Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a great man who led a purpose-driven life that touched many in my State of Georgia and around the country. Unfortunately, he lost his life Friday afternoon in Marietta, Georgia, riding home from work at Kennestone Hospital on his motorcycle, just a mile and a half from his home. Dr. Robert Lipson, the chief executive officer and president of Wellstar Health System, was a man of honor and genuine character. For 5 years, he has boldly led Wellstar, a renowned health system of five hospitals in northwest Georgia. Under his leadership, the Wellstar Kennestone Hospital recently gained an open heart surgery program and an expanded 84-bed patient care tower. Moreover, he has worked to attract world- class physicians to the entire five-hospital system. Before moving to Atlanta, Dr. Lipson obtained his medical degree from Tulane University, and then he served his country for 2 years in the United States Army. When he moved to Cobb County, he began his 25 years of practicing internal medicine at Kennestone Hospital, and it was my good fortune to meet him then, and we became close friends and colleagues, often caring for each other's patients. When Dr. Lipson saw the great need for primary care physicians in his community, he decided to leave his lucrative practice and put together the Wellstar team. There, he helped build the Wellstar Physicians Group, which currently is comprised of 250 physicians who are responsible for nearly a million annual patient visits in Northwest Georgia. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Lipson will also be remembered as a prolific philanthropist. He was known for his generous spirit, always willing to support charities that needed his help. And due to the financial success of the system he led, he was able to give back compassionately to the community. Dr. Lipson was also an esteemed amateur photographer, with his art being most recently displayed at Kennesaw State University in Cobb County. And admirers of his work describe the photographs as, and I quote, ``awe inspiring,'' and him as a remarkable talent. Mr. Speaker, I cannot say enough about this fine man, a man who did more in his too-short 60 years than many can aspire to in a much longer lifetime. Dr. Lipson is survived by his gracious wife, Livvy; his daughter, Dr. Rachel Lipson, who is a practicing neonatologist in Boston; and his son, Aaron, who specializes in health care law. His family meant so much to him, and I want to offer my sincere condolences to them during this time of their profound loss of a loving husband, a devoted father and devoted grandfather.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my Rules Committee colleague for yielding the time. I rise in support today for this rule and, of course, the underlying conference report, H.R. 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007. I would like to commend Chairmen Lewis and Rogers and, of course, our dear friend Martin Sabo for their tireless effort in keeping our homeland safe. H.R. 5441 is one more piece of pro-security legislation advanced by this Congress, and its passage prior to our adjournment, Mr. Speaker, is critical to ensuring funding for homeland security programs that do keep our Nation safe. This is a comprehensive bill. It addresses several aspects of our porous border problem. It provides increased technologies for use in explosion detection. It beefs up maritime and chemical security and, most importantly, overhauls FEMA. As we know a big part of keeping our homeland safe is protecting these borders. The bill includes $1.8 billion in emergency funding for border and maritime security. It includes $1.2 billion for the construction of a border fence, and it provides for the hiring of an additional 1,500 border patrol agents and includes a commonsense provision brought forth by our chairman of the Rules Committee criminalizing the construction of border tunnels. However, Mr. Speaker, despite the great things in this legislation, I realize that it is not a perfect bill. One of the most notable problems is securing our ports of entry with better background check technology. As you remember, we passed language in the 9/11 bill and in the REAL ID Act last year to require biometric passports by a certain deadline, along with the proper equipment to read the high-tech identification. The deadline was extended 6 months, and with this appropriation bill, unfortunately, it is extended another 17 months because someone in the other Chamber from a northern border State put language in there to further delay this crucial, crucial program. We cannot afford to keep extending the deadline when our security is at stake. Mr. Speaker, shoe bomber Richard Reed, we all remember him, entered our country on an unsecured visa waiver. This visa waiver program allows 28 countries, their folks, to come into this country with nothing, really, to prove their identification. He came in with a visa waiver. We have to know who is coming into our country to prevent terrorists from having a free pass. Despite all the improvements made in this appropriations bill, they are meaningless without securing our ports of entry. Mr. Speaker, all week long we have witnessed this Congress passing legislation to fund critical Department of Defense programs, to try terrorist detainees in military courts and to listen in on the communications of terrorist operatives plotting our destruction. Heather Wilson from New Mexico explained that so well yesterday on this floor. It is unfortunate that throughout this week we have witnessed obstructionism on just about every front and some on the other side advocating for a cautious approach to fighting terrorism out of concern of treating the terrorists fairly. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong approach, and we must remain aggressive in our efforts to keep America safe. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to keep this in mind, to ensure we give our government the tools it needs to protect our homeland. I urge support of this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, I know the gentleman knows that in the defense appropriations bill, that we have language in there right now that would allow it to be legal for our seniors that live at or close to the border to go across the border either into Canada or Mexico and buy those lower priced drugs. But the point is this bill, Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act, is lower in prices to the point where all of that is not even necessary.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my colleague on the Rules Committee for yielding me this time. As my colleague pointed out in his remarks, this is about a same-day rule. It is very simple and straightforward, as Mr. Putnam explained so clearly. We are asking this body to allow us to debate and pass legislation regarding military commissions so that we can try and bring to justice these terrorists. And by the way, 164 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle yesterday voted against that. Also in this same-day rule is to allow us to address this issue of wiretapping necessary to listen to the conversations, international conversations between al Qaeda and people in this country who would do us harm, to modernize that 1978 law which needs modernization to protect our American people. That is what this is all about. Mr. Speaker, I was in my office and did not intend to speak on this rule, but I heard my colleagues talk about all of these issues and things that we haven't done, and then they got to the Medicare modernization and the all-important prescription drug part D plan for Medicare that we finally delivered to our American seniors back in November of 2003 when they have been asking for the 40 years that the Democrats controlled this body for relief and got now. And now they are railing against this issue saying it is a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry and that we would not allow government price controls. No, we would not because we don't like price controls. We want the free market to determine the prices; and, indeed, they can't deny the fact that the prices are coming down. This is working, and they can't stand it. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out finally that in their version of the bill, and I will mention just one, back in 2000, Congressman Stark of the Ways and Means Committee had a bill that included the very same language in regard to no government price controls, let the free market work, and 204 Democrats voted in favor of that.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I too want to thank Representative Latham for bringing this resolution to the floor and stressing the importance to make people understand that a million babies lost a year, in addition to probably another million or so that are aborted deliberately, is a lot of lost lives. Mr. Speaker, I think the importance of this resolution is to let people know that when couples have a miscarriage, it is a child. It might be for some people, well, it is just a miscarriage. They were only 6 weeks or they were only 9 weeks, and they did not even know whether it was a boy or girl. But in the minds of that couple in many instances it is their very first pregnancy, and they are already thinking about that little boy or the little girl and what the name is going to be and the clothes that they are going to pick out and the joys they are going to have sending that child to school and raising it and seeing it play sports and become an adult some day and contribute to our great society. We tend to forget that. And this was brought home to me pretty vividly recently when my daughter-in-law, pregnant with their first child, found out at 10 weeks that the baby did not have a heartbeat. And so that baby was lost. And she went on, of course, and miscarried. And that loss will be with them forever. And so I think it is just so important for us all to realize that when somebody, when you hear about somebody having a miscarriage, do not think, well, it was just a miscarriage, it is not like losing a child or an older child, which of course I do not know that anything compares to that. But this is a significant loss. And that is why this resolution today is so important. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank Congressman Latham for bringing it forward and Congressman Davis as well.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know I talk slow, but I hope I won't take 3 minutes. But I appreciate the opportunity. I mentioned just a moment ago that my specialty was gynecology, but there is another part to that, and it is the obstetrical part, the birth and babies part. So it is an honor and a pleasure to be here and to support H. Res. 402; and I want to thank my physician colleague in this House and another OB/GYN, Dr. Mike Burgess, Representative Burgess from Texas, who also practiced OB/GYN for 17 years, for bringing this resolution; and, also, of course, my colleague from Georgia, Representative Westmoreland; and my good friend from Chicago, Illinois, Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis just said it perfectly. When you lose babies in the first year of life at the rate of 7 per 1,000 live births and we are 28th among industrialized nations and we brag about the fact that we have the greatest health care system in the world, there is something wrong with that picture. And, as he pointed out, it is even worse for African American minorities; and the big problem, of course, is lack of prenatal care. Deaths occur because of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. We are still struggling to figure out why that occurs, but we clearly know why prematurity occurs, low birth weight babies that Representative Davis was talking about, and we can do something about that. So this resolution is very timely, supporting the goals and ideals of Infant Mortality Awareness Month; and I just want to thank the gentleman for letting me put in my 2 cents worth in regard to this very, very important issue.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Putnam, for yielding. I rise today fully in support of this rule and the underlying legislation for H.R. 