Expressing support for the efforts of the people of the Republic of Belarus to establish a full democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights and urging the Government of Belarus to conduct a free and fair presidential election on March 19, 2006.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I rise in strong support of this resolution.

First, I want to commend my good friend Chris Smith from New Jersey for his leadership on this issue, as well as all of my colleagues who played a role in its development.

Mr. Speaker, Alexander Lukashenko is, in fact, the last dictator of Europe. He is running for reelection as President of Belarus for the third time, and there is really no suspense about the outcome. He is running a neo-Stalinist dictatorship with the usual techniques.

Although it is now a decade and a half since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Lukashenko is conducting elections that would make Leonid Brezhnev and Nikita Khrushchev blush.

Freedom of the press is nonexistent in Belarus. All television and radio stations are either owned or controlled by the government. Newscasts offer nothing but sickening praise for Lukashenko. The main opposition candidate, Alexander Milinkevich, says that his name has never been mentioned on television.

A publication called ``People's Will'' is the last remaining newspaper in the country which is not yet under the thumb of Lukashenko. The state-owned media distribution network refused to distribute this newspaper, and the state-run press kiosks are prohibited from selling it.

Last year a government-controlled court found this newspaper guilty of slandering a progovernment politician properly accused in the U.N. Oil-for-Food investigation. This so-called court imposed a fine of $50,000 against the newspaper, an absolutely incredible figure in a country such as Belarus where $50,000 sounds like $500 million to us. Of course, the newspaper, which has a very modest circulation, was unable to pay the fine, and its loyal readers contributed in small amounts enough money to pay the fine.

The editor of this paper was informed by the government that the printing company, which was under contract to print the newspaper, was breaking its contract and would no longer print it. The newspaper had to find a printing house in Russia, and copies of the paper are mailed to subscribers, but, of course, they arrive days or weeks later.

Mr. Speaker, the government's techniques for keeping journalists in line is quite simple. Over the past several years, journalists known for their critical coverage of Lukashenko died under mysterious circumstances. Independent journalists simply vanished without a trace.

In October, Lukashenko pushed through a law that makes it a crime to discredit the state or any of its officials. This ``crime'' carries a sentence of 2 years in prison. The head of the Belarusian Journalists' Association said, ``All information that contradicts official propaganda is blocked.''

The government is so paranoid about controlling the dissemination of information that even buying a copying machine requires the approval of the Ministry of the Interior.

Mr. Speaker, complete control of newspapers, television and radio is not all this nondemocratic government is doing to ensure the reelection of Lukashenko. Less than a week ago, the opposition presidential candidate was accused of damaging a picture of the country's President and imprisoned.

The Belarus State Security Committee, which, significantly in Russian, has the initials of the KGB, which were the initials of Stalin's secret police, reported that it had uncovered a coup masterminded by the opposition, planned for the day after the election. The supposed coup became a basis for the Government of Belarus to ban 72 nongovernmental organizations which were accused of plotting this supposed coup.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are considering expresses support for the people of Belarus and urges the government to show respect for the rule of law and respect for human and civil rights of the Belarusian people. It calls for free and fair elections.

It is important that we put on record our indignation, our frustration and our outrage at Belarus' blatant disregard for civilized governmental procedures and human rights. We earnestly seek the establishment of good relations with the people of Belarus, but that can only happen if the government of that country guarantees its citizens the opportunity to exercise their civil liberties, their political rights and privileges, including the right to full freedom of expression.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this very important resolution. We must send a clear and unequivocal message to Lukashenko that before Belarus can be integrated into the community of civilized Nations, a democratic political system must be in place in that country.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the resolution, and I insert at this point in the Record a statement by the National Democratic Institute.

Statement by the National Democratic Institute on the Current Situation

in Belarus

Around the world, citizens have organized in a nonpartisan

way to monitor elections as a means of promoting confidence

and participation in the electoral process. The right of

citizens to monitor their elections is a fundamental

democratic principle, and over the past 25 years the National

Democratic Institute is proud to have worked with nonpartisan

monitoring groups in more than 65 countries in every region

of the world.

In Belarus, civic activists have also sought to monitor

their elections, a right which is guaranteed to them under

Article 13 of the Belarusian electoral code and the

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)

1990 Copenhagen Document.

In 2001, the OSCE along with NDI provided support to a

coalition of nonpartisan domestic monitors who observed the

2001 presidential poll, and NDI assisted the efforts of more

than 3,000 Belarusian nonpartisan monitors for the 2004

parliamentary elections. These monitors acted with integrity

and professionalism, although their attempts to register as a

nonpartisan election monitoring organization had been

rejected by the Belarusian authorities. A year later, many of

the same monitors once again sought to register a citizen

initiative called Partnership in order to monitor the

upcoming presidential poll. Their request for registration

was once again denied.

Two weeks ago, on February 21, several of these civic

activists were arrested and their offices and homes raided.

The KGB accused them of ``slandering the president and

illegally running an unregistered organization.'' In its

propaganda campaign the Belarusian authorities falsely

accused Partnership of organizing fraudulent exit polls and

planning a violent uprising after the election. The activists

were formally charged on March 3 and remain in detention.

