Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4167) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for uniform food safety warning notification requirements, and for other purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2005

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

Association; American Beverage Association; American Feed

Industry Association; American Frozen Food Institute;

American Plastics Council; American Meat Institute; American

Spice Trade Association; Animal Health Institute; Apple

Products Research and Education Council Association for

Dressings and Sauces; Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers

Association; Bush Brothers & Company; Business Roundtable.

Cadbury Schweppes plc; California Farm Bureau Federation;

California Grocers Association; California League of Food

Processors; California Manufacturers & Technology

Association; Calorie Control Council; Campbell Soup Company;

Cargill, Incorporated; Chocolate Manufacturers Association;

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

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

Dean Foods Company; Del Monte Foods.

Diamond Foods, Inc. Flavor & Extract Manufacturers

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

Food Products Association; Frito-Lay; Frozen Potato Products

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

Glass Packaging Institute; Godiva Chocolatier Inc.; Grain

Foods Foundation; Grocery Manufacturers Association; H.J.

Heinz Company; The Hershey Company.

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.; Hormel Foods Corporation;

Independent Bakers Association; Institute of Shortening and

Edible Oils; International Association of Color

Manufacturers; International Bottled Water Association;

International Dairy Foods Association; International Food

Additives Council; International Foodservice Distributors

Association; International Formula Council; International Ice

Cream Association; International Jelly and Preserves

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

Company.

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

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

Corporation; Milk Industry Foundation; The Minute Maid

Company; National Association of Convenience Stores; National

Association of Manufacturers; National Association of

Margarine Manufacturers; National Association of Wheat

Growers; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors;

National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Cheese

Institute.

National Chicken Council; National Coffee Association of

USA; National Confectioners Association; National Fisheries

Institute; National Frozen Pizza Institute; National Grape

Cooperative Association; National Grocers Association;

National Institute of Oilseed Products; National Milk

Producers Federation; National Pasta Association; National

Pecan Shellers Association; National Pork Producers Council;

National Potato Council; National Restaurant Association;

National Turkey Federation.

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

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

Farm Incorporated; PepsiCo, Inc.; Pickle Packers'

International; The Procter & Gamble Company; Quaker Oats;

Rich Products Corporation; Rich SeaPak Corporation; Safeway;

Sara Lee Corporation; Say-on Drugs.

The Schwan Food Company; Snack Food Association; Society of

Glass and Ceramics Decorators Supervalu Inc.; Target

Corporation; Tortilla Industry Association; Tropicana;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wanted to make sure that they understand that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Previous Question Vote: What Does It Mean?

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

that:

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

being ordered, shall have the effect of cutting off all

debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the

immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered.

In the case of a special rule or order of business

resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing

for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the

previous question is moved following the 1 hour of debate

allowed for under House Rules.

The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural

vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting

the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and

amendment on the legislation it would make in order.

Therefore, the previous question has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

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

Mr. Chairman, if no one rises in opposition to the amendment, I would like to claim the time, for purposes of debate, by unanimous consent.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is claimed that the Barton amendment preserves State and local authorities to act when the Federal Government has not. Unfortunately, the extent of the amendment does not support this statement. The amendment merely provides that States may enforce identical requirements to Federal requirements.

This is a terrible policy. Sixteen years ago, the Food and Drug Administration learned that there were cancer-causing chemicals in soft drinks way above levels that would be permitted in drinking water. Once the soft drink industry promised to address the problem, the FDA did nothing. Under the legislation the House considers today, the States' hands will be tied, even while the FDA continues to do nothing.

The other purpose of this amendment is that it would allow the States to regulate in the area of dietary supplements. The Food and Drug Administration can regulate in that area, but the States could go even further.

Now, I am for States rights, and so if a State wants to go further in the area of dietary supplements, I should not object, although I do not know whether the people who want this bill think that dietary supplements ought to be treated differently than the other foods. Why should we allow the States to regulate in the area of dietary supplements but not in regular food? The distinction does not make a lot of sense.

I do not oppose this amendment. I sought the time for the purposes of debate, but I think the point I would draw to the attention of my colleagues is why are we treating dietary supplements different from other foods? The States have historically dealt in this area, and the States ought to be permitted to deal not just in dietary supplements, but with all food under the police powers that are granted to every State to act to protect their own citizens.

