Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 702 is a general debate rule that provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it provides that after general debate, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion and no further consideration of the bill shall be in order except by a subsequent order of the House. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 702 and the underlying bill, H.R. 4167, the National Food for Uniformity Act of 2005. H.R. 4166 was introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) and reported out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on 15 December 2005 by a vote of 30-18. This is a good bill, and I would like to thank Chairman Barton and Representative Rogers for their work in bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, currently food regulation is composed of a variety of different and sometimes inconsistent State requirements. These different State standards hamper the free flow of interstate commerce. They also result in increased costs to manufacturers and distributors that are then, of course, passed on to consumers. The greatest burden falls on our citizens and resident immigrants who are at the lowest end of the economic scale, who are struggling to pay for even basic staples. So, Mr. Speaker, these differing standards and their effects are very similar to problems plaguing the health insurance industry, which also drive up the cost to consumers and lock the door to many low-income individuals and families who simply cannot afford basic health care coverage because of all the required, expensive and often unnecessary extra screenings, tests and procedures mandated by 50 different State legislatures. From State to State, we have a patchwork quilt of health and insurance regulations and mandates that would create bureaucracy upon bureaucracy, driving up the costs and driving away coverage for those who need it most. These regulatory inconsistencies in both the insurance health care industry and in the food industry impose unnecessary costs and jeopardize the well-being of American consumers nationwide. However, Mr. Speaker, the National Uniformity for Food Act would establish national standards to ensure consistency in food labeling regulation. The bill will amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to establish a nationwide system of food safety standards and warning requirements for food labels instead of just a hodgepodge of different and, yes, even contradictory warnings among the various and sundry States. Mr. Speaker, establishing nationwide, uniform standards is by no means unprecedented. We already have national standards in the areas of meat and poultry products regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture. We have national standards for nutrition labeling, health claims, standards of identity, pesticide residue tolerance, medical devices and drugs regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration. Mr. Speaker, for those who fear an important warning might fall through the cracks, I want to emphasize that this bill does allow States whose requirements differ from the Federal requirements the opportunity to petition the FDA to adopt the requirement as a national requirement or to exempt it from the requirement of uniformity for their particular locality. If it is worthwhile to the State of California, as an example, I trust that the FDA would hold that it is worthwhile for the 49 other States, including my State of Georgia. This petition process will allow States to have notification requirements that address food safety issues unique to their States, bottom line. H.R. 4167 also, Mr. Speaker, includes a provision that allows the State to exercise imminent hazard authority to prevent the sale of dangerous food by applying a State requirement that would otherwise be preempted. They can do it in that emergency situation. With the passage of this rule, the House of Representatives will move forward today with general debate to discuss the overall merits of the bill, and we will resume consideration next week on a multitude of proposed amendments. This additional time will help to ensure an open and fair process so that we ultimately arrive at consensus legislation based on sound policy. So I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and, ultimately, the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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. Getting back to the subject at hand, H.R. 4167, I will draw this debate to a close so that we can move forward with consideration of H.R. 4167. Without question, this is a common-sense bill that will ensure not only economic savings for consumers, but it will also provide additional safeguards for their health. We have heard a lot of discussion about that this morning in this hour. Mr. Speaker, all consumers should have the same access to safety precautions and lifesaving information regardless of the State in which they live. And, again, whether it is California or Georgia or your own State of Arkansas, there is no excuse to allow regulatory inconsistency to drive up costs and keep some consumers in the dark on matters that will affect their health. As a physician, I am convinced that the FDA has the scientific knowledge and professional expertise to provide for these safeguards, Mr. Speaker. But as an ardent supporter of States' rights, I am personally reassured by the bill's provisions allowing States the ability to petition the Food and Drug Administration for either an exemption to the uniformity or application of their State's requirements on a national level. I want to encourage my colleagues to support this rule, to move forward with the general debate today so that we can come back next week to further discuss the underlying bill and potential amendments. