[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 8, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H727-H736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER 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 710 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 710
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 further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 4167) to amend the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for uniform food
safety warning notification requirements, and for other
purposes. No further general debate shall be in order. The
bill shall be considered as read. The bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment shall
be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
{time} 1415
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). 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 New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
(Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 710 provides for further
consideration of the bill under a structured rule. Having discussed
this last week on general debate, it provides that no further general
debate shall be in order, it makes in order only those amendments that
are printed in the report, it provides that the amendments printed in
the report may be offered only in the order that they are printed in
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report,
and shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against the
amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
[[Page H728]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 710 and the
underlying bill, H.R. 4167, the National Food Uniformity Act of 2005.
Mr. Speaker, today the House will resume consideration of the
National Food Uniformity Act of 2005 after having conducted general
debate on the overall bill last Thursday, and this rule will allow us
to move forward with the consideration of several amendments, most
which are Democratic-sponsored amendments.
As I mentioned last week, currently food regulation is composed of a
variety of different and sometimes inconsistent State requirements.
Collectively, this hodgepodge of regulations not only inhibits
interstate commerce, but it also drives up the cost for consumers.
Mr. Speaker, these different regulations from State to State for the
same product create too many unnecessary costs and they jeopardize the
well-being of consumers nationwide. Make no mistake, businesses cannot
simply and completely absorb these unnecessary and additional costs,
and therefore the consumers across this Nation, they are the ones who
absorb the expense for labeling inconsistencies.
Without question, lower-income citizens truly feel the brunt of any
additional cost to their food bill. Feeding one's family is not
optional, and therefore any reduction to the cost of food will lower
the cost of food products and help to ensure food on every table
regardless of income.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not designed to deprive the
public of life- or health-saving knowledge but, rather, to ensure that
all consumers regardless of geography have this knowledge. If the
Department of Health, as an example, in New York learns that a candy
bar a day can give you tooth decay, then the citizens of Georgia as
well as the citizens from each and every State should have access to
that same knowledge through the FDA. This simply makes sense and has
the potential to prevent future illnesses and save lives.
Further, while I have already spoken at length about the overall
benefits of this bill, I would like to discuss one particular criticism
made by the opponents. I have heard some say this bill is an assault on
States rights. Well, I am an ardent supporter of States rights and I
can attest this legislation is not designed to step on any State's
toes. This bill does, however, guarantee all citizens access to the
same information and warnings concerning their food while ensuring
States not only can petition for their labeling requirement to be made
part of the national standard, but they also can obtain a waiver for
their State's requirement even though it need not be applicable to the
other 49.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4167 is a commonsense piece of legislation that not
only seeks to ensure nationwide knowledge of potentially lifesaving
information but also to drive down costs for all consumers.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the rule
and move forward with a thoughtful debate on the amendments and support
final passage of the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us addresses a fictional problem. Simply
put, the Nation's largest food companies think that States are giving
consumers too much information about the food they use to feed their
families.
Along with the corporate lobbyists who wrote this bill, and we all
know who they were because the paper printed them this week, these
companies think it is wrong that States tell people when the bottled
water on their supermarket shelves has high levels of arsenic.
They think it is wrong to inform a pregnant woman that eating
mercury-laden fish could do serious damage to a fetus. And what about
letting people know that their ground beef was treated with carbon
monoxide? That apparently is wrong too. And I want to elaborate on that
for just a moment. Many stores now buy their meat from common suppliers
instead of having their own butchers at hand. In order to keep it
looking fresh and looking better for a longer time, they treat it with
carbon monoxide. You know, if you die from carbon monoxide poisoning,
you turn a nice, bright, pink-red, which is what their meat does, and
then they can keep it even for months. I saw a picture of one from
November that it looked like it had just been butchered yesterday.
That is apparently wrong too. Do you want to eat that?
They want us to buy more and think less about health and safety and
that alone is the motivation behind this bill. Supporters of the bill
claim all they want to do is to make consumer protections the same for
all Americans. But that is not what this bill will do. Most States
already give their citizens much more information about the food than
the Food and Drug Administration even requires. In fact, 80 percent of
the food safety work performed in the United States is done by State
and local officials. They are the ones with the expertise, the on-the-
ground experience, and are needed to keep consumers safe, and they have
been doing a good job. But this law will allow the FDA to invalidate
State labeling laws and apply their own lower standards nationwide.
Listen, mothers, this is important. The consequences of this bill are
going to be drastic. Within a matter of months, 200 State food safety
laws will be wiped off the books. Will they be the ones that protect
your child from an asthma attack or from dyes that would hurt them?
The experienced State health officials who want their regulations
back are going to have to come, hat in hand, to the FDA and ask for
permission to give their States more information than the Federal
Government requires, which is paltry. They will have to plead with the
FDA bureaucrats to keep the food safety laws in place, laws that their
own legislatures and citizens have already established. In other words,
they would have to seek approval from an agency that does not keep us
safe anymore, an agency that cannot meet its current workload, and
that, as we all know, has been in the business of approving drugs that
turned out to be killing people and had to be removed from the market.
Now, I grew up believing that the FDA took care of me. And that was a
lot like believing in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, because if I
have learned one thing in the last 5 years, it is the FDA cannot do
that. But suddenly the party of States' rights and small government
wants to forget about both. Instead, it wants to send quality State
regulations that are protecting Americans into a bureaucratic black
hole.
