Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 29 (Wednesday, March 8, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 8, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H739-H758]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT OF 2005

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 710 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 4167.

{time} 1623

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Simmons (Acting Chairman) in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Thursday, March 2, 2006, all time for general debate pursuant to House
Resolution 702 had expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 710, no further general debate shall be
in order and the bill is considered read for amendment under the 5-
minute rule.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 4167

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``National Uniformity for Food
Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD.

(a) National Uniformity.--Section 403A(a) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343-1(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting
``, or'';
(3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) any requirement for a food described in section
402(a)(1), 402(a)(2), 402(a)(6), 402(a)(7), 402(c), 404, 406,
409, 512, or 721(a), that is not identical to the requirement
of such section.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of
paragraph (6) and section 403B, the term `identical' means
that the language under the laws of a State or a political
subdivision of a State is substantially the same language as
the comparable provision under this Act and that any
differences in language do not result in the imposition of
materially different requirements. For purposes of paragraph
(6), the term `any requirement for a food' does not refer to
provisions of this Act that relate to procedures for Federal
action under this Act.''.
(b) Uniformity in Food Safety Warning Notification
Requirements.--Chapter IV of such Act (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 403B and 403C as sections
403C and 403D, respectively; and

[[Page H740]]

(2) by inserting after section 403A the following new
section:

``SEC. 403B. UNIFORMITY IN FOOD SAFETY WARNING NOTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS.

``(a) Uniformity Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsections (c)
and (d), no State or political subdivision of a State may,
directly or indirectly, establish or continue in effect under
any authority any notification requirement for a food that
provides for a warning concerning the safety of the food, or
any component or package of the food, unless such a
notification requirement has been prescribed under the
authority of this Act and the State or political subdivision
notification requirement is identical to the notification
requirement prescribed under the authority of this Act.
``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of paragraph (1)--
``(A) the term `notification requirement' includes any
mandatory disclosure requirement relating to the
dissemination of information about a food by a manufacturer
or distributor of a food in any manner, such as through a
label, labeling, poster, public notice, advertising, or any
other means of communication, except as provided in paragraph
(3);
``(B) the term `warning', used with respect to a food,
means any statement, vignette, or other representation that
indicates, directly or by implication, that the food presents
or may present a hazard to health or safety; and
``(C) a reference to a notification requirement that
provides for a warning shall not be construed to refer to any
requirement or prohibition relating to food safety that does
not involve a notification requirement.
``(3) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit a State from conducting the State's
notification, disclosure, or other dissemination of
information, or to prohibit any action taken relating to a
mandatory recall, civil administrative order, embargo,
detention order, or court proceeding involving food
adulteration under a State statutory requirement identical to
a food adulteration requirement under this Act.
``(b) Review of Existing State Requirements.--
``(1) Existing state requirements; deferral.--Any
requirement that--
``(A)(i) is a State notification requirement that expressly
applies to a specified food or food component and that
provides for a warning described in subsection (a) that does
not meet the uniformity requirement specified in subsection
(a); or
``(ii) is a State food safety requirement described in
section 403A(6) that does not meet the uniformity requirement
specified in that paragraph; and
``(B) is in effect on the date of enactment of the National
Uniformity for Food Act of 2005, shall remain in effect for
180 days after that date of enactment.
``(2) State petitions.--With respect to a State
notification or food safety requirement that is described in
paragraph (1), the State may petition the Secretary for an
exemption or a national standard under subsection (c). If a
State submits such a petition within 180 days after the date
of enactment of the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005,
the notification or food safety requirement shall remain in
effect in accordance with subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3),
and the time periods and provisions specified in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of such paragraph shall apply in
lieu of the time periods and provisions specified in
subsection (c)(3) (but not the time periods and provisions
specified in subsection (d)(2)).
``(3) Action on petitions.--
``(A) Publication.--Not later than 270 days after the date
of enactment of the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005,
the Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register
concerning any petition submitted under paragraph (2) and
shall provide 180 days for public comment on the petition.
``(B) Time periods.--Not later than 360 days after the end
of the period for public comment, the Secretary shall take
final agency action on the petition.
``(C) Action.--
``(i) In general.--With respect to a State that submits to
the Secretary a petition in accordance with paragraph (2),
the notification or food safety requirement involved shall
remain in effect during the period beginning on the date of
enactment of the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005 and
ending on the applicable date under subclause (I) or (II), as
follows:

``(I) If the petition is denied by the Secretary, the date
of such denial.
``(II) If the petition is approved by the Secretary, the
effective date of the final rule that is promulgated under
subsection (c) to provide an exemption or national standard
pursuant to the petition, except that there is no applicable
ending date under this subparagraph for a provision of State
law that is part of such State requirement in any case in
which the final rule does not establish any condition
regarding such provision of law.

``(ii) Noncompliance of secretary regarding timeframes.--

``(I) Judicial review.--The failure of the Secretary to
comply with any requirement of subparagraph (A) or (B) shall
constitute final agency action for purposes of judicial
review. If the court conducting the review determines that
the Secretary has failed to comply with the requirement, the
court shall order the Secretary to comply within a period
determined to be appropriate by the court.
``(II) Status of state requirement.--With respect to a
State that submits to the Secretary a petition in accordance
with paragraph (2), if the Secretary fails to take final
agency action on the petition within the period that applies
under subparagraph (B), the notification or food safety
requirement involved remains in effect in accordance with
clause (i).