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me remind all of my colleagues that the minority wants to offer an amendment that would otherwise be ruled out of order as nongermane. So the vote is without substance. The previous question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to close this debate on the rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The vote has no substantive policy implications whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, at this point in the Record I insert an explanation of the previous question. The Previous Question Vote: What Does It Mean? House Rule XIX (``Previous Question'') provides in part that: There shall be a motion for the previous question, which, being ordered, shall have the effect of cutting off all debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered. In the case of a special rule or order of business resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the previous question is moved following the 1 hour of debate allowed for under House Rules. The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and amendment on the legislation it would make in order. Therefore, the previous question has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the encouraging news that more than 25 million seniors are now enjoying prescription drug coverage under Medicare Part D. This includes over 1.5 million Americans who have enrolled in the last month alone. Twenty-five million enrollees. That is 25 million seniors who are saving money every time they visit the pharmacy, 25 million seniors who have better access to drugs they need to prevent and manage their illnesses, 25 million seniors who can now afford protection from many catastrophic medical costs. Like many of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I am working incredibly hard to educate seniors about Medicare Part D. With any new program, parts of the enrollment process certainly can be confusing. After all, this is the largest enrollment effort since the introduction of Medicare 40 years ago. But by investing a little time, seniors can narrow down their choices and find the plan that best fits their prescription drug needs. And let me assure you, the benefits of this program are undoubtedly worth that effort. I have been thanked by so many seniors who are now reaping the benefits of prescription drug coverage under Medicare, seniors who have seen their prescription drug costs drop by 50 percent or more, seniors who now have more money in their pockets at the end of the month. In fact, I would like to share with my colleagues two of the many success stories I have heard from my constituents regarding their positive experiences. I hope these stories will encourage other seniors to explore the savings Medicare Part D holds for them. Take the experience of Carol Burke. She lives in Newnan, Georgia, in my district, my wife's hometown. She recently wrote me, saying, ``I am disturbed by media commentators repeatedly referring to the Medicare drug plan as too difficult to understand and a total disaster. I never hear them say what I truly believe, that it is a wonderful benefit to those of us who have no retirement drug plan provided. A few hours spent with pencil and paper show that the choice to pay a slightly larger premium and have no deductible is clear. The suggestions given in the Medicare 2006 Guidebook are complete and easy to follow, and math is not my strong suit. Thank you for your efforts in providing this much-needed service to seniors.'' Now, my colleagues, that is a real letter, and I completely agree with Mrs. Burke's assessment. It may take a little time to choose the right plan. Seniors might need to rely on family, friends and community organizations to help with the process. But a little time spent enrolling today will pay huge dividends in the upcoming months and years, because affordable prescription drugs help seniors live healthier lives. Let me share another story with you. I received a phone call from fellow Georgian Mr. Richard Mosrie who recently enrolled in the Medicare part D plan. Mr. Mosrie explained that he is now saving over $150 a month on his medications, $150 a month. Seniors across America understand what a difference a couple hundred dollars a month can make. These are the stories that seniors need to hear. These are the stories that are happening in every congressional district in America regardless of whether the Congressman or -woman is a Republican or a Democrat. I find it disappointing that there are people who attempt to use Medicare part D as a political ploy. How cruel to put partisanship over the health of our seniors by encouraging people not to enroll in this great program. That is, in essence, encouraging seniors not to save money and not to improve their health. So, Mr. Speaker, in the following months we will be hearing more and more positive stories from seniors who have enrolled in Medicare part D who are reaping financial and health rewards. The initial sign-up period runs through May 15, 2006, so there is still time for seniors to enroll without a premium penalty. As a physician, I know that access to the right medication is a bedrock of good health. Our seniors deserve affordable prescription drug coverage and Congress has passed good legislation to deliver this benefit. Now is the time for seniors to enroll, and I sincerely hope all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle will stand with me in commitment to helping our seniors access the medication they need to stay well.