see ante, at 1405, implicitly accepting that some regulation of virtual child pornography might be constitutional.'' No member of the Court took exception with his conclusion. Congress clearly has a compelling interest to protect children from sexual exploitation. That interest extends to the prosecution of those who exploit children. These prosecutions are seriously threatened by the mere possibility that technology exists to create a depiction of a virtual child. This possibility allows those who harm real children to claim that the child pornography they possess does not contain real children. Computer technology already exists today to disguise depictions of real children to make them unidentifiable and to make depictions of real children appear computer generated. Furthermore, evidence was presented to the Congress that the technology may already exist to depict virtual children to look real and completely indistinguishable. Compounding the problem, is the fact that the vast majority of child pornography prosecutions today involve images contained on computer hard drives, computer disks, or related media and that a computer image seized from a child pornographer is rarely a first-generation product. These pictures are e-mailed over and over again or scanned in from photographs of real children being abused and exploited. The transmission of images over an e-mail system can alter the image and make it impossible even for an expert to know whether or not a particular image depicts a real child. If the original image has been scanned from a paper version into a digital format, this task can be even harder since proper forensic delineation may depend on the quality of the image scanned and the tools used to scan it. To prove a child is real will require identifying the actual child. This is usually an impossible task. The quandary is that while there is no substantial evidence that any of the child pornography images being trafficked today were made in any other way than by the abuse of real children, technological advances are leading many criminal defendants to suggest otherwise. These defendants are claiming that the images they possess are not those of real children, insisting that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the images are not computer-generated. This is not a new defense, but without a narrowly drafted statute intended to prohibit the use of virtual child pornography that an ordinary person viewing the depiction could not distinguish from a depiction of a real child, it will be impossible for the government to prosecute child pornography cases involving computer images. Some in the Court are cognizant that technology may threaten the Government's compelling state interest of effective prosecution of those who sexually exploit children and thus threaten the Government's ability to protect children. A representative from the Department of Justice testified: As Justice Thomas noted in his concurring opinion, ``if technological advances thwart prosecution of `unlawful speech,' the Government may well have a compelling interest in barring or otherwise regulating some narrow category of `lawful speech' in order to enforce effectively laws against pornography made through the abuse of real children.'' 122 S. Ct. at 1406-07 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment). Similarly, Justice O'Connor noted in her opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part that, ``given the rapid pace of advances in computer-graphics technology, the Government's concern is reasonable.'' Id. at 1409. Moreover, to avert serious harms, Congress may rely on reasonable predictive judgments, even when legislating in an area implicating freedom of speech. See Turner Broad. Sys. Inc. v. FCC 520 U.S. 180, 210-11 (1997). We believe that Congress has a strong basis for concluding that the very existence of sexually explicit computer images that are virtually indistinguishable from images of real minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct poses a serious danger to future prosecutions involving child pornography. Indeed, we already have some sense of the impact of the Court's decision. The Ninth Circuit had invalidated the same provisions of law in 1999, and all accounts indicate that the number and scope of child pornography prosecutions brought by our prosecutors in the Ninth Circuit has been adversely impacted. Since the Supreme Court's decision in Free Speech Coalition, evidence of this growing threat is clear as defendants in almost every child pornography case contend that the depictions could be virtual, requiring the prosecutors to prove that the children depicted are real. Some of the defense efforts are succeeding. For example, after Free Speech Coalition, a court granted the defendant's motion to withdraw a guilty plea and held that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the images depicted real children. Moreover, the existence of computer generated images of child pornography that is indistinguishable from depictions of real children will bolster the child pornography market and those who abuse children to produce such pictures. The majority opinion in Free speech Coalition stated, in dicta, that ``if virtual images were identical to illegal child pornography, the illegal images would be driven from the market by the indistinguishable substitutes.'' Contrary to that belief, the President and CEO of NCMEC ``believe[s] that the Court's decision will result in the proliferation of child pornography in America, unlike anything we have seen in more than twenty years.'' He concluded that ``as a result of the Court's decision, thousands of children will be sexually victimized, most of whom will not report the offense.'' The Court stated that ``[f]ew pornographers would risk prosecution by abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice.'' This conclusion is simply wrong. The individuals who produce, trade, and exchange child pornography are rarely profit motivated. Pictures of abuse of real children are sold, but they are also traded and displayed--they are trophies and signs of validation for deviant behavior. While the Supreme Court has certainly opened the door for the adult entertainment industry to enter