Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I fully support the Neugebauer amendment to strike the Katrina funding out of this emergency supplemental. It is not in any way, shape, or form that I am opposed to Katrina funding. Indeed, we have already appropriated on an emergency expedited manner $62 billion for Katrina relief. I have been to the gulf coast twice. I have seen the devastation. I have actually worked in one of the clinics in Baton Rouge and treated some of these patients. My heart goes out to the victims of this devastating hurricane along the gulf coast.

But as my colleagues have just said, it makes no sense to join these two bills together. The previous $62 billion that we have appropriated is going to Katrina without much oversight. The citizens, the constituents of the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, are sick and tired of hearing the stories of waste, fraud and abuse. They want some oversight, and this is the only way we can get it.

With all due respect to the appropriations chairman and the subcommittee chairman, this idea that if we do not do it today, right now, combined with the defense emergency appropriations, Armageddon is going to occur. It is not. We come back here the very first day we return and we deal with this bill and we have some opportunity to have some input. This is what our constituents want.

I support the Neugebauer amendment. Let us strike this funding and come back and do it right.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in an attempt to rein in what some might see as the most modest of items. Certainly the $3 million my amendment would strike is a minute fraction of the $19.1 billion we are going to spend in this emergency supplemental package on Katrina relief. Specifically, my amendment strikes the $3 million for the National Historic Preservation Fund.

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the money would be used for section 106 reviews. These reviews are required to assets effects of certain undertakings on historic properties by activities of the Federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA.

Some may ask, why strike this particular program from the bill? The answer is not because I don't like the program or even that the money won't be needed at some point down the line. Rather, I am offering this amendment today to make the point that if we are passing an emergency supplemental, then we should only be including emergency money.

If we need to initiate a project on or near an historic property during a time of emergency, shouldn't the government bureaucracy just get out of the way and waive section 106 reviews, thus saving critical time and money for the vital life needs of those who are and have been affected by Hurricane Katrina?

Mr. Chairman, I will support the overall legislation because I understand the emergency needs of our troops. It was only days ago that I was in Iraq visiting troops and hearing of their needs to ensure continued success in this war on terror. And although I do not believe the two should be coupled together in this particular package, as I previously said, I have personally been to Louisiana twice and I know we are in an emergency situation throughout the gulf coast. They do need further relief.

My point here today is that we must focus our resources on the true needs of the region, not on a government review program that should be waived anyway. When we have successfully moved beyond this immediate situation, then we can reinstate section 106 requirements for the affected gulf coast States.

I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey

Amendment No. 21: Page 62, beginning on line 1, strike

lines 1 through 11 (relating to National Park Service

Historic Preservation Fund).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 4939. I will be supporting the Supplemental Appropriations Act so our Armed Forces who are so bravely working to rebuild Iraq and fight the global war on terror have all of the tools and equipment they need to be successful.

My support comes, however, with a great deal of consternation. Because in this voting for this legislation I will also be forced to support unrelated spending for the rebuilding of the gulf coast.

Let me be clear. I believe that we need to help those devastated by Katrina. I have been there twice. But we must do it in a responsible manner with a clear understanding of where and how the money is spent.

It is clear that we must sustain military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, continuing making progress and tracking down and bringing terrorists to justice and procure the necessary equipment for our troops to carry out their mission.

It is unclear to me, however, why we must couple this funding with gulf coast relief funds. Both are worthy causes, but in my view the spending for the latter is in desperate need for further oversight and explanation.

For instance, we should be taking a closer look at the $9.6 billion included for FEMA's problematic Disaster Relief Fund and the $4.2 billion included for community development block grants, which are not even required to go to the gulf coast areas. These funds should not be incorporated into a bill with those for our military force protection needs, including up-armored Humvees, Abram tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles.

Congress has already allocated $62.3 billion to hurricane relief and recovery. I believe that it is Congress' responsibility to demand a strict accounting of how these dollars are spent, and any further funds allocated to the gulf coast for hurricane relief should be offset with other savings.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I did not know that. I apologize.

Mr. Chairman, I will go ahead and complete. I do apologize for that. I was not aware of that.

But I think it is important, in conclusion, that we work toward rebuilding and restoring normalcy for those who are affected by Katrina. However,

we should do so in a stand-alone bill to ensure that we have proper oversight.

Madam Speaker, last night, Congress voted to give our law enforcement officials a strong tool to fight the epidemic of methamphetamine abuse. I was proud to support this legislation because I have seen the havoc meth can wreak on our children, our families, and our communities.

The 11th District of Georgia, which I represent, has felt the full consequences of this growing epidemic. In fact, one of the largest methamphetamine busts recently took place in metropolitan Atlanta. We cannot ignore what has happened in the basements and tool sheds of suburban America, because methamphetamine abuse is threatening the health and safety of all of our citizens.

As a physician, I know the harm it causes the human body, and as a parent and a grandparent, I know the devastation it can bring to our children and to our families.

Congress has taken a bold step forward toward fighting and winning the war on methamphetamine abuse. When President Bush signs this legislation into law, we will have truly made a difference in the safety of our communities.

Madam Speaker, I ask that you join me in praising this hugely important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 710 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 710 provides for further consideration of the bill under a structured rule. Having discussed this last week on general debate, it provides that no further general debate shall be in order, it makes in order only those amendments that are printed in the report, it provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order that they are printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, and shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 710 and the underlying bill, H.R. 4167, the National Food Uniformity Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will resume consideration of the National Food Uniformity Act of 2005 after having conducted general debate on the overall bill last Thursday, and this rule will allow us to move forward with the consideration of several amendments, most which are Democratic-sponsored amendments.

As I mentioned last week, currently food regulation is composed of a variety of different and sometimes inconsistent State requirements. Collectively, this hodgepodge of regulations not only inhibits interstate commerce, but it also drives up the cost for consumers.

Mr. Speaker, these different regulations from State to State for the same product create too many unnecessary costs and they jeopardize the well-being of consumers nationwide. Make no mistake, businesses cannot simply and completely absorb these unnecessary and additional costs, and therefore the consumers across this Nation, they are the ones who absorb the expense for labeling inconsistencies.

Without question, lower-income citizens truly feel the brunt of any additional cost to their food bill. Feeding one's family is not optional, and therefore any reduction to the cost of food will lower the cost of food products and help to ensure food on every table regardless of income.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not designed to deprive the public of life- or health-saving knowledge but, rather, to ensure that all consumers regardless of geography have this knowledge. If the Department of Health, as an example, in New York learns that a candy bar a day can give you tooth decay, then the citizens of Georgia as well as the citizens from each and every State should have access to that same knowledge through the FDA. This simply makes sense and has the potential to prevent future illnesses and save lives.