Mr. Speaker, the people and organizations most concerned about the
safety of our Nation's food stand in strong opposition to this bill.
Attorneys General and public health and safety officials from all over
the United States, in fact most of them, if not all of them, have come
out against it and begged us not to pass it. In fact, the Association
of Food and Drug Officials recently wrote a letter to the
Representative who sponsored this bill, asking him to reconsider his
own legislation.
He said, ``Members of the AFDO are State and local governments with
no profit motive.'' That is the key here. These people have no profit
motive, merely a public health concern, who feel strongly that the
legislation will gravely impair State and local authorities' ability to
protect their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, that letter is as follows:
The National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture,
Washington, DC, February 27, 2006.
Dear Members of Congress: The National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) is writing to reiterate
our concern and strong opposition to H.R. 4167, the National
Uniformity for Foods Act. NASDA represents the commissioners,
secretaries and directors of the state departments of
agriculture in the fifty states and four territories.
The House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 4167 this week and
we urge you to oppose this legislation. The state departments
of agriculture are very concerned that this bill goes far
beyond its stated purpose of providing uniform food safety
warning notification requirements and greatly expands federal
preemption under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Such
additional preemptions would seriously compromise our ability
to enact laws and issue rules in numerous areas of food
safety. Specifically, we believe the bill as currently
written threatens existing state food safety programs and
jeopardizes state/
[[Page H729]]
federal food safety cooperative programs such as those
related to Grade A milk, retail food protection and shellfish
sanitation.
As you know, the current food safety regulatory system in
the United States is the shared responsibility of local,
state and federal partners. Approximately 80% of food safety
inspections in the nation are completed at state and local
levels. It is imperative that states have the right to act
quickly to address local and statewide public health concerns
that cannot be anticipated or are not adequately addressed
nationally. In addition, our existing food safety system
forms the first line of defense against the threat of a
terrorist attack against our nation's food supply. Passage of
this legislation will undermine the authority of state laws
and programs that address adulterated foods, including animal
feed, commodity laws and other food defense programs.
NASDA firmly believes the preemption of state and local
food safety programs would leave a critical gap in the safety
net that protects consumers. We call on Congress to hold
hearings to discuss these critical issues and seek full input
from state and local partners in the food safety system.
NASDA would welcome the opportunity to discuss ways the bill
could be amended to achieve its intent while limiting the
impact on critical food safety regulatory programs at the
local and state levels.
Now is not the time to pass H.R. 4167 and we urge you to
oppose this legislation until these important issues are
addressed.
Sincerely,
J. Carlton Courter III,
President.
As is often the case, the bill before us does more than provide just
another example of how private interests trumped the public good in
today's Congress. It also shows us how broken and undemocratic our
political system has become. No hearings were held on this legislation.
No State and no local public health officials were called to testify
about it, even though they offered.
Both the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and
the Association of Food and Drug Officials expressed their willingness
to talk to Congress about the issue, but they were turned away. These
dedicated public servants were ignored because this legislation could
never have withstood proper scrutiny. It was written with special
interests in mind, not the public interests, pure and simple.
Last year the majority pledged honest and immediate reform of the way
Congress wrote its bills, because when the public caught on to what was
going on here, there was a great outcry. And yet here we are, in a new
year, doing the very same thing: handing over the public interests to
private corporations.
I wish we had an open and democratic process in this House. We need
to stop passing bills that hold the public interest in contempt, and we
need to start today. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the gentlewoman in regard to the
amendment process, there are six amendments made in order. One, of
course, is a manager's amendment which just makes very technical
changes, as everybody knows. So really four out of five of the
amendments that the Rules Committee have made in order on this bill are
Democratic amendments.
The gentlewoman brought up the issue about Mr. Stupak's amendment and
the use of carbon monoxide in regard to making meat continue to have a
fresh appearance. Carbon monoxide has been used for 4 years in not only
meats but other processed foods. It is perfectly safe. There is an
herbal food company that has some other process that they use to do the
same thing, to make food products, in particular, meat, maintain their
redness and fresh appearance for a longer period of time. There is
absolutely, absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the process that has
been in place and approved by the FDA for more than 4 years in any way,
shape or form is harmful. So that is the reason why that particular
amendment was not made in order.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I have never made a speech like this before.
I am cosponsor of this bill. I think like a businessman, because our
companies do need uniformity and simplicity. But I am outraged that a
bill like this would come through the House of Representatives without
a single hearing. That is the job of Congress, to hold hearings, to
find out the facts, to listen to the debate, to sometimes participate
in the debate to hear the pros and cons.
I am wondering right now what the food industry is afraid of. Why are
they trying to ram this piece of legislation through this House?
Now, if we were to have hearings, I may well vote for the bill
because I am predisposed that way. It makes sense to me. But I am not
for a cover-up, and that is exactly what you get when you have no
hearings on legislation.
This body needs to do its job. So I would urge my colleagues and
staff who are watching on television, reconsider, even if your boss has
cosponsored this bill. Because what are we afraid of? We need hearings
on this bill.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all Members to direct
their remarks to the Chair, not to the television audience.
{time} 1430
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds just in response
to the gentleman from Tennessee.
The gentleman acknowledged, Mr. Speaker, that he is a cosponsor on
the bill and in all probability will vote to support the bill. I know
he has some concerns over process, but he used the phrase ``coverup,''
and I noticed the gentleman is very intelligent. If there were any
coverup involved in this bill, he certainly would not have his name
attached to it, nor would he be acknowledging that he would probably
support it.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
4167, the National Food Uniformity for Food Act, and the rule under
which this bill is being considered. If passed, this bill will be a
huge setback to consumer safety, public health, and America's war on
terror.