``(c) Exemptions and National Standards.--
``(1) Exemptions.--Any State may petition the Secretary to
provide by regulation an exemption from section 403A(a)(6) or
subsection (a), for a requirement of the State or a political
subdivision of the State. The Secretary may provide such an
exemption, under such conditions as the Secretary may impose,
for such a requirement that--
``(A) protects an important public interest that would
otherwise be unprotected, in the absence of the exemption;
``(B) would not cause any food to be in violation of any
applicable requirement or prohibition under Federal law; and
``(C) would not unduly burden interstate commerce,
balancing the importance of the public interest of the State
or political subdivision against the impact on interstate
commerce.
``(2) National standards.--Any State may petition the
Secretary to establish by regulation a national standard
respecting any requirement under this Act or the Fair
Packaging and Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) relating
to the regulation of a food.
``(3) Action on petitions.--
``(A) Publication.--Not later than 30 days after receipt of
any petition under paragraph (1) or (2), the Secretary shall
publish such petition in the Federal Register for public
comment during a period specified by the Secretary.
``(B) Time periods for action.--Not later than 60 days
after the end of the period for public comment, the Secretary
shall take final agency action on the petition or shall
inform the petitioner, in writing, the reasons that taking
the final agency action is not possible, the date by which
the final agency action will be taken, and the final agency
action that will be taken or is likely to be taken. In every
case, the Secretary shall take final agency action on the
petition not later than 120 days after the end of the period
for public comment.
``(4) Judicial review.--The failure of the Secretary to
comply with any requirement of this subsection shall
constitute final agency action for purposes of judicial
review. If the court conducting the review determines that
the Secretary has failed to comply with the requirement, the
court shall order the Secretary to comply within a period
determined to be appropriate by the court.
``(d) Imminent Hazard Authority.--
``(1) In general.--A State may establish a requirement that
would otherwise violate section 403A(a)(6) or subsection (a),
if--
``(A) the requirement is needed to address an imminent
hazard to health that is likely to result in serious adverse
health consequences or death;
``(B) the State has notified the Secretary about the matter
involved and the Secretary has not initiated enforcement
action with respect to the matter;
``(C) a petition is submitted by the State under subsection
(c) for an exemption or national standard relating to the
requirement not later than 30 days after the date that the
State establishes the requirement under this subsection; and
``(D) the State institutes enforcement action with respect
to the matter in compliance with State law within 30 days
after the date that the State establishes the requirement
under this subsection.
``(2) Action on petition.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall take final agency
action on any petition submitted under paragraph (1)(C) not
later than 7 days after the petition is received, and the
provisions of subsection (c) shall not apply to the petition.
``(B) Judicial review.--The failure of the Secretary to
comply with the requirement described in subparagraph (A)
shall constitute final agency action for purposes of judicial
review. If the court conducting the review determines that
the Secretary has failed to comply with the requirement, the
court shall order the Secretary to comply within a period
determined to be appropriate by the court.
``(3) Duration.--If a State establishes a requirement in
accordance with paragraph (1), the requirement may remain in
effect until the Secretary takes final agency action on a
petition submitted under paragraph (1)(C).
``(e) No Effect on Product Liability Law.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to modify or otherwise affect the
product liability law of any State.
``(f) No Effect on Identical Law.--Nothing in this section
relating to a food shall be construed to prevent a State or
political subdivision of a State from establishing,
enforcing, or continuing in effect a requirement that is
identical to a requirement of this Act, whether or not the
Secretary has promulgated a regulation or issued a policy
statement relating to the requirement.
``(g) No Effect on Certain State Law.--Nothing in this
section or section 403A relating to a food shall be construed
to prevent a State or political subdivision of a State from
establishing, enforcing, or continuing in effect a
requirement relating to--

[[Page H741]]

``(1) freshness dating, open date labeling, grade labeling,
a State inspection stamp, religious dietary labeling, organic
or natural designation, returnable bottle labeling, unit
pricing, or a statement of geographic origin; or
``(2) a consumer advisory relating to food sanitation that
is imposed on a food establishment, or that is recommended by
the Secretary, under part 3-6 of the Food Code issued by the
Food and Drug Administration and referred to in the notice
published at 64 Fed. Reg. 8576 (1999) (or any corresponding
similar provision of such a Code).
``(h) Definitions.--In section 403A and this section:
``(1) The term `requirement', used with respect to a
Federal action or prohibition, means a mandatory action or
prohibition established under this Act or the Fair Packaging
and Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), as appropriate, or
by a regulation issued under or by a court order relating to,
this Act or the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, as
appropriate.
``(2) The term `petition' means a petition submitted in
accordance with the provisions of section 10.30 of title 21,
Code of Federal Regulations, containing all data and
information relied upon by the petitioner to support an
exemption or a national standard.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 403A(b) of such Act (21
U.S.C. 343-1(b)) is amended by adding after and below
paragraph (3) the following:

``The requirements of paragraphs (3) and (4) of section
403B(c) shall apply to any such petition, in the same manner
and to the same extent as the requirements apply to a
petition described in section 403B(c).''.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4167, the
National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005.
As a senior member of the House Agriculture Committee, and a
cosponsor of this legislation, I support H.R. 4167, to establish a
uniform system of food safety and labeling requirements. This
legislation is both timely and necessary for security and consistency
in a global food economy. Currently, the United States operates under a
labeling standard that continues to vary from state to state, with each
state being able to create and enforce their own labeling requirements.
This creates uncertainty, confusion, and possible danger to the health
and well-being of the consumer; with one state requiring a certain
warning label on a product, and another setting a completely different
standard.
H.R. 4167 will create a single standard for food nutrition and
warning labeling based on the high safety standards that are set by the
United States Food and Drug Administration. This will be a national
standard that will be applicable to all states. This legislation will
continue to allow the FDA to work with states collaboratively in
establishing food safety policies and standards.
I understand the concerns some have raised about H.R. 4167, and I
voted for several amendments to make clear that I support reliable
standards for food safety and public health. Specifically, the Cardoza
amendment requires FDA to expedite state petitions involving a food
notification requirement for health effects dealing with cancer,
reproductive issues, birth defects, or information to parents or
guardians concerning children's risk to a certain food. In addition,
the Rogers Amendment prohibits H.R. 4167 from taking affect until after
the Department of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the
Department of Homeland Security, certifies that it will pose no
additional risk to the public health or safety from terrorist attacks
to the food supply. Finally, I support the Wasserman Schultz amendment
to prohibit federal law from affecting any state law, regulation,
prohibition, or other action that establishes a notification
requirement regarding the presence or potential effects of mercury in
fish and shellfish. H.R. 4167 is common sense legislation that was
designed to create uniformity and consistency in labeling to help and
protect the American consumer.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act. This bill puts commercial
food industry interests ahead of the rights of consumers to be warned
about food safety issues.
The National Uniformity for Food Act would preempt all state food
safety labeling protections, even if those protections have no effect
on interstate commerce. The bill also bars states from limiting
particular toxic chemicals in food, even if the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has not set standards for those chemicals. For
example, the current California requirement for point-of-sale warnings
about high mercury levels in certain fish would be eliminated if this
bill becomes law.
This bill is especially detrimental in states like California that
have gone to great lengths to protect consumers through strong food
safety labeling requirements. Requirements like California's
Proposition 65 have greatly reduced exposure to toxic chemicals in
food. California's food safety laws should be a model for the nation.
Instead, the grocery and commercial food industries have used their
influence in the halls of Congress in an attempt to destroy these laws.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the National Association of
State Departments of Agriculture, and many consumer groups oppose this
bill. Mr. Lockyer said in a letter to the California delegation that
the National Uniformity for Food Act ``would greatly impede our ability
to protect the health of Californians, both under Proposition 65 and
under other laws that could be adopted by the voters or our
legislature.''
I urge my all my colleagues to stand up for consumers, not
corporations, by voting no on the National Uniformity for Food Act.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act. H.R. 4167 is intended to
provide uniform food safety warnings and notifications. As written,
however, it would hinder my state of Illinois' ability to protect the
food supply and to respond quickly to local food safety concerns.
The National Uniformity for Food Act would weaken Illinois' ability
to protect its residents from contaminated food by adding a layer of
bureaucracy before such food could be removed from the shelves. Eighty
percent of the country's food safety inspections are completed at the
state and local levels. The bill preempts state food safety rules,
which are often more stringent than federal standards and threatens the
states' capacity to respond without delay to food safety issues.
For example, in 2002, 40 Illinois school children became sick after
eating what appeared to be ammonia-contaminated chicken. Our Department
of Public Health issued the necessary embargoes and the product was
immediately removed from schools so no other children became ill. H.R.
4167 would prevent our state health department from taking immediate
action in a similar situation.
In addition, H.R. 4167 would erect a number of legal hurdles. The
bill would force state standards and procedures to be made identical to
federal standards and procedures. H.R. 4167 would therefore prevent
Illinois from taking action to keep any contaminated product regulated
under the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act out of the marketplace.
For example, the bill would: remove Illinois' ability to take emergency
action to keep contaminated food from reaching the public; prohibit
Illinois from providing state-level consumer food warnings, including
the mercury contamination in fish, the content of fats and oils in
food, and the use of pesticides on fruits and vegetables; remove the
state's ability to ensure the safety of food and color additives; and
preempt state laws that require stores selling alcoholic beverages to
post warning signs about the risks of drinking alcohol during
pregnancy.
Every year, 76 million Americans suffer from food poisoning resulting
in approximately 5,000 deaths. The stakes are only growing now that mad
cow disease has been discovered in the United States. In addition, we
must remain aware that our food supply is a potential target of
terrorism. Now is the time to strengthen, and not dilute, our efforts
to detect unsafe food products before they reach grocery store shelves.
I have received nearly 500 letters of opposition to H.R. 4167 from my
constituents, in addition to letters of opposition from Illinois
Attorney General Lisa Madigan, the Illinois Public Interest Research
Group, and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Governor Blagojevich
writes: ``Regulating and protecting the food supply is a responsibility
shared by local, state and federal governments. In fact, approximately
80 percent of food safety inspections in the United States are
completed at state and local levels. Therefore, passage of House
Resolution 4167, preempting state rules on food supply that may be
stronger than federal law, could put Illinois' residents and visitors
at risk.'' I cannot support legislation which would hinder Illinois'
ability to respond quickly to local food safety concerns. I encourage
my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply disturbed by this proposal
that would strip away states' ability to protect their citizens' food
supply. Today's consideration of the ``National Food Uniformity Act''
represents the fourth time this bill has been considered since I have
come to Congress. Congress and the public have repeatedly shown that
they are opposed to the weakening of food safety laws, and yet we are
forced to continue this debate.
Each year, food-borne illnesses result in 76 million illnesses,
325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths. This bill would nullify
approximately 200 state laws aimed at reducing the incidence of these
food-borne illnesses.
It's shameful that this bill does not create any uniform safety
standards, but simply strips away states' rights to protect their
residents. I'm sympathetic to some manufacturers' concerns about the
burdens of multiple labeling