Further, while I have already spoken at length about the overall benefits of this bill, I would like to discuss one particular criticism made by the opponents. I have heard some say this bill is an assault on States rights. Well, I am an ardent supporter of States rights and I can attest this legislation is not designed to step on any State's toes. This bill does, however, guarantee all citizens access to the same information and warnings concerning their food while ensuring States not only can petition for their labeling requirement to be made part of the national standard, but they also can obtain a waiver for their State's requirement even though it need not be applicable to the other 49.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4167 is a commonsense piece of legislation that not only seeks to ensure nationwide knowledge of potentially lifesaving information but also to drive down costs for all consumers.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the rule and move forward with a thoughtful debate on the amendments and support final passage of the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the gentlewoman in regard to the amendment process, there are six amendments made in order. One, of course, is a manager's amendment which just makes very technical changes, as everybody knows. So really four out of five of the amendments that the Rules Committee have made in order on this bill are Democratic amendments.

The gentlewoman brought up the issue about Mr. Stupak's amendment and the use of carbon monoxide in regard to making meat continue to have a fresh appearance. Carbon monoxide has been used for 4 years in not only meats but other processed foods. It is perfectly safe. There is an herbal food company that has some other process that they use to do the same thing, to make food products, in particular, meat, maintain their redness and fresh appearance for a longer period of time. There is absolutely, absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the process that has been in place and approved by the FDA for more than 4 years in any way, shape or form is harmful. So that is the reason why that particular amendment was not made in order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds just in response to the gentleman from Tennessee.

The gentleman acknowledged, Mr. Speaker, that he is a cosponsor on the bill and in all probability will vote to support the bill. I know he has some concerns over process, but he used the phrase ``coverup,'' and I noticed the gentleman is very intelligent. If there were any coverup involved in this bill, he certainly would not have his name attached to it, nor would he be acknowledging that he would probably support it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, last week it was brought up about the number of organizations that were opposed to this bill. I want to submit for the Record at this point a list of 119 from all 50 States across the Nation that support this, small businessmen and women, large businesses, including the H.J. Heinz Company and many, many others.

Groups Supporting H.R. 4167--The National Uniformity for Food Act of

2005

Last Updated: February 27, 2006.

Ahold, Albertson's, Altria Group, Inc., American Bakers

Association, American Beverage Association, American Feed

Industry Association, American Frozen Food Institute,

American Plastics Council, American Meat Institute, American

Spice Trade Association, and Animal Health Institute.

Apple Products Research and Education Council Association

for Dressings and Sauces, Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers

Association, Bush Brothers & Company, Business Roundtable,

Cadbury Schweppes plc, California Farm Bureau Federation,

California Grocers Association, California League of Food

Processors, California Manufacturers & Technoloy Association,

Calorie Control Council, and Campbell Soup Company.

Cargill, Incorporated, Chocolate Manufacturers Association,

The Coca-Cola Company, Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc., ConAgra

Foods, Inc., Council for Citizens Against Government Waste,

Dean Foods Company, Del Monte Foods, Diamond Foods, Inc.,

Flavor & Extract Manufacturers Association, and Flowers

Foods, Inc.

Food Marketing Institute, Food Products Association, Frito-

Lay, Frozen Potato Products Institute, General Mills, Inc.,

Gerber Products Company, Glass Packaging Institute, Godiva

Chocolatier Inc., Grain Foods Foundation, Grocery

Manufacturers Association, and H.J. Heinz Company.

The Hershey Company, Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Hormel Foods

Corporation, Independent Bakers Association, Institute of

Shortening and Edible Oils, International Association of

Color Manufacturers, International Bottled Water Association,

International Dairy Foods Association, International Food

Additives Council, International Foodservice Distributors

Association, and International Formula Council.

International Ice Cream Association, International Jelly

and Preserves Association, The J.M. Smucker Company, Jewel-

Osco, Kellogg Company, Kraft Foods, Inc., Land O' Lakes,

Inc., Maine Potato Board, Masterfoods USA, McCormick &

Company, Inc., and McKee Foods Corporation.

Milk Industry Foundation, The Minute Maid Company, National

Association of Convenience Stores, National Association of

Manufacturers, National Association of Margarine

Manufacturers, National Association of Wheat Growers,

National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National

Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Cheese Institute,

National Chicken Council, and National Coffee Association of

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as I say, this process has been going on for over 4 years. I do not know that there have been any reports of people harmed in any way by the process, and, again, I think this is just a competitive issue between a company that has herbal food or herbal products they are using and they would rather those be used, and, sure, ban the other process and remove competition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. In response to the gentleman from California, in regard to those 200 State laws that, as he said, protect our food supply, Mr. Speaker, many if not most, maybe not all, but

many if not most of those State laws would be incorporated in the national food label that is allowed by the FDA.

And in this bill in particular, and I know the gentleman is very familiar with the bill, but let me just read a couple of provisions. The provision allows both exemptions from national uniformity and the adoption of a State requirement as a uniformed national standard, one of those 200 he mentioned, any State may petition the FDA to obtain an exemption from the requirement of national uniformity for a particular requirement. The FDA may grant the exemption if the State or local requirement protects an important public interest that would otherwise be unprotected.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this provision recognizes that special circumstances may justify a warning requirement in a particular State like California, or a locality, even though that requirement should not apply throughout the country. Thus, the need for local protection is fully recognized under the legislation.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and certainly the gentleman is right, I do honor and respect States rights, but the fact that there are 200 laws today in the 50 States, there could be 800 a year from now and there could be no end to this process.

I think in further responding to the gentleman's inquiry, certainly it is appropriate that States in these situations would appeal to the Federal Government, if you will, the FDA. And the decision to either grant or not grant is not going to be based on anything but solid science, on sound facts and not scare issues, like this issue over the way meats or other foods are processed in a low-oxygen environment to maintain their fresh appearance and their red color, that we have been doing for 4 years in a perfectly safe manner.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the point is, as we have stated repeatedly in regard to this bill, if a State does appeal to the Federal Government, to the FDA, for a labeling requirement that they have concerns about in their particular State, no matter how long it takes the Federal Government to respond, indeed if they do not respond, then that label requirement will be applicable to that unique problem that that State has recognized.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is a 180-day appeal process, but if the Federal Government does not respond, it is my understanding, and I will be glad to talk to the gentleman later if he still thinks I am in error in my interpretation of this bill, but I think the point that I made was an accurate statement with regard to that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will draw this debate to a close so we can move forward with consideration of the amendments to H.R. 4167.

This bill should receive wide and bipartisan support because it does ensure everyone has access to the same food labeling information. Why would we want to deprive anyone of life- or health-saving information while driving down the cost of products for all consumers?

Mr. Speaker, as I have previously mentioned, there is no reason, nor is there any excuse to allow regulatory inconsistency to drive up cost and keep some consumers in the dark on matters that may affect their health.