This bill wipes out 200 food safety laws and puts our Nation's food
supply squarely in the hands of the FDA. State laws that will be
overturned include warnings regarding the risk of cancer, birth
defects, reproductive health issues, and allergic reactions associated
with sulfating agents in bulk foods. That is why 37 bipartisan State
attorneys general and the Association of State Food and Drug Officials
oppose this legislation.
The bill would also prevent States from passing laws regarding the
safety of packaged meat.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct your attention to these pictures.
Which meat do you think is older, the red meat on the top or the brown
on the bottom? Both are the same age. Both have been sitting in a
refrigerator side by side for 5 months.
The meat on the top has been packaged with carbon monoxide, which
causes the meat to look red and fresh long into the future. The meat on
the bottom has not. It is brown and slimy. Like I said, the meat on the
top is 5 months old and looks as good as new, but it is not. If
consumed, you could become severely ill from a food-borne pathogen like
e. coli and possibly die.
The FDA, without any independent studies, states it has ``no
objection'' to allowing meat to be packaged in carbon monoxide. The FDA
merely reviewed the meat industry carbon monoxide proposal. Review is
not the same as independent research and studies.
By allowing the injection of carbon monoxide in meat and seafood
packaging, the meat industry stands to gain $1 billion a year because
meat, as it turns brown, consumers reject it.
Numerous studies from 1972 through 2003 cite that color is the most
important factor that consumers rely on to determine freshness in
whether or not to buy the meat. The whole purpose behind this carbon
monoxide package is to extend the shelf life of meat and seafood and to
deceive the consumer into thinking it is fresh and safe.
Today States may pass their own laws to label meat that has been
packaged with carbon monoxide, but these laws will be overturned if
H.R. 4167 becomes law. My commonsense amendment would have allowed
States to
[[Page H730]]
label carbon monoxide-packaged meat so consumers would know that their
meat may not be as fresh as it looks. Unfortunately, my amendment was
rejected by the Rules Committee. This is what consumers have to work
with now. This will be the standard if H.R. 4167 passes.
Just as the FDA caved in to the meat industry in approving this
practice, the majority has caved in to the meat industry in blocking a
vote on my amendment. The House deserves a full and open and fair
debate on this issue and on my amendment.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4167.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last week it was brought up about the number of
organizations that were opposed to this bill. I want to submit for the
Record at this point a list of 119 from all 50 States across the Nation
that support this, small businessmen and women, large businesses,
including the H.J. Heinz Company and many, many others.
Groups Supporting H.R. 4167--The National Uniformity for Food Act of
2005
Last Updated: February 27, 2006.
Ahold, Albertson's, Altria Group, Inc., American Bakers
Association, American Beverage Association, American Feed
Industry Association, American Frozen Food Institute,
American Plastics Council, American Meat Institute, American
Spice Trade Association, and Animal Health Institute.
Apple Products Research and Education Council Association
for Dressings and Sauces, Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers
Association, Bush Brothers & Company, Business Roundtable,
Cadbury Schweppes plc, California Farm Bureau Federation,
California Grocers Association, California League of Food
Processors, California Manufacturers & Technoloy Association,
Calorie Control Council, and Campbell Soup Company.
Cargill, Incorporated, Chocolate Manufacturers Association,
The Coca-Cola Company, Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc., ConAgra
Foods, Inc., Council for Citizens Against Government Waste,
Dean Foods Company, Del Monte Foods, Diamond Foods, Inc.,
Flavor & Extract Manufacturers Association, and Flowers
Foods, Inc.
Food Marketing Institute, Food Products Association, Frito-
Lay, Frozen Potato Products Institute, General Mills, Inc.,
Gerber Products Company, Glass Packaging Institute, Godiva
Chocolatier Inc., Grain Foods Foundation, Grocery
Manufacturers Association, and H.J. Heinz Company.
The Hershey Company, Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Hormel Foods
Corporation, Independent Bakers Association, Institute of
Shortening and Edible Oils, International Association of
Color Manufacturers, International Bottled Water Association,
International Dairy Foods Association, International Food
Additives Council, International Foodservice Distributors
Association, and International Formula Council.
International Ice Cream Association, International Jelly
and Preserves Association, The J.M. Smucker Company, Jewel-
Osco, Kellogg Company, Kraft Foods, Inc., Land O' Lakes,
Inc., Maine Potato Board, Masterfoods USA, McCormick &
Company, Inc., and McKee Foods Corporation.
Milk Industry Foundation, The Minute Maid Company, National
Association of Convenience Stores, National Association of
Manufacturers, National Association of Margarine
Manufacturers, National Association of Wheat Growers,
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Cheese Institute,
National Chicken Council, and National Coffee Association of
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, and 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., and Pickle Packers' International.
The Procter & Gamble Company, Quaker Oats, Rich Products
Corporation, Rich SeaPak Corporation, Safeway, Sara Lee
Corporation, Sav-on Drugs, The Schwan Food Company, Snack
Food Association, Society of Glass and Ceramics Decorators,
and 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, and
Yoplait.
In regard to the gentleman from Michigan who just spoke about the
issue regarding the treatment of meats and this issue about carbon
monoxide, look, the same thing is done, as an example, I would not
think that he would be opposed to the use of lemon juice on apples to
keep them from turning brown. That is routinely done.