[[Page H742]]

and food standards. However, state food safety regulations have
protected millions of American consumers and I cannot support
legislation that does not put in place any comparable national
standards.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify the scope of
preemption under H.R. 4167, because some confusing and misleading
things have been said on this subject. While I have great respect for
the Association of Food and Drug Officials, especially for the work its
members do at the state level, I would specifically like to clarify
some mistaken points the group made in a letter dated January 16th of
this year. This letter stated that H.R. 4167 would preempt state laws
on food sanitation, including milk sanitation statutes on the books in
Minnesota and most other states. This is not the case. The bill we're
considering today would not preempt state food sanitation standards.
H.R. 4167 only provides for federal preemption of certain
requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FFDCA, and
these are specified in the legislation. If a requirement of the FFDCA
is not specified in H.R. 4167, then it will not be preempted by H.R.
4167, and states can establish or maintain requirements that are
different from federal ones. This is the case when it comes to
sanitation. Again, Mr. Chairman, states would still be free to enact
state sanitation standards that are not identical to federal sanitation
standards.
Even if H.R. 4167 did preempt state laws on food sanitation, which it
again does not, it would still not preempt state milk sanitation laws.
Through this bill, for preemption to be found in general, there must be
a conflict between a state law and a federal requirement of the FFDCA
or certain other federal laws and regulations. But in the case of milk
sanitation, there is no federal law or regulation for a state law to
conflict with. There are only the FDA definitions of ``pasteurized''
and ``ultra-pasteurized'' milk, which are agreed upon by agencies at
all levels of government and the entire dairy industry, and the general
manufacturing practice regulations applicable to all foods. Along these
lines, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the dairy industry's letter of support
for H.R. 4167 be included in the Record following my remarks.
These were conscious decisions made by the authors of H.R. 4167,
decisions that, I think it is safe to say, are certainly agreed upon by
the over 225 cosponsors of this bill, including myself. We recognize
that states have often been at the forefront of regulating food
sanitation, and for this reason, one of our legislative intents through
this bill was that food sanitation standards should not and would not
be preempted.
February 28, 2006.
Members of the House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Representatives: America's dairy producers and
processors urge you to vote for H.R. 4167, the ``National
Uniformity for Food Act of 2005.''
The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the
National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) support H.R. 4167,
a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in
the areas of food safety tolerance setting and warning
labeling because it takes a measured, science based approach,
to achieve labeling uniformity. The bill contains a method
for the orderly review and harmonization of existing state
food safety adulteration laws and warnings as they relate to
Federal law. No existing state labeling law would be
preempted without this review and state requirements under
petition would stay in effect during that review.
H.R. 4167 recognizes that it makes no sense to have a ``patchwork
quilt'' of different states adopting different regulatory requirements
on identical food product labeling. National uniformity in food laws is
actually the norm, not the exception. All meat and poultry regulated by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have national uniformity
under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products
Inspection Act. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990
established uniform nutrition labeling requirements on manufactured
foods. In addition, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996
included a uniformity provision for pesticide tolerance standards in
food products. H.R. 4167 completes the job by establishing national
uniformity for food additives and warning labels.
H.R. 4167 enjoys the support of 227 bipartisan co-sponsors and was
reported by a bipartisan vote from the Energy and Commerce Committee on
December 15,2005. America's dairy industry believes consumers deserve a
single standard when it comes to food safety, and this bill will allow
states and the Food and Drug Administration to work collaboratively in
establishing sound food safety labeling policies that benefit, not
confuse consumers. We urge your vote for H.R. 4167.
Sincerely,
Connie Tipton,
President and CEO, International Dairy Foods Association.
Jerry Kozak,
President and CEO, National Milk Producers Federation.
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
4167, the National Uniformity for Foods Act. I am pleased to be one of
226 cosponsors, and congratulate its sponsors, Mike Rogers and Ed
Towns, for their leadership in bringing this important food safety bill
to the floor.
Domestic manufacturers and consumers alike will be well-served by
this legislation which aims to alleviate the confusion created by a
patchwork regulatory system, by requiring that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the states work together to develop uniform
safety standards.
Of note, the National Uniformity for Foods Act will likely benefit an
estimated 16,000 food processing facilities scattered throughout the
country. Most of them process foods that are distributed across state
lines, including items like soup, ketchup, candy and crackers, all of
which are produced in my congressional district.
Beyond food processors, glass manufacturers, who package food,
beverages, cosmetics and other consumer products in Northwest Ohio will
also be impacted positively by H.R. 4167. Given the nationwide
distribution of most products packaged in glass, it is critical that
glass manufacturers follow a national standard for the bottles that
they produce.
Under the current regulatory system, each of the 50 states has the
ability to require its own warning labels separate and apart from the
FDA's requirements. Again, this multi-tiered regulatory environment can
be highly inefficient, and serves to often confuse, rather than educate
consumers. Manufacturers and consumers should have reasonable
expectations that rational, scientifically based, and consistent
standards will apply. The citizens of all states deserve the same level
of food safety.
I should also point out that H.R. 4167 will not pre-empt existing
state food safety requirements without thorough FDA evaluation, and
will not prevent states from taking enforcement action without federal
approval, so long as state food safety laws are the same as the federal
government's requirements. Furthermore, this measure will not interfere
with a state's rapid response mechanism to take action in emergency
circumstances. Mr. Chairman, I again urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting H.R. 4167.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order
except those printed in House Report 109-386. Each 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 read, 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.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Barton of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 109-386 offered by
Mr. Barton of Texas:
Page 2, line 7, strike ``403A(a)'' and insert ``403A''.
Page 2, beginning on line 8, strike ``343-1(a)'' and insert
``343-1''.
Page 2, line 10, strike ``in paragraph (4)'' and insert
``in subsection (a)(4)''.
Page 2, line 12, strike ``in paragraph (5)'' and insert
``in subsection (a)(5)''.
Page 2, line 14, insert ``in subsection (a),'' after
``(3)''.
Page 3, strike lines 5 through 15 and insert the following:
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(c)(1) For purposes of subsection (a)(6) and section
403B, the term `identical' means that the language under the
laws of a State or a political subdivision of a State is
substantially the same language as the comparable provision
under this Act and that any differences in language do not
result in the imposition of materially different
requirements. For purposes of subsection (a)(6), the term
`any requirement for a food' does not refer to provisions of
this Act that relate to procedures for Federal action under
this Act.
``(2) For purposes of subsection (a)(6), a State or
political subdivision of a State may enforce a State law that
contains a requirement that is identical to a requirement in
a section of Federal law referred to in subsection (a)(6)
if--
``(A) the Secretary has promulgated a regulation or adopted
a final guidance relating to the requirement and the State
applies the State requirement in a manner that conforms to
the regulation or guidance; or
``(B) the Secretary has not promulgated a regulation or
adopted a final guidance relating to the requirement, except
that if the