As a physician Member of Congress, I have been and will remain committed to supporting legislation that will prevent illness and save lives.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude my remarks by reminding my colleagues that defeating the previous question that the other side of the aisle is talking about, in fact used probably half of their allotted time to discuss. This is an exercise in futility because the minority wants to offer an amendment that otherwise would be ruled out of order, as they know, as nongermane. So the vote is totally without substance.

The leadership of this House has already committed to bring forward legislation next week in regard to this very sensitive issue that we share on both sides of the aisle regarding port security. The previous question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to close debate on this rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The vote has no substantive policy implications whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I include for the Record an explanation of the previous question.

The Previous Question Vote: What Does It Mean?

House Rule XIX (``Previous Question'') provides in part

that:

There shall be a motion for the previous question, which,

being ordered, shall have the effect of cutting off all

debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the

immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered.

In the case of a special rule or order of business

resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing

for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the

previous question is moved following the one hour of debate

allowed for under House Rules.

The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural

vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting

the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and

amendment on the legislation it would make in order.

Therefore, the previous question has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

In closing, I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the rule, and let us move forward with debate on several thoughtful amendments from both parties and ultimately supporting the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Women's History Month.

As we remember the great women of past generations, we must also salute those women who are serving as role models and leaders today.

One such woman is Tammy Cohen of Marietta, Georgia, my district. Tammy is cofounder and president of InfoMart, and under her guidance, InfoMart has grown from a small startup business to the largest female- owned background checking company in the world.

Mr. Speaker, Tammy's success as a female entrepreneur is inspiring, and while she is deeply respected for her business know-how, she is equally praised for her compassion and willingness to help.

When Hurricane Katrina struck the gulf coast last year, Tammy led a group of InfoMart employees who rented vans, gathered supplies and drove to New Orleans to rescue 15 children and 20 caretakers from a boys' home in Louisiana. Tammy then worked with community groups and local businesses in Marietta to house, feed and clothe these hurricane victims.

Mr. Speaker, during Women's History Month, it is important to honor those women who are making a difference in the lives of others. Tammy Cohen is undoubtedly one of these women.

I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating her accomplishments.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the continued effort to reauthorize the United States PATRIOT Act. It is well overdue for this Congress to ensure those trying to protect the American people have all the tools necessary to combat terrorism.

With the passage of this bill, Congress will have demonstrated its overwhelming desire to protect our civil liberties while protecting our homeland. We have taken every precaution to ensure an overzealous government cannot overstep its constitutional responsibility.

Among other provisions, this legislation allows a person receiving a FISA production order to produce any tangible item that they deem necessary to challenge that order before a district court.

This bill also removes libraries from the definition of a wire or electronic service communication provider for purposes of granting the national security letters, unless, unless the library actually provides electronic communication service.

These are commonsense amendments that will continue to fine-tune the balance between our homeland security and our constitutional rights as American citizens. I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for yielding me the time and for his outstanding work on this vital issue.

Dr. Murphy, thank you so much and thank you for starting this Special Hour and allowing me to get over, as we have a great line- up of members, I think five members, of the Republican Healthcare Public Affairs Team that we formed, with Dr. Murphy and I cochairing that subcommittee of the Republican Conference at the beginning of this 109th Congress. We have been talking about a number of issues during the past year relating to health care, the Medicare Modernization Act, Prescription Drug part D, tort reform, which we passed in this House many times and are still laboring to finally get that into law.

But this gives us, really, a great opportunity to follow on to what our President said in the 2006 State of the Union address in regard to health care. Now, he did not spend a lot of time on health care, but what he said in just a couple of pages was significantly an important part of his address to the Nation.

This Presidency and this Republican majority are fully, fully committed to making sure that we bring health care into the 21st century and we continue to maintain the edge that we have in regard to health care. But we are not going to maintain that edge if we continue to use a 20th-century model. It is just like the radio and the television set and the computer. We have to do this. We absolutely have to do it.

Dr. Murphy probably in his opening remarks talked a little bit about one of the issues that I want him to address in regard to electronic medical records, or health IT, if you will, information technology.

I was recently in Antarctica, and I was able to take my American Express card, actually, no, one of my bank cards, and swipe it and get U.S. dollars to buy some souvenirs. But God help me if I had been hit in the head in Antarctica by a snowball and couldn't speak to the doctors, because they wouldn't know a thing about my health care record. I know that Dr. Murphy and others have taken a leadership role on this particular issue.

So I want to just go ahead at this point and begin allowing my colleagues to talk about some of these issues that are so hugely important. Dr. Murphy has already made some remarks and will speak further about health IT. Dr. Murphy is on the Energy and Commerce Committee, where the Health Subcommittee does so much work on Medicaid and other issues, as I previously have co-chaired the Healthcare Pubic Affairs Team.

Dr. Murphy, I would be happy to yield back to you, or we can go to the long-term care issue and come back, whatever you would prefer.

Dr. Murphy, thank you so much for bringing that expertise in regard to health IT and health care quality. In fact, I wanted to point out, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues one of the posters in regard to this.

The Rand study that Dr. Murphy mentioned, a potential savings of $162 billion annually by going to that system, and also at least 90,000 lives, and possibly more. I wanted to close out that portion before I call on some of my other colleagues to discuss other pertinent issues.

We do have legislation introduced from the Republican Conference to incentivize physicians, particularly small group physicians through our Tax Code, in the 179 section of the Code, to let them rapidly depreciate indeed up to $250,000. We do this for businessmen and women currently up to $100,000, but it is so critically important, this cost savings that I point out, that we want to make sure these physicians can afford to do this, because we need every one of them to participate in health IT.

At this point, the next issue that we wanted to talk about, and the gentlewoman from Florida, my colleague, and classmate, Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite, a member of Financial Services, Homeland Security, Veterans' Affairs, a Member of the Health Care Public Affairs Team, as most of us are; in addition to that she leads the Women's Issue Team of the Republican Caucus. She wears many hats.

But tonight the gentlewoman is going to talk about long-term care. And I hope she will include a little bit about the issue of health savings accounts and how they can be rolled into that. I think the President may have mentioned that a little bit.

At this point I gladly yield to my colleague from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

If the gentlewoman would yield for a second. This is such an important item, long-term care, and the anecdotal case that you just presented to us is touching and very personal, but very real and very practical, as you point out.

And we are going to talk a little bit later about, and I point out on this chart, health savings accounts; but I think the gentlewoman would agree that the opportunity to utilize money out of a health savings account to purchase at some point, maybe not when you are 35 years old and you just had the plan and you are building it up for a couple of years, but as you mentioned, I think you said in your fifties, it probably is certainly time to start saying not only do I pay for an annual physical, and maybe a mammogram or colonoscopy out of my health savings account, but maybe I need to look very closely at purchasing long-term care insurance to protect my assets, Mr. Speaker, so that they are not all used up, as I or anybody else who suffers from some debilitating illness that lasts for a long time, in a nursing home, they have no insurance, they have exhausted all of their assets.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from Florida, too, in thinking outside of the box. I think that is part of why we as Members of the Republican Conference as a health care team, want to bring to our colleagues on a regular basis that we are thinking of ways to get the job done.

