To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to designate the President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home in Hope, Arkansas, as a National Historic Site and unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

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. 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.

Madam Speaker, as the sponsor of this legislation, I rise in support of H.R. 4192, a bill to designate the William Jefferson Clinton birthplace home located in my hometown of Hope, Arkansas, as a national historic site and unit of the National Park System.

First, I would like to thank Chairman Pombo, Chairman Saxton and Ranking Member Rahall and Ranking Member Christensen for their support and their assistance in moving this bill from the Resources Committee in a bipartisan manner to the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, what we have just witnessed from the gentlewoman from Florida is an example of the kind of partisan bickering that the people back home are sick and tired of. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is about America, and it is about our Nation's history.

Madam Speaker, what the gentlewoman from Florida obviously does not get is the fact that this is about history. We have only had 42 Presidents in the history of this Nation; and I believe all of them, Democrat and Republican alike, if their birthplace home is still standing, it should be an historic site because it is a part of history.

I am pleased to have the entire Arkansas congressional delegation supporting this bill in a bipartisan manner including Congressman Boozman from Arkansas, Congressman Berry from Arkansas, Congressman Snyder from Arkansas; and I am proud that this bill was passed out of the Resources Committee and placed on the suspension

calendar by our leaders in both parties that recognized it for what it is, about history, not about politics. So I am deeply, deeply saddened that one Member out of 435 has chosen to try to divide us once again by taking a history lesson and turning it into a partisan ball game.

In my mind and in the minds of my colleagues from Arkansas there is no doubt this important property in Hope, Arkansas deserves Federal recognition. I believe the preservation of properties of historical significance is a necessary and important function of our government. The designation as a national historic site and unit of the National Park System will open the doors for further economic opportunities and prosperity for the city of Hope and all of southwest Arkansas. This site will celebrate, it will celebrate the history and educate thousands of visitors on the early life of our 42nd President of the United States of America, President William Jefferson Clinton, who came into this world on August 19, 1946, as William Jefferson Blythe, III, in Hope, Arkansas, just 3 months after his father tragically died in a car accident.

I mentioned that this has bipartisan support, Madam Speaker. This is about economic development. It is about tourism. It is about history. It is about maintaining and protecting and preserving an historic site, the birthplace home of the 42nd President of the United States of America.

Our Republican Governor in Arkansas gets it. And I want to thank him for that, and I want to share with my colleagues and make a part of the Record a letter I received dated yesterday from our Republican Governor, Mike Huckabee who, too, grew up in Hope, Arkansas.

It says: ``Dear Congressman Ross: Thank you for your efforts to honor and recognize the birthplace of our 42nd President, William Jefferson Clinton, by naming his birthplace in Hope, Arkansas a national historic site. As is customary in this country to honor our former Presidents with libraries and other accolades, I cannot think of a better tribute to President Clinton than this recognition. The lasting impact this will have for the State and country is immeasurable. Not only would it provide future generations an educational look into our 42nd President and the times he lived in, but it will provide the region of our State, and specifically my native home of Hope, Arkansas, added economic opportunity and prosperity.

``H.R. 4192 is an important piece of legislation for not only the reasons mentioned above, but also for the preservation and protection of this historical site which is currently reliant upon private donations. President Clinton will forever be a true Arkansan, and this piece of legislation will allow not only Arkansas but the country the ability to properly honor him and his service.

``Again, thank you for your work on this legislation. I look forward to working with you to see its passage out of Congress this year.

``Sincerely yours, Mike Huckabee, Governor of the State of Arkansas.''

Might I add, a Republican Governor, who like myself, grew up in Hope, Arkansas.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to at least read a part of a letter from Mack McLarty who was President Clinton's first White House Chief of Staff and someone who commanded respect from both sides of the aisle during those early Clinton years.

``Dear Mike: I'm writing today in support of H.R. 4192, your bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to designate President William Jefferson Clinton's birthplace home in Hope, Arkansas as a national historic site and unit of the National Park System. This step would be a fitting recognition of President Clinton's birthplace home in our Nation's Presidential history and ensure the preservation of the site for future generations. This site will celebrate history and educate thousands of visitors and perhaps, most importantly, it will bring jobs and economic development opportunities to southwest Arkansas.

``As you know, I was born and raised in Hope myself. My lifelong friendship with President Clinton dates back to Miss Mary's kindergarten. Not surprisingly, then, my attachment to 117 South Hervey Street is personal and heartfelt, but, more than that, I believe the Clinton birthplace stands for something larger than itself.''

Mack McLarty goes on to write that, ``As I wrote some years ago in an essay for the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, I believe that white frame house is worthy of more than a nod of nostalgia because the values President Clinton learned there and in Hope formed the core of his political philosophy.