[[Page H743]]

Secretary has considered a proposal for a regulation or final
guidance relating to the requirement and has, after
soliciting public comment, made a determination not to
promulgate such regulation or adopt such guidance, which
determination is published in the Federal Register, the State
may not enforce any requirements in State law that are
policies rejected by the Secretary through such
determination.''.
Page 13, strike lines 13 through 19.
Page 13, line 20, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(f)''.
Page 14, line 4, strike ``or'' after ``pricing,''.
Page 14, line 5, insert before the semicolon the following:
``, or dietary supplements''.
Page 14, line 13, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(g)''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 710, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Barton) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if no one rises in opposition to the
amendment, I would like to claim the time, for purposes of debate, by
unanimous consent.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) will control the time in opposition.
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My amendment provides clarification on the scope of the bill in two
important areas. First, the amendment clarifies that uniformity in
notification requirements for warnings does not apply to dietary
supplements.
Additionally, during committee consideration of H.R. 4167, some
Members expressed some confusion regarding the scope of subsection (f)
of the bill. Today's amendment is designed to clear up that confusion
and ensure that States can set tolerance levels for substances in food
when the Federal Government has not.
Section 2 of the bill extends national uniformity to all aspects of
food adulteration. I support the premise of food adulteration and
tolerance levels should be uniform throughout the country. If a
substance in food is injurious to one State's consumers, it would be
injurious to the people of all 50 States. Section 401(a) of the Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act states a food is adulterated ``if it bears or
contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it
injurious to health.'' The FDA currently determines levels of
substances in particular foods to ensure that the food remains safe.
Foods above those levels are considered adulterated.
The FDA is the world's gold standard for food regulation. If the
agency has made a determination that a particular substance in food at
a particular level is safe, then it should be safe to be sold in any
State. However, if the FDA has not adopted a tolerance level for a
substance in a particular food, nor affirmatively rejected a standard,
then the State should be allowed to adopt its own standard when it
deems necessary.
My amendment clarifies the intent of the authors of the legislation
by stating that when there is neither a Federal tolerance level for a
substance in a particular food, nor has the FDA made an affirmative
rejection of the need for a tolerance for a particular substance, then
the State may establish and enforce its own tolerance standard.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is claimed that the Barton amendment preserves State
and local authorities to act when the Federal Government has not.
Unfortunately, the extent of the amendment does not support this
statement. The amendment merely provides that States may enforce
identical requirements to Federal requirements.
This is a terrible policy. Sixteen years ago, the Food and Drug
Administration learned that there were cancer-causing chemicals in soft
drinks way above levels that would be permitted in drinking water. Once
the soft drink industry promised to address the problem, the FDA did
nothing. Under the legislation the House considers today, the States'
hands will be tied, even while the FDA continues to do nothing.
The other purpose of this amendment is that it would allow the States
to regulate in the area of dietary supplements. The Food and Drug
Administration can regulate in that area, but the States could go even
further.
Now, I am for States rights, and so if a State wants to go further in
the area of dietary supplements, I should not object, although I do not
know whether the people who want this bill think that dietary
supplements ought to be treated differently than the other foods. Why
should we allow the States to regulate in the area of dietary
supplements but not in regular food? The distinction does not make a
lot of sense.
I do not oppose this amendment. I sought the time for the purposes of
debate, but I think the point I would draw to the attention of my
colleagues is why are we treating dietary supplements different from
other foods? The States have historically dealt in this area, and the
States ought to be permitted to deal not just in dietary supplements,
but with all food under the police powers that are granted to every
State to act to protect their own citizens.

{time} 1630

So I want Members to know that this amendment is going to treat
dietary supplements in a harsher way, by letting the States act, than
we will with regular foods where it comes to a tolerance or a warning
label.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I
still have?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simmons). The gentleman from Texas has 3
minutes remaining.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to propound a parliamentary
inquiry.
I have no more requests for time, and I am going to close. I have a
colloquy I want to enter into with the gentleman from Washington State,
Mr. Inslee. Can I use this time for that colloquy?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may yield to himself for purposes
of a colloquy.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Washington, and
I yield to him at this time.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be certain that I
understand the requirement in the bill that State food safety laws be
identical to the ten sections of Federal law that are listed in section
2(a)(6) of the bill. Am I correct that each of these ten sections
provides a basis for determining whether food is adulterated?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman
is correct. Provisions of State law that establish standards for
determining when a food is adulterated, that are the State counterparts
to those ten listed sections of Federal law, will need to be identical
to the Federal law.
Mr. INSLEE. If the gentleman will continue to yield. ``Identical'' in
this context does not mean that every word has to be exactly the same,
does it?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. No. ``Identical'' is defined to mean that minor
differences in wording are acceptable so long as they do not alter the
underlying meaning of the provision. So, for example, Federal law
provides that a food is adulterated ``if it contains any added
poisonous or deleterious substance which may render the food injurious
to health.'' This is often referred to as the basic adulteration
provision of Federal law. State law that addresses the basic
adulteration requirement will need to be the same as that provision of
Federal law.
Mr. INSLEE. If a State's basic adulteration law is identical to the
Federal adulteration law, can a State apply that law as it determines
to be proper?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the FDA has not established a tolerance or
limit for a particular poisonous or deleterious substance in food, the
State is free to make its own determination of what quantity of that
substance should be held to adulterate the food. If, however, there is
an FDA established tolerance or limit, the State would then need to
follow the tolerance or limit in its enforcement of State law. If FDA
has finally determined that there should not be a tolerance or limit,
then in that instance also the State would need to follow the Federal
policy.
Mr. INSLEE. I thank the gentleman for this explanation, and I have a
further inquiry.