So I want Members to know that this amendment is going to treat dietary supplements in a harsher way, by letting the States act, than we will with regular foods where it comes to a tolerance or a warning label.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to enter into that last point that was made.

A State may act if they act in a way that is identical to the Federal action. Great. But if a State wants to act where the Federal Government has not acted, the States will be blocked, or may be blocked, from acting at all.

I think that illustrates the problem with this legislation. The State authority is stopped, and if the Federal Government doesn't act and the State can't act, then there will be no warning label. There will be no action at all on either the State or the Federal level to protect the public, even though the State would like to protect its own citizens.

That illustrates to me the basic flaw in this whole bill that is before us. And maybe it is why we never had a day of hearings on it and it is being rushed through the House of Representatives without adequate debate.

But let me just make that point as clearly as possible. Because sometimes you hear over and over again, we will have a stronger Federal law and there will be one uniform Federal law. Well, this will allow one uniform nonFederal law to preempt the States, and they will be identical because they will both say nothing to give the consumers the information they ought to have about the problems in food that could cause cancer or other medical problems or health problems, such as PCBs in shellfish, such as mercury in some other foods, such as carcinogens in something else. The public won't even be empowered to protect themselves if they want to. It is ``buyer beware,'' but at least let the buyer have some information and let them then make that decision.

So I don't object to this amendment, but I do object to the bill, and this amendment does not cure the fundamental problems with this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to take the time and debate on this amendment.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I will be in opposition to the amendment and claim the time in opposition.

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

This bill requires a State to petition the Food and Drug Administration to see if the Food and Drug Administration will allow the State to continue with its law. Now, many of these laws are dealing with carcinogens and reproductive toxins, very, very serious matters, and the States feel the public ought to be advised about that.

This amendment, however, provides an expedited review. Well, the Congressional Budget Office has said that this

is going to cost $100 million over 5 years, and that is to review 200 State petitions, because there are 200 State laws that are going to be wiped out. The Congressional Budget Office says they do not think the FDA will comply in time. So the FDA is going to be mandated to get their review done in an expedited way and it is going to cost us over $100 million, but they are not going to comply.

Well, that is why the States attorneys general have contacted us and they say that this bill is going to create a whole new Federal bureaucracy. Imagine that, Republicans who are sponsoring this bill, and Democrats who have joined with them, who I don't think both sides of the aisle understood the consequences of this bill; that it takes away the States rights to enact legislation in areas of carcinogens and reproductive toxins and other areas where they think the public health and safety may be at stake, it takes away the States rights to give it to a Federal bureaucracy, and it enhances that Federal bureaucracy with additional burdens but creates no more funding to do that job.

Is this what we have always expected out of Congress; creating a new bureaucracy to act in place of State duly elected governments? I just think this bill, if people will examine it carefully, can't stand the light of day. And I guess that is why we have never had a hearing on it. No one has ever been able to get the pros and the cons. We have no record to substantiate that legislation to start with.

And this amendment, although it is hard to oppose an amendment that says we are going to have an expedited review, although the bill provides for a 180-day review, nobody who has looked at it carefully, especially the Congressional Budget Office, thinks it will make a difference because they are never going to get around to it.

I guess the way to handle it is the Food and Drug Administration can say, very quickly, no, that State law will not be allowed. We won't let them have those warnings for their people. We will just overturn the State law. That will be what they will have to do if they have to do it in an expedited way, especially if they are hearing from special interest groups that want the laws at the State level to be overturned.

But let me just add one other point. We are talking about 200 State laws that are on the books now. But what about other problems in the future that States may find out about that may even be peculiar to that State? They are not going to be looking at that issue any longer because they know that the Federal Government is now preempting the field. But the Federal Government, by preempting the field, it doesn't mean that they are looking at the problem and trying to address it.

So there is a huge vacuum that will be created if this bill becomes law, and that is why I sought the time and I wanted to make this clarification.

Mr. Chairman, should I have any time left, I want to reserve the balance of it.

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

I want to point out that there are two petitions. One is a petition by a State to allow its law to stay in effect. The second provision in the bill allows a State to petition to say the Federal Government should have one uniform law that ought to be the same as that State's.

