[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 25 (Thursday, March 2, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H521-H529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4167, NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD 
                              ACT OF 2005

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 702 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 702

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4167) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act to provide for uniform food safety warning 
     notification requirements, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce. After general debate the Committee of the Whole 
     shall rise without motion. No further consideration of the 
     bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order 
     of the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Gingrey) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 702 is a general debate 
rule that provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce. It waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill, and it provides that after general debate, the Committee of the 
Whole shall rise without motion and no further consideration of the 
bill shall be in order except by a subsequent order of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 702 and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 4167, the National Food for Uniformity Act of 
2005.
  H.R. 4166 was introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) 
and reported out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on 15 
December 2005 by a vote of 30-18. This is a good bill, and I would like 
to thank Chairman Barton and Representative Rogers for their work in 
bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, currently food regulation is composed of a variety of 
different and sometimes inconsistent State requirements. These 
different State standards hamper the free flow of interstate commerce. 
They also result in increased costs to manufacturers and distributors 
that are then, of course, passed on to consumers. The greatest burden 
falls on our citizens and resident immigrants who are at the lowest end 
of the economic scale, who are struggling to pay for even basic 
staples.
  So, Mr. Speaker, these differing standards and their effects are very 
similar to problems plaguing the health insurance industry, which also 
drive up the cost to consumers and lock the door to many low-income 
individuals and families who simply cannot afford basic health care 
coverage because of all the required, expensive and often unnecessary 
extra screenings, tests and procedures mandated by 50 different State 
legislatures.
  From State to State, we have a patchwork quilt of health and 
insurance regulations and mandates that would create bureaucracy upon 
bureaucracy, driving up the costs and driving away coverage for those 
who need it most. These regulatory inconsistencies in both the 
insurance health care industry and in the food industry impose 
unnecessary costs and jeopardize the well-being of American consumers 
nationwide.
  However, Mr. Speaker, the National Uniformity for Food Act would 
establish national standards to ensure consistency in food labeling 
regulation. The bill will amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 
to establish a nationwide system of food safety standards and warning 
requirements for food labels instead of just a hodgepodge of different 
and, yes, even contradictory warnings among the various and sundry 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, establishing nationwide, uniform standards is by no 
means unprecedented. We already have national standards in the areas of 
meat and poultry products regulated by the United States Department of 
Agriculture. We have national standards for nutrition labeling, health 
claims, standards of identity, pesticide residue tolerance, medical 
devices and drugs regulated by the United States Food and Drug 
Administration.
  Mr. Speaker, for those who fear an important warning might fall 
through the cracks, I want to emphasize that this bill does allow 
States whose requirements differ from the Federal requirements the 
opportunity to petition the FDA to adopt the requirement as a national 
requirement or to exempt it from the requirement of uniformity for

[[Page H522]]

their particular locality. If it is worthwhile to the State of 
California, as an example, I trust that the FDA would hold that it is 
worthwhile for the 49 other States, including my State of Georgia. This 
petition process will allow States to have notification requirements 
that address food safety issues unique to their States, bottom line.
  H.R. 4167 also, Mr. Speaker, includes a provision that allows the 
State to exercise imminent hazard authority to prevent the sale of 
dangerous food by applying a State requirement that would otherwise be 
preempted. They can do it in that emergency situation.
  With the passage of this rule, the House of Representatives will move 
forward today with general debate to discuss the overall merits of the 
bill, and we will resume consideration next week on a multitude of 
proposed amendments. This additional time will help to ensure an open 
and fair process so that we ultimately arrive at consensus legislation 
based on sound policy.
  So I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and, ultimately, the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me this time, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much for 
yielding time to me. It is extraordinary that she let me go ahead of 
her, and I appreciate it very much because of her accommodation of my 
schedule.
  This bill is the most sweeping change in decades to our Nation's 
efforts to protect the food supply. H.R. 4167 is a disaster waiting to 
happen. This legislation could overturn 200 State laws, laws that the 
American people rely on every day to ensure the safety of the food they 
eat and to ensure that they know what they are buying: laws that ensure 
that the shellfish they buy is not tainted; laws that let a pregnant 
woman know what foods can increase the risk of birth defects; laws that 
could inform consumers whether fish have high levels of cancer-causing 
PCBs; and laws that ensure the safety of our milk.
  The opposition to this bill is strong, and it is growing stronger. 
Last night, 37 State attorneys general, Republicans and Democrats 
alike, announced their opposition to the bill.
  They join the opposition of dozens of public health, environmental 
and consumer groups. Florida, Georgia, New York, Wisconsin, and 
Illinois have all written to Congress opposing the legislation. The 
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the 
National Association of Food Drug Officials strongly oppose this bill 
as well.
  I hope that next week we will be able to offer some amendments to the 
bill. Since there has never been a day of hearings on the legislation 
in committee, I think there ought to be an open rule.
  One amendment that I would like to support is the Capps-Eshoo-Stupak-
Waxman amendment, and I think it must be adopted by this House. It 
would allow States to take the necessary steps so that consumers will 
be told of food that contains cancer-causing substances, developmental 
toxins, sulfites and reproductive toxins. It will also let States take 
action to protect the health of their children.
  Secondly, this bill will undermine our Nation's defenses against 
bioterrorism, according to State and local officials, and we are 
proposing that this bill not handcuff the first responders who deal 
with food safety issues every day.
  The amendment we will be offering will help preserve the authorities 
of the governors and State legislatures to establish and maintain a 
food safety system that can be responsive to the threats that we face.
  I am stunned by so many of my Republican colleagues, even the 
gentleman that spoke on the Republican side of the aisle from the State 
of Georgia, suggesting that States should not have the right to go 
ahead and adopt food safety and labeling laws unless the FDA, a 
bureaucracy in the Federal Government, allows them to do so. The States 
have always had this constitutional authority. The States should have 
this right.
  I have been told so many times over the decades that Washington does 
not and should not have one-size-fits-all for everybody. Let us let 
States exercise their rights to protect their own people and not 
preempt them.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In response to the gentleman from California, first of all, Mr. 
Speaker, I have got a document here of 119 groups supporting H.R. 4167, 
the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005, which I will submit for 
the Record at this point.