[[Page H744]]

I understand that if a State law is identical to the Federal, that
State regulators can apply State law to particular circumstances where
FDA has not.
Suppose a State enacts a law that applies to State's basic
adulteration requirement to a particular substance or circumstance. So
the law would say, for example, that the State has determined that any
food that contains more than X amount of Y poisonous or deleterious
substance adulterates the food within the meaning of that State's food
adulteration law, would that be permissible?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Yes. If the State's food adulteration provisions
are identical to the listed Federal provisions and there is no Federal
tolerance or limit, the State may apply its law either by regulatory
action or State legislative enactment. All that the bill requires is
that the State apply the same standard for adulteration that is found
in Federal law. It does not matter whether the State does that
administratively or by legislation.
Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those clarifications.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I now
ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Barton amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to
enter into that last point that was made.
A State may act if they act in a way that is identical to the Federal
action. Great. But if a State wants to act where the Federal Government
has not acted, the States will be blocked, or may be blocked, from
acting at all.
I think that illustrates the problem with this legislation. The State
authority is stopped, and if the Federal Government doesn't act and the
State can't act, then there will be no warning label. There will be no
action at all on either the State or the Federal level to protect the
public, even though the State would like to protect its own citizens.
That illustrates to me the basic flaw in this whole bill that is
before us. And maybe it is why we never had a day of hearings on it and
it is being rushed through the House of Representatives without
adequate debate.
But let me just make that point as clearly as possible. Because
sometimes you hear over and over again, we will have a stronger Federal
law and there will be one uniform Federal law. Well, this will allow
one uniform nonFederal law to preempt the States, and they will be
identical because they will both say nothing to give the consumers the
information they ought to have about the problems in food that could
cause cancer or other medical problems or health problems, such as PCBs
in shellfish, such as mercury in some other foods, such as carcinogens
in something else. The public won't even be empowered to protect
themselves if they want to. It is ``buyer beware,'' but at least let
the buyer have some information and let them then make that decision.
So I don't object to this amendment, but I do object to the bill, and
this amendment does not cure the fundamental problems with this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cardoza

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 109-386 offered by
Mr. Cardoza:
Page 11, after line 7, insert the following:
``(C) Expedited consideration.--The Secretary shall
expedite the consideration of any petition under paragraphs
(1) or (2) that involves a request for a notification
requirement for a food that provides a warning where the
health effect to be addressed by the warning relates to
cancer or reproductive or birth defects or is intended to
provide information that will allow parents or guardians to
understand, monitor, or limit a child's exposure to cancer-
causing agents or reproductive or developmental toxins.''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 710, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cardoza) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to
take the time and debate on this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, unless there is someone in
opposition to it, I would claim the time in opposition, even though I
am not opposed to it. I am not sure that Mr. Waxman and I are on the
same position on the amendment.
Mr. WAXMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will be in opposition to the
amendment and claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is
opposed and will control the time.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) is recognized.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to offer my amendment to H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food
Act.
H.R. 4167 creates two separate petition processes for States that may
petition the FDA requesting approval for State labeling requirements.
Under the first, the States are given a transitional period to request
FDA approval of existing State regulations for food labeling. The
second creates a process for States to petition the FDA to approve a
national standard for new food labeling requirements, or to exempt a
State from certain requirements of national uniformity.
My amendment deals only with the latter, the process for States to
petition the FDA to approve national standards for future labeling
requirements.
The bill sets strict timelines for FDA action on State petitions for
future national standards. Petitions must be published in the Federal
Register within 30 days of receipt and made available for public
comment. The FDA must approve or deny within 60 days of the close of
the public comment period, unless an extension is requested in order to
gather more information. However, in all cases, final action must be
rendered no later than 120 days after the close of the public comment
period.
While I applaud the author for including these timelines, I feel it
is important to have an even swifter resolution for those State
petitions that may affect our most vulnerable populations. My amendment
would further expedite consideration of State petitions seeking
adoption of national warning requirements in three circumstances:
first, where the proposed warning relates to cancer-causing agents;
second, where the proposed warning relates to reproductive effects or
birth defects; and, third, when the requested warning is intended to
provide information that will allow parents to understand, monitor, or
limit a child's exposure to cancer-causing agents or reproductive or
developmental toxins.
My amendment will help ensure that when a State believes a warning
should be provided against possible serious health effects or birth
defects, FDA consideration of the State request must occur in the
shortest period of time possible.
As a member of the California delegation, I stand by my support of
the National Uniformity for Food Act, but I also recognize the
importance of retaining a State's ability to advocate for their food
safety warnings and that that be promoted nationwide. Ultimately, my
amendment preserves the goal of H.R. 4167 to have uniform national
warnings while also ensuring that Federal action on State requests for
important health warnings is not delayed.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This bill requires a State to petition the Food and Drug
Administration to see if the Food and Drug Administration will allow
the State to continue with its law. Now, many of these laws are dealing
with carcinogens and reproductive toxins, very, very serious matters,
and the States feel the public ought to be advised about that.
This amendment, however, provides an expedited review. Well, the
Congressional Budget Office has said that this

[[Page H745]]

is going to cost $100 million over 5 years, and that is to review 200
State petitions, because there are 200 State laws that are going to be
wiped out. The Congressional Budget Office says they do not think the
FDA will comply in time. So the FDA is going to be mandated to get
their review done in an expedited way and it is going to cost us over
$100 million, but they are not going to comply.
Well, that is why the States attorneys general have contacted us and
they say that this bill is going to create a whole new Federal
bureaucracy. Imagine that, Republicans who are sponsoring this bill,
and Democrats who have joined with them, who I don't think both sides
of the aisle understood the consequences of this bill; that it takes
away the States rights to enact legislation in areas of carcinogens and
reproductive toxins and other areas where they think the public health
and safety may be at stake, it takes away the States rights to give it
to a Federal bureaucracy, and it enhances that Federal bureaucracy with
additional burdens but creates no more funding to do that job.
Is this what we have always expected out of Congress; creating a new
bureaucracy to act in place of State duly elected governments? I just
think this bill, if people will examine it carefully, can't stand the
light of day. And I guess that is why we have never had a hearing on
it. No one has ever been able to get the pros and the cons. We have no
record to substantiate that legislation to start with.
And this amendment, although it is hard to oppose an amendment that
says we are going to have an expedited review, although the bill
provides for a 180-day review, nobody who has looked at it carefully,
especially the Congressional Budget Office, thinks it will make a
difference because they are never going to get around to it.
I guess the way to handle it is the Food and Drug Administration can
say, very quickly, no, that State law will not be allowed. We won't let
them have those warnings for their people. We will just overturn the
State law. That will be what they will have to do if they have to do it
in an expedited way, especially if they are hearing from special
interest groups that want the laws at the State level to be overturned.
But let me just add one other point. We are talking about 200 State
laws that are on the books now. But what about other problems in the
future that States may find out about that may even be peculiar to that
State? They are not going to be looking at that issue any longer
because they know that the Federal Government is now preempting the
field. But the Federal Government, by preempting the field, it doesn't
mean that they are looking at the problem and trying to address it.
So there is a huge vacuum that will be created if this bill becomes
law, and that is why I sought the time and I wanted to make this
clarification.
Mr. Chairman, should I have any time left, I want to reserve the
balance of it.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the Chairman
how much time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) has
7\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
has 6 minutes remaining.

