[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.

                          ____________________