 Groups Supporting H.R. 4167--The National Uniformity for Food Act of 
                                  2005

       Ahold; Albertson's; Altria Group, Inc.; American Bakers 
     Association; American Beverage Association; American Feed 
     Industry Association; American Frozen Food Institute; 
     American Plastics Council; American Meat Institute; American 
     Spice Trade Association; Animal Health Institute; Apple 
     Products Research and Education Council Association for 
     Dressings and Sauces; Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers 
     Association; Bush Brothers & Company; Business Roundtable.
       Cadbury Schweppes plc; California Farm Bureau Federation; 
     California Grocers Association; California League of Food 
     Processors; California Manufacturers & Technology 
     Association; Calorie Control Council; Campbell Soup Company; 
     Cargill, Incorporated; Chocolate Manufacturers Association; 
     The Coca-Cola Company; Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.; ConAgra 
     Foods, Inc.; Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; 
     Dean Foods Company; Del Monte Foods.
       Diamond Foods, Inc. Flavor & Extract Manufacturers 
     Association; Flowers Foods, Inc.; Food Marketing Institute; 
     Food Products Association; Frito-Lay; Frozen Potato Products 
     Institute; General Mills, Inc.; Gerber Products Company; 
     Glass Packaging Institute; Godiva Chocolatier Inc.; Grain 
     Foods Foundation; Grocery Manufacturers Association; H.J. 
     Heinz Company; The Hershey Company.
       Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.; Hormel Foods Corporation; 
     Independent Bakers Association; Institute of Shortening and 
     Edible Oils; International Association of Color 
     Manufacturers; International Bottled Water Association; 
     International Dairy Foods Association; International Food 
     Additives Council; International Foodservice Distributors 
     Association; International Formula Council; International Ice 
     Cream Association; International Jelly and Preserves 
     Association; The J.M. Smucker Company; Jewel-Osco; Kellogg 
     Company.
       Kraft Foods Inc.; Land O' Lakes, Inc.; Maine Potato Board; 
     Masterfoods USA; McCormick & Company, Inc.; McKee Foods 
     Corporation; Milk Industry Foundation; The Minute Maid 
     Company; National Association of Convenience Stores; National 
     Association of Manufacturers; National Association of 
     Margarine Manufacturers; National Association of Wheat 
     Growers; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; 
     National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Cheese 
     Institute.
       National Chicken Council; National Coffee Association of 
     USA; National Confectioners Association; National Fisheries 
     Institute; National Frozen Pizza Institute; National Grape 
     Cooperative Association; National Grocers Association; 
     National Institute of Oilseed Products; National Milk 
     Producers Federation; National Pasta Association; National 
     Pecan Shellers Association; National Pork Producers Council; 
     National Potato Council; National Restaurant Association; 
     National Turkey Federation.
       Nestle USA; North American Millers' Association; Osco Drug; 
     O-I; Peanut and Tree Nut Processors Association; Pepperidge 
     Farm Incorporated; PepsiCo, Inc.; Pickle Packers' 
     International; The Procter & Gamble Company; Quaker Oats; 
     Rich Products Corporation; Rich SeaPak Corporation; Safeway; 
     Sara Lee Corporation; Say-on Drugs.
       The Schwan Food Company; Snack Food Association; Society of 
     Glass and Ceramics Decorators Supervalu Inc.; Target 
     Corporation; Tortilla Industry Association; Tropicana; 
     Unilever; United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association; U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce; Vinegar Institute; Welch Foods, Inc.; 
     Winn-Dixie; Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company; Yoplait.

  To my friend from California, I want to point out that among these 
119 just happens to be the California Farm Bureau Federation, that is 
in support; the California Grocers Association, which is in support; 
the California League of Food Processors, which is in support; the 
California Manufacturers and Technology Association, which is in 
support. I do not guess this is a California company, but interesting 
to note that also the H.J. Heinz Company is in support.
  I think that reminds me of the past Presidential election and maybe 
one of the candidates from the other side of the aisle.
  In regard to the preempting States, I want to remind my friends and 
all of our colleagues that we are dealing here with interstate 
commerce, and we are

[[Page H523]]

not talking really about preemption, even with that, of State law, 
because these 200 State laws that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) was talking about in the various and sundry States, this is 
part of the problem. But all of those laws, each and every one of those 
laws, could be incorporated, Mr. Speaker, and possibly will be, into 
the FDA guidelines.
  I wanted to make sure that they understand that.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1130