{time} 1645

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
the gentleman's amendment. Several of my colleagues have raised valid
concerns about the importance of warning labels for specific serious
health issues, including birth defects and cancer-causing agents. I
believe the language in the gentleman's amendment improves the
underlying bill by allowing for an expedited review process by the FDA.
If a State identifies a health issue fitting the critical categories
listed in the amendment, then a warning is necessary, and this
amendment allows FDA to enact the warning nationally, not just in the
State that proposes it, granting greater consumer protection
everywhere, and if the FDA approves a State's request for a warning, it
is important for consumers not just in that State, but all States, to
have that information.
As I said during the general debate on this bill, we have the world's
safest food supply, the lowest cost to its consumers, and every
American benefits from a system of national food safety standards. This
amendment and the underlying bill builds on the record of success that
we have had in this system by extending the same approach to food
safety standards that is used by USDA and other agencies.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
amendment and to oppose any amendments that would gut this bill.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Radanovich).
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I am a cosponsor and will support final passage of the National
Uniformity for Food Act today. This is because I believe that a
national standard for food labeling under the authority of the FDA
makes sense.
In addition, I support the Cardoza amendment to this bill, which
would accelerate the consideration of warnings for food labels in
certain cases, such as when dealing with the potential for birth
defects and cancer-causing agents.
This amendment protects the most vulnerable in our society,
particularly children. Expedited consideration by the FDA for these
types of labels is the right thing to do to protect the health of our
families. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and urge a
``yes'' vote on final passage.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Rogers), the author of the bill.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Cardoza
amendment and thank the Member for working with us. This does improve
the bill and makes very, very clear that we are going to have an
expedited review for cancer-causing agents or reproductive effects or
birth defects.
The reason we have an expedited review here, as we have said many
times, those State laws in effect remain in effect until they get an
affirmative ruling from the FDA, so those would remain in place until
they get a scientific ruling from the FDA, and then we would have the
benefit of that information shared with all 50 States, all 50 States'
children, all 50 States' men and women who call America home.
I thank the gentleman for working with us and in supporting this fine
bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to point out that there are two petitions. One is a petition
by a State to allow its law to stay in effect. The second provision in
the bill allows a State to petition to say the Federal Government
should have one uniform law that ought to be the same as that State's.
Well, this provision that is before us will have an expedited review
of the States' petitions. Pesticide spraying after harvest disclosure,
that is a Maine law requiring disclosure; postharvest spraying of
produce with pesticides. I have no idea what the reason was for that
law, but Maine people thought it worthwhile because of pesticide
spraying and, I guess, the residue of pesticides. I suppose that should
have an expedited review.
We have disclosure of fish, whether it is farm-raised or wild. There
is a law in Alaska dealing with salmon; in Arkansas, Louisiana and
Mississippi dealing with catfish. Certain farm-raised fish may contain
elevated levels of PCBs and other contaminants. Well, those State laws
may not be allowed to continue. The FDA is going to have to decide
that.
There are 50 State milk safety laws. They are different laws. Each
State adopted the law it thinks is best. Each State would have to
petition whether it can continue with the law that it adopted.
Now, an expedited review sounds like a good idea because we would
like them to review them carefully so the States can have a decision,
but you know an expedited review can also mean that expedite it, and
the FDA will say ``no'' as quickly as possible in order to expedite
that review.
I would rather have them have a thorough opportunity to review the

[[Page H746]]

laws based on the science, but they do not have to make their decision
based on science. They can just decide that any State law, if a
business has to comply with a State law, it means that in one State
they have to have different warning labels or different tolerance
standards than in other States. That might interfere with interstate
commerce, so they might just strike all of the laws. I do not want to
push them on an expedited basis to strike all these laws because that
could be what an agency, a bureaucracy, would think is the wisest thing
to do in order to meet the expedited time frame.
So I think Members ought to be aware of the other side of the coin
when they say we want these laws reviewed carefully.
The other point is the Barton amendment dealing with dietary
supplements will not even have a State have to go to the Food and Drug
Administration if the State wants to regulate more in the area of
dietary supplements. It still is perplexing to me why that area ought
to be singled out to be treated differently than other food products.
Why should a warning label that a State wants to put on a food which
may be a carcinogen or it may be a reproductive toxin, why a State law
in that area, if it deals with a food product that is probably going to
be used by far more people, should require a State to have to go and
get a petition to the Food and Drug Administration to let that law stay
in effect? But if they have a warning label that a dietary supplement
can cause cancer, that warning label will not be reviewed by the FDA.
So we have these discrepancies that Members ought to understand are
at stake in this legislation which has not been thoroughly reviewed. On
that basis I think we ought to give it much more scrutiny than we are
being allowed to do today.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment will strengthen States rights, in my opinion, by
forcing the FDA to review petitions expediently and quickly to make
sure that their concerns are legitimately taken care of. I do not think
anyone here believes that the FDA will purposely act in contravention
to what is in the best interest of the people of the United States and
their health.
I also agree with the gentleman's contention that the FDA needs to be
strengthened and given increased funding. If they have additional work,
they will need additional funding to do this work. But this amendment
is only dealing with the underlying legislation. I would ask for the
body's support of this amendment. I think it makes the bill stronger.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding some time to me.
I have a question to ask of my friend from California: What is the
time frame when you say expeditious action on the part of the FDA? What
does that constitute? Is it 100 days? Is it 180 days? Is it 30? The
connotation is that it is going to be swift. If this passes, if the
legislation actually moves, what are we looking at relative to the
direction of this amendment?
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CARDOZA. In answer to the gentlewoman from California, it is my
intention that there would be an expedited review. If there is 120
days, and a State requests a shortened period of time because they
believe that a particular problem has, and let us just use an example,
say there is a microorganism in seafood that has just occurred off the
coast.
Ms. ESHOO. So maximum is 120 days?
Mr. CARDOZA. And this allows the FDA to act even quicker; in fact,
mandates it.
Ms. ESHOO. But they have up to 4 months?
Mr. CARDOZA. In the underlying bill.
Ms. ESHOO. But that is your amendment, not the underlying bill.
Mr. CARDOZA. No, the underlying bill is 120 days.
Ms. ESHOO. And what does your amendment do?
Mr. CARDOZA. It says that it must be the quickest possible.
Ms. ESHOO. But without any specificity?
Mr. CARDOZA. Correct.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simmons). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cardoza) will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 109-386 offered by
Mr. Rogers of Michigan:
At the end of the bill, add the following section:

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS.