Well, this provision that is before us will have an expedited review of the States' petitions. Pesticide spraying after harvest disclosure, that is a Maine law requiring disclosure; postharvest spraying of produce with pesticides. I have no idea what the reason was for that law, but Maine people thought it worthwhile because of pesticide spraying and, I guess, the residue of pesticides. I suppose that should have an expedited review.

We have disclosure of fish, whether it is farm-raised or wild. There is a law in Alaska dealing with salmon; in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi dealing with catfish. Certain farm-raised fish may contain elevated levels of PCBs and other contaminants. Well, those State laws may not be allowed to continue. The FDA is going to have to decide that.

There are 50 State milk safety laws. They are different laws. Each State adopted the law it thinks is best. Each State would have to petition whether it can continue with the law that it adopted.

Now, an expedited review sounds like a good idea because we would like them to review them carefully so the States can have a decision, but you know an expedited review can also mean that expedite it, and the FDA will say ``no'' as quickly as possible in order to expedite that review.

I would rather have them have a thorough opportunity to review the

laws based on the science, but they do not have to make their decision based on science. They can just decide that any State law, if a business has to comply with a State law, it means that in one State they have to have different warning labels or different tolerance standards than in other States. That might interfere with interstate commerce, so they might just strike all of the laws. I do not want to push them on an expedited basis to strike all these laws because that could be what an agency, a bureaucracy, would think is the wisest thing to do in order to meet the expedited time frame.

So I think Members ought to be aware of the other side of the coin when they say we want these laws reviewed carefully.

The other point is the Barton amendment dealing with dietary supplements will not even have a State have to go to the Food and Drug Administration if the State wants to regulate more in the area of dietary supplements. It still is perplexing to me why that area ought to be singled out to be treated differently than other food products. Why should a warning label that a State wants to put on a food which may be a carcinogen or it may be a reproductive toxin, why a State law in that area, if it deals with a food product that is probably going to be used by far more people, should require a State to have to go and get a petition to the Food and Drug Administration to let that law stay in effect? But if they have a warning label that a dietary supplement can cause cancer, that warning label will not be reviewed by the FDA.

So we have these discrepancies that Members ought to understand are at stake in this legislation which has not been thoroughly reviewed. On that basis I think we ought to give it much more scrutiny than we are being allowed to do today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition, although I will speak in favor of this amendment.

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

I think this is a good amendment. After this amendment is disposed of, and I hope favorably, I will be offering another amendment on the same subject of bioterrorism. I think any protections that we put into place at this time of threat of terrorism are wise. I will discuss my amendment at the appropriate time, but I join my colleague from Michigan in urging support for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the previous amendment was a good amendment. It provided for a one-time certification. That was important to do. The only requirement is the Secretary of Health and Human Services consults with the Department of Homeland Security to certify that the bill will not pose additional risks from terrorist attacks before it goes into effect.

That is worthwhile. That is why I supported that amendment. It doesn't require them to consult with the States, look at different approaches the States may be using. What we are proposing to do is to go even further in the area of protection against bioterrorist threats.

My amendment allows the States to retain the authority to decide what is important in preparing for and responding to terrorism threats. If a Governor or State legislature certifies a State action in this regard, it is not going to be preempted. The States will be able to make those decisions on bioterrorism, should, God forbid, such a thing happen.

As the Nation's first responders to bioterrorist attacks, State and local governments have worked to have effective programs that can respond flexibly should a nightmare occur. These State food safety officials have stated repeatedly that they are deeply concerned that H.R. 4167 will undermine the States' ability to effectively prevent and respond to bioterrorist attacks.

The States learned from Hurricane Katrina that it is ill-advised to rely on Federal agencies to solve their problems when a disaster occurs. Under H.R. 4167, even with this last amendment, the States will be in exactly that position, because they will have to rely on the Federal Government.

Under the bill, H.R. 4167, States will be required to go through a bureaucratic Federal process merely to protect their citizens. Even in the case of an imminent hazard, States must make a series of findings, and even then are only authorized to establish a requirement which could be interpreted to require the passage of a new law or promulgation of new regulations.

