Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair.

Is this motion amendable?

Mr. Speaker, second parliamentary inquiry. Is it possible for the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the author of the amendment, to withdraw the motion, accept a friendly amendment to urge the administration

to move the May 15 enrollment deadline to the end of the year, thereby enabling another 1 million people to enroll and saving 7 million people from extra penalties, and then reoffer the motion to suspend the rules and pass this resolution?

Mr. Speaker, that is the question.

I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, like to address a question to the author of the bill. Would she be willing, as you have said, she has the clear authority to withdraw her motion, amend it so that 1 million Americans would have extra time to sign up and save the money and then resubmit it to the House. Then I am sure we will all support her resolution.

I would be glad to yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut if she would care to respond.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her response. I would like to note that the gentlewoman, Mrs. Johnson from the Fifth District of Connecticut, having the clear opportunity to afford millions of Americans the extra time to sign up for this marvelous program has declined to do it. In doing so, she has condemned probably 7 million people to paying an extra 7 to 10 percent on their premiums for the rest of their lives.

If this plan is so good, then my question would be why the gentlewoman from Connecticut, who is refusing to extend the time for these seniors, why they are doing that. It just amazes me, Mr. Speaker, that if the plan is good why they would try to deny this. The extra million people that the Congressional Budget Office tells us would sign up and for the great savings that would come it would cost an extra maybe $100 million.

But out of a $1 trillion bill that would seem to me to be a paltry amount and it would save 7.5 million seniors from this additional Republican tax on their Medicare benefits. I just wanted to know clearly that it is Mrs. Johnson, the author of this, who refuses to allow us to vote on the opportunity to extend the deadline for those many millions of Americans who haven't been able to participate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the additional time I may control back to Mr. Brown.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act, falls far short of what's needed. Because the Republican majority operates largely as a subsidiary of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they refuse to take the only step that will ensure the safety of our ports: 100 percent scanning of containers. Instead, this bill mandates more reports that will tell us what hundreds of experts already have: you can't ensure safety if you don't verify the contents of every container. The studies, further reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security, and micromanaging of port operations in this legislation are a paltry substitute for real security.

Apparently the Majority feared that common sense would prevail, as they won't even allow a vote on a Democratic amendment to scan 100 percent of containers within five years, following the model set by Hong Kong's successful Integrated Container Inspection System, which has operated since 2005 without significantly increasing costs or causing delays. The shipping industry itself admits that the maximum cost of 100 percent scanning would be $125 per container. It could be as low as $6.50 per container. Either way, it's a small price to pay for security when compared to the $4,000 cost of shipping a container from Asia.

I will vote in favor of this bill because it is an improvement over the current system and sends more federal money to ports to improve their security. However, unlike my Republican colleagues, I will not claim ``mission accomplished'' on port security until we know what's in every container entering this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mayor Roberta Cooper for her 26 years of dedicated service to the City of Hayward, California. On June 15, 2006, the City of Hayward will host a farewell dinner to honor her as she retires from office at the end of her term on June 6, 2006.

The Mayor has been instrumental in the initiation and development of many projects in Hayward including a new City Hall, B Street Marketplace and Parking Structure, Albertson's Shopping Center, Atherton Place Condominiums, City Walk Condominiums, Fire Station 1 at C and Main, and the Theater Complex at Foothill & B coming in 2007. All of the mentioned projects were related to Hayward's downtown redevelopment.

Other areas of Hayward have also benefited from her exemplary leadership including the development of Fire Station 9, Oliver Sports Park of Hayward, Eden Shores Development, Harder Road Railroad Under- crossing, the Twin Bridges neighborhood and the accompanying Mission Foothills of Hayward Golf Course and the Route 238 Corridor Improvement Project.

Mayor Cooper is a longtime resident of Hayward. Prior to assuming the helm of the city's leadership as Mayor, she was an educator. She taught in the Hayward Unified School District from 1968 until her retirement in 1994.

She was elected to the Hayward City Council in 1988 and re-elected to the Council in 1992. She was elected Mayor in April 1994, re-elected in 1998 and reelected again in March 2002.

