National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2005

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

Association; American Beverage Association; American Feed

Industry Association; American Frozen Food Institute;

American Plastics Council; American Meat Institute; American

Spice Trade Association; Animal Health Institute; Apple

Products Research and Education Council Association for

Dressings and Sauces; Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers

Association; Bush Brothers & Company; Business Roundtable.

Cadbury Schweppes plc; California Farm Bureau Federation;

California Grocers Association; California League of Food

Processors; California Manufacturers & Technology

Association; Calorie Control Council; Campbell Soup Company;

Cargill, Incorporated; Chocolate Manufacturers Association;

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

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

Dean Foods Company; Del Monte Foods.

Diamond Foods, Inc. Flavor & Extract Manufacturers

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

Food Products Association; Frito-Lay; Frozen Potato Products

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

Glass Packaging Institute; Godiva Chocolatier Inc.; Grain

Foods Foundation; Grocery Manufacturers Association; H.J.

Heinz Company; The Hershey Company.

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.; Hormel Foods Corporation;

Independent Bakers Association; Institute of Shortening and

Edible Oils; International Association of Color

Manufacturers; International Bottled Water Association;

International Dairy Foods Association; International Food

Additives Council; International Foodservice Distributors

Association; International Formula Council; International Ice

Cream Association; International Jelly and Preserves

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

Company.

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

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

Corporation; Milk Industry Foundation; The Minute Maid

Company; National Association of Convenience Stores; National

Association of Manufacturers; National Association of

Margarine Manufacturers; National Association of Wheat

Growers; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors;

National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Cheese

Institute.

National Chicken Council; National Coffee Association of

USA; National Confectioners Association; National Fisheries

Institute; National Frozen Pizza Institute; National Grape

Cooperative Association; National Grocers Association;

National Institute of Oilseed Products; National Milk

Producers Federation; National Pasta Association; National

Pecan Shellers Association; National Pork Producers Council;

National Potato Council; National Restaurant Association;

National Turkey Federation.

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

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

Farm Incorporated; PepsiCo, Inc.; Pickle Packers'

International; The Procter & Gamble Company; Quaker Oats;

Rich Products Corporation; Rich SeaPak Corporation; Safeway;

Sara Lee Corporation; Say-on Drugs.

The Schwan Food Company; Snack Food Association; Society of

Glass and Ceramics Decorators Supervalu Inc.; Target

Corporation; Tortilla Industry Association; Tropicana;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wanted to make sure that they understand that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Previous Question Vote: What Does It Mean?

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

that:

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

being ordered, shall have the effect of cutting off all

debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the

immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered.

In the case of a special rule or order of business

resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing

for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the

previous question is moved following the 1 hour of debate

allowed for under House Rules.

The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural

vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting

the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and

amendment on the legislation it would make in order.

Therefore, the previous question has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2005

Last Updated: February 27, 2006.

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

Association, American Beverage Association, American Feed

Industry Association, American Frozen Food Institute,

American Plastics Council, American Meat Institute, American

Spice Trade Association, and Animal Health Institute.

Apple Products Research and Education Council Association

for Dressings and Sauces, Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers

Association, Bush Brothers & Company, Business Roundtable,

Cadbury Schweppes plc, California Farm Bureau Federation,

California Grocers Association, California League of Food

Processors, California Manufacturers & Technoloy Association,

Calorie Control Council, and Campbell Soup Company.

Cargill, Incorporated, Chocolate Manufacturers Association,

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

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

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

Flavor & Extract Manufacturers Association, and Flowers

Foods, Inc.

Food Marketing Institute, Food Products Association, Frito-

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

Gerber Products Company, Glass Packaging Institute, Godiva

Chocolatier Inc., Grain Foods Foundation, Grocery

Manufacturers Association, and H.J. Heinz Company.

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

Corporation, Independent Bakers Association, Institute of

Shortening and Edible Oils, International Association of

Color Manufacturers, International Bottled Water Association,

International Dairy Foods Association, International Food

Additives Council, International Foodservice Distributors

Association, and International Formula Council.