The amendments made by this Act take effect only if the
Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies to the
Congress, after consultation with the Secretary of Homeland
Security, that the implementation of such amendments will
pose no additional risk to the public health or safety from
terrorists attacks relating to the food supply.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 710, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we have heard over the course of
this debate, and we have had lots of it, almost as many hours of debate
as there are pages in the bill, one of the things that we realized
along the way is that there was concern about the bioterrorism. We
firmly believe that the bill is adequate to deal with those issues. But
to try to make sure everybody had a comfort level, we felt it was
important to at least acknowledge that we were going to have the DHS
and the HHS sign off on this legislation before it takes effect, that
there would be no hindrance in defense of bioterrorism when it comes to
our food supply. It is not a difficult thing, it is really a
commonsense measure. We hope that alleviates some of the concerns we
have heard mentioned, and I urge this body's support on this particular
measure.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time
in opposition, although I will speak in favor of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think this is a good amendment. After this amendment is disposed
of, and I hope favorably, I will be offering another amendment on the
same subject of bioterrorism. I think any protections that we put into
place at this time of threat of terrorism are wise. I will discuss my
amendment at the appropriate time, but I join my colleague from
Michigan in urging support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Rogers amendment to H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act.
Unfortunately, in this day and age we need to look at every piece of
legislation that we consider through the eyes of those we ask to cope
with the unthinkable, in this case a food emergency or bioterrorist
situation. The

[[Page H747]]

last thing we want to do is unnecessarily handcuff the local, State and
Federal officials who respond quickly in times of crisis.
That is why I support this amendment. It would require the Secretary
of Health and Human Services to certify to the Congress that the
National Uniformity for Food Act would not in any way inhibit the
ability of local, State or Federal authorities to respond to a food
emergency or bioterrorist event.

{time} 1700

The bill cannot take effect until that certification, in consultation
with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is complete. H.R. 4167 as
originally written would have had no effect on a State's ability to
respond to a food emergency or bioterrorist threat. The FDA and the
States would continue to work together to cope with that type of
situation. I, for one, am comforted by Mr. Rogers' amendment and ask my
colleagues to support it unequivocally.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Price of Georgia). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 109-386 offered by
Mr. Waxman:
At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 3. PROTECTION AGAINST BIOTERRORISM.

Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall have any effect upon a State law, regulation, action,
or proposition if a Governor or State legislature certifies
that such law, regulation, action, or proposition is useful
in establishing or maintaining a food supply that is
adequately protected from bioterrorism attack.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 710, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal)
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the previous amendment was a good
amendment. It provided for a one-time certification. That was important
to do. The only requirement is the Secretary of Health and Human
Services consults with the Department of Homeland Security to certify
that the bill will not pose additional risks from terrorist attacks
before it goes into effect.
That is worthwhile. That is why I supported that amendment. It
doesn't require them to consult with the States, look at different
approaches the States may be using. What we are proposing to do is to
go even further in the area of protection against bioterrorist threats.
My amendment allows the States to retain the authority to decide what
is important in preparing for and responding to terrorism threats. If a
Governor or State legislature certifies a State action in this regard,
it is not going to be preempted. The States will be able to make those
decisions on bioterrorism, should, God forbid, such a thing happen.
As the Nation's first responders to bioterrorist attacks, State and
local governments have worked to have effective programs that can
respond flexibly should a nightmare occur. These State food safety
officials have stated repeatedly that they are deeply concerned that
H.R. 4167 will undermine the States' ability to effectively prevent and
respond to bioterrorist attacks.
The States learned from Hurricane Katrina that it is ill-advised to
rely on Federal agencies to solve their problems when a disaster
occurs. Under H.R. 4167, even with this last amendment, the States will
be in exactly that position, because they will have to rely on the
Federal Government.
Under the bill, H.R. 4167, States will be required to go through a
bureaucratic Federal process merely to protect their citizens. Even in
the case of an imminent hazard, States must make a series of findings,
and even then are only authorized to establish a requirement which
could be interpreted to require the passage of a new law or
promulgation of new regulations.
In the face of a determined terrorist threat, this burdensome
approach seems highly unwarranted and potentially disastrous. My
amendment will go a long way to addressing these shortfalls. It is an
amendment that State food officials think is merited, and they have
warned us about any weakening of their ability to respond to any
bioterrorist threat.
That is what has become the basis for this amendment. I strongly urge
support for the Waxman amendment and hope that this amendment will
supplement the Federal requirement that the Rogers amendment is putting
into place. I urge support for the Waxman antiterrorism amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the amendment. I believe
that Mr. Waxman is well-intentioned in the amendment language that he
has offered, and it is a matter of perspective as to whether or not
this amendment would cure or would create more problems. It is my
opinion that it would do the latter.
The last thing that any of us want, I think, is to create anything
that will create more bureaucratic wrangling between the States and the
Federal Government and pointing of fingers back and forth in a time of
disaster, and especially in an event such as a terrorist attack or
something that would contaminate our food supply.
I believe the language we have just adopted in the Rogers amendment,
which requires that the Secretary of HHS consult with the Secretary of
Homeland Security and certify that this bill does not in any way
impinge on or interfere with the ability to deal with a threat to
public health, is an adequate safeguard. I think this amendment is
unnecessary.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, my
friend's amendment to the National Uniformity for Food Act. We have
seen time and time again in recent years it takes swift and coordinated
response from local, State and Federal officials to confront disasters
of any kind, especially those caused by terrorists who seek to do us
harm.
This amendment, however well-intentioned, will do little more than
add to the bureaucratic wrangling that can hamper, not improve, our
ability to launch a coordinated response in time of trouble. State
officials have nothing to fear from this bill as originally written. It
has no impact on the ability of local, State and Federal officials to
respond to a food emergency or bioterrorist threat.
However, for those who, like me, like additional assurances that this
legislation would in no way inhibit our ability to cope with a natural
or terrorist-made disaster, I respectfully offer that the Rogers
amendment that was agreed to would assuage those concerns. It would
require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation
with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to certify that the
legislation poses no additional threat to public health or safety in
time of crisis. Therefore, the law can take effect.
It should adequately assuage the concerns of Mr. Waxman and all
others. I urge my colleagues to support the Rogers amendment and vote
against the Waxman amendment.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make clear,
there has been a lot of misinformation on that bill. I was a former FBI
agent. One thing I learned, we used to call it the brick agent, the guy
that is out on the street. You don't want to have to ask permission to
take an exigent circumstance under control. You don't want to do have
to do that.
This bill protects State, local and Federal Government action in
cases of bioterrorism. We would have not have drafted a bill that would
have done otherwise. I think what you are misinterpreting is the fact
that once they take an action, they have to tell the FDA.
Why that is a good idea is because if they find there is an area
where there is adulteration or poisoning, let us say, in Oregon or
someplace else, there