Mayor Cooper serves on many public agencies focused on economic development, capital improvement, transportation, the environment and city governance. She involves herself in community service with equal interest and dedication. A host of non-profit organizations have benefited from her leadership, such as The Kids Breakfast Club, Literacy Plus Project, Hayward's Human Services Commission and the Eden Youth Center.

She lists among her personal pet projects the Hayward New Start, a Tattoo Removal Program, the Hayward Honor Band, and cHime-In.

I join Mayor Cooper's constituents, friends and admirers in congratulating her on a job well done. She plans to use her time to garden, read, learn to use her home computer and travel. I hope she accomplishes all this and much more as she embarks on a well-deserved retirement.

Thank you to my friend, Bertie Cooper, for all you have done to make a difference in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Iran Freedom Support Act. I certainly share my colleagues' concerns about Iran's apparent push to develop nuclear weapons, but I oppose H.R. 282 because I fear President Bush will use this legislation to lead America into an unnecessary war with Iran. This President used this same pattern in his last march to war in Iraq.

The resolution calls upon the United States to request that the United Nations Security Council impose sanctions against Iran. President Bush used Iraq's violation of similar sanctions to justify his initiation of the ill-fated Iraq War.

The legislation also authorizes President Bush to fund the Iranian opposition to radical Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad despite the fact that American support for pro-Western leaders has often backfired. In fact it's backfired in Iran before! America's historic support for the Shah propelled former radical leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power. Is it any wonder then that the Washington Post recently reported that pro-democracy forces in Iran do not want U.S. funding since their association with America taints their credibility within their country?

The United States spent millions of dollars in Iraq to fund the opposition to Saddam Hussein. In return, the Bush Administration received bogus information from informants that claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The Administration then used this information to scare America into war against Iraq.

Finally, H.R. 282 advocates regime change and I find it difficult to believe Iran will cooperate with our diplomatic proposals if they understand our ultimate goal to be the overthrow of their government.

America can prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons through peaceful and thoughtful diplomacy. But this legislation sets us on the road to war rather than diplomacy. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues Mr. McDermott, Mr. Inslee, and Ms. Bean in introducing the Taxpayer Privacy Act of 2006. This bill protects the privacy of millions of Americans, ensuring that taxpayers who rely on paid preparers do not have their confidential and sensitive personal information disseminated, sold or sent overseas.

The IRS is currently considering a rule that would make it easier for tax preparers to disclose the private information contained in tax returns--including name, address, Social Security number, employer, income, and charitable donations. Currently, paid preparers can only use taxpayer information to generate business within their own affiliates. The new rule would allow preparers to obtain taxpayers' approval to disclose tax information to generate outside business.

Taxpayers should not be coerced into giving up their privacy rights just to file their taxes. Our bill protects taxpayers by requiring preparers to use information only to prepare taxes--and not for any other purpose.

Reports also suggest that Ernst and Young and other large tax preparation firms are sending tax returns overseas for processing. But the IRS has no control over tax information once it's been sent to India or another country. Even the best data security systems can't protect private taxpayer information from entrepreneurial foreign businesses than can make huge profits selling U.S. taxpayer information.

Our bill strictly prohibits domestic tax preparers from sending returns overseas for processing. Preparers found to have disclosed private information to a foreign entity would be assessed a $1000 fine and up to one year in jail for each wrongful disclosure. The bill does not prohibit a taxpayer from choosing to have their taxes done by a preparer based overseas, it merely protects them from having their taxes shipped to a foreign country when they believe the forms are being completed by their local preparer.

This legislation is a common sense solution that protects taxpayers without burdening tax preparers. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for taxpayer privacy and support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005 (H.R. 609). This Republican bill represents a significant missed opportunity to rollback the raid on student aid and make higher education more affordable and accessible for America's students.

When it comes to helping families pay for college, Republicans never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. But when their campaign contributors say jump, Republicans always ask how high.