In the face of a determined terrorist threat, this burdensome approach seems highly unwarranted and potentially disastrous. My amendment will go a long way to addressing these shortfalls. It is an amendment that State food officials think is merited, and they have warned us about any weakening of their ability to respond to any bioterrorist threat.

That is what has become the basis for this amendment. I strongly urge support for the Waxman amendment and hope that this amendment will supplement the Federal requirement that the Rogers amendment is putting into place. I urge support for the Waxman antiterrorism amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to close on this amendment. This amendment is a supplement to the amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) adopted. This is what food and drug officials at the State levels have said. When you consider the local and State food safety programs, our first line of defense against acts of terrorism involve the food supply.

This amendment would allow them to act without having to go to the Federal Government to ask for permission. The bill says even if there is an imminent hazard, the State has to go to the Federal Government to get permission. That is absurd.

The New York Agriculture Department said that New York would be left without any means to stop contaminated food from entering the Nation's food supply. Florida stated this legislation would make it more difficult to mitigate the effects of an intentional bioterrorist agent food adulteration.

I think those who are imposing this amendment are very much misguided. Listen to what the States have had to say about this. These are the ones that are going to have to deal with any bioterrorist attack at the front lines. Especially after what we saw with Hurricane Katrina, let us empower the local people to act and not make them have to go hat in hand to seek a bureaucratic solution, which may take time from the Federal Government to allow them to act.

My amendment would allow the States to act, especially if it is an imminent problem. That should not be taken away, which would happen if we don't pass this amendment. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, if the people who are supporting this law were sincere, they would go to the Food and Drug Administration under current law and ask them to adapt standards all across the country on all of these issues. They don't have to wait until the State petitions them. The Food and Drug Administration can look at a problem now and say California has a law, Michigan has a law, those are good ideas. We are going to survey what the States are doing and make them apply all across the country. They could do that now. But this bill puts at risk all the State laws, and that is what is really behind this legislation, putting at risk all the State laws.

Now, the Capps amendment is a combination of amendments that were offered in the Commerce Committee that had bipartisan support, very close to a majority, but not quite.

If we had a hearing, maybe the others would been convinced. And what this amendment seeks to do is to say, all right, if this law goes into effect at least where the States have adopted warning labels on carcinogens, on reproductive toxins, on allergic reactions to sulfites, leave those State laws alone, do not wipe them out, because you would like to argue that there ought to be 50 laws, 50 States to have one law, which can be done now. Leave those laws alone.

And it also says that when it comes to standards protecting children, let the States decide that issue. There are many children who suffer from cancer, and more and more we are learning that cancer is caused by environmental exposures. And one of the major environmental exposures is in food.

If a parent, and all parents want to know this, having petitioned their State and have convinced their legislators to have a warning label that there is a carcinogen in the food, why should the Federal Government prevent that from happening, or have a standard that says they will not be allowed to have carcinogens or certain toxins in food that can harm children.

Why should States be precluded from doing that? I find it disingenuous when the proponents of this bill say, I want the same thing as what these States are providing. I just want everybody to have it. The States do not have to act if the Federal Government has acted. If the Federal Government has acted for everyone, then there is no need for State laws; but if the Federal Government has not acted, the States ought to be able to act on their own in this area.

So the Capps amendment that is sponsored by many of us is narrow, and it simply says it will allow the warning labels if the States determine them for carcinogens, reproductive toxins and allergic reactions. Let the States act where they are trying to protect children from harmful substances in food.

I urge support for the Capps amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) misunderstands this proposal, and it is different than the previous ones, because the State laws that we are talking about here are, for example, the State of Connecticut's legislature is currently considering a law to say that a grocery store will post information. I am not talking about warning labels, but they can put up a sign in the grocery store that certain fish ought not to be used by pregnant women. There have been an estimated 300,000 newborns who are exposed to those dangerously high maternal mercury blood levels from, among other things, fish.

So, one, I do not think it is constitutional for the Federal Government to say a State cannot ask grocery stores in that State to put up a warning sign. But the State, to say that we want all 50 States to put up warning signs in the grocery stores, I do not think the Federal Government, Food and Drug Administration has ever passed that kind of requirement. They deal with labels on food. This is not a label on food issue. This is simply an internal State advisory, and those State laws ought not to be put at risk.

