[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.
____________________