Providing for further 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. 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. 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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, unless there is someone in opposition to it, I would claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to it. I am not sure that Mr. Waxman and I are on the same position on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the amendment. I believe that Mr. Waxman is well-intentioned in the amendment language that he has offered, and it is a matter of perspective as to whether or not this amendment would cure or would create more problems. It is my opinion that it would do the latter.

The last thing that any of us want, I think, is to create anything that will create more bureaucratic wrangling between the States and the Federal Government and pointing of fingers back and forth in a time of disaster, and especially in an event such as a terrorist attack or something that would contaminate our food supply.

I believe the language we have just adopted in the Rogers amendment, which requires that the Secretary of HHS consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security and certify that this bill does not in any way impinge on or interfere with the ability to deal with a threat to public health, is an adequate safeguard. I think this amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would exempt three categories of warnings and standards from a national uniformity standard: those relating to risks of cancer; those relating to reproductive or developmental toxins; and, third, those sulfiting agents in bulk foods.

Warnings on food should apply in all 50 States. If a warning is justified, consumers in all States should get the information. If food is not safe in 49 States, then it should also not be safe in the other, or vice versa. If a warning is not justified, then consumers should not be confused by different warnings in different States.

If a State has reliable scientific information that demonstrates that a warning is needed for a particular food, then in the interest of public health, it should share that information with the FDA and petition for a new national standard. Under the bill, a State can petition to establish a new national standard or a specific exemption to uniformity where local circumstances warrant. The petition process will ensure that States collaborate with the FDA and will help foster greater food safety throughout the country.

Just a few minutes ago, by voice vote, we adopted Mr. Cardoza's amendment, which, for the first time, will put an assurance that there will be an expedited review in all of the three categories that this amendment addresses.

Under the legislation, no existing State requirement would be preempted without the opportunity of the State to petition the FDA to exempt the State requirement from the uniform standard. Once a petition is received, the State requirement will remain in effect until the Secretary either accepts or rejects the petition.

I believe we have adequate protections, especially with the Cardoza language that was just adopted by voice a few minutes ago.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty understanding why any State that feels that it has the good science and the research to justify putting labels of warning on their products would be unwilling to share that information with the agency at the Federal level that is charged with that responsibility.

Now, unfortunately there is a more elemental argument that has not really been addressed in this discussion here. And I do not question anybody's motives. I regret that the last speaker maybe sort of questioned the motives of some who are advocating this bill.

But let me harken back to days that predate even this institution and this building in which we are now sitting. One of the fundamental debates that engaged our original forefathers and colonists, the debate between the old Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and the Articles of Confederation that proceeded that, one of the critical issues was the right to regulate interstate commerce.

Now, in those days, you could say, prior to our Constitution that gave the authority to the Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce, you could say, well, you are not going to be able to bring your peanuts from Georgia or your peaches from South Carolina or your apples from Vermont into my State unless you put my label on it. And our Founding fathers decided that one of the reasons the articles did not work was because you could not have a Nation that allowed these barriers to be erected at the State lines.

Now, if the issue is the safety of the people of this country, how do you justify not wanting those same protections for everybody?

Now, I think there has been a misstatement that has been repeated here. If a State has a warning, and that warning is in place now, a label, and they petition the Federal Government and the FDA, and they say, we wish you to consider this, and the Federal Government just does not take a position on it, then their State regulation remains in effect.

If, however, the Federal Government looks at the issue, and the FDA decides that the science does not justify impediment, then under those circumstances, there would not be uniformity, and, therefore, the State requirement would not be allowed to pertain.

So if the States are so sure of their position, I see no reason why they would not want to share that information with the FDA so that the other States can have equal protection, and not just reerect some of the very barriers that created the impediments under the Articles of Confederation and led to the right of this body, under this type of deliberation, to consider under the interstate commerce jurisdiction the right of uniformity in things that do have an effect about articles moving in our interstate commerce.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

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

Mr. Chairman, we have already seen evidence of action at the Federal level in March of 2004. In fact, the FDA and the EPA issued a joint guidance to consumers about the issue of mercury in fish. And that guidance was designed to try to strike a careful balance that would demonstrate both the benefits of eating fish as well as the potential dangers associated with exposure to mercury.

If the bill passes as presented, and this is an issue with regard to warning on fish, there are several things that would be authorized: A State, if it feels it has a peculiar situation, could petition for a waiver so that they could apply a nonFederal standard to their warning. There is absolutely nothing in the bill that would prohibit a State from issuing warnings. It just cannot require that the manufacturer or distributor be the one that be required to place warnings on the product. But the State could issue whatever warnings it saw fit to do so.

I think, as Mr. Rogers related earlier, the Tufts Health and Nutrition Letter, indicating that you have to be careful that you do not do more harm than good sometimes by issuing warnings that are blanket in nature, I think that clearly indicates we could go in the wrong direction.

We believe the bill strikes a careful balance. It does allow States that have peculiar situations to ask that they be allowed to put additional warnings on products in their State if they think that is justified. We believe that the current Federal policy on mercury, however, in fish is an appropriate and adequate one, and I would urge the defeat of this amendment.