[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14266-H14268]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 REPEALING SACCHARIN NOTICE REQUIREMENT

  The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 1787) to amend the Federal Food, Drug 
and Cosmetic Act to repeal the saccharin notice requirement.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 1787

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. NOTICE REQUIREMENT REPEAL.

       Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 343) is amended by striking paragraph (p).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] 
each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1787, 
legislation to repeal an unnecessary saccharin notice requirement that, 
with the passage of time, has become redundant and unnecessary.
  In 1977 Congress passed a law preventing FDA from banning the use of 
saccharin. As an interim measure, the law required stores that sold 
products containing saccharin to post warnings until package labeling 
would include the required warning.
  As warnings are now on all packages containing saccharin, there is no 
reason to maintain an unnecessary warning requirement. Eliminating this 
requirement will save retailers--and ultimately consumers--from 
unnecessary compliance costs.
  I want to commend the sponsors of this legislation for bringing this 
bill forward, especially the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray]. I 
also want to commend the Speaker's Advisory Group on Corrections that 
includes the ranking member of the Health and Environment Subcommittee 
that identified this bill as a candidate for the Corrections Calendar.
  I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. It is a good 
candidate for the Corrections Day Calendar because this bill would 
correct a provision in law that requires the posting of a warning sign 
about the potential dangers of saccharin which is really no longer 
necessary. It was put into the original law dealing with saccharin at a 
time when we thought there ought to be a warning until such time as the 
label itself on the product contained the information to advise 
consumers.
  I think that the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray], my friend 
and colleague, is to be commended for bringing this issue to our 
attention. This is a bill that no one should disagree with. It is 
correcting a problem. I think that it is overdue. I would urge support 
for this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].
  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1787. First, I 
would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] 
and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr], who joined me in 
introducing this common sense correction bill back in June.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Bilirakis] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], who have 
guided this bill through subcommittee and committee and brought it to 
this process of corrections day with the support of the gentlewoman 
from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  The focus of this bill's correction is a classic example of the need 
of the correction day and the intent that was stated by the Speaker in 
the days that he introduced it. This bill is a good example of how we 
can streamline existing law and make more sensible, effective law out 
of a system that needs updating.
  H.R. 1787 will eliminate a once-needed but now unnecessary regulation 
while continuing to provide consumer information and protection to 
small business owners and consumers alike.
  The need for this bill, Mr. Speaker, became apparent last year when 
54 retail companies in California were served a complaint under the 
State's bounty hunter statute. This complaint alleged that the stores 
had failed to maintain a saccharin warning sign in violation of Federal 
law. In April of this year, more than 20 supermarket companies in North 
Carolina were threatened with lawsuits for failure to have the warning 
signs posted.
  Mr. Speaker, many of these stores that are affected are mom-and-pop 
operations and the signs might have got lost, might have been stolen, 
could have fallen behind the charcoal briquettes in the front of the 
store. They may have even been unaware that the regulation existed at 
all.

                              {time}  1500

  In any event, I think we can agree that a lawsuit on this ground 
would 

[[Page H14267]]
qualify as ridiculous. H.R. 1787 removes this threat from small 
retailers around the country while continuing to require the consumer 
warnings continue to be placed on the packages of the products that 
contain saccharine.
  Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter which underscores the need of H.R. 
1787, which I would ask to be included in the Record, and it describes 
the writer's intent to sue a food store chain for $2.5 million for 
violating the saccharine warning notice requirement, and I quote from 
that letter: ``for the direct endangerment of my personal health over 
the years.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], who originally wrote the law, 
has reviewed my bill and agrees that while the warning notice 
requirement served its purpose in 1977, it is no longer required in 
1995. I appreciate the support of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Waxman], his sense of historical perspective and the strong bipartisan 
support of my colleagues from this sensible and noncontroversial bill.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I need to say the American people want to 
see more bipartisan support, more bipartisan cooperation across the 
aisle, and they also want us to be brave enough to do what is best no 
matter which side brings up a good idea. Mr. Speaker, this is one of 
those things that needs to be improved. The original author recognizes 
that the time has passed for this regulation to be in force, and I ask 
the rest of the House to join with the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Waxman] and this gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray] in correcting 
a problem that should not be allowed to exist any further and also to 
prove that bipartisan support and cooperation is for the benefit of the 
American people who, after all, we all represent here in the people's 
House.
  Mr. Speaker, the letter is submitted for the Record, as follows:

       To whom it may concern: I       , Herein wish to submit my 
     intentions to file suit against the following food store 
     chains. For the sum of $2.5 million dollars each. For the 
     direct endangerment to my personal health over the years, 
     through the consumption of hazardous products, and through 
     the non compliance of the F.D.A. regulation 21-101.11. 
     However, after speaking with an attorney in regards to this 
     matter, it was suggested that I may have other opsections 
     available such as (2) Reporting this to the commissioner of 
     the F.D.A. (3) Report to the T.V., and news media how all 22 
     of the major food chains in the Wilmington area, Some how 
     over looked an FDA public health warning regulation for 
     years. Or, (4) Submit this letter to all the food chains or 
     stores involved and hope to come to some kind of discreet, 
     and brief respective financial compensation regarding this 
     matter, on my behalf, without involving the F.D.A. or the 
     publics opinion. Inclosed is a list of the stores, that are 
     currently in direct violation of code 21-101.11 of the F.D.A. 
     regulations.

  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Bilirakis and 
Chairman Bliley for all their hard work to see that we have these two 
bills on the floor for consideration today. The corrections process is 
dependent on the cooperation of the authorizing committees. Mr. Bliley 
and his staff, and Mr. Bilirakis and his staff have been very 
cooperative and have really been key to the success of corrections day. 
I would also like to thank Congressman Waxman, a member of our 
corrections day process, who has spoken in support of H.R. 1787. H.R. 
1787 will repeal a duplicative saccharin labeling requirement. This 
bill is so simple and makes so much sense it is a wonder we even have 
to spend time to discuss it, but unless we act this relic of a law will 
remain on the books causing financial hardship to thousands of small 
businesses.
  The substance of the bill has already been explained, and there is 
not a lot one can say without belaboring the obvious. So, I will 
restrict my comments to the need for speedy passage of this bill.
  The other body has several bills which have passed this House without 
any objection under the corrections calendar. in fact, including the 
two bills which will pass today, we have sent 11 pieces of corrections 
legislation to the other body in less than 5 months. All but one of 
those 11 bills passed the House by voice vote or without opposition. 
Working in a bi-partisan fashion and with the help of our committee 
chairmen this House has made corrections day successful. It is my hope 
that before we leave for the Christmans break we can have all of these 
bills on the President's desk.
  I am calling on the other body to take up these bills as quickly as 
possible. If there are disagreements, we can work them out, but let's 
not delay these much needed corrections any longer.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleagues on 
identifying a redundancy in Federal law and working together to 
eliminate it. As has been stated, current law requires grocery stores 
to post a notice on the potential dangers of saccharin in addition to 
the labeling of the food product itself. Clearly, one notice is enough.
  I am concerned, though, that down the line the remaining notice 
requirement will be repealed even though it is a necessary consumer 
protection. Let me tell you why.
  Today, in Federal law, there is a requirement that private insurance 
companies provide notice to Medicare beneficiaries if a health 
insurance policy they are selling duplicates Medicare benefits. In the 
Republican Medicare plan, this notification requirement is eliminated.
  Again, under the Republican Medicare plan a notification requirement 
is to be eliminated that alerts Medicare beneficiaries that a policy 
they are considering purchasing may duplicate insurance coverage they 
already have under Medicare. The notification requirement isn't a 
second notice that is eliminated. There is only one requirement of 
notification, and it is to be repealed.
  Let me walk-through why I am raising a word of caution today 
regarding H.R. 1787. Current Medicare law states that:

       It is unlawful for a person to sell or issue [to a Medicare 
     beneficiary] a health insurance policy with the knowledge 
     that the policy duplicates health benefits to which the 
     person is entitled under Medicare . . . unless there is 
     disclosed in a prominent manner the extent to which benefits 
     under the policy duplicate Medicare benefits.