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, warnings of mercury levels in fish, the 
safety of our children's milk, birth defect warnings, reducing lead in 
calcium supplements, cans, and wine bottle caps, if we pass H. Res. 
702, the rule governing the National Food Uniformity Act, and 
ultimately the underlying legislation, these are but a few of the food 
safety laws that would be preempted.
  We would be placing at even greater risk the health of millions of 
Americans, our children, and pregnant women. Parents would have less 
information about the harm their children would come to because of a 
simple meal. This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. 
Information about the health implications of what we are assuming is 
abundant, and we should be an ally in helping parents to protect their 
children.
  With this legislation, Federal food safety regulations would supplant 
State food safety laws. Even though our food safety system has been 
created to rely upon the States, the FDA will make recommendations on 
its Web site. But the States need to take this information and 
determine the best way to inform and protect their residents. There is 
a reason for this: 80 percent of the enforcement is at the State and 
local levels.
  Let me take one example: mercury levels. Because of the implications 
of mercury in my home State of California, we have a program to place 
in-store notices about mercury levels. This concern about mercury has 
been raised by the Centers for Disease Control, the American Medical 
Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. I remember when my 
daughter-in-law Amy was pregnant with my granddaughter Anna. Her doctor 
repeatedly warned her about the harm mercury could cause her fetus. 
Fortunately, she was able to afford prenatal care and had the warnings, 
so Anna was born a perfectly normal child, free from any adverse 
effects of any mercury.
  But what about those who do not have adequate prenatal care or have 
warnings? How do they learn about these? Most of us will never think to 
go to the FDA Web site before putting our shopping list together. We 
find out about FDA warnings because our State laws require them to be 
posted next to the supermarket fish counter. We see the sign as we 
shop.
  As many of you are probably aware, certain fish contain high levels 
that can harm pregnant women and young children. High levels of mercury 
can damage the brain or kidneys. And this is in adults. Imagine what 
this can do to a developing fetus: blindness, seizures, speech 
problems, as well as nervous and digestive problems. But under this 
legislation, this program would be gone, as would the protections for 
our children. All that would remain is a posting on the FDA's Web site. 
Under President Bush's budget, the FDA's food safety funding would be 
cut by $445 million over 5 years. Where does this leave parents and the 
health of our children?
  When it comes to our children's health, we should be setting the 
highest bar possible rather than the lowest common denominator. Why 
would we not warn parents of this potential for harm? I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) just 
mentioned. And certainly as a physician, and we have health care 
providers on both sides of the aisle, we may be hearing from a 
physician Member, a friend and colleague on their side of the aisle in 
just a few minutes in regard to similar issues, so I do, I do 
understand, Mr. Speaker, that there are concerns about consumption of 
fish; the concern for Ms. Matsui's daughter and her granddaughter. And 
I am in the same category. She certainly looks a lot younger than I do 
and a lot prettier, Mr. Speaker, but I have grandchildren as well.
  Those are legitimate concerns. However, I will point out that fish is 
an excellent source of nutrition for mothers, expectant mothers, 
pregnant mothers, and young children. It is a wonderful source of 
protein and polyunsaturated fats. Those of us who have had little heart 
problems in the past understand that it is much more healthy to consume 
fish than red meat, not that an occasional steak should be denied 
anybody, Mr. Speaker.
  But it is true, as the gentlewoman says, that the mercury content is 
a concern, and I have done some reading on this issue. I talked just 
last night, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to discuss this issue 
with the pediatrician who took care of my children, my adult children, 
and who now, this same pediatrician, Dr. Larry Clements in Marietta, 
Georgia, of Kenmar Pediatrics, is taking care of my grandchildren, and 
I asked about this issue. And certainly there is a concern about 
mercury levels in certain fish, but also in my reading and in talking 
with Dr. Clements found out what the American Academy of Pediatrics 
says about it, found out what the EPA says about it, and found out what 
the FDA says about it.
  The FDA has guidance and guidelines right now that says to these 
women that four-tenths of a microgram per kilogram per day is a safe 
consumption level. And so this idea of the FDA being oblivious to the 
concerns about mercury, organic mercury, that the fish consume and then 
it gets into the blood stream of the mother; that it actually crosses 
the blood brain barrier, the placental fetal barrier and gets into the 
blood stream of a child and can adversely affect their neurological 
system, the FDA is certainly not oblivious to that.
  The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) has an amendment 
that we will discuss thoroughly, thoroughly, and give careful 
consideration to her amendment and other similar amendments that Mrs. 
Matsui is talking about when we do this next week. And that is one of 
the reasons we wanted to divide up the general debate and the debate on 
those important amendments because of what the gentlewoman just said.
  So it is very possible that the California guidelines in regard to 
this concern or the Florida guidelines about mercury levels will very 
likely be incorporated into the national standards. Because, for 
goodness sake, what is good and safe for her grandchildren, I know my 
good friend would want the same safety standards for my grandchildren 
in Georgia, for example. So I think she makes a good point, and I don't 
object to that at all; but I feel like this national standard will take 
care of that.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, what this bill does, I say to the gentlewoman from 
California, is to create circumstances where it undermines all these 
food safety laws all over the States. Under the guise of promoting 
uniformity in food safety and labeling laws, this bill requires all 
State food safety laws to be identical to the requirements of the 
Federal Food and Drug Administration. And since the States regulate 
many food safety issues not covered by the FDA, many food safety laws 
will be voided and replaced actually with no law at all.
  The uniformity to be achieved by this bill is, in many instances, the 
uniform absence of food safety regulation, which is desired by the food 
industry. So this bill is uniformly bad.
  For example, the bill would preempt Alaska's newly passed law to 
label genetically engineered fish. The Alaskan

[[Page H524]]