We are not just sitting back and accepting the same old, same old. And your bill, and I was not aware of the specifics of it, but that allowance for someone who does not itemize to actually get a deduction for the purchase of long-term care insurance I think is a great idea.

I commend the gentlewoman for that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing us this information on long-term care.

At this time, we have an opportunity to hear another issue discussed by my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from West Virginia, Representative Shelly Moore Capito. And Representative Capito is going to talk tonight about something that, and she knows the numbers, she has been here a little longer than I have in regard to how many times we have addressed this issue of tort reform, of trying to level the playing field. Not take away anybody's rights to a redress of grievances if somebody has injured them by practicing medicine below the standard of care. That could be the provider of the care, it could be the physician, or the hospital.

In any regard, at this point I would like to turn the program over to Representative Capito and have her talk to us about the issue of medical liability reform.

We like to use the expression in those situations: ``it is easier to sue your doctor than it is to see your doctor.''

Thank you. As you point out, it could be seven times. We had passed it just last year, and I guess we will have to do it again this year maybe for the eighth time.

I just have got a little poster here, Mr. Speaker, that I want to call my colleagues' attention to here. The gentlewoman from West Virginia talked about it a little bit in regard to these issues of the need for tort reform, the cost factor, Federal outlays for health care on the rise. Yes, indeed. Nearly one-third of all Federal spending goes towards health care. And that is what she is talking about.

A lot of this spending is defensive medicine. It is unnecessary. She is talking about the trauma center in West Virginia that had to close because they could not get coverage. They could not get the neurosurgeon to take the liability or a thoracic surgeon to see that youngster with the penny lodged in his windpipe.

These are the issues; and, yes, everybody that comes into the emergency room anywhere in the country with a headache, doctors know physical diagnosis and ability to examine by looking in the eyes and checking the blood pressure. But they are not sending that patient home with a couple of aspirins and careful instructions to call the next day. They get a CAT scan and the most expensive one that is coming along for that particular year.

She did such a great job. Finally, in her last two minutes and I am so glad that she did that in regard to the Medicare Prescription Drug Act, part D. We have heard all of these naysayers. I am sure they were out there in 1965 when we had the optional Medicare part B which 98 percent of seniors are paying upwards of $90 a month to be part of because it is a good program. This is a good program.

I thank Representative Shelly Moore Capito for giving us some information, personal anecdotal statistics from West Virginia. It is absolutely true.

At this point it is a pleasure to have as part of our team tonight, and actually my co-chair of the Policy Committee, the Republican Policy Committee on HealthCare Reform, another physician, a freshman who does not seem like a freshman because of his knowledge and skill and ability. I am talking about the gentleman, Dr. Charles Boustany, cardio-thoracic surgeon from Lake Charles, Louisiana.

Before I yield him most of the remaining time in this special hour, I want to thank him for the work that he did on the gulf coast during not only Hurricane Katrina but Rita that hit his area, his district, and devastated over 125 miles of that great part of our country and what he has tried to do in regard to going forward to work on issues, like making sure in a catastrophe like that in the future that we would have a data bank of physicians by specialty so that we would be much more organized and could respond like he did, personally, in an efficient fashion.

So at this point it is indeed a pleasure to call on the gentleman from Louisiana, Representative Boustany. He will talk a little bit about competition in health care and some of the hallmarks for reform.

I thank Mr. Boustany so much for being with us this evening and for pointing out the rising cost of health care and what we need to do about it. I particularly appreciate what you said about transparency.

In the final few minutes, I am going to talk a little bit about the health savings accounts that the President has promoted and increased the amount of money that can be put aside, very much like an IRA, but this would be an IRA for health care. Because you are absolutely right; we use the expression, and maybe it is really apropos for health care, skinning the game. They are going to be better consumers. People do a great job shopping for an automobile or an appliance or new flat-screen television set, and they may go to eight different stores, discount big box stores, trying to save an extra fifty bucks on a plasma TV. And people do that, and I do not blame them. We can do that in health care, too.

I think Mr. Boustany is absolutely right. There will be a day when we do have electronic medical records throughout the system. Secretary Leavitt is totally committed to this, and Dr. Brailer, as our good friend Mr. Murphy said at the outset of the hour, but will also need to be done as everybody is interconnected, every medical office, every clinic, whether it is the size of Mayo or Rochester or whatever, or maybe just a two-doctor shop, everybody's information about their patients is interconnected so that we know what their needs are and also the information that physicians, their pricing information, what does an OB/GYN typically charge for a routine hysterectomy or delivery or cesarean section; what does a vascular surgeon charge for the procedures that they do. We call those endarterectomies, put in a graft to go around a blocked vessel. What does a general surgeon charge to

take out a gallbladder through laparoscopic, or appendix or thyroid? There are more than one good doctor in each community. I do not know about cardiothoracic surgeons. They are in short supply, but there are lots of us OB/GYNs and general surgeons that do a good job.

People will one day in the near future, because of what we are doing, the efforts of this Republican majority and this President, who is totally committed to making sure that we continue to have the best health care system in the world, we will see the day that in a secure environment, people can look on a Web site and know exactly what the differences are and shop economically for not the cheapest health care but the best-priced health care and good health care.

We talked a little bit at the outset of the health savings account issue. I think that this is a wonderful opportunity. I wanted to show maybe one last poster in regard to that, because we hear a lot of criticism sometimes here on the floor of this Chamber, and sometimes out in the halls and maybe indeed sometimes back home in our districts, say, oh, you know, the health savings account, they are just, here again, something for the rich, and you Republicans only care about the people that have lots of money. Well, look, Mr. Speaker, at this health savings account, not just for the healthy and wealthy.

Seventy-three percent of those who have established, and there are about 3 million now and we predict within the next couple of years 10 million, and it is growing rapidly, 73 percent have families with children. Fifty-seven percent of these holding health savings accounts are over age 40; 35 percent are from households with four or more people; 40 percent are high school graduates or have technical school training as the highest level of education. Also, I might say parenthetically, some of these folks are the most successful because they are hardworking and work by the sweat of their brow; 40 percent did not indicate any prior coverage.

So this is something for everything, and for those who do not want that, the President has talked about refundable tax credits to purchase health insurance for an individual. When I say refundable tax credits, I mean somebody that, because they are a lower economic earner and they do not typically pay taxes, they do not get any advantage from a deduction. So we actually give them money. A refundable tax credit means you give them money for the sole purpose of purchasing health insurance. These are some of the things that we wanted to talk about.