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act of 2006, because I believe protecting innocent Americans from terrorist plots is one of our government's most critical duties. This bill updates the FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to authorize the expanded use of electronic surveillance on suspected terrorists, with mandated congressional oversight. Its immediate passage is absolutely essential to prevent future terrorist attacks against this Nation. Mr. Speaker, much has changed since FISA was enacted in 1978. The war on terror has replaced the Cold War as our preeminent national security issue. There have been monumental advances in technology, and our terrorist adversaries are capitalizing on these changes in technology as they aggressively plot our destruction. If we are to be prepared for the foremost threat to our Nation's safety today, the 1978 bill must be amended for the realities of today and tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, this bill would authorize the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program to monitor the international, let me repeat, international communication of suspected terrorists inside the United States, while respecting our citizens' privacy. Simply put, this bill streamlines the process by which a FISA warrant can be obtained. It gives NSA more time to conduct emergency surveillance on suspected terrorists without a warrant, and it allows the President to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance for up to 90 days of suspected terrorists when it is believed an attack on America is imminent. While this bill helps us stop terrorists before they inflict destruction, it also protects the rights of law-abiding United States citizens by requiring our President to inform Congress and the FISA court of these emergency surveillances. Mr. Speaker, authorizing the electronic surveillance of terrorists is a matter of common sense. By listening to the phone conversations of al Qaeda members and of organizations working in support of al Qaeda, we stand to learn much more about their terrorist activities, including likely targets of attack. Mr. Speaker, I was tremendously disappointed that 160 of my Democratic colleagues voted yesterday against the Military Commissions Act, and I am still struggling to understand why. But I am hopeful that they will not vote today to limit our ability to monitor the terrorists' phone calls so that we can disrupt these devastating plots. In any regard, my Republican colleagues and I remain committed to the safety of this Nation. To ensure that we give our government the tools it needs to fight and win the war on terror, I urge support for this rule on both sides of the aisle and the underlying legislation.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I am sitting here listening to the two gentlemen speak; I am ready to grab my bat and glove and hat and furthermore take me off the streets so I can go out and play ball again. But they are absolutely right. This is a fantastic achievement from this team from Columbus, Georgia. I am especially proud to share a few moments, because I have part of Columbus in my district. This team is from Representative Westmoreland's district, but what a great community Columbus is, Muscogee County, and the great people there. I know they are so proud of this young ball team and the coaches. Of course we have already mentioned names. I am sure that one of those coaches decided to ask that team from Japan to join in that victory lap. That is the kind of sportsmanship that is developed by these men and women that volunteer their time to work with our youth and achieve such great results. My colleague from Georgia, Congressman Westmoreland, mentioned that we had another team from Georgia. Indeed, back in 1983, and my nurse, I was, of course, in medical practice at the time. Her son was the third baseman on that team. And he today is a medical doctor, a radiologist. But he was a great little ball player. And I think one of the players on that team was a dominant pitcher just like in this year, that led them to victory. He ultimately was a major league baseball pitcher. But what happens with most of these kids, of course, is that they go on to other careers, like Adam Olmsted. Ken and Lynn's son is, as I say, a doctor now. And they go on to very successful careers. And it is not often that they go on to become Major League Baseball players. But the ideals, the sportsmanship, the determination, the relationship they have with their teammates is the thing that they learn, that they take with them through life. And it makes their lives successful no matter what endeavor they pursue. So we have honored these young players at Georgia Tech halftime, University of Georgia halftime. I want to say to any of them that go on and play college baseball, do not go to Auburn or Alabama just to cross the river. Stay in Columbus, go to LaGrange College, University of Georgia, Bulldogs, Georgia Tech, Kennesaw State University. We have got some great baseball teams in Georgia, and that is where we want them to play.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding. I just wanted to come down quickly and support Representative Issa and H. Con. Res. 473, this resolution regarding gynecologic cancer. I spent a lot of years in my former life as a practitioner of the specialty of gynecology and obstetrics, and that dreaded fear of the big C-word, cancer, for women, particularly ovarian cancer that is so deadly. That is why it is so important that this resolution be brought forward to the Congress and bring some recognition to this dreaded disease. Mr. Issa and I were talking earlier today about ovarian cancer, in particular, and how difficult it is to detect. It is commonly thought you can do a blood test, but it is not a good screening test for ovarian cancer. There are other things that we can do, and we need to make sure that the American public and our colleagues in the Congress are aware of that. It costs money, certainly, but it saves lives. I wanted to drop in for a few seconds, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, and I urge Members to support this very, very important resolution.