State legislature passed this law to ensure the State's principal 
industries are protected. The State of Alaska has an interest to ensure 
that its products and reputation are not harmed. Today, we are telling 
the people of Alaska that the natural Alaska king salmon cannot be 
distinguished from the genetically engineered version bound to enter 
the market one day.
  Another great example of the State laws this bill is designed to 
undermine is California's Prop. 65. Prop. 65 provides for the labeling 
of products that contain compounds that cause cancer or reproductive 
problems. California voters approved it by a 2-1 margin in the 1980s. 
Since enacted, it has sped the elimination of toxic compounds from the 
products we use or eat every day. It led one company to remove a 
carcinogenic chemical from a waterproofing spray. It led to the removal 
of lead foil from wine bottles. It led to the removal of lead solder in 
cans used for food. It took lead out of calcium supplements, brass 
kitchen faucets, and hair dyes.
  In fact, when many companies reformulated their product to avoid 
having it labeled as a carcinogen, they did it without telling anyone 
because they didn't want to draw attention to the fact that their 
product included dangerous chemicals in the first place.
  So there are countless other examples of Prop. 65 protecting public 
health and the environment that we don't even know about. It is exactly 
this triumph of public heath over large food corporations that has 
driven the food industry to push for the so-called National Food 
Uniformity Act. But it is bad policy. In fact, even President Reagan 
rejected attempts to undermine it.
  This so-called uniformity bill will cost the taxpayers dearly. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Federal Government will 
have to pay $100 million to consider States' appeals; and at the local 
and State level, food and safety officials would be obstructed. They 
perform some 80 percent of the work to ensure the safety of our food.
  In 2001, States acted in 45,000 separate instances to keep unsafe 
food from entering our food supply. This bill simply says that the 
United States Congress believes uniformity is more important than food 
safety or the consumers' right to know.
  This bill ought to be defeated. We need to listen to what the people 
in the States are saying about their desire to have food that is safe 
to eat, and this bill absolutely vitiates any effort that States make 
to protect their own people.
  This is a bad bill. Large corporations are pushing for it, just like 
years ago they pushed to try to stop this Congress from investigating 
cigarettes that caused cancer. We need to defeat this bill. It is a 
rotten idea.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to point out to the gentleman who just spoke that of course 
one of the major provisions of H.R. 4167 is that it does allow a State 
to petition for an exemption or to establish a national standard. I 
think even better, as I said earlier in my response to Ms. Matsui, is 
to establish a national standard regarding any requirement under FFDCA 
or the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act related to food regulation.
  It allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide such 
an exemption if the requirement protects an important public interest 
that would otherwise be unprotected. I think that is a hugely important 
provision of H.R. 4167.
  Again, we are dealing with interstate commerce, and I have a very 
strong feeling and affinity for States' rights. We all do in Georgia. 
But, Mr. Speaker, in my opening comments about this bill, I made an 
analogy of health insurance mandates, that the 50 States are not the 
same. It would be far easier if they were the same, but 50 States have 
different mandates that State legislatures pass to put in a so-called 
basic health insurance policy that you cannot sell in the State without 
including provisions.
  I remember very clearly when I was a State senator, before becoming a 
Member of this august body, that, unfortunately, one of our colleagues' 
mother-in-law was dying of ovarian cancer. She and he made the strong 
case for a screening test, a blood test to purportedly determine who is 
going to get or likely to get or in the earliest stages of ovarian 
cancer should be made part of every health insurance policy. In other 
words, every woman in the State of Georgia on a yearly basis could be 
provided with this blood test called CA-125. But, Mr. Speaker, 
gynecologic oncologists, medical cancer specialists, would tell you 
almost to a person that this is a very poor test for screening for that 
particular disease.

                              {time}  1145

  Yet in the State of Georgia, that is mandated. And that drives up the 
cost of health insurance, and it also drives up the number of people in 
Georgia who cannot afford a basic policy of health care. That is really 
what we are talking about here. We are not talking about taking away 
the States' rights. And after all, the FDA scientific body, they study 
these issues very carefully. All of these State mandates will be looked 
at extremely carefully, and those that need to be in the national 
guidelines will be there. Those that are not, the States can petition 
to have them included.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
previous question and also will oppose the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter from the Colorado 
Department of Agriculture. And if I could respond to my good friend 
from Georgia, in the letter from the Department of Agriculture, they 
make the point that although the States can seek waivers, in our State 
we believe, the Department of Agriculture believes that a State 
required to seek a waiver from the Federal Food and Drug Administration 
would incur significant legal and expert witness expenses which could 
be better used in conducting food and animal feed safety inspections.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It should be rejected. It would make 
it much harder for Colorado and other States to protect public health 
and respond to acts of bioterrorism.
  The bill would preempt virtually every State and local law that does 
not mirror Federal law, and it would require Colorado and other States 
to navigate a bureaucratic and costly morass if they want to act to 
protect the public.
  In Colorado specifically, the bill would erase laws dealing with the 
safety of restaurants, packaged food, wholesale foods and milk. 
Further, it would prohibit Colorado and other States from passing laws 
or regulations dealing with animal feeds, feed additives, and drugs 
used on animals.
  Additionally, States could not respond quickly to extreme public 
health risks like avian flu, mad cow disease or chronic wasting disease 
without first seeking the guidance of the Federal Government. It is 
shocking, I think truly shocking, that in the wake of Hurricane Katrina 
we would further hamstring our State and local officials when they need 
to respond quickly.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bill that would undermine Colorado's ability to protect consumers and 
the public health.
                                               Colorado Department


                                               of Agriculture,

                                   Lakewood, CO, January 30, 2006.
     Hon. Mark Udall,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Bldg., 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Mark Udall: On behalf of the Colorado 
     Department of Agriculture, I am writing to express our 
     concerns regarding H.R. 4167, ``The National Uniformity for 
     Foods Act of 2005,'' which will appear before the House for 
     action in the next few weeks.
       This bill would preempt state feed safety agriculture 
     defense programs from performing certain functions that 
     protect citizens. Under this bill, a state would no longer be 
     able to formulate laws and rules concerning the labeling of 
     foods, animal feeds, feed additives and new animal drugs. 
     Preempting state regulatory agencies from having autonomy to 
     address food and animal feed safety concerns compromises 
     public and animal health. Each state must have the latitude 
     to act quickly to enact laws and rules that address local or 
     statewide health concerns.
       In addition, the waiver process required by H.R. 4167 would 
     impose substantial financial burden on the state and federal 
     governments. A state required to seek a waiver from the

[[Page H525]]

     Federal Food and Drug Administration would incur significant 
     legal and expert witness expenses, which could be better used 
     in conducting food and animal feed safety inspections.
       Consumers benefit from strong food safety laws at the 
     federal and state levels. Elimination of the authority of 
     each state to set policy and take appropriate action would 
     reduce consumer protection. Therefore, I urge you to oppose 
     H.R. 4167.
       Your consideration of our concerns is appreciated.
           Sincerely,

                                                    Don Ament,

                                 Commissioner, Colorado Department
                                                   of Agriculture.