Let me also point out that the FDA and USDA have both approved the
use of carbon monoxide for over 4 years. The news report would lead one
to believe that carbon monoxide is being used to mask spoilage, but the
USDA discounted that assertion back in 2004.
In reality, this story is more a result of private companies with
older packaging technology unable to compete with newer competitors
that have a better product.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, as to meat and fish, as the gentleman knows,
the FDA just issued their rule not even 3 weeks ago, 4 weeks ago, and
they did it without any independent studies. They just said they just
reviewed it, no study, no research, no nothing.
So what you may use lemon juice on apples is a far cry different than
carbon monoxide on meat and seafood, and especially tuna, which most
people consume in a raw state.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as I say, this process
has been going on for over 4 years. I do not know that there have been
any reports of people harmed in any way by the process, and, again, I
think this is just a competitive issue between a company that has
herbal food or herbal products they are using and they would rather
those be used, and, sure, ban the other process and remove competition.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my
friend that there is a far cry between lemon juice, as Mr. Stupak said,
and carbon monoxide. Let me tell you, if you believe the FDA, ask the
people who took Vioxx. They do not have a very good record over there.
But the idea of putting carbon monoxide on there is to hide the fact
that the meat is on the verge of spoilage. I do not want to feed it to
my family, nor should you want to feed it to yours.
His list of people who support it have the profit motive that the
attorneys general and the State consumer representatives all told us
was the difference between them and his supporters.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer).
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentlewoman and the
gentleman from Michigan, but I want to speak about the previous
question, which the general public really does not understand.
But if we defeat the previous question, we get an opportunity to
offer an amendment to this piece of legislation. Because so few pieces
of legislation are passing this body, we have to take the opportunities
you get, and I appreciate that the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee Mr. Lewis has stated that he will insert language in the
supplemental appropriation bill this afternoon, a supplemental for the
war in Iraq and hurricane recovery, that will block the takeover of
major American seaports by a Dubai company owned by the United Arab
Emirates.
The Appropriations Committee will mark up that supplemental spending
bill today, and it may be considered on the House floor next week, but
the American people should harbor no illusions. We have absolutely no
idea when the other body will take up this spending bill. Moreover, we
have no idea of whether the Senate bill will even include a provision
that addresses the vital national security issue of who owns our ports.
In fact, just today, Senator Stevens, who chairs the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee, is quoted as saying, ``I believe it ought
to go through the 45-day review.'' So they are not going to take it up
very soon.
Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House has the opportunity right now
today to go on record as opposing the management of American seaports
by a company owned by a foreign government. Now, it is not owning the
seaports, but managing those seaports, and there is no excuse for not
doing so. We have the opportunity.
If we defeat the previous question, that will be our intent, to offer
an
[[Page H731]]
amendment to this bill, send it to the Senate, which will preclude
ownership of the management of the ports of America by the Dubai
corporation owned by the state. I urge every Member, oppose the
previous question on the rule in order to allow consideration of
language blocking the port deal.
Furthermore, I urge the American people to not lose sight of the
bigger issue. This administration and this Republican Congress have
failed to do what is necessary to protect our homeland and our people
from attack. Just last week Steven Flynn, a former Commander of the
Coast Guard and an expert on homeland security, testified before the
House Armed Services Committee, ``My assessment,'' this is the
Commander of the Coast Guard, now retired, ``My assessment is that the
security measures that are currently in place do not provide an
effective deterrent for a determined terrorist organization intent on
exploiting or targeting the maritime transportation system to strike at
the United States.''
Five years after the catastrophic attacks of September 11, there is
simply no excuse for these continuing vulnerabilities to our national
security. Today, by voting ``no'' on the previous question, we have an
opportunity to say no to the management of America's ports by
government-owned entities. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), my friend.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Gingrey) and appreciate you yielding me time, and I rise in
support of H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act and in
support of this rule.
Ensuring food safety is a partnership between the Federal Government
and the States. However, while it is a partnership, a national food
supply requires a national approach to food safety. H.R. 4167 would
allow for an orderly review of existing State regulations that may
differ from Federal regulations. The legislation carefully balances the
need for uniformity, while respecting the important role State and
local governments have in making sure our food supply is safe.
Under the current system States may impose contradictory regulations,
imposing unnecessary complexity and cost on food processors,
manufacturers and wholesalers throughout the United States. That
translates into costs that are passed on to the consumers, not to
mention the tax burden, Mr. Speaker, for administration of different
and duplicative regulations.
Science-based food warnings should be applied uniformly. If a warning
about food is supported by science, then consumers in all 50 States
should have the benefit of this warning. Inconsistent warning
requirements confuse consumers, which does not lead to sound
decisionmaking.
This bill will result in allowing States and the Federal Government
to work together in establishing science-based food safety policies.
Consumers are not protected well under a system where States adopt
different regulatory requirements on the same food products. Consumers
deserve a commonsense approach, a clear, single standard.
To speak to an example, a 2002 study conducted by Swedish scientists
that provided evidence to support that a substance with cancer-causing
properties called acrylamide was formed in some snacks and other foods
when fired or baked at very high temperatures, but since 2002 some
additional studies have confirmed these results, causing some States to
consider warning label requirements for foods containing acrylamide.
Specifically, in August of 2005, the California attorney general
filed a lawsuit against several different manufacturers of potato chips
and French fries and has requested a court order requiring companies to
label certain food products containing acrylamide with a warning of the
agent and its cancer-causing properties.