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Well, first of all, let me thank the gentleman from Maryland for his legislation, H.R. 3144, and for allowing me to spend a little time with him this evening as we try to explain to our colleagues what we are talking about here and what is the essence of the Bartlett bill. I think the gentleman is correct that the perception among those of us who are strongly pro-life, and I think most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle sort of know each other's former profession before we came to this august body, and I practiced medicine, not just an M.D., but specializing in obstetrics and gynecology; and so over a 26- year period, doing the average number of deliveries a doctor would do in a year, that amounts to over 5,000; and very proudly I can stand here tonight and say that I am pro-life and have never performed an abortion. But I think that in response to the gentleman's question, people that are pro-life know that embryonic stem cell research that was ongoing before President Bush made his decision 2 or 3 years ago, that those stem cell lines were indeed obtained from this so-called excess. Really not excess. Cannot tell that to the Snowflake babies that have been adopted, those embryos, and there are close to 100 of those precious children alive today, but the pro-life community, indeed, everybody understood that the stem cell lines that were created were created from the destruction of embryos that were produced utilizing artificial reproductive technology that the gentleman from Maryland so adequately explained. And of course those children, and I say children, they are embryos, but they certainly become children. They become fetuses, and they become children, and they become young adults, and they become middle- aged and senior citizens. They are human life. And, basically, what the President said is those that have already been destroyed to create these cell lines, we will allow researchers, our scientists, to apply for grants to conduct the research on those cell lines, those embryonic stem cells, but not to destroy any more life; to put a moratorium on that and to absolutely not continue to destroy life. In fact, in 1999, President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission, NBAC, acknowledged broad agreement in our society that early human embryos ``deserve respect as a form of human life.'' They recommended funding of embryonic stem cell research only if there were no alternatives. But what Congressman Bartlett is talking about tonight, of course, is an alternative, a viable, if I can use that term, a viable alternative. And that is what he has outlined for us in this legislation, and I know he will talk about that. But the important point is that people who are pro-life understand this, that taking a cell or two from an embryo, once it has gotten to the point where those cells are not totipotent, that you are not literally taking maybe something that in itself could divide and become an embryo; you get beyond that stage to what he describes as pluripotent. And the difference in those two capabilities in those embryonic cells is hugely important to the pro-life community. And he, of course, has done such a great job tonight, and I commend him for that, of explaining how in nature this occurs with the division of a multi-cell embryo to become identical twins; and it is, I think, a good explanation. And I think that is probably what is important, in response to your question, my good friend from Maryland, is this educational process. And I know you have worked on this. I do not know how many times you have done this Special Order, but you have honored me in giving me an opportunity to participate with you and get into a colloquy and discuss some of these issues. This is the way to do it. This is the seed corn. This is what gets it started. It is a matter of understanding that there is an alternative to destruction of human life for the betterment of other lives.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think it really is a good point that you are making that we have been utilizing adult stem cells for a long time, for many years, and whether we are talking about cells that are obtained from bone marrow or from blood, even, of course, some umbilical cells. But as the gentleman points out, there have been some real great success stories reported: cancers, including ovarian and testicular cancer; leukemia; Hodgkin's disease; stroke; heart disease; Parkinson's disease; as the gentleman mentioned, juvenile diabetes; Crohn's disease, an inflammatory disease of the bowel which can be so devastating. And I think Roscoe Bartlett, the gentleman from Maryland, mentioned maybe 58, in total, success stories. But the earliest cell, I think, has the greatest potential, and that is basically the point that the congressman is making and why his bill, H.R. 3144, to provide funding, very necessary funding, to do the basic and applied research starting in animal models to show that you indeed can take these, again, not totipotential but pluripotential, so not another embryo, but something that has gone beyond that stage that does not have the capability in and of itself of becoming a human being. That is what we want to say to the pro-life community. So we are taking, though, the very earliest beyond that stage cell, and there is no telling what tissue it can develop into, whether we are talking about brain tissue and trying to treat people, God rest his soul, like Christopher Reeves or other people with spinal cord injuries, or someone with severe Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's or juvenile diabetes where you create islet cells that you can transplant into a person's pancreas that, because of a genetic defect, has no islet cells. So that is really, I think, the answer, to say why it is worth the effort, why it is absolutely worth the effort. First and foremost, you do not have to take human life for the betterment of other human lives, and we want to build on the success of utilization of adult stem cells and go that extra mile, and this is what this bill will do, allow us to do the basic research, fund it with Federal dollars so we can get to that point.