``In 1946 when President Clinton and I were born, Hope was the essence of small-town America. Family and faith were at the center of people's lives. Commitment to work was expected. From the schools to the churches, local businesses and charities, knowing and caring for one another was part of daily life. And as our friend, Joe Purvis, later wrote, `It bred a sense of responsibility, because if you misbehaved, your mama knew about it before you got home.' ''

Mack McLarty continues in his letter, ``For a small boy growing up in that era, Hope lived up to its name. We had won the war. The economy was booming. The American Dream was alive. People had confidence in a future they believed was theirs to shape. It was a time of infectious optimism and seemingly limitless potential.

``I do not mean to suggest that our hometown was perfect. We never thought it was even then. Hope was segregated like the rest of the South. It had its share of human frailty and vice, but kids were taught, growing up, to respect the dignity of each individual. There was a genuine sense of community in Hope that crossed income lines and, in many ways, race as well.''

Mack McLarty continues in his letter in support of this bill, ``The young Bill Clinton, who was then Billy Blythe, understood this perhaps better than most. His father had died before he was born. His mother, determined to provide for her son, was in nurse anesthetist school in New Orleans, a brave step in an era when single mothers and working women were uncommon. Young Billy was raised those first few years primarily by his grandparents who owned a grocery on North Hazel Street across from Rose Hill Cemetery.''

I could continue, Madam Speaker, but there are others who want to speak in support of this bill on both sides of the aisle, and I applaud them and thank them for helping me restore and maintain and preserve this piece of history, as we should do for all 42 former Presidents, Democrat and Republican alike.

State of Arkansas,

State Capitol Building,

Little Rock, AR, March 7, 2006.

Hon. Mike Ross,

House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Ross: Thank you for your efforts to honor

and recognize the birthplace of our 42nd President, William

Jefferson Clinton, by naming his birthplace home in Hope,

Arkansas a National Historic Site. As is customary in this

country to honor our former Presidents with libraries and

other accolades, I can not think of a better tribute to

President Clinton than this recognition. The lasting impact

this will have for the state and country is immeasurable. Not

only will it provide future generations an educational look

into our 42nd President and the times he lived in, but it

will provide this region of our state and specifically my

native home of Hope added economic opportunity and

prosperity.

H.R. 4192 is an important piece of legislation for not only

the reasons mentioned above, but also for the preservation

and protection of this historical site, which is currently

reliant upon private donations. President Clinton will

forever be a true Arkansan and this piece of legislation will

allow not only Arkansas but the country the ability to

properly honor him and his service.

Again thank you for your work on this legislation and I

look forward to working with you to see its passage out of

Congress this year.

Sincerely yours,

Mike Huckabee,

Governor.

Mr. Speaker, after hearing the last speaker on the other side of the aisle on this rule, he claimed this is a bill that is well- balanced, thought through; it would lead to national regulations based on science. That all sounds well and good, but it is just not true.

This bill has never had a day of hearings. We don't know all that is in this bill. You wonder why the Congress would do its work in this way: a bill that has never had a hearing in the committee, even though it has been around for three Congresses. Those who favor it have never made a record of why they think it is necessary. The opponents from most of the States, if you look at this map there are a few States we have not heard from, but almost all the States attorneys general and Governors and agriculture commissioners and the food and drug people in those States oppose it, but they have never been able to come in and tell the Congress why. So the other side has never had a chance, nor has our side of the aisle, to hear testimony and to make a record, and yet we are told this bill is well balanced.

Let me point out that the proponents of this legislation have said a lot of different things. It has been almost like a covert legislative campaign. They have sent people in from the districts, from some trade association or other, and said to Members, this is a national uniformity bill. It is just going to clarify the law. It is going to require all the States to have the same rules so that we will not have the burden on interstate commerce.

Well, they have never shown there is any burden on interstate commerce. But it sounded so good that many Members cosponsored the bill without fully understanding that this bill is going to overturn 200 State laws that protect our food supply. Why are we doing that? What is broken about our system of federalism that allows the States to pass laws to protect their own people? And now the proponents of this bill want States to come, hat in hand, to the Food and Drug Administration, a wonderful bureaucracy at the Federal level, not even elected people, and that agency will decide whether the State laws can continue in effect? They will have higher power than the States legislatures and Governors?

That is not a well-balanced or well-thought-through piece of legislation. And now we are on the floor arguing a rule that would so severely limit the time for debate on all the amendments and this bill that you have to ask yourself: Why is this going on? What are they hiding from us? Why don't they want this bill to be held up to public scrutiny through hearings? And why won't they let this bill be fully debated on the floor of the House of Representatives by the people's elected Representatives? Why do they have to rush this through?

Mr. Speaker, this is the early part of March. We have barely been in session. We have been meeting 2\1/2\ days out of each week as we go from recess in January to recess in February to recess in March. Let us have another day. Congress can do its work. We don't have to rush out to another CODEL or another junket. We ought to do our job and let people come in and tell us what they think of bills and not get steamrolled into something that no one has fully examined and that would repeal State laws. So let us vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The problem I have with what you are saying is that a State has to go to the Food and Drug Administration and argue that case, and they may then be allowed to continue their laws. But even if there is no Federal law on the subject, the States may be stopped from enforcing or even legislating in an area to give warnings or set up standards for the safety of the food.