In December, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that while Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, Representative Boehner assured nervous private lenders--who in 2003-2004 contributed more than $250,000 to his campaign--that they would gain rather than lose under the Deficit Reduction Act. ``Relax. Stay calm,'' Boehner told the Consumer Bankers Association. ``At the end of the day, I believe you'll be at least satisfied, or even perhaps happy. Know that I have all of you in my two trusted hands.''

Instead of reducing lender subsidies as was originally proposed, Congressional Republicans subsequently raised interest rates on parent borrowers and required student borrowers to continue paying excessive, above-market interest rates. In total, Republicans cut $12 billion from student loan programs--the largest cut in our nation's history.

Today, Representative Boehner is back to his old tricks, protecting the bottom lines of private lenders rather than the pocketbooks of hard-working students. H.R. 609 does nothing to restore the much-needed student loan subsidies cut under the Deficit Reduction Act. Rather, this legislation keeps student loan interest rates for low- and middle- income Americans at an unnecessarily high 6.8 percent, guaranteeing private lenders a profit and students mountains of debt after graduation.

Further, H.R. 609 continues to underfund the Pell Grant program, even as the program's purchasing power declines on annual basis. The bill freezes through 2013 the authorized maximum for a Pell Grant scholarship--at just $200 above current levels. Even as the cost of education rises, the purchasing power of Pell Grant loans declines.

It is past time that we had a higher education bill that makes college more affordable, boosts America's economic competitiveness, and invests in America's continued prosperity. This legislation does none of the above. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 609 so we can bring forth a bill that actually does what's needed for higher education.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a public servant extraordinaire, Carter Gilmore of Oakland California. Mr. Gilmore's friends and colleagues are honoring him on April 20, 2006, for his 50 years of dedicated and tireless community service.

He arrived in California from Houston, Texas, shortly after his marriage to Lizzie Mae Hampton in 1948. They are the proud parents of 6 children, 14 grandchildren and 7 great grandchildren. Mr. Gilmore served in the U.S. Navy during World War II and is a retired plant manager of Granny Goose Foods in Oakland.

The brutal death of an African American youth, Emmett Till, in Mississippi in 1955 mobilized the civil rights movement and prompted Carter Gilmore to begin his years of service to civil rights and community service. He joined the Alameda Branch of the NAACP. He became an active member and later became a forceful president of this branch during the civil rights movement. He wrote in the monthly newsletter about the quest for equal rights and his letter was placed in the Congressional Record in 1985.

When the NAACP lost is leader, Medger Evers, in Mississippi, Mr. Gilmore was willing to relocate and take his place but realized that his community service was needed in California. Mr. Gilmore's dedication and commitment to civil rights moved him upward through the ranks of the NAACP in California and he became the Northern California Area President.

Mr. Gilmore's leadership was not limited to his dedicated efforts within the NAACP. He was also involved in a host of activities that garnered him honors for his community leadership.

In 1977, Mr. Gilmore was elected to the Oakland City Council. He was reelected in 1981 and 1985 unchallenged. He served as the Vice Mayor from 1979 to 1981.

Mr. Gilmore has served on numerous boards, which include the East Oakland Youth Center, Alameda County Fair, League of California Cities, Goodwill Industries, Bay Area Committee on Hypertension and the Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom Center of Oakland.

He is an active member of many community-based organizations where he continues his dedicated leadership helping seniors, youth, and veterans.

Carter Gilmore has proven time and again that one person can make a difference. His 50 years of service has touched many lives and his contributions have been felt in numerous ways. I join his friends and admirers in expressing admiration for his accomplishments and heartfelt appreciation for all his efforts. He has earned the well deserved title public servant extraordinaire.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the motion to instruct, and my amendment would merely suggest that at any meeting of two or more conferees every conferee should be invited to attend that meeting.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Mr. Rangel's motion to instruct.

Madam Speaker, it is of some interest that, as a conferee, this probably would be the only time I have to express my opinion on the conference, as we are usually, as Democrats, not invited to attend and discovering where the conferees meet is a conundrum that is not easily solved by this side of the aisle.