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of the rule for H.R. 6166. I hear from a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and particularly heard in our hearing yesterday in the Rules Committee, a complaint about process. I understand that, Mr. Speaker. That is what the minority party does. That is what we would do if we were in that situation. That is what we have done in the past. I understand those complaints about process. But this is now where the rubber meets the road. This is about policy. This is a bill that we need their full support on. The men and women that work in our intelligence community, the CIA agents, the interrogators, the military personnel, they need our support. We shouldn't be giving more rights to the terrorists than we do to our own people who are fighting every day to protect us. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that these detainees, whether they are in prison in eastern Europe or at Guantanamo Bay, they are not there because they were caught chewing bubble gum in class, or throwing spitballs. These are very, very bad guys that were caught on the battlefield in Afghanistan with weapons in hand. Or in some instances, preparing improvised explosive devices to blow our young men and women to smithereens. So I don't think they deserve any special rights. They deserve the right to counsel and a fair trial, and that is what we are giving them. These people are out of uniform. They are not fighting for any particular government. They are targeting civilians. They are beheading the prisoners, including Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, and from my own district, Mr. Speaker, a government contract worker, a husband and a father, Jack Helmsley. They don't qualify for rights under the Geneva Convention, even though the President has tried to extend them those rights. The Supreme Court, of course, in their recent ruling, says we have to do that, so that is what we are doing. We are giving them rights. We are being a whole lot kinder to them than they ever would be to us because of our moral standards. I think that is important. I think this is a bill that gets it right and it deserves the support of Members on both sides of the aisle. I hope my colleagues, when the rubber meets the road, when we get to the vote, they will think about policy and not process.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank President Bush for declassifying key judgments from the National Intelligence Estimate so the American people can understand the absolute critical importance of our war on terror, and why the bills we are debating this week, from defense appropriations to military commissions, are essential to keeping America safe and our homeland secure. Mr. Speaker, despite what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might claim, American is not responsible for the rise of terrorism. We did not bring this war on the terrorists. They brought this upon themselves when they attacked freedom and our way of life in Kenya, Tanzania, aboard the USS Cole, New York City, Pennsylvania, and right here in Washington, D.C. on September 11. America has a winning strategy of relentlessly hunting down those who wish us harm, and working to defeat terrorism by encouraging democracy in the Middle East. If the terrorists are emboldened by the spread of this newfound freedom, it is because they know that free people will terminate the terrorist way of life. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely incumbent upon us and this body to give President Bush, our CIA, and our military the tools they need to prevent future attacks on our Nation. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join me this week in voting to protect the American people.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the author of the bill. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana for the purpose of clarification and response to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time, and I reserve my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 1215, a bill that provides for the implementation of a Green Chemistry Research and Development program. First, I want to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Ehlers, Mr. Wu, Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, and all of the Science Committee members and staff who worked hard to bring this important bipartisan legislation through committee and to the House floor today. Mr. Speaker, chemists can design chemicals to be safe just like they can design them to have other properties, like color and texture. As chemists design products and the processes by which those products are manufactured, they can and should factor in the possible creation of any hazardous by-products. This technique of considering not only the process in which products are produced but also the environment in which they are created is the basic definition of green chemistry. It is a method of designing chemical products and processes that at the very least reduce the use or generation of hazardous substances. Green chemistry represents an ever-growing field of science that is demonstrating much promise. This legislation gives Congress the opportunity to support these important efforts by encouraging additional research and enhanced collaboration. I want to take a moment to outline several reasons why I believe my colleagues should support this legislation. The first is the simple fact that preventing pollution and waste from the start of a design process is often cheaper than cleaning it up later. Developing new products and processes are an integral component of a variety of industries. Industries that span fabrics to fuel cells and the innovation created by this enhanced research will subsequently spur economic growth. Mr. Speaker, since the heart of green chemistry is design processes that utilize as many benign materials as possible as well as designing them to be conducted at or near room temperature and pressure, working conditions and safety for our employees can be vastly improved. Unfortunately, despite all the promise of green chemistry, the Federal Government invests very little in this area. This legislation allows coordination of Federal green chemistry research and development within several Federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy. H.R. 1215 will encourage universities and academic institutions, as