Why should States be required to go to a bureaucratic agency to have permission to do what the Constitution of the United States permits them to do, which is to police powers for the safety and health and well-being of their own citizens? You, particularly from Georgia, ought to appreciate States rights.

Mr. Speaker, the standard in this bill is not sound science. The standard is for the FDA to decide if it unduly burdens interstate commerce to allow a State to have its own law. Now, I do not know how the FDA makes those kinds of decisions. They are a scientific agency, but they are going to make one on interstate commerce? And I suspect they will be influenced by the lobbyists, just like this whole process has been influenced by the special interests and the lobbyists that want to keep the States from protecting citizens in those States from unsafe and unhealthy food.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have so little time to talk about this bill on the House floor, I wanted some of our colleagues to understand what kind of laws we are talking about: State laws dealing with adulterated food, emergency permit controls, unsafe food additives, unsafe color additives, new animal drugs, animal feeds, poisonous ingredients in food. These are laws that States have adopted over the years and they are going to be swept away.

It is so inexplicable to me why we would want to do that. States currently carry out 80 percent of food safety protection. There is no evidence they have been acting irresponsibly or incompetently. And in many cases, the Federal Government has never gotten around to looking at these issues because they have deferred to the States on them. So now the State laws will be struck unless the Federal Government allows those State laws to stay in effect and that could mean, even though there is no Federal warning law, for example, that would take its place. We would have no law at the local or State level, or at the Federal level. I guess the purpose of some of this legislation is to keep the public from knowing about the harm that they may be exposed to in food.

Now Mrs. Capps and a number of others are going to be offering an amendment, the Capps-Stupak-Eshoo-Waxman amendment, that would say that State laws that require notification of substances that may cause cancer and birth defects in reproductive health all ought to be permitted. I hope Members will vote for that amendment and vote against this bill.

It gives 180 days for the FDA to act. They do not have the resources to do it, but they can simply say this is a burden on interstate commerce, the State law is gone. It does not mean that the State law stays in effect until the Federal Government establishes a national standard. It could strike the State law and have no national standard to replace it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 16, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nominations of Mr. James Lambright, of Missouri, to be President, Export-Import Bank of the United States; Mr. Armando J. Bucelo, Jr., of Florida, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation; Mr.

Todd S. Farha, of Florida, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation; Mr. Jon T. Rymer, of Tennessee, to be Inspector General, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Mr. John Cox, of Texas, to be Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Mr. William Hardiman, of Michigan, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the National Institute of Building Sciences.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 16, 2006, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the ``Role of Hedge Funds in our Capital Markets.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 16, 2006, at 10 a.m., on the Transportation Security Administration's Transportation Worker Identification Credential--TWIC--Program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 16 at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding the status of the Yucca Mountain Repository Project within the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management at the Department of Energy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, May 16, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider the nomination of Susan C. Schwab to be United States Trade Representative, with the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Executive Office of the President, vice Robert J. Portman.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in Open Executive Session on Tuesday, May 16, 2006, in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider favorably reporting the nomination of W. Ralph Basham, of Virginia, to be Commissioner of Customs, Department of Homeland Security, vice Robert C. Bonner, resigned.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 16, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Energy Security and Oil Dependence.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in Open Executive Session on Tuesday, May 16, 2006, to review and make recommendations on proposed legislation implementing the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging, be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet Tuesday, May 16, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness List

Panel I: Anita S. Earls, Director of Advocacy, University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Pamela S. Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law, and Associate Dean for Research and Academics, Stanford University School of Law, Stanford, California; Keith Gaddie, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma; Theodore S. Arrington, Chair, Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina; and Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, New York, New York.

select committee on intelligence

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 16, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. to hold a confirmation hearing on Kenneth Wainstein to be Assistant Attorney General for National Security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 16, at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearings is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1686, a bill to amend the Constitution Heritage Act of 1988 to provide for the operation of the National Constitution Center; S. 2417 and H.R. 4192, bills to authorize the secretary of the Interior to designate the President William Jefferson Clinton birthplace home in Hope, Arkansas, as a national historic site and unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; S. 2419 and H.R. 4882, bills to ensure the proper remembrance of Vietnam Veterans and the Vietnam War by providing a deadline for the designation of a visitor center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial; S. 2568, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail; S. 2627, a bill to amend the Act of August 21, 1935, to extend the authorization for the National Park System Advisory Board, and for other purposes; and S. Res. 468, a resolution supporting the continued administration of Channel Islands National Park, including Santa Rosa Island, in accordance with the laws (including regulations) and policies of the National Park Service.