Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

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

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

Mr. GINGREY. 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.

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

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

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. 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.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. 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).

Mr. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY. 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.

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

Mr. GINGREY. 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.

Mr. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. 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.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. 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.

Mr. GINGREY

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

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

Mr. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY. 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.