But if we were allowed to participate in a democratic fashion, which seems to elude my colleagues across the aisle, we would remind our conferee colleagues that we are going to add trillions to the national debt over the next 5 years as a result of the budget, and to extend tax breaks for millionaires, while we are mortgaging our children's future, seems to me to be immoral.

The Republicans voted to increase the debt limit a few weeks ago, and now they want to waste that increase on $50 billion in capital gain and dividend breaks for people making over $1 million a year. There are not many of those in this country, but those who do make over $1 million a year will benefit magnificently from this Republican tax bill and not many other people.

It was pointed out that we were given the erroneous assumption that they were doing something about the alternative minimum tax. It is certainly dealing with less than 10 percent of the alternative minimum tax problem. That hardly stands as a solution.

I urge support for the motion.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday, a woman told President Bush that she was having a hard time understanding his prescription drug program and needed more time so that she could make an informed choice for her mother.

Bush told her too bad. Specifically, he said, ``Rolling back good deadlines is not going to help your mom make a good decision.''

He's wrong. The implementation of this drug program has been a disaster. That's not a partisan statement, it's a factual one. Delaying the May 15th deadline until the end of 2006 should be a no-brainer.

Senior citizens and people with disabilities shouldn't be forced to pay financial penalties for the rest of their lives because the law was poorly implemented. Nor should we allow the confusion of the last few months to turn beneficiaries off from ever entering the program.

Yet, if the deadline goes into effect, that's exactly what will happen. According to the Congressional Budget Office 10 million seniors will pay higher premiums for their prescription drugs for the rest of their lives if this deadline is not delayed. And more than 1 million seniors will choose not to enroll this year.

Mr. Bush has long claimed to be a compassionate conservative. There is nothing compassionate about telling America's seniors too bad and forcing them to pay higher premiums for the rest of their lives.

My Republican colleagues keep complaining that Democrats are demagoguing the drug bill. We are not. We are here today trying to help them make it work better. I urge them to join us in that effort.

America's seniors need and deserve a Medicare drug benefit that is user-friendly, affordable, and stable. Vote for the Berry Amendment to do just that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to tell a tale of two Republican disasters, the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina. It is a story with no best of times, only the worst of times. This tale is why I oppose the Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 4939).

The main characters in my story are an incompetent President and a corrupt Congress. The setting is an America desperate for honest leadership. But the plot involves lies and cover-ups. The problem is misplaced priorities. But the solution is not this supplemental, which provides another $67.6 billion for a failed war but only $19 billion to help the victims of Katrina.

The first disaster, the Iraq War, was predicated on lies. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, had never attempted to buy uranium from Niger, and was not about to welcome American soldiers with open arms.

An incompetent President failed to prepare America for the postwar period. As a result, looting of stores and museums began shortly after the United States military gained control of Baghdad. Months later, sectarian violence has pushed Iraq to civil war, with Shiite militia and security forces clashing with Sunni citizens and insurgents.

Yet our troops remain in Iraq and in harms way. Two American soldiers and 40 Iraqi soldiers and civilians are killed every day. As long as we stay in Iraq, the insurgency will continue, even as the so-called Iraqi democracy experiment goes nowhere. Three months after parliamentary elections, the Iraqi parliament has yet to form a government.

Finally, large Republican donors including Halliburton have looted the American treasury. Using their connections to secure no-bid contracts for services in Iraq, these firms overcharge American taxpayers and underserve our troops. All the while, Republicans' blind allegiance to the President causes them to write blank checks, throwing good money after bad at a war that is making America less secure.

The second disaster was the Republican response to Hurricane Katrina. Several days before Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, the President was briefed on the severity of the storm and the likelihood levees would be breached. But after failing to cut short his extended vacation to help with the response, the President told ABC News and the American public he was not advised the levees were likely to collapse.

After years of underfunding levee construction and maintenance, Republicans attempted to shift the blame for the disaster and the inadequate response onto state and local officials. But it was President Bush who nominated unqualified campaign hacks to head FEMA and congressional Republicans who rubber-stamped the appointment of Michael Brown.

As a result of insufficient preparation and incompetent administration, tens of thousands of hurricane victims went without adequate food, water, and shelter in the storm's aftermath. Six months after Katrina, relief workers are still finding bodies of victims.