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the Republican fiscal policies that have led the United States economy to an expansion rate of 3.5 percent in 2005. Over the last year we have experienced real economic successes as a result of our legislation that puts American families first. In 2005 we witnessed historically low unemployment rates, a GDP growth rate of 4.3 percent, and 30 straight months of employment gains. It is no wonder consumer confidence rose last month to the highest level in several years. The current unemployment rate of 4.7 percent is lower than the average rates in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Our policies, Mr. Speaker, are working. And just last month our payroll employment rose by another 193,000 jobs. Mr. Speaker, our economy is strong. Household net worth is at an all- time high. Construction spending is at an all-time high. Homeownership is at an all-time high. I think we can all see the trend developing here. As a Congress, we must adhere to the principles of lower taxes and more responsible government spending. These are the policies that have a proven track record of growing our economy. I am greatly encouraged that economic forecasters project our robust economy will continue in 2006.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, our Nation lost a very special citizen with the passing of Doris Gregory of Millington, MI. Born to Vern and Golda Ostrander in 1922, Doris Gregory endured the Great Depression before she married Normal Narsted in 1939 and was blessed with 3 children. When the United States entered World War II, Norman bravely volunteered to serve in the U.S. Army. Unfortunately, Normal was killed during a patrol mission in March 1945. Although she was left brokenhearted, Doris carried on with her family responsibilities and love for community. Despite many hardships, Doris Gregory approached life with unbridled optimism and energy. Her friends were abundant and strangers to her were, like the words of playwright Tennessee Williams, ``simply friends she hadn't met.'' She was loved and respected by everyone who knew her and was always willing to lend a helping hand. Doris found great joy volunteering her time. After retirement, she served as the treasurer of the town of Millington and was instrumental in establishing the Millington Senior Center. While we have said goodbye to Doris this week, her legacy of compassion will continue to shine in the hearts of her friends and family. May God bless Doris Gregory; she will be missed.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, last Spring the People's Republic of China passed an anti-secession law targeting the Republic of China on Taiwan. This law gives Communist leaders the right to use force against Taiwan if they suspect separatist activities. In addition to the enactment of the anti-secession law, Communist China's rapid military build-up has brought substantial concern to the Taiwanese people. With 700 Communist missiles posted along the coast of Taiwan, mainland China makes a bold statement that military action is a viable possibility. In response to China's unilateral change of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, it is my understanding that President Chen has expressed concern about Taiwan's future in his Lunar New Year's Day remarks. If China really wants to unify Taiwan, it is my hope that they will listen to the advice of President Chen who requests mainland China to relinquish the use of force, listen to the people of Taiwan, and stop obstructing Taiwan from participating in international organizations like the United Nations and the World Health Organization. It is also my understanding that President Chen has, on many occasions, stated that the development of cross-strait relations must conform to the principles of sovereignty, democracy, peace and prosperity. China has no right by the principle of self-determination to change the status quo either through the anti-secession law or military intimidation. Like President Chen, I believe Taiwan's future must be made by the free will of the 23 million residents of Taiwan. Taiwan is a free and democratic nation and deserves to be treated properly and with respect from the international community. Exclusion from the United Nations has deprived Taiwan its international identity. The Republic of China on Taiwan is content on returning to the international community and it is speculated that President Chen might even reapply to the United Nations under the new name of ``Taiwan.'' It is my understanding that in the last six years, President Chen has not broken any of his pledges and has, in turn, offered many goodwill gestures to the People's Republic of China. I believe President Chen's remarks deserve our undivided attention and consideration. Maintaining the status quo is currently the peaceful alternative and it is my understanding that President Chen once again reaffirmed his 2000 inaugural pledge to maintain status quo with mainland China, not declare independence, not change the name of the government, or add any other language to the Republic of China's Constitution that promotes an independence referendum. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support peace in the region and hope that the People's Republic of China will reciprocate President Chen's goodwill by renouncing the use of force against Taiwan. However, should the need arise, we must not forget our responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act to make sure the Republic of China on Taiwan has the military capability to defend itself and assert its free voice to the international community.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank the gentlewoman from Florida for allowing me to speak on this resolution, and also let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and completely associate myself with the remarks that he just made. I think he is right on target. Madam Speaker, the passage of yesterday's resolution on the Palestinian Authority once again expressed our position against funding an ideology of terror in hope of maintaining the peace process in the Middle East. Today's resolution has a more direct message with the prospect, hopefully, of addressing the entire world. In our current struggle against terrorism, no country is more uncertain and dangerous than Iran. With an uncompromising foreign policy and repressed trade, it often feels like the only commodity that Iran exports involves disdain for Western culture. It is indeed disheartening to see a nation of good people commandeered by an individual with nuclear aspirations. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran must not be allowed to carry out threats against Israel, the United States, or any other peaceful nation. Nuclear weapons and the ideology of Wahabism are a dangerous combination, and they must be prevented. So, Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. I commend the gentlewoman from Florida and the gentleman from California for bringing it forward. I believe it is time for the United Nations Security Council to take action against nuclear proliferation in Iran, and I ask the leaders of Iran to reconsider the path that they have chosen.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Kennesaw State University women's cross country team on winning the 2005 Atlantic Sun Conference championship. The Lady Owls exhibited dedication, teamwork and perseverance all season long, and it paid off. I congratulate head coach Stan Sims and the whole team on their accomplishments. The Lady Owls were the only team to have all competitors finish in the top 20. In fact, Patrina Haines finished second in the field, and her teammate Erin Sutton, whose grandfather, Jack Sutton, works in my district office, was named Atlantic Sun Conference's Freshman of the Year and earned a spot on the all-conference team. Winning a conference championship is quite an achievement, but this victory is even more inspiring when you consider it was the Lady Owls' first year participating in Division I sports. If this season is any indication, we can expect many more winning seasons for the Kennesaw State University team. Mr. Speaker, these athletes have brought much pride to Kennesaw State University and the entire Kennesaw community. I ask that you join me in celebrating their accomplishment.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, it seems that tonight is health care night. We just heard from two of our colleagues from Texas, one of whom I agree with and one of whom on a lot of points I do not necessarily agree with. But, Mr. Speaker, I do rise tonight to express my deep concern over the high cost of health care and the toll it has taken on our families and our businesses and our economy. I was very encouraged to hear President Bush discuss the important issue of health care reform during a speech in Ohio today. A recent NBC news poll showed 76 percent of Americans believe health care reform is a top priority for our Nation and we absolutely must act to create a more transparent accessible and affordable system, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) just said. Before coming to Congress, I practiced medicine as an OB-GYN for 26 years. I know that America has the best doctors, hospitals, research facilities in the world, but all of that is for naught if people, Mr. Speaker, cannot afford the care that they need. However, different Americans have different health care needs, and we cannot resort to a Hillary-care program, to a one-size-fits-all system of care. We rejected that in 1993, and we reject it here today in 2006. Instead, we need reform that allows Americans to be better health care consumers. When we shop for a new car or home what do we do? We compare prices to get the best deal and the best product. Health care should be no different. Too many Americans are paying the high cost of health care out of their own pockets, and the family budget is suffering. This is exactly why we need real practical initiatives like health savings accounts and association health plans, despite what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) just said. We need this to make health care affordable, portable and secure. The number of people that are buying high deductible health plans along with these health savings plans is not decreasing, as the gentleman suggested, but it is increasing. Three million today and by 2010 14 million. I am very supportive and proud that the President talked about this and is going to expand health savings plans for the future. These initiatives will help businesses across America afford health benefits for their employees, which in turn will reduce the number of uninsured in this country. I am as concerned, Mr. Speaker, as all of my colleagues are of the fact that we have maybe 41 or 42 million people in this country without health care. But this is the way you get them the