The gentleman from Louisiana, I would be glad to yield to him for a comment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and just in the closing minutes, I would say that also it is important for people to know that while people maintain these health savings accounts and add to them each year, they enjoy the miracle of compound interest as these accounts grow. They can only be spent on health care, but typical insurance does not cover dental care or a lot of eye care. It certainly will not pay for a hearing aid, no cosmetic surgery. It does not help women who have infertility problems who need assisted reproductive technology so they can achieve the wonderful joy of childbirth and raising a child or children. All of those things can be paid for out of these health savings accounts.

We talked about purchasing long-term health care insurance, and when a person turns 65, they can actually use some of this money for other things.

Well, that wraps it up. I see my time is drawing to a conclusion. I think the Speaker has tapped that gavel a little bit, and I do not want to cut into my good friend's, the gentleman from Georgia on the Democratic side, and his special hour. So at that we will conclude.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 702 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 702 is a general debate rule that provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it provides that after general debate, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion and no further consideration of the bill shall be in order except by a subsequent order of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 702 and the underlying bill, H.R. 4167, the National Food for Uniformity Act of 2005.

H.R. 4166 was introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) and reported out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on 15 December 2005 by a vote of 30-18. This is a good bill, and I would like to thank Chairman Barton and Representative Rogers for their work in bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, currently food regulation is composed of a variety of different and sometimes inconsistent State requirements. These different State standards hamper the free flow of interstate commerce. They also result in increased costs to manufacturers and distributors that are then, of course, passed on to consumers. The greatest burden falls on our citizens and resident immigrants who are at the lowest end of the economic scale, who are struggling to pay for even basic staples.

So, Mr. Speaker, these differing standards and their effects are very similar to problems plaguing the health insurance industry, which also drive up the cost to consumers and lock the door to many low-income individuals and families who simply cannot afford basic health care coverage because of all the required, expensive and often unnecessary extra screenings, tests and procedures mandated by 50 different State legislatures.

From State to State, we have a patchwork quilt of health and insurance regulations and mandates that would create bureaucracy upon bureaucracy, driving up the costs and driving away coverage for those who need it most. These regulatory inconsistencies in both the insurance health care industry and in the food industry impose unnecessary costs and jeopardize the well-being of American consumers nationwide.

However, Mr. Speaker, the National Uniformity for Food Act would establish national standards to ensure consistency in food labeling regulation. The bill will amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to establish a nationwide system of food safety standards and warning requirements for food labels instead of just a hodgepodge of different and, yes, even contradictory warnings among the various and sundry States.

Mr. Speaker, establishing nationwide, uniform standards is by no means unprecedented. We already have national standards in the areas of meat and poultry products regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture. We have national standards for nutrition labeling, health claims, standards of identity, pesticide residue tolerance, medical devices and drugs regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration.

Mr. Speaker, for those who fear an important warning might fall through the cracks, I want to emphasize that this bill does allow States whose requirements differ from the Federal requirements the opportunity to petition the FDA to adopt the requirement as a national requirement or to exempt it from the requirement of uniformity for

their particular locality. If it is worthwhile to the State of California, as an example, I trust that the FDA would hold that it is worthwhile for the 49 other States, including my State of Georgia. This petition process will allow States to have notification requirements that address food safety issues unique to their States, bottom line.

H.R. 4167 also, Mr. Speaker, includes a provision that allows the State to exercise imminent hazard authority to prevent the sale of dangerous food by applying a State requirement that would otherwise be preempted. They can do it in that emergency situation.

With the passage of this rule, the House of Representatives will move forward today with general debate to discuss the overall merits of the bill, and we will resume consideration next week on a multitude of proposed amendments. This additional time will help to ensure an open and fair process so that we ultimately arrive at consensus legislation based on sound policy.

So I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and, ultimately, the underlying legislation.

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

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

In response to the gentleman from California, first of all, Mr. Speaker, I have got a document here of 119 groups supporting H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005, which I will submit for the Record at this point.

Groups Supporting H.R. 4167--The National Uniformity for Food Act of

2005

Ahold; Albertson's; Altria Group, Inc.; American Bakers

Association; American Beverage Association; American Feed

Industry Association; American Frozen Food Institute;

American Plastics Council; American Meat Institute; American

Spice Trade Association; Animal Health Institute; Apple

Products Research and Education Council Association for

Dressings and Sauces; Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers

Association; Bush Brothers & Company; Business Roundtable.

Cadbury Schweppes plc; California Farm Bureau Federation;

California Grocers Association; California League of Food

Processors; California Manufacturers & Technology

Association; Calorie Control Council; Campbell Soup Company;

Cargill, Incorporated; Chocolate Manufacturers Association;

The Coca-Cola Company; Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.; ConAgra

Foods, Inc.; Council for Citizens Against Government Waste;

Dean Foods Company; Del Monte Foods.

Diamond Foods, Inc. Flavor & Extract Manufacturers

Association; Flowers Foods, Inc.; Food Marketing Institute;

Food Products Association; Frito-Lay; Frozen Potato Products

Institute; General Mills, Inc.; Gerber Products Company;

Glass Packaging Institute; Godiva Chocolatier Inc.; Grain

Foods Foundation; Grocery Manufacturers Association; H.J.

Heinz Company; The Hershey Company.

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.; Hormel Foods Corporation;

Independent Bakers Association; Institute of Shortening and

Edible Oils; International Association of Color

Manufacturers; International Bottled Water Association;

International Dairy Foods Association; International Food

Additives Council; International Foodservice Distributors

Association; International Formula Council; International Ice

Cream Association; International Jelly and Preserves

Association; The J.M. Smucker Company; Jewel-Osco; Kellogg

Company.

Kraft Foods Inc.; Land O' Lakes, Inc.; Maine Potato Board;

Masterfoods USA; McCormick & Company, Inc.; McKee Foods

Corporation; Milk Industry Foundation; The Minute Maid

Company; National Association of Convenience Stores; National

Association of Manufacturers; National Association of

Margarine Manufacturers; National Association of Wheat

Growers; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors;

National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Cheese

Institute.

National Chicken Council; National Coffee Association of

USA; National Confectioners Association; National Fisheries

Institute; National Frozen Pizza Institute; National Grape

Cooperative Association; National Grocers Association;

National Institute of Oilseed Products; National Milk

Producers Federation; National Pasta Association; National

Pecan Shellers Association; National Pork Producers Council;

National Potato Council; National Restaurant Association;

National Turkey Federation.

Nestle USA; North American Millers' Association; Osco Drug;

O-I; Peanut and Tree Nut Processors Association; Pepperidge

Farm Incorporated; PepsiCo, Inc.; Pickle Packers'

International; The Procter & Gamble Company; Quaker Oats;

Rich Products Corporation; Rich SeaPak Corporation; Safeway;

Sara Lee Corporation; Say-on Drugs.