As far as the risk/benefit of eating fish, and you are healthier even if you eat fish with more mercury and PCBs, that talks about adults. We are talking about, in this amendment, pregnant

women. And we ought to let them have that information, especially if the States adopt the kind of law that Connecticut is looking at. And we should not block that from happening.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I will close the debate on our side.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do recall and I can explain the situation.

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

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

No, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, yes, it is.

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

If the gentleman would further yield, yes.

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

The gentleman is correct on both of those points.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

I am prepared to close.

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Does it require uniformity?

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

All right. Thank you.

No.

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

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

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

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

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

Congress of the United States,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, February 28, 2006.

Hon. Joe Barton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Barton: In recognition of the desire to

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

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

Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the bill. There are

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

rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Specifically, the legislation contains a number of judicial

review provisions.

The Committee takes this action with the understanding that

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

Judiciary does not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter

contained in this or similar legislation. The Committee also

reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate

conference on this legislation and requests your support if

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

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

4167 and in the Congressional Record during consideration of

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

these matters.

Sincerely,

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Cardoza amendment and thank the Member for working with us. This does improve the bill and makes very, very clear that we are going to have an expedited review for cancer-causing agents or reproductive effects or birth defects.

The reason we have an expedited review here, as we have said many times, those State laws in effect remain in effect until they get an affirmative ruling from the FDA, so those would remain in place until they get a scientific ruling from the FDA, and then we would have the benefit of that information shared with all 50 States, all 50 States' children, all 50 States' men and women who call America home.

I thank the gentleman for working with us and in supporting this fine bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we have heard over the course of this debate, and we have had lots of it, almost as many hours of debate as there are pages in the bill, one of the things that we realized along the way is that there was concern about the bioterrorism. We firmly believe that the bill is adequate to deal with those issues. But to try to make sure everybody had a comfort level, we felt it was important to at least acknowledge that we were going to have the DHS and the HHS sign off on this legislation before it takes effect, that there would be no hindrance in defense of bioterrorism when it comes to our food supply. It is not a difficult thing, it is really a commonsense measure. We hope that alleviates some of the concerns we have heard mentioned, and I urge this body's support on this particular measure.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

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

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make clear, there has been a lot of misinformation on that bill. I was a former FBI agent. One thing I learned, we used to call it the brick agent, the guy that is out on the street. You don't want to have to ask permission to take an exigent circumstance under control. You don't want to do have to do that.

This bill protects State, local and Federal Government action in cases of bioterrorism. We would have not have drafted a bill that would have done otherwise. I think what you are misinterpreting is the fact that once they take an action, they have to tell the FDA.

Why that is a good idea is because if they find there is an area where there is adulteration or poisoning, let us say, in Oregon or someplace else, there

might be another place that they can go and short-circuit that problem somewhere else in the country. It is good policy to have that notification that there was food that was adulterated or poisoned or a victim of bioterrorism that needs to be addressed at that national level. Take the action, tell the Feds so they can get that information across the rest of the country.

This is the right thing to do. I would urge the rejection of the Waxman amendment, which I think makes it more confusing, not less.

Mr. Chairman, this debate has certainly turned some interesting corners in the last few weeks, and again we are fast approaching as many hours debating as there are pages in the bill; 226 cosponsors and 59 Democrats joined in a bipartisan effort for national food safety labeling, a pretty powerful thing.

I commend Mr. Waxman for standing up and saying that we need national nutrition labels across the country. Why? Because the periodic tables in California are not any different than the periodic tables in Michigan or Maine or Florida, thank goodness. Science is science is science.

If we are going to protect pregnant women, if we are going to protect children, if we are going to protect mothers and fathers, if we are going to be for apple pie and Chevrolets, then we ought to do it in all 50 States, because a chicken grown in Louisiana is going to end up on a plate in Michigan; peas grown in Florida are going to end up in Louisiana; crawfish is going to come north and west and south, and we are going to send navy beans south, and we grow some good ones up there in Michigan. We have cherries that are going to go all across the country. This is an interstate matter.