The Food and Drug Administration does not currently require States to
place a warning label on products which contain acrylamide after the
baking process. Therefore, enactment of H.R. 4167 would, for all
practical purposes, prohibit the State of California from requiring
food manufacturers to place an acrylamide warning on their products
unless the State filed a petition for exemption with the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, or unless the FDA decided to set California
as a requirement for the country as a whole.
This is a well-balanced bill, Mr. Speaker. It brings good, sound
science to the table, and it provides for a regulation and a means for
the States to make their case with the FDA so that the entire United
States of America can benefit from the wisdom of the Californians.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, after hearing the last speaker on the other
side of the aisle on this rule, he claimed this is a bill that is well-
balanced, thought through; it would lead to national regulations based
on science. That all sounds well and good, but it is just not true.
{time} 1445
This bill has never had a day of hearings. We don't know all that is
in this bill. You wonder why the Congress would do its work in this
way: a bill that has never had a hearing in the committee, even though
it has been around for three Congresses. Those who favor it have never
made a record of why they think it is necessary. The opponents from
most of the States, if you look at this map there are a few States we
have not heard from, but almost all the States attorneys general and
Governors and agriculture commissioners and the food and drug people in
those States oppose it, but they have never been able to come in and
tell the Congress why. So the other side has never had a chance, nor
has our side of the aisle, to hear testimony and to make a record, and
yet we are told this bill is well balanced.
Let me point out that the proponents of this legislation have said a
lot of different things. It has been almost like a covert legislative
campaign. They have sent people in from the districts, from some trade
association or other, and said to Members, this is a national
uniformity bill. It is just going to clarify the law. It is going to
require all the States to have the same rules so that we will not have
the burden on interstate commerce.
Well, they have never shown there is any burden on interstate
commerce. But it sounded so good that many Members cosponsored the bill
without fully understanding that this bill is going to overturn 200
State laws that protect our food supply. Why are we doing that? What is
broken about our system of federalism that allows the States to pass
laws to protect their own people? And now the proponents of this bill
want States to come, hat in hand, to the Food and Drug Administration,
a wonderful bureaucracy at the Federal level, not even elected people,
and that agency will decide whether the State laws can continue in
effect? They will have higher power than the States legislatures and
Governors?
That is not a well-balanced or well-thought-through piece of
legislation. And now we are on the floor arguing a rule that would so
severely limit the time for debate on all the amendments and this bill
that you have to ask yourself: Why is this going on? What are they
hiding from us? Why don't they want this bill to be held up to public
scrutiny through hearings? And why won't they let this bill be fully
debated on the floor of the House of Representatives by the people's
elected Representatives? Why do they have to rush this through?
Mr. Speaker, this is the early part of March. We have barely been in
session. We have been meeting 2\1/2\ days out of each week as we go
from recess in January to recess in February to recess in March. Let us
have another day. Congress can do its work. We don't have to rush out
to another CODEL or another junket. We ought to do our job and let
people come in and tell us what they think of bills and not get
steamrolled into something that no one has fully examined and that
would repeal State laws. So let us vote against this legislation.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. In response to
the gentleman from California, in regard to those 200 State laws that,
as he said, protect our food supply, Mr. Speaker, many if not most,
maybe not all, but
[[Page H732]]
many if not most of those State laws would be incorporated in the
national food label that is allowed by the FDA.
And in this bill in particular, and I know the gentleman is very
familiar with the bill, but let me just read a couple of provisions.
The provision allows both exemptions from national uniformity and the
adoption of a State requirement as a uniformed national standard, one
of those 200 he mentioned, any State may petition the FDA to obtain an
exemption from the requirement of national uniformity for a particular
requirement. The FDA may grant the exemption if the State or local
requirement protects an important public interest that would otherwise
be unprotected.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this provision recognizes that special
circumstances may justify a warning requirement in a particular State
like California, or a locality, even though that requirement should not
apply throughout the country. Thus, the need for local protection is
fully recognized under the legislation.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. The problem I have with what you are saying is that a
State has to go to the Food and Drug Administration and argue that
case, and they may then be allowed to continue their laws. But even if
there is no Federal law on the subject, the States may be stopped from
enforcing or even legislating in an area to give warnings or set up
standards for the safety of the food.
Why should States be required to go to a bureaucratic agency to have
permission to do what the Constitution of the United States permits
them to do, which is to police powers for the safety and health and
well-being of their own citizens? You, particularly from Georgia, ought
to appreciate States rights.
Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and certainly the
gentleman is right, I do honor and respect States rights, but the fact
that there are 200 laws today in the 50 States, there could be 800 a
year from now and there could be no end to this process.
I think in further responding to the gentleman's inquiry, certainly
it is appropriate that States in these situations would appeal to the
Federal Government, if you will, the FDA. And the decision to either
grant or not grant is not going to be based on anything but solid
science, on sound facts and not scare issues, like this issue over the
way meats or other foods are processed in a low-oxygen environment to
maintain their fresh appearance and their red color, that we have been
doing for 4 years in a perfectly safe manner.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the standard in this bill is not sound
science. The standard is for the FDA to decide if it unduly burdens
interstate commerce to allow a State to have its own law. Now, I do not
know how the FDA makes those kinds of decisions. They are a scientific
agency, but they are going to make one on interstate commerce? And I
suspect they will be influenced by the lobbyists, just like this whole
process has been influenced by the special interests and the lobbyists
that want to keep the States from protecting citizens in those States
from unsafe and unhealthy food.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is just another example of why
the people of this country need to fear this Congress and the people
who lead it. What this bill does is preempt State laws on food safety.