Mr. Wu just mentioned, to train future workers in this exciting technology. This coordinated program will support research and development grants for partnerships between universities, industry and nonprofits. It will also promote education through curriculum development and fellowships that will collect and disseminate information about green chemistry. Finally and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1215 is a fiscally responsible piece of legislation in step with the current reality of our budgetary constraints. This legislation funds these programs by obtaining sums already authorized to the above-mentioned agencies. It does not authorize the expenditure of any new money. Let me say that again. This legislation does not appropriate new funds but rather refocuses the budget of these agencies. Chemical companies, pharmaceutical corporations, carpet and rug manufacturers and biotechnology businesses have endorsed H.R. 1215, showing a broad range of support for the merits of this legislation. All of these companies and corporations realize the advancement of green chemistry is a positive not only for their businesses but also our country's environment, our economy, and our Nation's health. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this innovative, insightful, and responsible piece of legislation that will show the American public that Congress and the business community are committed to preserving our Nation's environment.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying conference report for the fiscal year 2007 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. I would like to commend Chairmen Lewis and Young as well as the staff of the Defense Subcommittee for their tireless efforts in support of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are bravely defending us at home and abroad. Mr. Speaker, this legislation covers an extensive range of priorities that are vitally important to our armed services, and we must pass it before adjourning later this week. As we fight for our way of life, our enemies are actively and aggressively adjusting their tactics while waging their terrorist war of religious intolerance against the free nations of this world. This legislation provides the necessary supplemental funding to give our deployed soldiers the resources they need to continue taking the fight to the terrorists. It contains funding for force protection, including improvised explosive device jammers to shield our soldiers from roadside bombs, as well as increased funding to replace and repair battle-worn equipment. Mr. Speaker, our House and Senate colleagues did a good job securing funding for many important programs which are our military's top priorities. Chief among these, Mr. Speaker, is the F-22 Raptor. I am particularly encouraged by the work the Appropriations Committee has done to fund the F-22 program this year, as this aircraft is vital to our Nation's defense. The conference agreement includes authority for multiyear procurement of 60 F-22 aircraft, beginning with 20 fully funded in this fiscal year and continuing with two subsequent lots of 20 aircraft each in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. This will go a long way towards providing stability for the program and ensuring that America maintains air dominance for the foreseeable future. Further, Mr. Speaker, as we fight the global war on terror, the United States must without question continue to modernize and strengthen our ability to support our men and women in harm's way. Maintaining our Nation's airlift capabilities is critical to this mission, and I would like to applaud conferees for their recognition of this in funding nine C-130Js, two KC-130Js, and the C-5 modernization program. The conferees also responsibly recognize the importance of developing life-saving innovations to benefit our warfighters. Accordingly, $1 million was included in the conference report for the research and the development of protein hydrogel, which is manufactured in my district, by definition, Mr. Speaker, an earmark and one that I proudly sponsored. Protein hydrogel has the potential to quickly seal battlefield wounds to prevent excessive bleeding and death. We are absolutely doing the right thing providing for that research. Mr. Speaker, I would like to again thank my colleagues, thank Mr. Cole, thank them for their hard work, and I urge support for this rule and the conference report.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, as I close this debate, I want to respond to some of the points that my good friends on the other side of the aisle have stated. They stated their concern about situations where a minor has been raped or a minor has been abused by her own parent, indeed, a case of incest and what do you want to do about that. I want to make sure that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, indeed, on both sides of the aisle understand that there are clear exceptions in this bill. And they are important. They are very important exceptions, and I don't argue with that point that is made. Let me, Madam Speaker, enumerate a couple of those exceptions. It allows an out-of-state abortion to be performed without parental notification if it is done to save the life of the minor. And it allows an out-of-state abortion, and this is most important to that point, an out-of-state abortion to be performed where a physician is given documentation showing that the court in the minor's home State has waived parental notification requirements which certainly would be waived in those situations. Madam Speaker, in closing, let me reemphasize the importance of Senate bill S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act, as a safeguard of parental rights and protection for our minors. Almost 80 percent of Americans favor parental notification laws according to a poll conducted by the New York Times, yet current State laws can be circumvented and violated through the interstate transportation of minors. Allowing our children to be carted across State lines by nonguardians to get an abortion is absolutely immoral and fundamentally wrong. I would challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and we can