The Schwan Food Company; Snack Food Association; Society of

Glass and Ceramics Decorators Supervalu Inc.; Target

Corporation; Tortilla Industry Association; Tropicana;

Unilever; United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association; U.S.

Chamber of Commerce; Vinegar Institute; Welch Foods, Inc.;

Winn-Dixie; Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company; Yoplait.

To my friend from California, I want to point out that among these 119 just happens to be the California Farm Bureau Federation, that is in support; the California Grocers Association, which is in support; the California League of Food Processors, which is in support; the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, which is in support. I do not guess this is a California company, but interesting to note that also the H.J. Heinz Company is in support.

I think that reminds me of the past Presidential election and maybe one of the candidates from the other side of the aisle.

In regard to the preempting States, I want to remind my friends and all of our colleagues that we are dealing here with interstate commerce, and we are

not talking really about preemption, even with that, of State law, because these 200 State laws that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) was talking about in the various and sundry States, this is part of the problem. But all of those laws, each and every one of those laws, could be incorporated, Mr. Speaker, and possibly will be, into the FDA guidelines.

I wanted to make sure that they understand that.

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

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

I appreciate what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) just mentioned. And certainly as a physician, and we have health care providers on both sides of the aisle, we may be hearing from a physician Member, a friend and colleague on their side of the aisle in just a few minutes in regard to similar issues, so I do, I do understand, Mr. Speaker, that there are concerns about consumption of fish; the concern for Ms. Matsui's daughter and her granddaughter. And I am in the same category. She certainly looks a lot younger than I do and a lot prettier, Mr. Speaker, but I have grandchildren as well.

Those are legitimate concerns. However, I will point out that fish is an excellent source of nutrition for mothers, expectant mothers, pregnant mothers, and young children. It is a wonderful source of protein and polyunsaturated fats. Those of us who have had little heart problems in the past understand that it is much more healthy to consume fish than red meat, not that an occasional steak should be denied anybody, Mr. Speaker.

But it is true, as the gentlewoman says, that the mercury content is a concern, and I have done some reading on this issue. I talked just last night, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to discuss this issue with the pediatrician who took care of my children, my adult children, and who now, this same pediatrician, Dr. Larry Clements in Marietta, Georgia, of Kenmar Pediatrics, is taking care of my grandchildren, and I asked about this issue. And certainly there is a concern about mercury levels in certain fish, but also in my reading and in talking with Dr. Clements found out what the American Academy of Pediatrics says about it, found out what the EPA says about it, and found out what the FDA says about it.

The FDA has guidance and guidelines right now that says to these women that four-tenths of a microgram per kilogram per day is a safe consumption level. And so this idea of the FDA being oblivious to the concerns about mercury, organic mercury, that the fish consume and then it gets into the blood stream of the mother; that it actually crosses the blood brain barrier, the placental fetal barrier and gets into the blood stream of a child and can adversely affect their neurological system, the FDA is certainly not oblivious to that.

The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) has an amendment that we will discuss thoroughly, thoroughly, and give careful consideration to her amendment and other similar amendments that Mrs. Matsui is talking about when we do this next week. And that is one of the reasons we wanted to divide up the general debate and the debate on those important amendments because of what the gentlewoman just said.

So it is very possible that the California guidelines in regard to this concern or the Florida guidelines about mercury levels will very likely be incorporated into the national standards. Because, for goodness sake, what is good and safe for her grandchildren, I know my good friend would want the same safety standards for my grandchildren in Georgia, for example. So I think she makes a good point, and I don't object to that at all; but I feel like this national standard will take care of that.

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

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

I want to point out to the gentleman who just spoke that of course one of the major provisions of H.R. 4167 is that it does allow a State to petition for an exemption or to establish a national standard. I think even better, as I said earlier in my response to Ms. Matsui, is to establish a national standard regarding any requirement under FFDCA or the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act related to food regulation.

It allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide such an exemption if the requirement protects an important public interest that would otherwise be unprotected. I think that is a hugely important provision of H.R. 4167.

Again, we are dealing with interstate commerce, and I have a very strong feeling and affinity for States' rights. We all do in Georgia. But, Mr. Speaker, in my opening comments about this bill, I made an analogy of health insurance mandates, that the 50 States are not the same. It would be far easier if they were the same, but 50 States have different mandates that State legislatures pass to put in a so-called basic health insurance policy that you cannot sell in the State without including provisions.

I remember very clearly when I was a State senator, before becoming a Member of this august body, that, unfortunately, one of our colleagues' mother-in-law was dying of ovarian cancer. She and he made the strong case for a screening test, a blood test to purportedly determine who is going to get or likely to get or in the earliest stages of ovarian cancer should be made part of every health insurance policy. In other words, every woman in the State of Georgia on a yearly basis could be provided with this blood test called CA-125. But, Mr. Speaker, gynecologic oncologists, medical cancer specialists, would tell you almost to a person that this is a very poor test for screening for that particular disease.

Yet in the State of Georgia, that is mandated. And that drives up the cost of health insurance, and it also drives up the number of people in Georgia who cannot afford a basic policy of health care. That is really what we are talking about here. We are not talking about taking away the States' rights. And after all, the FDA scientific body, they study these issues very carefully. All of these State mandates will be looked at extremely carefully, and those that need to be in the national guidelines will be there. Those that are not, the States can petition to have them included.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

I just want to say to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), that in addition to the provision that I just quoted, there is this other provision that would address his concerns, and obviously it is a legitimate concern. It is very clear in the language of the bill, Mr. Speaker. It says this: it allows a State to establish a requirement that would otherwise violate an FFDCA act, or FDA provisions relating to national uniform nutritional labeling of this act if the requirement is needed to address an eminent hazard to health, like Mr. Udall mentioned, that is likely to result in serious adverse health consequences and if other requirements are met.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to respond to the gentleman from Washington. I think he asked about how many of the supporters, 119 that we have submitted for the record, were K Street folks. Well, I do not know. I will ask him. The State of Washington is an apple-producing State. I will just mention one. Apple Products Research and Education Council, Association for Dressings and Sauces, Frozen Potato Products Institute. I guess that is mainly Idaho. We mentioned earlier the H.J. Heinz company. Maybe we will ask the gentleman on the other side of the Capitol how they came to the conclusion to support this bill. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Fisheries Institute, Nestle USA, Quaker Oats, Sarah Lee Corporation, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association. That has got to be very important in the State of Washington.