We have people who come down here to the floor of the House and argue
for States rights. Now they present to us a bill which denies States
rights; denies the States the ability to protect their citizens by
watching the food that they eat. All of those State laws are going to
be washed away by this legislation. It is probably even
unconstitutional. The Constitution provides the States with the
authority to protect its citizens. But we are now hearing from the
majority party that they want to pass a law which denies States that
right. No longer will they be able to protect their citizens.
Eighty percent of our Nation's food safety inspection is regulated by
State and local entities. As we have heard, there are 200 laws. It has
taken us more than 200 years to get those 200 laws in almost 50 States.
Those laws protect our people. Now they are going to turn that over to
the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA is not adequately protecting
the people of our country today with regard to drug safety. The FDA is
too close to the pharmaceutical companies. Yet now they are going to
pass a bill which stops the States from protecting citizens, whether
they are eating in a cafeteria, a lunchroom, a hospital, or some other
situation, from passing a law that is going to make certain that the
food that they are eating there is not going to cause them to be ill,
maybe poison them in some way.
That is what they want to do, have the Federal Government step in
here on top of the States, deny the States the right that they have
under the Constitution to protect the health and safety and welfare of
their citizens by passing legislation which preempts all of those State
laws. This is a very bad idea and it must be defeated.
The National Uniformity for Food Act is poorly-drafted legislation
that would preempt state law on food safety.
From Consumer's Union: ``This bill would eliminate critical state
laws that protect consumer health while leaving in place an inadequate
federal system based on the lowest common denominator of protection.
Eighty percent of our nation's food safety inspection is regulated on
the state and local levels.
If enacted, the measure would essentially abrogate at least 200 state
laws that build on federal law, as well as state laws that exist in the
absence of any federal regulation (such as state laws on items
including shellfish and smoked fish safety, milk, nursing home food,
and cafeteria food).
If states wished to continue enforcement of their laws, they would
need to petition FDA for permission.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the FDA could spend
upwards of $100 million over the next five years on those petitions.
The measure would also stop states from creating food labels if they
are not identical to federal labels.
The measure is opposed by the National Association of State District
Attorneys, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Humane
Society, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, which calls this a
``major health threat.''
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, in this debate we see the irony of the
majority leadership of the House of Representatives in a rather strange
way. They are rushing to get to the floor a provision that has barely
been debated and discussed, that is highly controversial, highly
technical, and not very well understood by a lot of people. An absolute
rush to get this to the floor.
The number one issue, I trust in most Members' districts, it sure is
in mine, is the urgent pendency of a deal that would turn over major
port operations throughout this country to a company wholly owned by
the United Arab Emirates, an ally of rather questionable and debatable
standing with the United States.
Now, this is going to happen, this port deal, if Congress does not
act. The President has made that very clear. And many of us believe
that we need to get to this floor right now, not later, legislation on
this issue so that the majority can work its will. Members on both
sides of the aisle have said this is what we need to be doing right
now. But there is nothing on the agenda to do anything about that.
Nothing.
We are going to go off for another recess, and who knows what is
going to be negotiated on this deal when we are gone? My sense is this
is what our constituents want us to debate and legislate on, the wisdom
or lack thereof of this port takeover deal.
We will have an opportunity by voting ``no'' on moving the previous
question to bring to this floor a piece of legislation the American
people really do want debated right now; don't want sent back to
committee for further hearings or further consideration.
[[Page H733]]
This is just bizarre. It is bizarre. A piece of legislation that
appears to be a solution in search of a problem is rushed to the floor
so it can be considered, and something that is acknowledged from coast
to coast by both parties in both Chambers as a huge problem cannot make
it to the floor at all.
Well, we have a chance to do something about that. Vote ``no'' on the
previous question and make the people's House reflect the people's
business.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, I was briefed
on current security and commerce issues by the executives of the Port
of Philadelphia. These men and women operate the world's largest
freshwater port and one of the Nation's strategic military seaports.
While there, we discussed the key role the Philadelphia and other
U.S. ports play in our national and global economy, the fact that the
United States is the leading maritime trading Nation in the world, and
how last year more than 11 million containers, carrying our basic
necessities and supplies, came to our Nation's ports and how our
seaports account for 75 percent of international commerce.
We also talked about how a significant disruption in our port system
would be devastating to our economy, causing massive shortages of food,
oil, and other vital commodities. Yet despite these facts and despite
universal agreement that our vessels, our containers, and ports are
potential terrorist targets, this administration approved a deal
allowing a United Arab Emirates-controlled company to oversee
operations at six major U.S. ports, including the Port of Philadelphia.
{time} 1500
My colleagues, this administration quietly tried to move this deal
forward without informing Congress or without informing the American
public. Even knowing the serious threats against us, this
administration relinquished its right to conduct an in-depth national
security investigation of this proposed acquisition and, instead,
approved the deal. It is unacceptable that this administration was
prepared to allow a country whose key agencies, including security and
monetary agencies, have allegedly been infiltrated by al Qaeda; and in
fact, this was a country which was the port of origin for two of
September 11's hijackers, and they want this company controlled by this
country to operate vital U.S. ports.