International Ice Cream Association, International Jelly

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

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

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

Company, Inc., and McKee Foods Corporation.

Milk Industry Foundation, The Minute Maid Company, National

Association of Convenience Stores, National Association of

Manufacturers, National Association of Margarine

Manufacturers, National Association of Wheat Growers,

National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National

Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Cheese Institute,

National Chicken Council, and National Coffee Association of

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Previous Question Vote: What Does It Mean?

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

that:

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

being ordered, shall have the effect of cutting off all

debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the

immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered.

In the case of a special rule or order of business

resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing

for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the

previous question is moved following the one hour of debate

allowed for under House Rules.

The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural

vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting

the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and

amendment on the legislation it would make in order.

Therefore, the previous question has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, today the House takes up legislation that would overturn 200 State laws that protect our food supply. Some of them are in labeling and some actually deal with the substance of what can be in food in the State.

A year ago, the House passed legislation to try to dictate private end-of-life decisions of Terry Schiavo and her family. This intrusion of the Federal Government into personal decisions was, I think, universally condemned, and yet today the House is once again trying to usurp powers that do not belong in Washington.

Why are they doing it? Because some special interests want to overturn State laws that they never liked. The only difference is that it is the authority of State and local governments to protect against food-borne hazards that is now under assault.

In California, for example, we have candies that come in from Mexico that have lead in them. So our legislature passed a law regulating lead in candy. It is a sensible idea. Lead can cause brain damage to children. Yet the authors of this bill that is before us today, without holding any hearings, want to preempt that law.

Now, their argument is, well, we ought to have a Federal law that does the same thing. If we ought to have a Federal law to do the same thing, why has the Federal Government not done that? The Federal Government has not been involved in these areas. They have been in the area of State control.

In Maine there is a law that requires consumers to be warned about the dangers of eating smoked alewives. This is not a problem in California, but apparently it is one in Maine. Yet again it would be preempted.

I could go on and on. Wisconsin knows a lot about cheese. It has special labeling requirements for cheese. Florida has special labeling requirements for citrus. Mississippi and Louisiana have special rules for differentiating farm-bred from wild catfish, and Alaska has similar rules for salmon. Ten coastal States have special laws protecting their residents from contaminated shell fish, and all 50 States have laws ensuring the safety of milk. And all of them would be preempted.

The arrogance of the House of Representatives appears to know no bounds. The attitude seems to be that all knowledge resides in Washington and all power should as well.

This is dangerous legislation. I know the proponents are going to say to you, well, they can appeal to the Food and Drug Administration to allow them at the State level to continue with their laws. Can you imagine that? The States, the sovereign States of this country, have to go hat in hand to a Federal bureaucracy to allow them to continue laws that their people accepted, passed under their rules, the State legislature and the Governors, to protect their population?

The FDA cannot protect the food supply all by itself. The agency is underfunded and overworked, and it is failing even at the core mission of protecting consumers from dangerous drugs.

You do not have to take my word for it. Just yesterday, 37 State Attorneys General, Republicans and Democrats, sent a letter to Congress opposing this radical legislation. They stated: ``We write to urge you to oppose the National Uniformity For Food Act which undercuts States' rights and consumer protection.'' And they go on to say: ``State and local governments are often the first line of defense when problems emerge. Prohibiting State and local leadership and action in this area is a serious mistake.''

We have also had opposition from the National Association of the State Departments of Agriculture and the Association of the Food and Drug Officials. These food safety experts know that passage of this legislation would create havoc and endanger families.

For years, I have heard my Republicans say, let us allow the States to do what they need to do to protect their people. I agree with them. Do not bring everything to Washington.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If the Federal Government wanted one uniform standard and wanted to preempt the States from different standards, they could do it. They could do it, but what this bill would do is to preempt the States from even going forward on their own initiative to look at problems and have a standard or label in their State.

The problem has never been demonstrated that there is an issue where there are too many State differences. The problem is that the Federal Government has not been involved in this area. So if we can get the States out of it and the Federal Government out of it, then processors can just sell their food and not worry about having to meet any standard anywhere.