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  I just want to say to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), that 
in addition to the provision that I just quoted, there is this other 
provision that would address his concerns, and obviously it is a 
legitimate concern. It is very clear in the language of the bill, Mr. 
Speaker. It says this: it allows a State to establish a requirement 
that would otherwise violate an FFDCA act, or FDA provisions relating 
to national uniform nutritional labeling of this act if the requirement 
is needed to address an eminent hazard to health, like Mr. Udall 
mentioned, that is likely to result in serious adverse health 
consequences and if other requirements are met.
  Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I did not have a chance to look at the 
calendar to find out what organization from K Street is having a big 
convention. But that is the only explanation for why this bill is here. 
This bill has not had a single hearing, not a single hearing on food 
safety in this country. All the relevant State agencies oppose the 
bill, the State Departments of Agriculture across the country, the 
Association of State Food and Drug Officials, the National Conference 
of State Legislatures.
  Why are we moving a bill through here without a single hearing to 
give the people of California and Washington a chance to say we want to 
have higher standards than you guys who run FEMA, who run FEMA? 
Remember, this is FEMA.
  One of the things that we did in Washington State when we had an 
earthquake was that the Washington State Department of Agriculture 
embargoed the movement of fish products contaminated by ammonia. That 
would be outside their ability, unless they went and got a waiver.
  Now, why should the people of the State of Washington have to go and 
get a waiver from the Federal Government to provide protection for the 
people in an emergency? You make it more bureaucratic.
  I really find it very hard that anybody in the health care industry 
could come out here and want to take away from the Washington State 
Department of Agriculture the ability to stop the movement of 
contaminated eggs, which were implicated in salmonella. That happened 
in Washington. Why would you want to stop the movement of contaminated 
foods and improperly labeled products? Why would you want to take that 
away from the States?
  Oh, because we are going to make it easier for the manufacturers to 
slide through whatever they want to slide through. Done. However they 
want it done. No one trusts the States suddenly. All these States 
righters come out here, and those legislators who sit and listen and 
have hearings are ignored.
  This is a travesty of the political process that you would bring out 
a health safety bill. Listen, we had an epidemic of problems with food 
from a company that was making hamburgers. We had a bunch of kids die 
in Seattle because they were getting undercooked hamburgers. Now, this 
Congress never did anything about it. But they did in the State of 
Washington. And if you cannot get this Congress to act on the safety of 
hamburgers in the country of McDonalds, you have got a serious problem. 
Somebody has got their foot on something someplace. And the people in 
the State of Washington ought to have the right to defend themselves 
against bad food products.
  Now, I listen to Mr. Gingrey, and I understand the debating 
technique. If you are going to lose the argument, change the subject.
  Why don't we talk about health care out here today? Let us talk about 
access to health care and the insurance industry and all the wonderful 
things they have done for us instead of talking about food safety. Talk 
about food safety. Why shouldn't the State of Washington, that deals 
with seafood products, what the heck does anybody in here know from 
Kansas or Nebraska or anything else, about what is going on in the 
coasts of Washington, Oregon and California? And even if you did know 
something about it, you do not allow a hearing process.
  That is an insult to the American people, and it has got to be about 
some kind of fundraiser or something related to that. I do not know 
what it is. Maybe the press will follow it up and see why we have a 
bill rifled through here. One hour or 30 minutes before we are going to 
get out and go down to Katrina and look at the Katrina catastrophe, we 
rifle this bill through here. There is something bad about this bill. 
It stinks. It is a bad bill. We ought to vote against the rule and vote 
against the bill.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to respond to the gentleman from Washington. I think he 
asked about how many of the supporters, 119 that we have submitted for 
the record, were K Street folks. Well, I do not know. I will ask him. 
The State of Washington is an apple-producing State. I will just 
mention one. Apple Products Research and Education Council, Association 
for Dressings and Sauces, Frozen Potato Products Institute. I guess 
that is mainly Idaho. We mentioned earlier the H.J. Heinz company. 
Maybe we will ask the gentleman on the other side of the Capitol how 
they came to the conclusion to support this bill. The National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Fisheries Institute, Nestle 
USA, Quaker Oats, Sarah Lee Corporation, United Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetable Association. That has got to be very important in the State 
of Washington.
  So I say to the gentleman, I do not know about K Street. I do not 
know that I have ever been there. But I know that these are hardworking 
people, businesses, small business in many instances, that produce 
these consumer food products that are engaged in interstate commerce, 
and if we do not have national standards, the price of their products 
goes up tremendously. And who does it put the greatest burden on? Those 
at the least economic level of our society, our poorest citizens and 
our immigrant population. So this is a good bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
defeating the previous question so that we may offer a proposal to 
ensure that America's ports remain safe.
  As we all know, a company owned by the government of the United Arab 
Emirates is attempting to purchase another company that runs several 
port terminals throughout the United States.
  Even though the law requires an extra 45 days to investigate a 
contract like this if there is even a chance that it could threaten 
national security, the Bush administration chose to approve the deal 
without the extra investigation.
  The administration approved the deal, even though we now know that a 
classified Coast Guard report said the deal might be a security risk.
  The President and the UAE company have now voluntarily agreed to an 
extra 45-day investigation. But that is no longer good enough. We 
simply cannot trust this administration to get it right.
  If we defeat the previous question, we will offer a bipartisan bill 
that I have introduced along with chairman of the Homeland Security 
Committee, Peter King, giving Congress the authority to prohibit the 
deal if the President decides to let us go forward when the 
investigation is over.
  Mr. Speaker, an extra provision has been added to Chairman King's 
bill to ensure that congressional leadership