In an attempt to atone for their sins, the Republicans have finally brought forth additional legislation to help Katrina victims. But in a pathetic and transparent attempt to prevent full debate on the disastrous Iraq War, President Bush's Republican cronies in Congress combined two supplementals into one.

Although I support additional funding for hurricane victims, I cannot vote for a supplemental that appropriates 74 percent of its funds, or $67.6 billion, to a misguided Iraq war on which we have already wasted $350 billion--and the lives of 2,310 American soldiers and at least 37,000 Iraqi citizens.

It is time to tell a new tale, about bringing home our troops and rebuilding homes for Katrina victims. Let's get this Iraq monkey off our back and supplement housing rather than Halliburton.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and help me to tell a new tale about American successes rather than Republicans disasters.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 354 because the military should not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Colleges and universities should be able to deny access to military recruiters without losing Federal funds.

In 1948, President Harry S. Truman courageously integrated the Armed Forces, signing Executive Order 9981 when many in his party opposed racial equality. As a result, the military has since served as an example for private and public organizations alike, encouraging racial equality and opportunity in hiring and promotion.

In contrast, President Bush promotes divisive prejudices and his friends in Congress are here today promoting a backward agenda. This resolution declares support for a court decision that prevents institutions of higher education from promoting higher understanding.

President Truman demonstrated great courage by racially integrating the military. President Bush and his Republican cronies show great cowardice in failing to advance additional civil rights today. If they were in power in 1948, I doubt they would have acted then either.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and allow universities to continue to promote racial, religious, gender--and sexual--equality.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2829, the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization. Other than the TSA making grandmothers take off their shoes and infants discard their milk bottles prior to boarding airplanes, the War on Drugs might go down in history as the most ineffective program in the history of the United States.

We spend over $40 billion per year on the drug war and at least another $30 billion to keep over one million Americans in prison on drug charges. Yet, study after study shows that drugs are as readily available as ever and drug use rates have remained unchanged for the last decade. Incarcerating one person costs at least $30,000 per year, while a comprehensive residential drug treatment program costs about $7,000. Treating drug addiction as a criminal rather than medical problem is not only scientifically unsound--it's a waste of money.

If we're going to spare no dollar in the war on drugs, then let's have quality education and after-school options for every child in America. And let's reverse the diabolical and failed policy of denying college loans to students with prior drug offenses. Americans with drug problems obviously need more--not fewer--opportunities to change their lives for the better.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this senseless, wasteful Office of National Drug Control Policy. Let's redirect these dollars to programs that work rather than ``tough on crime'' soundbites and countless useless government reports that do nothing to reduce drug use or addiction.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Trade Sanction A void Act--Iegislation that will stop American manufacturers from facing $809 million in annual trade sanctions from the European Union.

On February 12, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body-- for the third time--found that U.S. corporate tax laws violate WTO rules. We failed to fix the flawed foreign sales corporation (FSC) regime with extra-territorial incentive (ETI) scheme. Now we've failed once again to fix the ETI with incentives in the JOBS Act. According to the WTO, the transitional and grandfathered tax breaks in the JOBS Act continue to violate WTO rules. This foolishness must stop now.

I've heard many members of this august body talk bout how the U.S. must stand up and be a leader in the world. How can we expect other countries to take us seriously as a world leader when this Congress continually undermines and ignores rules we've agreed to live by?

We refuse to join the International Criminal Court, we won't sign the Kyoto Treaty, and we pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Given our track record, is it any wonder the EU continues to bring WTO cases against our non-compliant corporate tax break schemes? We've broken these rules time and time again, and if we don't pass my bill, American manufacturers will pay the price.

The EU reacted to the WTO decision by asserting its right to impose retaliatory duties against U.S. exports. Those duties apply to a broad range of goods, and could reach 17 percent by September. If Congress fails to act, U.S. corporations will pay $809 million a year in retaliatory sanctions.