In California, we have a law that says you must designate if some harmful substance is in food. The consequence of that warning label means that the food producers make sure they do not have to put a warning label on because they get rid of any toxic substance that might be in their product. That is a good result of that requirement. It would be preempted by this law.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my colleague and a very important member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), an important Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who has been very active on FDA issues for a number of years.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I think what the gentleman is illustrating is so important, because the sponsors of this bill said we need the Federal Government to protect the health of people all over the country. So let us have one uniform standard.

Well, right now, the FDA could adopt that standard and stop the use of carbon monoxide as a food additive and as a preserver of meat, but they have not acted. So if a State wants to act, why should we tell them they cannot act when the FDA hasn't done anything at the Federal level? I think that is the point you are making.

Let the States, if the Federal Government fails, sometimes because they have lobbyists up here who are more powerful, let the States at least be able to protect their own citizens to pass the laws they think are appropriate.

Madam Chairman, I am now proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that deals with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Agency.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I don't think consumer confidence is going to be bolstered when we pass a law that the State Attorneys General say would strip State governments of the ability to protect their residents through State laws and regulations relating to the safety of food and food packaging. Some of the more obvious State level warnings that almost certainly would be challenged include consumer warnings about mercury contamination of fish, arsenic in bottled water, lead in ceramic tableware, the alcohol content in candies, the content of fats and oils in foods, and postharvest pesticides applicable to fruits and vegetables. The States would not be allowed to do that.

Now, the previous speaker said that we ought to have a Federal requirement. But he was mistaken when he said that if there were no Federal requirement States can pursue their own standards. He is wrong because the bill before us would stop the States from pursuing their own standards unless the Federal Government allowed them to do so. And I think that is an intrusion on States' rights, a usurpation of power by Washington and an ability for the industries involved to be able to make their claim to the Federal Government to stop States from doing exactly what they think is appropriate to protect their public and to bolster consumer confidence.

I don't think that the confidence of the consumer should be bolstered when we have a bill on the floor that has been around for a number of years and no committee has ever held a hearing on it. We did not allow the scientists to come in and tell us whether it is a good idea or not. We didn't hear the problems from the industry that should justify this bill. We didn't hear the opponents and the arguments that they might make. Instead, in committee we had a mark-up where Members could debate what we were told by different groups, but not based on a hearing record. I think that the confidence of the American people in Congress should be very, very low; and if this bill passes the confidence of the American public about their food supply should be also in doubt.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to read a portion of a letter from Tommy Irvin who is from the Georgia Department of Agriculture. And he said, ``The bill is craftily written to disguise its true effects on our authority to protect consumers. Both vague and broad in scope, this legislation will, in reality, go far beyond the stated purpose of uniformity. The real effect of this legislation will be the deregulation of the United States Food Industry.''

Madam Chairman and my colleagues, we have at the Federal level, the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture has a dual mission: to protect consumers from unsafe agriculture products, particularly meat and chicken. But they also have the obligation to bolster the agriculture industries in this country. And they always have this tension about who to respond to first.

We also have the Food and Drug Agency, and they regulate food additives and the food supply that the USDA does not cover. Well, as Representative Rosa DeLauro mentioned,

we ought to have one food agency, but we have never been able to do that because people fight over their turf.

Well, while the Federal Government is fighting over its turf, this bill would take away the jurisdiction from the States to protect their own people, and that is why we never hear a bill labeled as the ``usurpation of power in Washington to take away from the States the ability to protect consumers of food.'' They do not call it that. They call it the ``National Uniformity Bill for the Food Product,'' or something along those lines. They always have a very nice sounding label for legislation.

Well, do not be fooled by the label that this bill has, because it misleads the consumer and the American public into thinking we are doing something to protect them, when I fear it is going to make them weaker.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

And in response to the gentleman's point, which I think is an excellent one, industries in this country often have to meet State standards as well as Federal standards. I have always heard that if it ain't broke, why fix it. And I have never heard a reason why we need this bill. What are we fixing? What is the problem? I do not see what the problem is, except some people would like to overturn State laws. And if they have the case to do that, they ought to make it at the State level, or they ought to come to the Federal Government and say this particular law is too burdensome; we ought to have a Federal law in its place.