[[Page H526]]

cannot prevent Congress from taking action. The UAE deal is just 
further proof that we cannot get our port security right with this 
administration.
  The 9/11 Commission said that the threat to our ports is as great, if 
not greater, than the 9/11 attacks.
  And how has this administration responded? It has not dedicated 
enough personnel and resources to the two programs, CSI and CT-PAT, 
that are designed to secure our ports. As a result, high-risk container 
shipments enter the U.S. unchecked.
  It has not created standards for container security to keep 
terrorists from tampering with our cargo. It has only deployed 
radiation detectors to equip 25 percent of the Nation's seaports. It 
only screens about 6 percent of the cargo that comes into this country.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a problem. Our ports are not secure. By 
defeating this measure, we will give an opportunity for this Congress 
to vote on securing our ports.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for the 
purpose of closing.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California, our minority leader, Ms. Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as House Democratic leader, I am pleased to 
rise in opposition to this bill in that capacity, and sorry because of 
the nature of the rule that we have before us.
  But before I get to that point, I want to rise as a mother and 
grandmother to say something about the underlying bill that this rule 
is addressing. If there is one thing that America's families look to 
government for, it is clean air for their children to breathe, clean 
water for them to drink, and food safety. When I say one thing, I mean 
what their children intake is very important to their health and well-
being.
  Today on the floor, we have legislation which seriously jeopardizes 
the food safety for America's children. It is a bill that I urge all to 
vote against. And the rule that brings that bill to the floor is, in my 
view, one that allows us to speak to safety in another way as well.

                              {time}  1200

  Yesterday marked the third anniversary of the Homeland Security 
Department. Yet today, 3 years later, our country is not as safe as it 
should be. We have a port security system that is full of holes.
  The ports are our first line of defense in protecting our country. 
Yet the backroom port deal that the Bush administration negotiated 
shines a bright light on the failure of the President and this 
Republican Congress to secure our ports.
  The intelligence community tells us, and we know, that the biggest 
threat to our security are the fissile materials that are still out 
there, the nuclear materials in the post-Soviet Union world. They were 
formerly weapons of the Soviet Union, and now they are out there 
available, available to terrorists. And the single biggest threat are 
those weapons in a container coming into our country.
  I really cannot explain to anyone why this administration has refused 
to do what is necessary to protect our ports from that threat.
  And it is not only our ports. When these containers come from 
overseas to our country, they are unloaded onto a truck, onto a train, 
and drive right through your city, your town, perhaps past your home. 
So the danger goes well beyond our ports.
  Here at home 6 percent of the containers entering our ports are 
screened. Yet, at two of the busiest terminals in the world, in Hong 
Kong, 100 percent of the terminals are screened. If Hong Kong terminals 
can do it, why can't we?
  That is why Democrats are proposing that 100 percent of the cargo 
that comes into our ports is screened in their port of origin long 
before they reach our shores and into our waterways.
  Today, as we debate and vote on another issue of security, food 
safety, Democrats demand that attention be given to our ports. We will 
call for a vote on a bipartisan bill that is identical to the King 
bill, the King-Thompson bill, introduced by a Republican and a Democrat 
on the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. King, the chairman of the 
committee, and Mr. Thompson, the ranking member. It will require a 45-
day investigation of the Dubai deal. In addition, we require that both 
Houses of Congress have an up-or-down vote on whether or not to approve 
this agreement.
  Congress must assert itself. Congress must take responsibility. We 
take an oath of office to protect the American people, and we take that 
oath seriously.
  Today is the day that the backroom port deal will be finalized. This 
is our best chance to require a congressional vote on whether or not 
that backroom deal should go through.
  I urge my colleagues to assert Congress' responsibility to protect 
the American people, to assert Congress' role in checks and balances in 
our Constitution.
  I urge our colleagues to vote against the previous question.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time for the purpose of closing.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so 
I can amend the rule and allow the House to approve a plan that lets 
Congress vote up or down on the President's plan to turn over six of 
our Nation's ports to a government-run company in Dubai.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, my amendment to the rule would provide that 
immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up 
legislation to guarantee that the House will have the opportunity to 
vote to block the President from moving forward with his deal to 
transfer operations at six of our Nation's busiest ports to a company 
owned by the United Arab Emirates.
  This legislation is nearly identical to a measure introduced by the 
chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee that 
requires a thorough, in-depth, 45-day investigation of this contract 
followed by a report back to Congress on the results of that 
investigation. The only difference is that this bill requires a vote in 
the House and Senate to block the agreement if the President decides to 
proceed.
  The same administration that talks tough on terrorism and protecting 
Americans on every front has now negotiated a secret, backroom deal to 
turn the management of these vital ports over to a foreign entity. And 
it has done so without going through the proper channels as required by 
law and without including Congress in the process.
  The House must have the opportunity to play a role in this matter of 
national security. It is time for the Republican-controlled Congress to 
stop giving rubber-stamp approval to this administration at the expense 
of our Nation's citizens. This bill is the only way to guarantee that 
the House and Senate have the opportunity to vote on the Dubai deal, a 
vote that cannot be blocked by the Republican leadership.
  Whatever Members believe about this deal and whatever results from 
this investigation, the House should be allowed to vote up or down on 
whether or not we want to turn control of six of our Nation's ports 
over to this foreign-government-owned entity.
  I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so we can bring up legislation that gives Congress the right 
to participate and to vote on this matter of significant national 
security. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Getting back to the subject at hand, H.R. 4167, I will draw this 
debate to a close so that we can move forward with consideration of 
H.R. 4167. Without question, this is a common-sense bill that will 
ensure not only economic savings for consumers, but it will also 
provide additional safeguards for their health. We have heard a lot of 
discussion about that this morning in this hour.