  This simple notice saves senior citizens from wasting millions of 
dollars each year on what one consumer organization has described as 
``illusory policies which pay out little or nothing to Medicare 
beneficiaries.''
  In contrast to the action taken today with H.R. 325 in full public 
view, buried in the Republican Medicare bill that passed the Congress 
last month was a provision that deletes this important notification 
requirement. Why?
  There are a few well-heeled insurance companies that sell these 
disease specific, or dread-disease policies, and they have an interest 
in having ignorant consumers. And they have an interest--a stockholder 
share you might say--in the new Republican majority. These insurance 
companies expect a return on their investments. To give them that 
return, the interests of elderly Americans were brushed aside and the 
notification requirement was erased.
  To protect Americans from similar anti-consumer actions in the future 
by the Republican majority, maybe we need to maintain two of everything 
in Federal law. When at some point down the line Republicans need to 
provide a sweetener for a particular special interest, they can delete 
one provision but leave the second one intact so consumers can maintain 
needed consumer protections.
  I am not opposed to the bill we are considering today. By passing 
H.R. 1787, we will eliminate a redundancy but maintain a notice that is 
a necessary consumer protection. The notice to Medicare beneficiaries 
warning them that they are being sold a worthless or near-worthless 
insurance policy also is worthy of maintaining.
  In fact, in opposing the Republican Medicare effort the National 
Association of Insurance Commissioners stated that the Republican 
Medicare bill ``would strip seniors of the protections afforded by the 
disclosure statement.''
  Again, I'd like to compliment the work of Mr. Waxman and Mr. Bliley 
on bringing H.R. 1787 to the floor but reiterate my word of caution 
that we not go to the extreme as was done in case of Medicare. Despite 
what well-heeled lobbyists may say, ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance 
can be dangerous to consumers.
  Luckily for Medicare beneficiaries, we have a Democratic President in 
the White House who has made a commitment to protect the physical and 
financial health of the seniors of America. He has vetoed the 
Republican Medicare bill. Now, their damaging special-interest 
provisions can be eliminated and consumer protections maintained.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my strong support for 
this legislation and commend the gentlemen from California and North 
Carolina for their work on this matter. I believe this bill provides a 
realistic framework for reforming the saccharin notification 
regulations placed on groceries, while also protecting the public's 
health and need to know.

[[Page H14268]]

  Back in the late seventies, when diet-conscience Americans were 
guzzling Tab soda and putting Sweet and Low in their iced tea, it 
became important that consumers become aware of any health threats 
posed by the use of saccharin. Today, however, we are facing a 
situation in which saccharin has not only been replaced as the main 
sweetening agent, but labels identifying its use dot the labels of all 
products that contain it.
  H.R. 1787 recognizes that now that market and health forces have 
diminished the use of saccharin in food and drink, there is no longer a 
need for information overkill on this subject. This legislation simply 
allows grocery stores the chance to back away from the requirement of 
posting warning signs in their stores about saccharin's potential 
health effects. I believe this prudent progression will still allow 
consumers the appropriate warning of their favorite product's labels, 
while at the same time remove this bothersome requirement from our 
Nation's many grocery stores, from the Kroger's to the Mutach Food 
Market in Marblehead, OH.
  While you can lead a horse to water, Mr. Speaker, you cannot make it 
drink. While all of us would prefer a risk-free society, it just is not 
possible. People who are worried about their health will read labels 
and warnings signs no matter how numerous or large they are. I believe 
H.R. 1787 recognizes this fact and hopefully will end the new rash of 
nuisance lawsuits springing up in this country over this matter. I urge 
all my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to the rule, the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and (three-fifths having voted in favor 
thereof) the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________