But that is not what we are having proposed to us today. We are having proposed to us a bill that just would, in a blanket way, allow the preemption of all duly adopted laws at the State level.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire of my colleague how many speakers he has remaining?

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will close the debate on our side.

Madam Chairman and my colleagues, let me just go through the kinds of laws we are talking about. There are 50 State laws regulating the safety of milk. They are not identical. And I don't know if there will be one uniform law for the safety of milk at the Federal level, and I am not sure that it would make sense to have it. There may be differences that are justified. But that debate could go on, and it could be resolved by itself. But meanwhile, we shouldn't jeopardize 50 laws on the subject when there is no Federal law to take its place.

There are 50 State laws regulating safety of food in restaurants. Why should the restaurants in a State be regulated by Washington if their State chooses to have a food safety disclosure or other food law?

There are 10 State laws regulating the safety of shellfish. Why should those laws be eliminated?

There is an Alabama law regulating infested, moldy, or decayed pecans and other nuts. That may be a problem that Alabama has. Why shouldn't they be able to act on it, and why should we have to have that same law elsewhere or have no law anywhere on the subject?

California law requiring consumers to be notified when food contains contaminants that cause cancer or birth defects, a California law limiting the amount of lead in candy, a Florida law regulating labeling of citrus fruit and citrus products, a Maine law requiring disclosure of the risk of eating smoked alewives, whatever that may be. A Maryland law, prohibiting the sale of frozen food that has been previously thawed. A Minnesota law requiring labeling of the types of wild rice. A Mississippi law requiring the labeling of farm-raised catfish. A Virginia law prohibiting the removal of sell-by date labels, a Wisconsin law requiring a label showing the age and type of cheese made in Wisconsin.

I don't know whether those are all good laws or not, but the legislatures probably had hearings, and they got the input from people who are supporting it, and opposing it. And they adopted it and their Governors signed the laws.

We are now about to overturn those State laws with a bill that had no hearing here in the Congress of the United States, and will turn it over to the FDA, a Federal bureaucracy, to decide whether those States may have those laws in their States still in effect. I think it is wrong. I do not see the problem it is solving. I think that this is

legislation that has been poorly thought out. I hope we get a chance to offer amendments to the bill next week when we start considering it. Especially since it has never had a day of hearings, we ought to have an open rule. There are a limited number of issues to debate. We ought to at least be able to debate them and have votes on those issues so that Members can make a determined judgment as to whether this bill ought to pass the House of Representatives.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

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

I do recall and I can explain the situation.

It does because there was no nutritional labeling at the State level. It had been done by the industry voluntarily, and they had different kinds of labels, and it was not in a way that we could compare the calorie content, the carbohydrate content, the fat content. So we decided that since this was all under Federal jurisdiction anyway, we ought to standardize the labeling.

It was not an issue of usurping the power from the States because the States look to the FDA to make that decision.

No, of course.

You would not, however, want the Federal Government to legislate in every area that any State thinks ought to be done in their State?

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us addresses a fictional problem. Simply put, the Nation's largest food companies think that States are giving consumers too much information about the food they use to feed their families.

Along with the corporate lobbyists who wrote this bill, and we all know who they were because the paper printed them this week, these companies think it is wrong that States tell people when the bottled water on their supermarket shelves has high levels of arsenic.

They think it is wrong to inform a pregnant woman that eating mercury-laden fish could do serious damage to a fetus. And what about letting people know that their ground beef was treated with carbon monoxide? That apparently is wrong too. And I want to elaborate on that for just a moment. Many stores now buy their meat from common suppliers instead of having their own butchers at hand. In order to keep it looking fresh and looking better for a longer time, they treat it with carbon monoxide. You know, if you die from carbon monoxide poisoning, you turn a nice, bright, pink-red, which is what their meat does, and then they can keep it even for months. I saw a picture of one from November that it looked like it had just been butchered yesterday.

That is apparently wrong too. Do you want to eat that?