health care so they can get a policy with a very low premium that covers the catastrophic and they can stash away money each year in that health savings account. It can grow just like an IRA and they can use this money in many instances for medical care that is not covered under a traditional health care policy. I am talking about things like dental care, a hearing aid or visual care. So along with flexibility in our health care system, this is another very important point, and Mr. Burgess just spoke about that. We must be technologically advanced. You heard, Mr. Speaker, Chairman Dreier talk a little bit about job statistics and how we do not need to be using twentieth century machinations to determine what our growth and our job rate is. We need to have a better system that more accurately reflects the job growth in this country. It is the same thing with the health care system. It must be technologically advanced. Mr. Speaker, I recently went to Antarctica and, amazingly, I could get cash from an ATM machine with no glitch in Antarctica. But if I had fallen ill during my travels, the hospital there could not have accessed my medical records or known what medications I am on; and I happen to be on several heart medications. This is a recipe for disaster, and to fix this crucial shortcoming I have introduced legislation to increase tax breaks for physicians who invest in the new technology of electronic medical records. Physicians are more likely to adopt this new technology if our Tax Code helps offset the substantial, and they can be substantial, initial costs. We have seen the success of this tactic with other tax relief for small businesses. H.R. 4641, the Adopt HIT Act, will help our doctors save money, time and, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, save lives. Reforming health care will make coverage more affordable and accessible for both workers and employers, especially our small businessmen and women. But affordable health care is only half of the equation. After all, the most affordable health care in the world is, Mr. Speaker, irrelevant if a patient cannot get in to see a doctor when he is sick or visit the emergency room when he is injured. As a practicing physician for nearly 30 years, I have seen the results of our troubled medical tort system firsthand. In many communities, hospitals have closed, women have to travel across State lines for prenatal care, emergency rooms lack the on-call specialists they need to save lives. This should not happen in America, home to the greatest physicians in the world. I call on my colleagues to join me in the effort to create a consumer-driven system of care for our country.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the heartbreaking story of a 13-year-old girl in my district and to call for tougher penalties for child pornography. I have introduced, along with Representative Tierney, H.R. 4703, called Masha's law after 13-year-old Masha Allen, whose adoptive father posted pornographic images of her at age 5 on the Internet. Thankfully, law enforcement officials tracked and convicted her father. Masha now lives in Douglasville, Georgia, with a new and loving adoptive parent. However, hundreds of her images are still on the Internet; and her photographs are some of the most widely downloaded pictures in the world. Mr. Speaker, we absolutely must do something to harshly reprimand those who produce, distribute and consume child pornography. Did you know that under current law the penalties for illegally downloading music are three times higher than the penalties for downloading child pornography? This is absurd and unjust. My legislation would increase the statutory damages for victims of child exploitation and ensure victims can sue those who download their pictures. We must protect those who have no way of protecting themselves from this horrific and sickening crime, and I ask that you join me in supporting Masha's law.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my time this evening to address the House regarding a very important person, someone who has meant so much to me and without whom I could not be here today. Mrs. Helen Gingrey turned 88 today, February 8, 2006. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, along with all Members of this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats, will want to join me in wishing Mom a happy birthday. It is important in this day and age for children to grow up in a strong family environment like the one my parents provided for me. And I would hope that as I continue my time in the United States House of Representatives representing the people of Georgia's 11th Congressional District, that my colleagues and I would always keep an eye on how our actions will affect the American families who are struggling to raise their children and to make ends meet. Mr. Speaker, my mother has had a great life and has been a blessing to both her community of Kalmia Landing and Aiken, South Carolina and her family. Helen Gannon Gingrey is the daughter of Irish and Scottish immigrants. She was born in New York. She grew up in Astoria, Queens before marrying my father and moving to Edgefield, South Carolina. My father, James Franklin Gingrey, Jimmy, a native South Carolinian, had moved to New York as an impoverished 16-year-old with little means of support. Several years later he had the good fortune of meeting my mom while he was working his way through New York City night school, and they married 8 months later. Shortly thereafter, Mom and Dad headed south with my 3-month-old brother in tow. While neither of my parents had the opportunity to obtain a college education, they worked hard in several small family businesses to assure that each of their three sons, myself, my brothers, Bill and James, got that college education. Mr. Speaker, my dad and my mother were married for 44 years until his death in 1980. The ideals my parents instilled in me are ones of hard work, good education, personal responsibility, respect for others, love of family and country, and love of God. These are not only good principles for rearing a child, but they are also good guidelines for the initiatives we will continue to work on here in this 109th Congress. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to use the example and the principles of Mrs. Helen Gannon Gingrey and all loving mothers like her to set an agenda that will work to strengthen and support the most vital components of our great Nation, the American family.

