Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman. And that really is an experience, Mr. Speaker and my fellow colleagues, that I have had as well. Early on, we, almost every town hall meeting on the subject it seemed like there was someone there that was reading the talking points from the opposition in regard to oh, you know, you have done nothing but let the pharmaceutical industry write a bill, or this is just a giant giveaway to the drug companies. And you heard that kind of rhetoric almost every time. But what I am hearing, and I think Representative Kline as well, that people now understand that in this process that we go through, nothing that we do, no bill, Mr. Speaker, is perfect. I wish that it were. But that the product that we delivered in November of 2003 is a very, very good product, and our seniors are beginning to understand that. They are seeing through a lot of this negative rhetoric, mostly from the other side of the aisle. And what is said is they are even in the last throes of the implementation of this program, we are down to the last 5 or 6 weeks, it is my understanding, and I know this because I have actually seen this, Members are holding town hall meetings and in some instances discouraging people, continuing to discourage them.

Mr. GINGREY. Actually, just for a question. And I wanted to ask the question, if he has had an experience really similar to what I have. We have been working on this program, like I say, for a year and half during the transitional phase, and Representative Kline has held a lot of town hall meetings; I have certainly held a lot of town hall meetings. You sort of lose count after a while. But what I wanted to ask Mr. Kline, Colonel Kline, is, in your experience, when you first started doing these programs, and there was so much angst and rhetoric and doom and gloom possibly from certain Members of the body, did you feel that what you heard then and what you are hearing now was a little bit different? Has that changed a little bit?

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of securing our borders and getting legislation to the President's desk that will stop the flow of illegal immigrants into our country. This week, the Senate is debating immigration reform, and it is crucial that they pass legislation that puts enforcement first and says ``no'' to blanket amnesty. As a physician, I know you have to stop a patient's bleeding before you can heal the wound. Likewise, we must stop the bleeding of our borders before we can address other areas of reform. Our southern border is not just bleeding; it is hemorrhaging. Thousands of illegal immigrants cross it each month, and our incomplete border fence does little to tame the flow. Our border enforcement is woefully understaffed, and local law enforcement officials lack the jurisdiction to apprehend illegal immigrants within their own communities. Mr. Speaker, the House passed legislation in December to address each of these concerns. Reforming our immigration system requires a commitment to security and lawfulness, and our Senate colleagues must pledge their resolve to these core principles as they move forward in this debate.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, every day we are hearing success stories from seniors who are saving money with Medicare part D. Two of these seniors are Mary and Jerry O'Brien of Cobb County, Georgia. I want to share with you a letter Jerry O'Brien wrote to my office. He said, ``I went to medicare.gov and I found a comparison of various programs. I chose one for my wife for $70 a month, which has no deductible. We had no prescription insurance before and find Medicare part D to be very effective. We saved enough, in fact, on the first prescriptions to pay for 2 months' worth of premiums. I realize the program got off to a shaky start, but as far as I am concerned, it is now working well.'' Mr. Speaker, Mary O'Brien saved enough money for 1 month of prescriptions to pay for 2 months of premiums. For the O'Briens, Medicare part D is literally paying for itself. I hope seniors will hear the O'Brien story and go to www.medicare.gov and find out how much money they could save with a Medicare part D plan. The initial enrollment period ends May 15, so I want to encourage all seniors to sign up now and start their savings immediately.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GINGREY. 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.

Mr. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Rome Area History Museum on their 10th anniversary of collecting, preserving, and presenting the history of northwest Georgia. In 1995, five men, C.J. Wyatt, Bobby McElwee, John Carruth, David Oswalt, and Ed Byars, recognized the need to create an institution dedicated to the history of Rome and the surrounding communities. These founders gathered a group of dedicated volunteers and opened what has become one of the finest museums in the State of Georgia. The founders renovated a building on historic Broad Street to serve as their headquarters. And after much labor, the Rome Area History Museum officially opened its doors on March 30, 1996. For the past 9 years, Bernard Neal has done a wonderful job as the museum's president. Madam Speaker, as the museum celebrates a decade of educating teachers, researchers and visitors, I want to thank the volunteers and supporters for making the Rome Area History Museum all that it is today. Museums like this add richness to our communities and preserve our Nation's history.

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY. 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.

Mr. GINGREY. 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.

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

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY. 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

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

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

Mr. GINGREY. 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.

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

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

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. 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.