They want us to buy more and think less about health and safety and that alone is the motivation behind this bill. Supporters of the bill claim all they want to do is to make consumer protections the same for all Americans. But that is not what this bill will do. Most States already give their citizens much more information about the food than the Food and Drug Administration even requires. In fact, 80 percent of the food safety work performed in the United States is done by State and local officials. They are the ones with the expertise, the on-the- ground experience, and are needed to keep consumers safe, and they have been doing a good job. But this law will allow the FDA to invalidate State labeling laws and apply their own lower standards nationwide.

Listen, mothers, this is important. The consequences of this bill are going to be drastic. Within a matter of months, 200 State food safety laws will be wiped off the books. Will they be the ones that protect your child from an asthma attack or from dyes that would hurt them?

The experienced State health officials who want their regulations back are going to have to come, hat in hand, to the FDA and ask for permission to give their States more information than the Federal Government requires, which is paltry. They will have to plead with the FDA bureaucrats to keep the food safety laws in place, laws that their own legislatures and citizens have already established. In other words, they would have to seek approval from an agency that does not keep us safe anymore, an agency that cannot meet its current workload, and that, as we all know, has been in the business of approving drugs that turned out to be killing people and had to be removed from the market.

Now, I grew up believing that the FDA took care of me. And that was a lot like believing in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, because if I have learned one thing in the last 5 years, it is the FDA cannot do that. But suddenly the party of States' rights and small government wants to forget about both. Instead, it wants to send quality State regulations that are protecting Americans into a bureaucratic black hole.

Mr. Speaker, the people and organizations most concerned about the safety of our Nation's food stand in strong opposition to this bill. Attorneys General and public health and safety officials from all over the United States, in fact most of them, if not all of them, have come out against it and begged us not to pass it. In fact, the Association of Food and Drug Officials recently wrote a letter to the Representative who sponsored this bill, asking him to reconsider his own legislation.

He said, ``Members of the AFDO are State and local governments with no profit motive.'' That is the key here. These people have no profit motive, merely a public health concern, who feel strongly that the legislation will gravely impair State and local authorities' ability to protect their constituents.

Mr. Speaker, that letter is as follows:

The National Association of State Departments of

Agriculture,

Washington, DC, February 27, 2006.

Dear Members of Congress: The National Association of State

Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) is writing to reiterate

our concern and strong opposition to H.R. 4167, the National

Uniformity for Foods Act. NASDA represents the commissioners,

secretaries and directors of the state departments of

agriculture in the fifty states and four territories.

The House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 4167 this week and

we urge you to oppose this legislation. The state departments

of agriculture are very concerned that this bill goes far

beyond its stated purpose of providing uniform food safety

warning notification requirements and greatly expands federal

preemption under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Such

additional preemptions would seriously compromise our ability

to enact laws and issue rules in numerous areas of food

safety. Specifically, we believe the bill as currently

written threatens existing state food safety programs and

jeopardizes state/

federal food safety cooperative programs such as those

related to Grade A milk, retail food protection and shellfish

sanitation.

As you know, the current food safety regulatory system in

the United States is the shared responsibility of local,

state and federal partners. Approximately 80% of food safety

inspections in the nation are completed at state and local

levels. It is imperative that states have the right to act

quickly to address local and statewide public health concerns

that cannot be anticipated or are not adequately addressed

nationally. In addition, our existing food safety system

forms the first line of defense against the threat of a

terrorist attack against our nation's food supply. Passage of

this legislation will undermine the authority of state laws

and programs that address adulterated foods, including animal

feed, commodity laws and other food defense programs.

NASDA firmly believes the preemption of state and local

food safety programs would leave a critical gap in the safety

net that protects consumers. We call on Congress to hold

hearings to discuss these critical issues and seek full input

from state and local partners in the food safety system.

NASDA would welcome the opportunity to discuss ways the bill

could be amended to achieve its intent while limiting the

impact on critical food safety regulatory programs at the

local and state levels.

Now is not the time to pass H.R. 4167 and we urge you to

oppose this legislation until these important issues are

addressed.