This administration has behaved with no accountability and no
responsibility regarding U.S. oversight and control of our ports. For
years, despite knowing the needs and the threats, this administration
repeatedly turned a blind eye to port security. Since September 11,
this administration has provided only 16 percent of the funds needed to
secure our ports, and has neglected to issue security standards for our
ports, including a long delay on important port worker ID cards. These
failures are outrageous and unacceptable.
So today, my Democratic colleagues and I are calling on Congress to
address one of the most immediate national security issues facing our
Nation and the American people today: Dubai Ports World deal. Clearly
we should take up this matter immediately before considering the
National Food Uniformity Act, legislation that tramples on our States
rights and fails to improve the health of our Nation's food supply.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I think we have so little time to talk about
this bill on the House floor, I wanted some of our colleagues to
understand what kind of laws we are talking about: State laws dealing
with adulterated food, emergency permit controls, unsafe food
additives, unsafe color additives, new animal drugs, animal feeds,
poisonous ingredients in food. These are laws that States have adopted
over the years and they are going to be swept away.
It is so inexplicable to me why we would want to do that. States
currently carry out 80 percent of food safety protection. There is no
evidence they have been acting irresponsibly or incompetently. And in
many cases, the Federal Government has never gotten around to looking
at these issues because they have deferred to the States on them. So
now the State laws will be struck unless the Federal Government allows
those State laws to stay in effect and that could mean, even though
there is no Federal warning law, for example, that would take its
place. We would have no law at the local or State level, or at the
Federal level. I guess the purpose of some of this legislation is to
keep the public from knowing about the harm that they may be exposed to
in food.
Now Mrs. Capps and a number of others are going to be offering an
amendment, the Capps-Stupak-Eshoo-Waxman amendment, that would say that
State laws that require notification of substances that may cause
cancer and birth defects in reproductive health all ought to be
permitted. I hope Members will vote for that amendment and vote against
this bill.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the point is, as we have stated repeatedly in regard to
this bill, if a State does appeal to the Federal Government, to the
FDA, for a labeling requirement that they have concerns about in their
particular State, no matter how long it takes the Federal Government to
respond, indeed if they do not respond, then that label requirement
will be applicable to that unique problem that that State has
recognized.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. It gives 180 days for the FDA to act. They do not have
the resources to do it, but they can simply say this is a burden on
interstate commerce, the State law is gone. It does not mean that the
State law stays in effect until the Federal Government establishes a
national standard. It could strike the State law and have no national
standard to replace it.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is a 180-day appeal
process, but if the Federal Government does not respond, it is my
understanding, and I will be glad to talk to the gentleman later if he
still thinks I am in error in my interpretation of this bill, but I
think the point that I made was an accurate statement with regard to
that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous
question, so that I can amend the rule to give the House an opportunity
to vote today, up or down, to block the President's plan to turn over
our Nation's ports to a government run by the country of Dubai.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, my amendment provides that immediately
after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up legislation that
stops the President from moving forward with his deal to transfer
operations at a number of our Nation's busiest ports to a company owned
by the United Arab Emirates.
Mr. Speaker, now more than ever, we need to ensure that Congress has
a voice in the outcome of this potentially dangerous and secretive
deal.
On Monday of this week, Great Britain's highest court refused to
consider an objection to the purchase of the British shipping company
by Dubai, thus clearing the way for the sale and potential takeover of
American ports by this company. Additionally, and many people may not
know this, news reports this week have revealed that the contract
negotiated by the Bush administration would impact more than just the
six ports mentioned in
[[Page H734]]
the initial reports. It would affect at least 22 ports in the United
States.
The more we learn about the agreement, the worse it gets, and the
clock is ticking on this deal and we must not allow more time to go by
without taking any action in this body.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a listing of ports that make up
the 22 ports.
Dubai Deal Now Includes 22 Ports
Washington.--The $6.8 billion deal British courts approved
today putting a Dubai-owned company in charge of significant
operations at six U.S. ports, also gives the company a lesser
role in other dockside activities at 16 other American
seaports. By purchasing London-based Peninsular and Oriental
Steam Navigation, DP World bought the publicly traded British
firm's concessions to manage and operate some cargo or
passenger terminal facilities in New York, New Jersey,
Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
The Department of Homeland Security has said DP World would
only operate and manage specific, individual terminals
located within six ports. Homeland Security says DP World
would operate one of Philadelphia's five terminals, not
including the port's single cruise ship terminal.
Last week, DP World formally submitted to an unusual,
broader security examination by the Bush administration over
the ports deal. Among the new cities included in the deal are
Camden, N.J. and Wilmington, Del.
Here is a list of all U.S. ports affected by the pending
sale of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation
Co. to Dubai-owned DP World:
BALTIMORE: Would manage and operate two of the port's 14
terminals.
BATON ROUGE, LA: DP Would run some stevedoring operations
at port's general cargo dock.
BEAMONT, TEXAS: Would run one of about six stevedoring
operations.
BOSTON: Operate Black Falcon Cruise Terminal with
Massachusetts Port Authority; would run stevedoring
operations at the Moran Automobile Terminal.
CAMDEN, N.J: Run some stevedoring operations, part owners
Delaware River Stevedores.
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS: Operate some stevedoring operations,
part of joint venture, Dix-Fairway.
DAVISVILLE, R.I: Run some stevedoring operations.
FREEPORT, TEXAS: Run some stevedoring operations.
GALVESTON, TEXAS: Run stevedoring operations at one
terminal.