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

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 671) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise President Bush for his State of the Union remarks on health information technology, which he rightly noted will help control costs and reduce dangerous medical errors. I would also like to encourage my colleagues to support health IT legislation that I have introduced, H.R. 4641, the ADOPT HIT Act. Consider this: I can go to Antarctica and get cash from an ATM without a glitch, but should I fall ill during my travels, a hospital there could not access my medical records or know what medications I am on. Right now the health care sector is woefully behind in using modern technology to reduce errors and save money, and that is why I introduced H.R. 4641. It provides increased tax breaks for physicians who invest in new health information technology. As a physician, I know many doctors want to utilize new technology, but they find the cost prohibitive. Doctors will be more likely to adopt this technology if our Tax Code helps offset the substantial initial cost. By adopting the ADOPT HIT Act, by passing that act, we can move one step closer to a health care system that saves time, money and, most importantly, lives.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Thurman Barnes of LaGrange, Georgia, on receiving his GED at age 96. In fact, Mr. Barnes is believed to be the oldest person ever to receive a GED, attesting to the fact that an education is important and fulfilling no matter what your age. Eighty years ago, Mr. Barnes failed a Latin class. As so often happens in life, before he could make up his course work, his attention was turned to his job, marriage, and family obligations. But throughout his life, the thought of that elusive high school diploma stayed with him. Eight decades later, Mr. Barnes began taking classes at West Georgia Technical College. This past Monday, he passed the GED examination with flying colors. When asked what subject was easiest for him, Mr. Barnes replied, ``Social studies, because I have lived through most everything in the last 100 years.'' Mr. Speaker, it takes a lot of character and tenacity to hold on to the dream of graduating high school for 80 years. I want to thank Mr. Barnes, his family, West Georgia Technical College, and the Georgia Adult Literacy Program for reminding us of the importance of rising to the challenges of life, regardless of age.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the other side, and indeed from some Members on this side of the aisle, question what we are going to do with the 11 million or so illegals who are mostly working hard, supporting their families, law-abiding since they have been here. As a physician Member of this body, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a medical analogy as to why we are approaching this in the manner that we are approaching it; that is, to secure, first and foremost, our borders. The medical analogy, indeed a surgical analogy, is this: The patient is our great country, the United States of America. The surgeon is this Congress. During the surgical procedure, it is discovered that massive hemorrhaging is occurring, massive hemorrhaging. The analogy is the 500,000 illegal immigrants that continue to come through our porous borders every year. There is lots of blood in the field that the surgeon is concerned about. But does he or she spend their time, we, the Congress, trying to mop up the blood before we stop the bleeding? If we do that, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the patient dies. No. First and foremost you stop that hemorrhaging. And that is what we are doing in this bill. Then you deal with the blood that has been lost, that is in the suction bottle, if you will. And do we take that blood and pour it down the drain? No, Mr. Speaker, we do not, because that blood, and that is the 11 million people that are here working hard in this country, that has been the lifeblood of this patient, the United States of America, for a number of years. So what we do, Mr. Speaker, in many instances in a surgical situation, we put that blood back into the patient, because we know that it has served the patient well. Then we restore the patient to perfect health. Mr. Speaker, that is what we are talking about. That is why we are addressing this issue in the timeline first and foremost, stop the hemorrhaging. If we do not, the patient dies. Mr. Speaker, we in the Congress have a solemn responsibility to protect the integrity of our borders, and inaction would be a dereliction of duty. The American people look to us as the stewards of our Nation's security, and we must not let them down. I want to encourage my colleagues to support both this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the coast of Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).