Sincerely,

J. Carlton Courter III,

President.

As is often the case, the bill before us does more than provide just another example of how private interests trumped the public good in today's Congress. It also shows us how broken and undemocratic our political system has become. No hearings were held on this legislation. No State and no local public health officials were called to testify about it, even though they offered.

Both the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the Association of Food and Drug Officials expressed their willingness to talk to Congress about the issue, but they were turned away. These dedicated public servants were ignored because this legislation could never have withstood proper scrutiny. It was written with special interests in mind, not the public interests, pure and simple.

Last year the majority pledged honest and immediate reform of the way Congress wrote its bills, because when the public caught on to what was going on here, there was a great outcry. And yet here we are, in a new year, doing the very same thing: handing over the public interests to private corporations.

I wish we had an open and democratic process in this House. We need to stop passing bills that hold the public interest in contempt, and we need to start today. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend that there is a far cry between lemon juice, as Mr. Stupak said, and carbon monoxide. Let me tell you, if you believe the FDA, ask the people who took Vioxx. They do not have a very good record over there.

But the idea of putting carbon monoxide on there is to hide the fact that the meat is on the verge of spoilage. I do not want to feed it to my family, nor should you want to feed it to yours.

His list of people who support it have the profit motive that the attorneys general and the State consumer representatives all told us was the difference between them and his supporters.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, so that I can amend the rule to give the House an opportunity to vote today, up or down, to block the President's plan to turn over our Nation's ports to a government run by the country of Dubai.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment provides that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up legislation that stops the President from moving forward with his deal to transfer operations at a number of our Nation's busiest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

Mr. Speaker, now more than ever, we need to ensure that Congress has a voice in the outcome of this potentially dangerous and secretive deal.

On Monday of this week, Great Britain's highest court refused to consider an objection to the purchase of the British shipping company by Dubai, thus clearing the way for the sale and potential takeover of American ports by this company. Additionally, and many people may not know this, news reports this week have revealed that the contract negotiated by the Bush administration would impact more than just the six ports mentioned in

the initial reports. It would affect at least 22 ports in the United States.

The more we learn about the agreement, the worse it gets, and the clock is ticking on this deal and we must not allow more time to go by without taking any action in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a listing of ports that make up the 22 ports.

Dubai Deal Now Includes 22 Ports

Washington.--The $6.8 billion deal British courts approved

today putting a Dubai-owned company in charge of significant

operations at six U.S. ports, also gives the company a lesser

role in other dockside activities at 16 other American

seaports. By purchasing London-based Peninsular and Oriental

Steam Navigation, DP World bought the publicly traded British

firm's concessions to manage and operate some cargo or

passenger terminal facilities in New York, New Jersey,

Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The Department of Homeland Security has said DP World would

only operate and manage specific, individual terminals

located within six ports. Homeland Security says DP World

would operate one of Philadelphia's five terminals, not

including the port's single cruise ship terminal.

Last week, DP World formally submitted to an unusual,

broader security examination by the Bush administration over

the ports deal. Among the new cities included in the deal are

Camden, N.J. and Wilmington, Del.

Here is a list of all U.S. ports affected by the pending

sale of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation

Co. to Dubai-owned DP World:

BALTIMORE: Would manage and operate two of the port's 14

terminals.

BATON ROUGE, LA: DP Would run some stevedoring operations

at port's general cargo dock.

BEAMONT, TEXAS: Would run one of about six stevedoring

operations.

BOSTON: Operate Black Falcon Cruise Terminal with

Massachusetts Port Authority; would run stevedoring

operations at the Moran Automobile Terminal.

CAMDEN, N.J: Run some stevedoring operations, part owners

Delaware River Stevedores.

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS: Operate some stevedoring operations,

part of joint venture, Dix-Fairway.

DAVISVILLE, R.I: Run some stevedoring operations.

FREEPORT, TEXAS: Run some stevedoring operations.

GALVESTON, TEXAS: Run stevedoring operations at one

terminal.

GULFPORT, MISS: Would become one of two stevedoring

companies.