talk about process all day long, you have a right, but to vote against this rule and this bill is just beyond my imagination. With over 30 States already requiring some type of parental notification, Congress cannot turn a blind eye to those who would violate the law and endanger our children. Madam Speaker, this Congress has an obligation and a moral duty to children and to their parents to make sure State laws are upheld to prevent nonguardians from making medical decisions for our children. Frankly, Madam Speaker, our Nation's parents and children deserve better, and this bill will ensure that they get the care and consideration that they need. Again, I would like to thank the sponsors of this legislation, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen in the House and Mr. Ensign in the Senate; and I want to thank all of my colleagues who support efforts to preserve the authority of parents to oversee the well-being of their own children. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to let the gentleman from Massachusetts know I have no other requests for time, and I will reserve for the purpose of closing.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the author of the legislation, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. Speaker, H. Res. 1039 is a closed rule which allows one hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule allows one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, before we begin debate on the rule for S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act, I want to refresh the memories of some of my colleagues and offer historical context to Members who were not here in early 2005. Last year, on April 27, I sponsored and managed a rule to consider H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This rule passed by a vote of 234-192, including the support of eight Democrats. Two Democratic amendments were considered and failed by a recorded vote. No Republican amendments were considered to H.R. 748, and the legislation passed by a vote of 270-157, which included the support of 54 Democrats. Mr. Speaker, I once again rise in support of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. However, this time we will consider the legislation passed by our colleagues in the Senate. S. 403 passed the Senate by a vote of 65-34 two months ago, and it is a very close facsimile to H.R. 748. Indeed, it is almost identical to the House bill. So, as I begin my remarks, I would like to recognize and thank Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for her dedication and leadership not only on the House version of this legislation but also on the overall issue of protecting children. Likewise, I would like to offer a special thank you to Senator John Ensign of Nevada for sponsoring today's legislation and both the Senate and House leadership for their willingness to address this vital issue. Mr. Speaker, like the debate we had in April of 2005, I anticipate that the opponents of this bill will demagogue it as an assault on a woman's so-called right to choose. Despite this allegation, S. 403 has nothing to do with Supreme Court imposed rights but simply ensures that no minor is deprived of protection by her parents under the laws of her State. S. 403 is a common sense bill that will prohibit the transportation of a minor under age 18 across a State line to obtain an abortion when the child's home State requires parental consent. This bill makes an exception in those rare cases in which the abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the minor. In addition, the Child Custody Protection Act affirms the responsibility of a physician prior to performing an abortion on a minor from another State to make sure that they are acting in accordance with the law. In other words, this bill not only ensures the protection of minors, but it also clarifies the responsibility of the physician to make sure that he or she is not inappropriately performing an abortion on a minor without the legally mandated consent of her parent from her home State. The Child Custody Protection Act also affirms the principles of Federalism and it prevents the circumvention and violation of laws passed by State legislatures. Thirty-four States, let me repeat, 34 States have passed parental notification laws. In fact, in my home State of Georgia, the legislature passed a new abortion notification law just last year in overwhelming and, I might add, bipartisan fashion. Now this legislative body has the responsibility to defend that Federalism and the integrity of State laws on interstate matters. Mr. Speaker, I can address this issue wearing three different hats. As an OB/GYN physician who has delivered many babies over the course of a 31-year medical career; as a Member of Congress; and, most importantly, as a proud father. I have four children, three of whom are grown women and two of them with children of their own. As a father, I have an obligation to defend my children and grandchildren against danger. As a Member of this body, of Congress, I have the same obligation to the children and grandchildren of every parent in this country. As a physician, I have the obligation under the Hippocratic Oath to, in the first place, do no harm. The Child Custody Protection Act recognizes this fundamental bond between parents and a child, and it reaffirms the obligation of a parent to be involved and help make important decisions affecting both the life and health of a minor child. In a society where children cannot be given aspirin at school without their parents' permission, I cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly believe that having an abortion is less traumatic than taking an aspirin. However, I understand that this is exactly what the opponents of this bill are saying through their opposition to S. 403. During this debate I want to encourage my colleagues to remain focused on the matter at hand and remember that this legislation seeks to uphold the legislatively guaranteed rights of parents and their minor children. I ask my colleagues, please support this rule and pass this much- needed underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1039 and ask for its immediate consideration.