the child pornography market, legalizing virtual child pornography will not reduce the market for real children. Rather, the result will be a market that contains both real and virtual children (as it does now). The only difference is that now child molesters will be able to hide their abuse with altered or merely e-mailed photographs of their victims and the market will no longer be underground but will return to the public ``adult book stores.'' Child pornography--virtual or otherwise--is detrimental to the nation's most precious and vulnerable asset, our children. Regardless of the method of its production, child pornography is used to promote and incite deviant and dangerous behavior in our society. As the President and CEO of the NCMEC testified ``there is compelling evidence that visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct involving children cause real physical, emotional and psychological damage not only to depicted children but also to non-depicted children. It is just as insidious, whether it is a photographic record of a child's actual victimization, or a photographic depiction used as a tool or device to subsequently victimize other children.'' Sex predators produce, trade, and use child pornography for several insidious purposes. Pedophiles not only like to create a permanent record for arousal and gratification, but also like to trade these pictures with other pedophiles to validate their actions. Additionally, sex offenders use child pornography to lower children's inhibitions to make them believe that such behavior is acceptable and normal. There are also those who sell it for profit. Prior to 1982, child pornography lined the shelves of many ``adult'' entertainment stores. This changed after the 1982 Supreme Court's New York v. Ferber decision that found child pornography was not entitled to First Amendment protection. In Ferber, the Court found that: ``[i]t is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State's interest in `safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor' is `compelling.' '' Further the Court found that: ``[t]he distribution of photographs and films depicting sexual activity by juveniles is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children in at least two ways. First, the material produced are a permanent record of the children's participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation. Second, the distribution network for child pornography must be closed if the production of material which requires the sexual exploitation of children is to be effectively controlled.'' While child pornography disappeared from bookstores following Ferber, it did not disappear from existence.'' The child pornography market merely went underground, but this underground market was spurred by the advent of the Internet. Nevertheless, law enforcement had begun to make enormous strides in the enforcement and prosecution of child pornography crimes. Again, the Government has a compelling state interest in protecting children from those who sexually exploit them including both child molesters and child pornographers. The Supreme Court in New York v. Ferber, concluded that ``[t]he prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse of children constitutes a government objective of surpassing importance.'' In Osborne v. Ohio, the Court recognized that this compelling state interest extends to stamping out the vice of child pornography ``at all levels in the distribution chain.'' It follows that the Government has a compelling interest to ensure that the criminal prohibitions against child pornography remain enforceable and effective. As the Court stated in Ferber, ``[t]he most expeditious if not the only practical method of law enforcement may be to dry up the market for this material by imposing severe criminal penalties on persons selling, advertising, or otherwise promoting the product.'' It became apparent in the 1990's that advances in technology threatened the Government's compelling state interest in protecting real children through the effective prosecution of the child pornography laws that cover the visual depictions of real children. In 1996, the Congress attempted to address this concern with the Child Pornography Prevention Act. The 1996 language included a prohibition of any virtual depictions as well as pictures of youthful- looking adults. The Supreme Court found the 1996 statutory language overbroad, and therefore, unconstitutional. This legislation is constitutional as it narrows the definition in significant ways and strengthens the affirmative defense. Furthermore, there is a compelling state interest for the narrowly drawn prohibition. The Government's compelling state interest is to protect children from exploitation. And the protection includes the prosecution of those who would or do exploit children. The Court gave the Congress an opportunity to addresses its concerns, and the Congress has an obligation to do so. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as war begins in Iraq, Americans are rallying behind our Armed Forces. It is an extraordinary show of support for some of the finest men and women in America. They deserve our support and our gratitude. Our soldiers confront the gravest threat of our time: the combination of rogue regimes, weapons of mass destruction and the forces of global terrorism. The cause of peace will prevail when terrorists lose a wealthy patron and protector--Saddam Hussein. There is little doubt that Hussein will be fully disarmed. And the means of his disarmament will be carried out by the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. These are four institutions so identified with their commitment to honor, duty and country that words can never adequately convey their importance to the survival of freedom . . . to the survival of the United States of America. On the eve of the war, Marine Major-General J.N. Mattis explained the mission to his Corps. They are words every American soldier in the Persian Gulf can embrace. General Mattis said: On your young shoulders rest the hopes of mankind. . . . Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with members of the Iraqi army who chose to surrender. While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression. . . . For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of the men who carried the Division's colors in past battle--who fought for life and never lost their nerve--carry out your mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world there is ``No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy'' than a U.S. Marine. General Mattis deserves an enduring ``Semper Fi'' for inspiring our soldiers. We hope and pray for their safe return home.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time. Today, America faces a national insurance crisis that is destroying our health care system. Medical liability insurance rates have soared, causing insurers either to drop their coverage or raise premiums to unaffordable levels. Doctors and other health care providers have been forced to abandon patients and practices, particularly in high-risk specialties such as emergency medicine, brain surgery, and obstetrics and gynecology. This is an intolerable problem that cries out for a solution. The American people understand the problem. A poll conducted in early February shows that 59 percent of all Americans believe the crisis should be solved either by reining in personal injury lawyers or by placing caps on the amounts juries can award. The obvious cause of skyrocketing medical professional liability premiums is escalating jury verdicts. The median medical malpractice jury award doubled between 1995 and 2000, from a half a million to $1 million. That does not reflect the huge costs of cases that do not result in jury awards. In fact, 70 percent of all medical malpractice claims result in no payments because claims are either dismissed or withdrawn. The CEO of Methodist Children's Hospital in my hometown of San Antonio has seen his premiums increase from less than $20,000 to $85,000 in less than 10 years. He has been sued three times. In one case, his only interaction with the person suing was that he stopped by her child's hospital room and asked how the child was doing. Each jury cleared him of any wrongdoing, and the total amount of time all three juries spent deliberating was less than 1 hour. Of course, the doctor's insurance company did spend a great deal of time, effort and money in his defense. Mr. Speaker, Congress can solve the current health care crisis, but it can solve it only by passing the HEALTH Act.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, ninety percent of all Americans oppose cloning human beings. And for good reason. The American public recognizes that cloning raises serious ethical questions. Scientists have cloned monkeys, cattle, pigs, mice and other animals. Because of this success, there are a growing number of groups who claim they can, and will, clone a human being. That prospect should worry us. Cloning is a manufacturing process--a scientific assembly line--devoid of procreation. Efforts to improve humanity should never spin out of control and devalue humanity, which is precisely what human cloning does. Our values of faith and family are slowly eroding. Given that fact, we should be mindful that there are certain ethical lines we should never cross. One of the dehumanizing effects of the cloning process is the failure rate. It is extremely high. Those in favor of cloning humans often downplay that it took 277 stillborn, miscarried or dead sheep to make one Dolly. And what happens to those who survive? Attempts to clone human beings could carry massive risks of producing unhealthy, abnormal, and malformed children. I favor a total ban on human cloning because if we allow cloning for any reason, we will be unable to control what is done with cloned embryos. No one is going to monitor every research laboratory. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Leadership and Members of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation to the House floor and in concluding the FY 2003 funding process. This bill provides critical resources for essential and much needed scientific, research and advanced technology initiatives. As a member of the Research Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, I would like to express appreciation for the continued funding of many valuable research programs, both within the government and for the commercial sector. Funding continues for the many federal research programs, including NIH, NSF, NOAA, NASA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Within NIST, funding for the Advanced Technology Program is provided. ATP assists in the commercialization of promising technologies and provides federal resources that are much needed and scarce in the current economy and investment climate. I would like to recommend an additional category for consideration in the use and awards of ATP funds for FY 2002-03 grants. Important advances in digital holographic technology are being developed, with broad applications for commercial as well as governmental uses, both defense and non-defense. This important scientific work by mostly small companies has been funded through private capital, which is now largely unavailable at this critical period of technology development. With uses of this three-dimensional visualization technology pending in a number of critical areas, capital is needed to accelerate the R&D programs. I urge NIST to include within the areas under consideration for ATP funding this emerging field of digital holographic technology and its great commercial potential.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced a measure to establish National Inventor's Day as February 11th. Invention has been a part of our country since it was founded. In fact, today is the birthday of Thomas Edison, who was a great inventor and held over 2,000 patents. He is probably best known for having invented the light bulb, the motion picture camera, and the phonograph. He also discovered incandescent light and invented the electric miner's lamp. Edison's inventive genius is reflected in many of our other great inventors. Other American inventions include everyday items such as scotch tape, the cell phone, and the sewing machine to technological marvels like the first microprocessor. I would like to celebrate the inventors of our great country with this resolution.