HOUSTON: Work with stevedoring contractors at three of

port's 12 terminals.

LAKE CHARLES, LA: Operate some stevedoring operations.

MIAMI: Operate/manage with Eller & Company Inc., one of

three terminals; doesn't include Miami's seven cruise ship

terminals and would operate some stevedoring services.

NEWARK: Operate and manage one of the port's four

terminals.

NEW ORLEANS: Manage and operate two of the port's five

terminals and doesn't include chemical-plant terminals along

the Mississippi River.

NEW YORK: Manage and operate the New York Cruise Terminal.

NORFOLK, VA: Involved with stevedoring activities at all

five port terminals and would not manage any of the

terminals.

PHILADELPHIA: Operate one of five terminals and doesn't

include the port's single cruise ship terminal.

PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS: Operate as one of three stevedoring

companies.

PORTLAND, MAINE: Operate as one of stevedoring companies

serving Portland's terminals and take over crane maintenance

at one terminal.

TAMPA, FLA: Operate/manage terminals under pending contract

negotiated Feb. 21; Port authority says will reconsider deal

if DP World deal is finalized; also provide some stevedoring

services.

WILMINGTON, DEL: Run some stevedoring operations as part

owners Delaware River Stevedores, one of two stevedoring

companies at the port.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question and then we can deal with this matter which has an urgency to everyone in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act. The manufacturing and distribution of the things we eat and drink is now a national industry. Coca-Cola, which is based in my home State in Atlanta, Georgia, for instance, is shipped to every corner of the country and throughout the world. Many believe that it is just common sense for these types of food manufacturers and distributors to have one labeling standard for the country, not 50 standards for 50 States.

More importantly, in order to make informed choices, consumers need consistent information. When a food warning is supported by science and consumers need to know it, the same warning should be applied to food everywhere. H.R. 4167 achieves that result.

With a mobile society, inconsistent warning requirements are guaranteed to confuse. When it is a matter of health and safety, a little confusion can have catastrophic effects.

A person in North Augusta, South Carolina, for example, can walk into a store and buy a product with no warning label. The same person could walk across the street to a store in Augusta, Georgia, and buy the same product but have a warning label attached. Does this make any sense? Of course not. It does not make any more sense to the shopper than it makes here in the House today.

When people need to be warned that a food product may hurt them, everyone needs to be warned. Uniformity in food regulation and labeling is not without precedent. Meat and poultry are regulated under uniform standards. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 requires uniform nutrition labeling. If consistency in nutrition labeling is warranted, consumers should certainly have the benefit of consistency in warning labels of the food they eat.

Some have rightfully argued that State-specific circumstances might necessitate a warning unique only to their State. This bill acknowledges that fact by inviting States to assert their unique problems and ensure that they will get a fair and fast response from the Food and Drug Administration.

I would also like to dispel some of the misinformation that opponents of the bill have been perpetuating. In no way will this bill hinder the ability of States to respond to public emergencies. If a State feels there is an imminent public health threat that must be protected by requiring manufacturers and distributors to put a warning label on their product, they can do it immediately. All this bill requires is they tell the FDA of the threat. That is something they should be doing anyway and in most cases are already doing.

Additionally, this bill does not affect a State's ability to issue its own notification to the public, to embargo a product, or to issue recalls when they deem that necessary.

Finally, this is mostly a question about food safety, but there is a broad economic aspect to it too. Making consumers deal with 50 different labeling requirements is not without cost. In effect, it divides America into 50 different markets where each of the products cost the consumer just a little more to buy.

The men who wrote our Constitution decided that letting each State wage trade wars with its neighbors was a terrible idea, so they outlawed it by putting the Federal Government in charge of interstate commerce. It is hard to see the Framers changing their minds today so that one big market for American food can revert to 50 little markets where consumers pay more and get less.

Consistent requirements will lead to consistent results for those who make our food, and consistent information will lead to consistently better and safer choice for our consumers.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4167.

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) for purposes of a colloquy.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, yes, it is.

I would add that, under the bill, ``identical'' means that the language in the State law is substantially the same as that in the listed sections of Federal law and that any differences in language are not material. This is important to understand.