NDI Chairman Madeleine K. Albright made the following

statement:

``The National Democratic Institute deplores this attempt

by the Belarusian authorities to deny the basic rights of

their citizens to peacefully monitor the March 19

presidential election.

We condemn the recent arrests of civic activists and the

accusations leveled against Partnership, whose only interest

is to promote a democratic election process and peacefully

monitor that process.

By refusing to register nonpartisan monitoring groups and

restricting their access to assistance from outside

organizations, Belarus is violating its commitments as a

member state of the OSCE and other international human rights

instruments to which it is a party.

We call on the government of Belarus to immediately release

those detained and allow them to continue their rightful

monitoring effort without interference.

The Belarus government cannot expect to earn international

respect if it does not respect international norms.''

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

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. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 673) expressing support for the efforts of the people of the Republic of Belarus to establish a full democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights and urging the Government of Belarus to conduct a free and fair Presidential election on March 19, 2006.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 673, sponsored by our distinguished colleague from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, expresses support and solidarity for the efforts of the people of Belarus to establish a full democracy, the rule of law and respect for fundamental human rights. It also urges the Government of Belarus to conduct free and fair Presidential elections on March 19.

I would like at the outset to commend our distinguished colleague, Mr. Shimkus, for his hard work on this resolution and his great interest and passion for supporting freedom in Belarus and in other countries of the former Soviet Union.

Belarus, as my colleagues know, is often described as ``the last dictatorship in Europe.'' In the past 3 or 4 years, especially since the 2004 parliamentary elections and referendum, President Alexander Lukashenko has increased repression against NGOs, media outlets, any opponents of the government, including youth groups. Perhaps most disturbing are the cases of forced disappearances of lawmakers and journalists and others who have dared to criticize the Lukashenko dictatorship.

To date, the Government of Belarus has refused to conduct an impartial investigation into these disappearances and has refused to allow an independent U.N.-appointed investigator to look into these cases.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the Lukashenko regime has only become more dictatorial with the passage of time. The assault on civil society, the NGOs, the independent media, democratic opposition, and increasing pressure on unregistered and minority religious groups has only intensified, becoming daily occurrences. Despite innumerable calls for Belarus to live up to its freely undertaken OSCE election commitments, elections in 2000, 2001, and 2004 were neither free nor fair.

It follows along a downward trajectory that began a decade ago when Lukashenko, through an illegitimate referendum, took control over the legislature and the judiciary and manipulated the Constitution to remain in power.

Mr. Speaker, Belarus, which borders on EU and NATO member countries, has become an increasingly stark anomaly in a growing democratic Europe. The Belarusian people have become even more isolated from the winds of democracy following neighboring Ukraine's Orange Revolution. Lukashenko's fear that the people would follow the Ukrainian example has led to further clamping down on those who dare to speak out for freedom.

Among the numerous examples that can be cited here on the floor: Just last week, one Belarusian opposition candidate running for next week's elections was detained by security forces and severely beaten. Yesterday we received reports that five members of the campaign of the United Opposition Candidate, Alexander Milinkevych, was held by police and driven away. In recent weeks Lukashenko has launched an intensive campaign to encourage a climate of fear and stoke hostility among the Belarusian people through a Soviet-style propaganda campaign against the opposition: Europe and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, as the prime sponsor of the Belarus Democracy Act, which was signed into law by President Bush, I welcome the administration's growing engagement with the people of Belarus. I am pleased that President Bush and other high-ranking officials met with Irena Krasovska and Tatyana Zavadska, two of the wives of opposition figures believed to have been murdered with the complicity of Belarusian senior officials. I would note, parenthetically, that I have had the privilege of meeting with them and others on a number of occasions over the last 6 years and have admired their determination and courage to seek an accounting of their loved ones, in most cases their missing, possibly murdered husbands.

Given the disturbing, Mr. Speaker, preelection environment, where meaningful access to the media by opposition candidates is denied, where independent voices are stifled, and where the regime maintains pervasive control over the election process, it is very hard to imagine that next week's elections will be free. They are already not fair. In the event that protests are held in response to electoral fraud, we are reminded by Belarusian authorities that the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental human right and a basic tenet of the OSCE. Any violent suppression of peaceful protests will have serious repercussions and only deepen Belarus' self-imposed isolation.

Over the course of the last century, the Belarusian people have endured great suffering at the hands of murderous dictators such as Stalin and Hitler. Twenty years ago they endured,

and continue to endure, Chernobyl's dark cloud. The Belarusian people deserve the freedom and the dignity long denied them, and Belarus deserves its rightful place in a free, prosperous and democratic Europe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the author of H. Res. 673, my good friend and colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for authoring this legislation. It sends a clear, unmistakable message to the Lukashenko dictatorship, and a message of solidarity and concern to the people that hopefully there will be a brighter day for this important country. But it is only because of ongoing, dogged determination on the part of the pro-democracy advocates inside that country and their friends outside, like Mr. Lantos, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Shimkus, and others; that we keep the pressure on from without so that someday human rights and democracy will flourish in Belarus.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.