[[Page H527]]

  Mr. Speaker, all consumers should have the same access to safety 
precautions and lifesaving information regardless of the State in which 
they live. And, again, whether it is California or Georgia or your own 
State of Arkansas, there is no excuse to allow regulatory inconsistency 
to drive up costs and keep some consumers in the dark on matters that 
will affect their health.
  As a physician, I am convinced that the FDA has the scientific 
knowledge and professional expertise to provide for these safeguards, 
Mr. Speaker. But as an ardent supporter of States' rights, I am 
personally reassured by the bill's provisions allowing States the 
ability to petition the Food and Drug Administration for either an 
exemption to the uniformity or application of their State's 
requirements on a national level.
  I want to encourage my colleagues to support this rule, to move 
forward with the general debate today so that we can come back next 
week to further discuss the underlying bill and potential amendments.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me remind all of my colleagues that the 
minority wants to offer an amendment that would otherwise be ruled out 
of order as nongermane. So the vote is without substance. The previous 
question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to close this debate 
on the rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The vote has no 
substantive policy implications whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point in the Record I insert an explanation of 
the previous question.

             The Previous Question Vote: What Does It Mean?

       House Rule XIX (``Previous Question'') provides in part 
     that:
       There shall be a motion for the previous question, which, 
     being ordered, shall have the effect of cutting off all 
     debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the 
     immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered.
       In the case of a special rule or order of business 
     resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing 
     for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the 
     previous question is moved following the 1 hour of debate 
     allowed for under House Rules.
       The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural 
     vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting 
     the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and 
     amendment on the legislation it would make in order. 
     Therefore, the previous question has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

  The material previously referred to by Ms. Matsui is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House a bill consisting of the text 
     specified in Section 3. The bill shall be considered as read 
     for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) 60 minutes of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Homeland Security; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3. The text referred to in section 2 is as follows:

                                H.R. --

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Foreign Investment Security 
     Improvement Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. INVESTIGATION UNDER DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950.

       (a) Investigation.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the President or the President's designee shall conduct 
     an investigation, under section 721(b) of the Defense 
     Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170(b)), of the 
     acquisition by Dubai Ports World, an entity owned or 
     controlled by the Emirate of Dubai, of the Peninsular and 
     Oriental Steam Navigation Company, a company that is a 
     national of the United Kingdom, with respect to which written 
     notification was submitted to the Committee on Foreign 
     Investment in the United States on December 15, 2005. Such 
     investigation shall be completed not later than 45 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Suspension of existing decision.--The President shall 
     suspend any decision by the President or the President's 
     designee pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production 
     Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) with respect to the 
     acquisition described in paragraph (1) that was made before 
     the completion of the investigation described in paragraph 
     (1), including any such decision made before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Requirements for Investigation.--The investigation 
     under subsection (a) shall include--
       (1) a review of foreign port assessments conducted under 
     section 70108 of title 46, United States Code, of ports at 
     which Dubai Ports World carries out operations;
       (2) background checks of appropriate officers and security 
     personnel of Dubai Ports World;
       (3) an evaluation of the impact on port security in the 
     United States by reason of control by Dubai Ports World of 
     operations at the United States ports affected by the 
     acquisition described in subsection (a); and
       (4) an evaluation of the impact on the national security of 
     the United States by reason of control by Dubai Ports World 
     of operations at the United States ports affected by the 
     acquisition described in subsection (a), to be carried out in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the 
     Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Commissioner of the Bureau 
     of Customs and Border Protection, the heads of other relevant 
     Federal departments and agencies, and relevant State and 
     local officials responsible for port security at such United 
     States ports.
       (c) Responsibilities of the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     provide the following information for the investigation 
     conducted pursuant to this section:
       (A) Any relevant information on Dubai Ports World from the 
     Automated Targeting System maintained by U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection.
       (B) Port assessments at foreign seaports where Dubai Ports 
     World operates, to be conducted as part of the review for the 
     Container Security Initiative, a U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection program designed to target and screen cargo at 
     overseas ports.
       (C) Copies of the completed validations conducted through 
     the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program by 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
       (D) Any additional intelligence information held by the 
     Department of Homeland Security, including the Office of 
     Intelligence and Analysis.
       (2) Additional responsibilities.--The information required 
     by paragraph (1) shall not be construed as limiting the 
     responsibilities of the Secretary of Homeland Security in the 
     investigation conducted pursuant to this section.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 15 days after the date on which 
     the investigation conducted pursuant to this section is 
     completed, the President shall submit to Congress a report 
     that--
       (1) contains the findings of the investigation, including--
       (A) an analysis of the national security concerns reviewed 
     under the investigation; and
       (B) a description of any assurances provided to the Federal 
     Government by the applicant and the effect of such assurances 
     on the national security of the United States; and
       (2) contains the determination of the President of whether 
     or not the President will take action under section 721(d) of 
     the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170(d)) 
     pursuant to the investigation.
       (e) Congressional Briefing.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than the date on which the 
     report described in subsection (d) is submitted to Congress 
     pursuant to such subsection, the President or the President's 
     designee shall provide to the Members of Congress specified 
     in paragraph (2) a detailed briefing on the contents of the 
     report.
       (2) Members of congress.--The Members of Congress specified 
     in this paragraph are the following:
       (A) The Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the Senate.
       (B) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (C) The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Committee on 
     Finance, and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
       (D) The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services, the Committee on Homeland Security, and 
     the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (E) Each Member of Congress who represents a State or 
     district in which a United States port affected by the 
     acquisition described in subsection (a) is located.

     SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.