I can't think of anything more important than our food safety. I have heard so much misinformation, even today. ``It is going to wipe out the laws to protect consumers.'' Wrong. This bill will not do that. ``The AGs are all for this bill for the right reason.'' Two of the issues that they talked about, preempted in their letter, were factually incorrect. It wasn't right. They were making the wrong argument. They were wrong.

Sulfites in Michigan, I happen to agree with you. And I will tell you what; if they are bad for Michigan citizens, I think they are bad for all of the other 49 States. If you are traveling to see your mother and you have a sulfite problem, if you are in Michigan today, you are fine. If you are in Ohio, you are not going to do so well. That is wrong. We can do better. This bill says we can do better.

I appreciate your passion for these issues. I don't think we are all that far apart about wanting food safety. I don't. I think how we get there is the problem.

So to have personal attacks and charges of backroom deals and those things is wrong. I think you know it is wrong. I think we have come to the point in the bill where you run out of facts and you start going in a different direction.

This bill is about protecting the food safety of every American in this great country. I think we ought to set aside maybe some of those differences that we have and acknowledge this is the right thing to do, like we did on nutritional labeling, like we did when we set the standards of what food gets to be called organic, a Federal standard. Why? Because we felt it was important enough to have a Federal standard for the protection of every American, not just California, not just Florida, not just Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I have been a little disappointed with the tenor of debate at times in this particular engagement on something I think is so important and so critical to our safety, our food safety. I would urge this body to reject this amendment. It tries to carve something out to confuse consumers,

which is exactly where we don't want to go. That is just not a place that we want to go.

Mr. Chairman, I think we know at the end of the day this is the right thing to do. As a matter of fact, even in the letters sent in from State bureaucrats and the trial lawyers who oppose this bill they are saying, well, national labeling is okay, but we have some other concerns. Why? Because you can't make a good argument about why uniform labeling across the country for the protection of citizens and what they put in their body is a good idea. What do we hear? Adulterated food or poisoned food, you usurp our ability. No, that is protected in this bill.

If we are going to argue about what we are doing, let's argue on the facts, the correct facts. I think we all probably at the end of the day know this is the right thing to do.

I am going to ask you to step aside from what you think you need to do, step off your talking points, and say let us do something that is good for America. Don't worry about politics and all the other people that get involved sometimes outside of this building. Worry about what is right for the people of America. You will come to the right conclusion.

If you look at the facts that are wrong consistently in your arguments, you are going to be with us. I appreciate your care and concern. I know you are going to be with us at the end of the day.

I urge Members to vote in support of the bill and against the Capps amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's intention here. But, again, the facts of the case are this: The toxicity level of those fish, if it is higher or lower in any particular place, the threshold that makes it toxic is the same.

It is the same for people in California. It is the same for people in Texas. It is the same for people in Michigan. So what we are saying is, yes, this is a very important issue, and we need to make sure that we understand what that toxicity level is. And if there are unique challenges to any particular State, that State can apply through the FDA for that particular area. We have even built provisions into the bill to take into consideration.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Well, again, the State can apply for those warning labels. There is nothing in here that prevents that from happening. And, again, if it is good for a woman in Texas or Missouri, or fill in the blank, it is good for all 50 States. The toxicity level will not change. The danger of that toxicity level will not change.

Let me tell you what else happens, and we need to be real careful about this, because we need to blend all science and remove emotion, because this is what we found happened. It was an interesting study, and I would encourage the gentlewoman to read it. It is the Tufts Health and Nutrition Letter that recently reported on several studies that documents some of the government warnings about mercury in fish can do more harm than good. It is interesting why.

They reported that the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis conducted this study, which concluded that if Americans cut their consumption of fish by one-sixth, as they did after the mercury-focused 2001 warning, an additional 8,000 deaths per year will occur annually from heart disease and stroke.

What we have found is that you have to got to blend good science, remove the emotion, because in some cases it would be appropriate to consume fish because it is healthy. There are some of those fish oils that are very good for you.

And what they found is, listen, you guys are doing more harm than good. You are killing 8,000 more people a year because we have an obesity problem in America, we have a health consumption problem in America. This is causing more harm than good. So we have got to find that balance.

I argue that good science is good science. Again, if we apply the periodic tables in all 50 States uniformly as we should, with scientific lenses, we are going to come to the right conclusion to protect every pregnant woman in America.