If the gentleman would further yield, yes.

For example, Federal law contains what is referred to as the ``basic adulteration standard,'' which provides that a food is adulterated if it bears any added poisonous or deleterious substance which may render the food injurious to health. All States have a provision that is identical to this provision of Federal law.

The gentleman is correct on both of those points.

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, no, it is not.

Careful analysis of that list shows that of the 77 State laws listed, 55 would not be preempted. Let me give you two examples. First, included on the list is an Alabama law that sets nutritional standards for grits. This uniformity bill does not deal with nutritional standards or with grits, so the Alabama law is unaffected by the bill.

Secondly, the list includes several State laws that require that fish be labeled as previously frozen, if that is the case. These laws are not affected by the uniformity provision because those State fish labeling requirements are not warnings.

Of the 22 State laws that would be affected by the bill, 14 authorize States to adopt requirements for food and color additives that are different from Federal requirements. Although these laws would be preempted under the bill, the fact is that none of the 14 States that have these laws have any current requirement for food or color additives that are different from Federal requirements.

So, in spite of all the wild assertions that the uniformity bill would nullify ``the bulk of the State food safety laws,'' as one opponent has put it, the fact is it would do nothing of the sort.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

Madam Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

I thank the gentleman for yielding. They would have to comply with both. But what this deals with is labeling. If there is a label that is necessary for your people in Oregon to protect their safety, then it ought to be necessary for the people of my State of Georgia, and it ought to be uniform in that regard, and that is what we are saying.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

I am prepared to close.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, this has been a good debate, and I appreciate the interest and concern.

And to my good friend, Mr. Waxman, who has handled it on the other side, I am glad he has now become converted to being a States' righter. Back in 1990 when he was the author of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, we heard exactly the opposite arguments. I was not here, but I am told those were the opposite arguments because as far as nutrition labeling, it does require uniformity across the country.

Now, if labeling on nutrition requires consistency, why should not there be consistency in warning labels of the foods that people eat?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Does it require uniformity?

You would not advocate repealing that law and giving it back to the States, I would assume?

All right. Thank you.

No.

Reclaiming my time, let me give the Members of this body examples of some of the things that are excluded from it.

The gentleman mentioned shellfish. Shellfish are specifically excluded from the provisions of this act. Some of the ones that I think most of us think of as the kinds of labels that may have peculiar application to locales that may not have application nationwide and that are therefore not included or prohibited from being placed on products are some of the following: open date labeling, grade labeling, State inspection stamps, religious dietary labeling, organic or natural designations, returnable bottle labeling, unit price labeling, and statement of geographical origin. Those all still continue to be allowed; they are not preempted by this legislation.

I believe we have heard from a wide variety of people who represent points of view from their committee assignments on the Democrat side as well as the Republican side. The gentleman quoted my Democrat commissioner of agriculture from the State of Georgia. I called on my Democrat Member from the State of Georgia, who has served on the Agriculture Committee here in the House of Representatives, who said exactly the opposite of what our State agriculture commissioner says.

Now, I think that the overall conclusion that we should reach is that this is a good piece of legislation. It is time that we recognize that there is a necessity for uniformity in labeling of food products, and this legislation moves us in that direction. I would urge the adoption of the bill when it is considered next week.

Madam Chairman. I ask that this exchange of correspondence be included in the debate on H.R. 4167.

Congress of the United States,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, February 28, 2006.

Hon. Joe Barton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Barton: In recognition of the desire to

expedite consideration of H.R. 4167, the ``National

Uniformity for Food Act of 2005,'' the Committee on the

Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the bill. There are

several provisions contained in H.R. 4167 that implicate the

rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Specifically, the legislation contains a number of judicial

review provisions.

The Committee takes this action with the understanding that

by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4167, the Committee on the

Judiciary does not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter

contained in this or similar legislation. The Committee also

reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate

conference on this legislation and requests your support if

such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your

including this letter in your Committee's report for H.R.

4167 and in the Congressional Record during consideration of

H.R. 4167 on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to

these matters.

Sincerely,

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman.

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