GULFPORT, MISS: Would become one of two stevedoring
companies.
HOUSTON: Work with stevedoring contractors at three of
port's 12 terminals.
LAKE CHARLES, LA: Operate some stevedoring operations.
MIAMI: Operate/manage with Eller & Company Inc., one of
three terminals; doesn't include Miami's seven cruise ship
terminals and would operate some stevedoring services.
NEWARK: Operate and manage one of the port's four
terminals.
NEW ORLEANS: Manage and operate two of the port's five
terminals and doesn't include chemical-plant terminals along
the Mississippi River.
NEW YORK: Manage and operate the New York Cruise Terminal.
NORFOLK, VA: Involved with stevedoring activities at all
five port terminals and would not manage any of the
terminals.
PHILADELPHIA: Operate one of five terminals and doesn't
include the port's single cruise ship terminal.
PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS: Operate as one of three stevedoring
companies.
PORTLAND, MAINE: Operate as one of stevedoring companies
serving Portland's terminals and take over crane maintenance
at one terminal.
TAMPA, FLA: Operate/manage terminals under pending contract
negotiated Feb. 21; Port authority says will reconsider deal
if DP World deal is finalized; also provide some stevedoring
services.
WILMINGTON, DEL: Run some stevedoring operations as part
owners Delaware River Stevedores, one of two stevedoring
companies at the port.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous
question and then we can deal with this matter which has an urgency to
everyone in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will draw this debate to a close so we can move
forward with consideration of the amendments to H.R. 4167.
This bill should receive wide and bipartisan support because it does
ensure everyone has access to the same food labeling information. Why
would we want to deprive anyone of life- or health-saving information
while driving down the cost of products for all consumers?
Mr. Speaker, as I have previously mentioned, there is no reason, nor
is there any excuse to allow regulatory inconsistency to drive up cost
and keep some consumers in the dark on matters that may affect their
health.
As a physician Member of Congress, I have been and will remain
committed to supporting legislation that will prevent illness and save
lives.
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude my remarks by reminding my colleagues
that defeating the previous question that the other side of the aisle
is talking about, in fact used probably half of their allotted time to
discuss. This is an exercise in futility because the minority wants to
offer an amendment that otherwise would be ruled out of order, as they
know, as nongermane. So the vote is totally without substance.
The leadership of this House has already committed to bring forward
legislation next week in regard to this very sensitive issue that we
share on both sides of the aisle regarding port security. The previous
question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to close debate on
this rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The vote has no
substantive policy implications whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I include for the Record an explanation of
the previous question.
The Previous Question Vote: What Does It Mean?
House Rule XIX (``Previous Question'') provides in part
that:
There shall be a motion for the previous question, which,
being ordered, shall have the effect of cutting off all
debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the
immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered.
In the case of a special rule or order of business
resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing
for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the
previous question is moved following the one hour of debate
allowed for under House Rules.
The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural
vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting
the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and
amendment on the legislation it would make in order.
Therefore, the previous question has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.
In closing, I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support the rule, and let us move forward with debate on
several thoughtful amendments from both parties and ultimately
supporting the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Previous Question Statement on H. Res. 710
2nd Rule providing for consideration of amendments to H.R. 4167
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 Financial Services; and (2) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.''
Sec. 3. The text referred to in section 2 is as follows:
None of the funds made available in this Act or any other
Act may be used to take any action under section 721 of the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) or any
other provision of law to approve or otherwise allow the
acquisition of any leases, contracts, rights, or other
obligations of P&O Ports by Dubai Ports World or any other
legal entity affiliated with or controlled by Dubai Ports
World.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any prior
action or decision by or on behalf of the President under
section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C.
App. 2170), the acquisition of any leases, contracts, rights,
or other obligations of P&O Ports by Dubai Ports World or any
other legal entity affiliated with or controlled by Dubai
Ports World is hereby prohibited and shall have no effect.
(c) The limitation in subsection (a) and the prohibition in
subsection (b) applies with respect to the acquisition of any
leases, contracts, rights, or other obligations on or after
January 1, 2006.
(d) In this section:
(1) The term ``P&O Ports'' means P&O Ports, North America,
a United States subsidiary of the Peninsular and Oriental
Steam Navigation Company, a company that is a national of the
United Kingdom.
(2) The term ``Dubai Ports World'' means Dubai Ports World,
a company that is partly owned and controlled by the
Government of the United Arab Emirates.
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not
[[Page H735]]
merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the
previous question is a vote against the Republican majority
agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the
moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what
the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule * * * When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
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. SLAUGHTER. 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 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question on H. Res. 710 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 710, if ordered; motion to instruct
on H.R. 2830; motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 4192; motion to
suspend the rules on H.R. 1053; motion to suspend the rules on H. Res.
673; and motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 3505.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 198, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 21]
YEAS--223
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
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
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
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
Gohmert
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)
Issa
Istook
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)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
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
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
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--198
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
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
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.
Jones (OH)
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
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
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--11
Burton (IN)
Costa
Cubin
Evans
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Norwood
Schmidt
Sweeney
{time} 1535
Mrs. LOWEY, Mrs. CAPPS, Mrs. JONES of Ohio and Messrs. GORDON,
MEEHAN, BAIRD and BECERRA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
[[Page H736]]
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 21, legislative bells
failed to go off in my office. I came to the floor as soon as I was
notified of the vote, but arrived after the vote had closed. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________