The Trade Sanction Avoidance Act will put an end to this game of international tax chicken. By repealing the transitional and grandfathered tax breaks in the JOBS act, Congress will ensure American manufacturers avoid hundreds of millions in unnecessary trade sanctions. This approach is so inherently reasonable; some may wonder why anyone would oppose it.

Unfortunately, in the current culture of corruption, protecting tax breaks for big corporations is more important than protecting farmers and small manufacturers from hundreds of millions in trade sanctions. For example, Boeing alone stands to rake in over $600 million from the JOBS Act tax breaks. My legislation protects farmers and small manufacturers from these sanctions so that they can remain competitive in the European Union marketplace. Boeing--which made $2.56 billion in net profit last year--should be willing to give up at least a portion of its tax break to help protect American businesses from sanctions and to help our tax code comply with the WTO rules we've agreed to live by.

We can't claim to help American businesses on one hand, while turning our backs on them by failing to fix this problem. This bill is a simple solution to a problem we should have solved years ago. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act. Once again, this Congress is attempting to address very serious and complicated problems with a law that substitutes the talking points of ``tough on crime'' politicians for the wisdom of judges, prosecutors, treatment professionals and child advocates. As a father and someone who has fought for better foster care, education, and health care for children, I object to this ill-conceived legislation that is as much an attack on our independent judiciary as it is a bill to protect kids.

Many child advocates themselves oppose this bill because kids in grade school or junior high will be swept up alongside paroled adults in sex offender registries. Many caught in registries would be 13 and 14 year olds. In some states, children 10 and under would be registered.

This bill creates new mandatory minimum sentences, which impose the judgment of Congress over every case, regardless of the circumstances. The Judicial Conference of the United States and the U.S. Sentencing Commission have found that mandatory minimums actually have the opposite of their intended effect. They ``destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging plea bargains.'' They treat dissimilar offenders in a similar manner, even though there are vast differences in the seriousness of their conduct and their danger to society. Judges serve a very important role in criminal justice, and Congress should not attempt to do their job for them.

Finally, this bill expands the death penalty, which is not a deterrent, costs more to implement than life imprisonment, and runs the risk of executing the innocent.

Nobody, especially the parents and victims of sexual abuse who have contacted me on this issue, should confuse my objections to this bad policy with indifference to the problem of child sex abuse in this country. It is a huge problem, affecting millions of American children. Recent news stories prove that the registry system isn't working well.

I support aspects of this bill, including a strengthened nationwide registry for pedophiles, with strict requirements for reporting changes of address and punishments for failing to report. I support establishing treatment programs for sex offenders in prison, background checks for foster parents, funding for computer systems to track sex crimes involving the Internet, and, at last resort, procedures for committing sexually dangerous persons to secure treatment facilities.

However, I cannot violate my Constitutional duty to protect our independent judiciary nor can I support extreme, dangerous policies, so I will vote against this bill. I hope that, working with the Senate, we can improve this legislation and implement the policies that everyone agrees are needed without the unintended consequences of the bill in its current form.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act. This bill puts commercial food industry interests ahead of the rights of consumers to be warned about food safety issues.

The National Uniformity for Food Act would preempt all state food safety labeling protections, even if those protections have no effect on interstate commerce. The bill also bars states from limiting particular toxic chemicals in food, even if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not set standards for those chemicals. For example, the current California requirement for point-of-sale warnings about high mercury levels in certain fish would be eliminated if this bill becomes law.

This bill is especially detrimental in states like California that have gone to great lengths to protect consumers through strong food safety labeling requirements. Requirements like California's Proposition 65 have greatly reduced exposure to toxic chemicals in food. California's food safety laws should be a model for the nation. Instead, the grocery and commercial food industries have used their influence in the halls of Congress in an attempt to destroy these laws.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and many consumer groups oppose this bill. Mr. Lockyer said in a letter to the California delegation that the National Uniformity for Food Act ``would greatly impede our ability to protect the health of Californians, both under Proposition 65 and under other laws that could be adopted by the voters or our legislature.''

I urge my all my colleagues to stand up for consumers, not corporations, by voting no on the National Uniformity for Food Act.