       (a) In General.--If the determination of the President 
     contained in the report submitted to Congress pursuant to 
     section 2(c) of this Act is that the President will not take 
     action under section 721(d) of the Defense Production Act of 
     1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170(d)) and not later than 30 days 
     after the date on which Congress receives the report, a joint 
     resolution described in subsection (b) is enacted into law, 
     then the President shall take such action under section 
     721(d) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 as is necessary 
     to prohibit the acquisition described in section 2(a), 
     including, if such acquisition has been completed, directing 
     the Attorney General to seek divestment or other appropriate 
     relief in the district courts of the United States.
       (b) Joint Resolution Described.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a), the term ``joint resolution'' means a joint resolution 
     of the Congress, which may not include a preamble, the sole 
     matter after the resolving clause of

[[Page H528]]

     which is as follows: ``That the Congress disapproves the 
     determination of the President contained in the report 
     submitted to Congress pursuant to section 2(c) of the Foreign 
     Investment Security Improvement Act of 2006 on ______.'', 
     with the blank space being filled with the appropriate date.
       (c) Computation of Review Period.--In computing the 30-day 
     period referred to in subsection (a), there shall be excluded 
     any day described in section 154(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2194(b)).
       (d) Congressional Procedure.--
       (1) Introduction, referral, and committee consideration.--
     Any joint resolution introduced pursuant to this section 
     shall be immediately referred to one committee of the House 
     of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be, and 
     such committee shall report one such resolution, without 
     amendment, not later than three calendar days after the day 
     on which the first such resolution is referred to such 
     committee. If such committee does not report such resolution 
     within the time period specified in the preceding sentence, 
     such committee shall be discharged from further consideration 
     of such resolution.
       (2) Floor consideration.--After any such joint resolution 
     is reported or such committee is discharged, on the next 
     legislative day, the House in question shall immediately, 
     without the intervention of any point of order or intervening 
     motion, consider the joint resolution as follows:
       (A) House of representatives.--In the House of 
     Representatives, the joint resolution shall be considered as 
     read, and the previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one hour of debate equally divided 
     and controlled by the Majority and Minority Leaders or their 
     designees.
       (B) Senate.--In the Senate, it shall at any time be in 
     order (even though a previous motion to the same effect has 
     been disagreed to) for any Member of the Senate to move to 
     proceed to the consideration of such joint resolution. Such 
     motion shall be highly privileged and shall not be debatable. 
     Such motion shall not be subject to amendment, to a motion to 
     postpone, or to a motion to proceed to the consideration of 
     other business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which such 
     motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If 
     a motion to proceed to the consideration of such resolution 
     is agreed to, such resolution shall remain the unfinished 
     business of the Senate until disposed of. Debate on such 
     joint resolution, and on all debatable motions and appeals in 
     connection with such resolution, shall be limited to not more 
     than 10 hours, which shall be divided equally between Members 
     favoring and Members opposing such resolution. Immediately 
     following the conclusion of the debate on a such joint 
     resolution, and a single quorum call at the conclusion of 
     such debate if requested in accordance with the rules of the 
     Senate, the vote on final approval of such joint resolution 
     shall occur. Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating 
     to the application of the rules of the Senate to the 
     procedure relating to such joint resolution shall be decided 
     without debate.
       (3) Consideration by other house.--If, before the passage 
     by one House of a joint resolution of that House described in 
     subsection (b), that House receives from the other House a 
     joint resolution described in subsection (b), then the 
     following procedures shall apply:
       (A) The joint resolution of the other House shall not be 
     referred to a committee.
       (B) With respect to a joint resolution described in 
     subsection (b) of the House receiving the joint resolution--
       (i) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if no 
     joint resolution had been received from the other House; but
       (ii) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint 
     resolution of the other House.
       (e) Rules of the House of Representatives and Senate.--This 
     section is enacted as an exercise of the rulemaking power of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, 
     and as such these provisions--
       (1) are deemed a part of the rules of each House, 
     respectively, but applicable only with respect to the 
     procedure to be followed in that House in the case of joint 
     resolutions described in subsection (b) of this section;
       (2) supersede other rules of each House only to the extent 
     the provisions are inconsistent therewith; and
       (3) are enacted with full recognition of the constitutional 
     right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating 
     to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same 
     manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other 
     rule of that House.

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MATSUI. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 197, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 18]

                               YEAS--216

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders

[[Page H529]]


     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bono
     Burton (IN)
     Costa
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Evans
     Gohmert
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Issa
     Istook
     Jones (OH)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Roybal-Allard
     Sweeney
     Terry

                              {time}  1234

  Messrs. RUSH, PETERSON of Minnesota, CRAMER, VISCLOSKY, LARSEN of 
Washington, MARSHALL, and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I was absent on Thursday, March 2, 2006, 
because of a recent death in the family.
  Had I been present on rollcall vote No. 18 on the Previous Question 
on the General Debate Rule for H.R. 4167, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, due to illness I was regrettably 
unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall vote No. 18, providing for 
the consideration of H.R. 4167, the ``National Uniformity for Food 
Act.''
  Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 18.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and could not be 
present for rollcall vote No. 18. Had I been present I would have cast 
the following vote: ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 18.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Buyer was allowed to speak out of order.)


        Moment of Silence in Memory of Sergeant Rickey E. Jones

  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House to address a national 
virtue, to address the proper tone and tenor of a Nation. It is 
outrageous, appalling and indecent for an American citizen to commit 
crimes and perversions against a family grieving at the loss of their 
son.
  Army Sergeant Rickey Jones, along with three of his comrades, was 
killed in Baghdad. With his body in transport to Kokomo, Indiana, 
someone has egged his family's home and left harassing phone calls that 
said, ``I'm glad your son is dead.''
  My colleagues, a great virtue of the American character is our 
compassion. It is how we care for each other in good times and in 
difficult times.
  It is our compassion and human decency that represent the very best 
of our Nation. So to condemn these despicable acts, I ask all of you to 
rise and join me in a moment of silence to extend to all families who 
have sacrificed in the name of freedom.
  Thank you and Godspeed.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). Without objection, 5-minute 
voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________