So I say to the gentleman, I do not know about K Street. I do not know that I have ever been there. But I know that these are hardworking people, businesses, small business in many instances, that produce these consumer food products that are engaged in interstate commerce, and if we do not have national standards, the price of their products goes up tremendously. And who does it put the greatest burden on? Those at the least economic level of our society, our poorest citizens and our immigrant population. So this is a good bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

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

Getting back to the subject at hand, H.R. 4167, I will draw this debate to a close so that we can move forward with consideration of H.R. 4167. Without question, this is a common-sense bill that will ensure not only economic savings for consumers, but it will also provide additional safeguards for their health. We have heard a lot of discussion about that this morning in this hour.

Mr. Speaker, all consumers should have the same access to safety precautions and lifesaving information regardless of the State in which they live. And, again, whether it is California or Georgia or your own State of Arkansas, there is no excuse to allow regulatory inconsistency to drive up costs and keep some consumers in the dark on matters that will affect their health.

As a physician, I am convinced that the FDA has the scientific knowledge and professional expertise to provide for these safeguards, Mr. Speaker. But as an ardent supporter of States' rights, I am personally reassured by the bill's provisions allowing States the ability to petition the Food and Drug Administration for either an exemption to the uniformity or application of their State's requirements on a national level.

I want to encourage my colleagues to support this rule, to move forward with the general debate today so that we can come back next week to further discuss the underlying bill and potential amendments.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me remind all of my colleagues that the minority wants to offer an amendment that would otherwise be ruled out of order as nongermane. So the vote is without substance. The previous question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to close this debate on the rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The vote has no substantive policy implications whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, at this point in the Record I insert an explanation of the previous question.

The Previous Question Vote: What Does It Mean?

House Rule XIX (``Previous Question'') provides in part

that:

There shall be a motion for the previous question, which,

being ordered, shall have the effect of cutting off all

debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the

immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered.

In the case of a special rule or order of business

resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing

for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the

previous question is moved following the 1 hour of debate

allowed for under House Rules.

The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural

vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting

the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and

amendment on the legislation it would make in order.

Therefore, the previous question has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the encouraging news that more than 25 million seniors are now enjoying prescription drug coverage under Medicare Part D. This includes over 1.5 million Americans who have enrolled in the last month alone.

Twenty-five million enrollees. That is 25 million seniors who are saving money every time they visit the pharmacy, 25 million seniors who have better access to drugs they need to prevent and manage their illnesses, 25 million seniors who can now afford protection from many catastrophic medical costs.

Like many of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I am working incredibly hard to educate seniors about Medicare Part D. With any new program, parts of the enrollment process certainly can be confusing. After all, this is the largest enrollment effort since the introduction of Medicare 40 years ago. But by investing a little time, seniors can narrow down their choices and find the plan that best fits their prescription drug needs. And let me assure you, the benefits of this program are undoubtedly worth that effort.

I have been thanked by so many seniors who are now reaping the benefits of prescription drug coverage under Medicare, seniors who have seen their prescription drug costs drop by 50 percent or more, seniors who now have more money in their pockets at the end of the month.

In fact, I would like to share with my colleagues two of the many success stories I have heard from my constituents regarding their positive experiences. I hope these stories will encourage other seniors to explore the savings Medicare Part D holds for them.

Take the experience of Carol Burke. She lives in Newnan, Georgia, in my district, my wife's hometown. She recently wrote me, saying, ``I am disturbed by media commentators repeatedly referring to the Medicare drug plan as too difficult to understand and a total disaster. I never hear them say what I truly believe, that it is a wonderful benefit to those of us who have no retirement drug plan provided. A few hours spent with pencil and paper show that the choice to pay a slightly larger premium and have no deductible is clear. The suggestions given in the Medicare 2006 Guidebook are complete and easy to follow, and math is not my strong suit. Thank you for your efforts in providing this much-needed service to seniors.''

Now, my colleagues, that is a real letter, and I completely agree with Mrs. Burke's assessment. It may take a little time to choose the right plan. Seniors might need to rely on family, friends and community organizations to help with the process. But a little time spent enrolling today will pay huge dividends in the upcoming months and years, because affordable prescription drugs help seniors live healthier lives.

Let me share another story with you. I received a phone call from fellow Georgian Mr. Richard Mosrie who recently enrolled in the Medicare part D plan.

Mr. Mosrie explained that he is now saving over $150 a month on his medications, $150 a month. Seniors across America understand what a difference a couple hundred dollars a month can make. These are the stories that seniors need to hear. These are the stories that are happening in every congressional district in America regardless of whether the Congressman or -woman is a Republican or a Democrat.

I find it disappointing that there are people who attempt to use Medicare part D as a political ploy. How cruel to put partisanship over the health of our seniors by encouraging people not to enroll in this great program. That is, in essence, encouraging seniors not to save money and not to improve their health. So, Mr. Speaker, in the following months we will be hearing more and more positive stories from seniors who have enrolled in Medicare part D who are reaping financial and health rewards.

The initial sign-up period runs through May 15, 2006, so there is still time for seniors to enroll without a premium penalty.

As a physician, I know that access to the right medication is a bedrock of good health. Our seniors deserve affordable prescription drug coverage and Congress has passed good legislation to deliver this benefit.

Now is the time for seniors to enroll, and I sincerely hope all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle will stand with me in commitment to helping our seniors access the medication they need to stay well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the Republican fiscal policies that have led the United States economy to an expansion rate of 3.5 percent in 2005. Over the last year we have experienced real economic successes as a result of our legislation that puts American families first.

In 2005 we witnessed historically low unemployment rates, a GDP growth rate of 4.3 percent, and 30 straight months of employment gains. It is no wonder consumer confidence rose last month to the highest level in several years. The current unemployment rate of 4.7 percent is lower than the average rates in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

Our policies, Mr. Speaker, are working. And just last month our payroll employment rose by another 193,000 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, our economy is strong. Household net worth is at an all- time high. Construction spending is at an all-time high. Homeownership is at an all-time high.

I think we can all see the trend developing here. As a Congress, we must adhere to the principles of lower taxes and more responsible government spending. These are the policies that have a proven track record of growing our economy. I am greatly encouraged that economic forecasters project our robust economy will continue in 2006.

Well, first of all, let me thank the gentleman from Maryland for his legislation, H.R. 3144, and for allowing me to spend a little time with him this evening as we try to explain to our colleagues what we are talking about here and what is the essence of the Bartlett bill.

I think the gentleman is correct that the perception among those of us who are strongly pro-life, and I think most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle sort of know each other's former profession before we came to this august body, and I practiced medicine, not just an M.D., but specializing in obstetrics and gynecology; and so over a 26- year period, doing the average number of deliveries a doctor would do in a year, that amounts to over 5,000; and very proudly I can stand here tonight and say that I am pro-life and have never performed an abortion.

But I think that in response to the gentleman's question, people that are pro-life know that embryonic stem cell research that was ongoing before President Bush made his decision 2 or 3 years ago, that those stem cell lines were indeed obtained from this so-called excess. Really not excess. Cannot tell that to the Snowflake babies that have been adopted, those embryos, and there are close to 100 of those precious children alive today, but the pro-life community, indeed, everybody understood that the stem cell lines that were created were created from the destruction of embryos that were produced utilizing artificial reproductive technology that the gentleman from Maryland so adequately explained.

And of course those children, and I say children, they are embryos, but they certainly become children. They become fetuses, and they become children, and they become young adults, and they become middle- aged and senior citizens. They are human life. And, basically, what the President said is those that have already been destroyed to create these cell lines, we will allow researchers, our scientists, to apply for grants to conduct the research on those cell lines, those embryonic stem cells, but not to destroy any more life; to put a moratorium on that and to absolutely not continue to destroy life.

In fact, in 1999, President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission, NBAC, acknowledged broad agreement in our society that early human embryos ``deserve respect as a form of human life.'' They recommended funding of embryonic stem cell research only if there were no alternatives. But what Congressman Bartlett is talking about tonight, of course, is an alternative, a viable, if I can use that term, a viable alternative. And that is what he has outlined for us in this legislation, and I know he will talk about that.

But the important point is that people who are pro-life understand this, that taking a cell or two from an embryo, once it has gotten to the point where those cells are not totipotent, that you are not literally taking maybe something that in itself could divide and become an embryo; you get beyond that stage to what he describes as pluripotent.

And the difference in those two capabilities in those embryonic cells is hugely important to the pro-life community. And he, of course, has done such a great job tonight, and I commend him for that, of explaining how in nature this occurs with the division of a multi-cell embryo to become identical twins; and it is, I think, a good explanation. And I think that is probably what is important, in response to your question, my good friend from Maryland, is this educational process.

And I know you have worked on this. I do not know how many times you have done this Special Order, but you have honored me in giving me an opportunity to participate with you and get into a colloquy and discuss some of these issues. This is the way to do it. This is the seed corn. This is what gets it started. It is a matter of understanding that there is an alternative to destruction of human life for the betterment of other lives.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think it really is a good point that you are making that we have been utilizing adult stem cells for a long time, for many years, and whether we are talking about cells that are obtained from bone marrow or from blood, even, of course, some umbilical cells. But as the gentleman points out, there have been some real great success stories reported: cancers, including ovarian and testicular cancer; leukemia; Hodgkin's disease; stroke; heart disease; Parkinson's disease; as the gentleman mentioned, juvenile diabetes; Crohn's disease, an inflammatory disease of the bowel which can be so devastating.

And I think Roscoe Bartlett, the gentleman from Maryland, mentioned maybe 58, in total, success stories. But the earliest cell, I think, has the greatest potential, and that is basically the point that the congressman is making and why his bill, H.R. 3144, to provide funding, very necessary funding, to do the basic and applied research starting in animal models to show that you indeed can take these, again, not totipotential but pluripotential, so not another embryo, but something that has gone beyond that stage that does not have the capability in and of itself of becoming a human being. That is what we want to say to the pro-life community.

So we are taking, though, the very earliest beyond that stage cell, and there is no telling what tissue it can develop into, whether we are talking about brain tissue and trying to treat people, God rest his soul, like Christopher Reeves or other people with spinal cord injuries, or someone with severe Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's or juvenile diabetes where you create islet cells that you can transplant into a person's pancreas that, because of a genetic defect, has no islet cells.

So that is really, I think, the answer, to say why it is worth the effort, why it is absolutely worth the effort. First and foremost, you do not have to take human life for the betterment of other human lives, and we want to build on the success of utilization of adult stem cells and go that extra mile, and this is what this bill will do, allow us to do the basic research, fund it with Federal dollars so we can get to that point.

Mr. Speaker, last Spring the People's Republic of China passed an anti-secession law targeting the Republic of China on Taiwan. This law gives Communist leaders the right to use force against Taiwan if they suspect separatist activities. In addition to the enactment of the anti-secession law, Communist China's rapid military build-up has brought substantial concern to the Taiwanese people. With 700 Communist missiles posted along the coast of Taiwan, mainland China makes a bold statement that military action is a viable possibility. In response to China's unilateral change of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, it is my understanding that President Chen has expressed concern about Taiwan's future in his Lunar New Year's Day remarks.

If China really wants to unify Taiwan, it is my hope that they will listen to the advice of President Chen who requests mainland China to relinquish the use of force, listen to the people of Taiwan, and stop obstructing Taiwan from participating in international organizations like the United Nations and the World Health Organization. It is also my understanding that President Chen has, on many occasions, stated that the development of cross-strait relations must conform to the principles of sovereignty, democracy, peace and prosperity. China has no right by the principle of self-determination to change the status quo either through the anti-secession law or military intimidation. Like President Chen, I believe Taiwan's future must be made by the free will of the 23 million residents of Taiwan.

Taiwan is a free and democratic nation and deserves to be treated properly and with respect from the international community. Exclusion from the United Nations has deprived Taiwan its international identity. The Republic of China on Taiwan is content on returning to the international community and it is speculated that President Chen might even reapply to the United Nations under the new name of ``Taiwan.''

It is my understanding that in the last six years, President Chen has not broken any of his pledges and has, in turn, offered many goodwill gestures to the People's Republic of China. I believe President Chen's remarks deserve our undivided attention and consideration.

Maintaining the status quo is currently the peaceful alternative and it is my understanding that President Chen once again reaffirmed his 2000 inaugural pledge to maintain status quo with mainland China, not declare independence, not change the name of the government, or add any other language to the Republic of China's Constitution that promotes an independence referendum.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support peace in the region and hope that the People's Republic of China will reciprocate President Chen's goodwill by renouncing the use of force against Taiwan. However, should the need arise, we must not forget our responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act to make sure the Republic of China on Taiwan has the military capability to defend itself and assert its free voice to the international community.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, our Nation lost a very special citizen with the passing of Doris Gregory of Millington, MI.

Born to Vern and Golda Ostrander in 1922, Doris Gregory endured the Great Depression before she married Normal Narsted in 1939 and was blessed with 3 children.

When the United States entered World War II, Norman bravely volunteered to serve in the U.S. Army. Unfortunately, Normal was killed during a patrol mission in March 1945. Although she was left brokenhearted, Doris carried on with her family responsibilities and love for community.

Despite many hardships, Doris Gregory approached life with unbridled optimism and energy. Her friends were abundant and strangers to her were, like the words of playwright Tennessee Williams, ``simply friends she hadn't met.'' She was loved and respected by everyone who knew her and was always willing to lend a helping hand.

Doris found great joy volunteering her time. After retirement, she served as the treasurer of the town of Millington and was instrumental in establishing the Millington Senior Center.

While we have said goodbye to Doris this week, her legacy of compassion will continue to shine in the hearts of her friends and family. May God bless Doris Gregory; she will be missed.