[[Page H748]]

might be another place that they can go and short-circuit that problem
somewhere else in the country. It is good policy to have that
notification that there was food that was adulterated or poisoned or a
victim of bioterrorism that needs to be addressed at that national
level. Take the action, tell the Feds so they can get that information
across the rest of the country.
This is the right thing to do. I would urge the rejection of the
Waxman amendment, which I think makes it more confusing, not less.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to close on this amendment. This
amendment is a supplement to the amendment that the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Rogers) adopted. This is what food and drug officials at
the State levels have said. When you consider the local and State food
safety programs, our first line of defense against acts of terrorism
involve the food supply.
This amendment would allow them to act without having to go to the
Federal Government to ask for permission. The bill says even if there
is an imminent hazard, the State has to go to the Federal Government to
get permission. That is absurd.
The New York Agriculture Department said that New York would be left
without any means to stop contaminated food from entering the Nation's
food supply. Florida stated this legislation would make it more
difficult to mitigate the effects of an intentional bioterrorist agent
food adulteration.
I think those who are imposing this amendment are very much
misguided. Listen to what the States have had to say about this. These
are the ones that are going to have to deal with any bioterrorist
attack at the front lines. Especially after what we saw with Hurricane
Katrina, let us empower the local people to act and not make them have
to go hat in hand to seek a bureaucratic solution, which may take time
from the Federal Government to allow them to act.
My amendment would allow the States to act, especially if it is an
imminent problem. That should not be taken away, which would happen if
we don't pass this amendment. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) will be postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. Capps

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 109-386 offered by
Mrs. Capps:
Page 4, beginning on line 1, strike ``Except as provided in
subsections (c) and (d),'' and insert ``Except as provided in
paragraphs (4) through (6) and subsections (c) and (d),''.
Page 5, after line 16, insert the following:
``(4) Notifications regarding cancer.--Paragraph (1) does
not apply to a notification described in such paragraph if
the notification warns that the food involved may cause
cancer.
``(5) Notifications regarding birth defects or reproductive
health problems.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to a
notification described in such paragraph if the notification
warns that the food involved may cause birth defects, or
warns that the food may cause reproductive health problems,
or both.
``(6) Notifications regarding allergenic sulfiting
agents.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to a notification
described in such paragraph if the notification warns that
the food involved contains a sulfiting agent that may cause
an allergic reaction.''.
At the end of the bill, add the following:

SECTION 3. ENSURING ADEQUATE PROTECTION FOR KIDS.

Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall have any effect upon a State law, regulation,
proposition or other action that--
(1) establishes a notification requirement that will allow
parents or guardians to understand, monitor, or limit a
child's exposure to cancer-causing agents, reproductive or
developmental toxins, or food-borne pathogens; or
(2) offers protection to children from foods bearing or
containing cancer-causing agents, reproductive or
developmental toxins, or food-borne pathogens.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 710, the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member of the opposition
each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I
am offering this amendment with colleagues, Representative Eshoo,
Representative Stupak and Representative Waxman. Our amendment is
fairly straightforward. It would ensure that this bill would not
preempt State laws that require proper warning on foods that do contain
carcinogens, that do contain chemicals that could cause birth defects
or other reproductive defects or could cause allergic reactions with
sulfiting agents.
The bill as currently written would effectively wipe out important
existing State food safety warning laws in these very areas. It is
unconscionable that Congress could create a system that essentially
conceals from consumers known possible risks to their health. This is
especially troubling considering how successful these State laws have
been at better informing the public about potential problems in their
foods. Perhaps most importantly, some of these State laws would be
wiped out by H.R. 4167 which have led manufacturers to remove harmful
contents from food products altogether.
For example, food warning laws in California have resulted in the
decrease of arsenic in bottled water everywhere; a reduction of lead
and calcium supplements and also a removal of the potassium bromate
from bread wherever it is sold in the United States.

{time} 1715

It was under such a State law that warnings about pregnant women and
alcohol first came about, a State law. However, this bill would end
that process.
Mr. Chairman, public health experts everywhere recognize the
importance of providing the best available information to consumers
regarding possible health risks in food products, and that is why the
Association of Food and Drug Officials, as well as a bipartisan
coalition of 39 State attorneys general are on record opposing this.
Supporters of this bill will argue that this legislation establishes
an appeals process for States seeking to establish their own food
safety measures. This process would be burdensome and costly. The CBO
estimates it could cost taxpayers as much as $100 million in the first
years for States to apply for waivers for their State laws and for the
FDA to process these appeals.
Our amendment would dramatically reduce those costs by keeping intact
some of the most critical State laws already on the books which do
ensure consumer protections. It would protect State laws that mandate
consumer notifications for products that we know can cause cancer, can
cause birth defects and may cause allergic reactions associated with
sulfiting agents.
Mr. Chairman, we are fortunate to have made great advancements in
recognizing potential health risks posed by certain substances. We want
to ensure that this knowledge reaches the public, where the forces of
the market can determine the need for arsenic in bottled water or of
potassium bromate in bread.
Let us not keep consumers in the dark about what is in the foods they
eat. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Price of Georgia). The gentleman from
Georgia is recognized for 10 minutes in opposition.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would exempt three categories of
warnings and standards from a national uniformity standard: those
relating to risks of cancer; those relating to reproductive or
developmental toxins; and, third, those sulfiting agents in bulk foods.

[[Page H749]]

Warnings on food should apply in all 50 States. If a warning is
justified, consumers in all States should get the information. If food
is not safe in 49 States, then it should also not be safe in the other,
or vice versa. If a warning is not justified, then consumers should not
be confused by different warnings in different States.
If a State has reliable scientific information that demonstrates that
a warning is needed for a particular food, then in the interest of
public health, it should share that information with the FDA and
petition for a new national standard. Under the bill, a State can
petition to establish a new national standard or a specific exemption
to uniformity where local circumstances warrant. The petition process
will ensure that States collaborate with the FDA and will help foster
greater food safety throughout the country.
Just a few minutes ago, by voice vote, we adopted Mr. Cardoza's
amendment, which, for the first time, will put an assurance that there
will be an expedited review in all of the three categories that this
amendment addresses.
Under the legislation, no existing State requirement would be
preempted without the opportunity of the State to petition the FDA to
exempt the State requirement from the uniform standard. Once a petition
is received, the State requirement will remain in effect until the
Secretary either accepts or rejects the petition.
I believe we have adequate protections, especially with the Cardoza
language that was just adopted by voice a few minutes ago.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to submit we all agree uniformity, national
uniformity is ideal. The word ``expedited'' without sufficient
resources makes it really risky to entrust the Food and Drug
Administration to do what States have already accomplished. States do
have the resources to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my colleague the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo)
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I am really pleased to cosponsor this amendment. I
think it is a very important one, and I think it is important also for
people that are listening in across the country who support this
amendment. Every leading environmental organization in the country
supports this amendment, and consumer groups support this amendment.
I think it is important for people across the country to know who is
for the bill, and it will say something about the effort that is here
on the floor today. The feed industry is for the bill. The frozen food
people are for the bill. The Plastics Council is for the bill. Soft
drink people, food processors, food additives.
The food additives people are for the bill. Doesn't that say
something about what is going into our food and lessens the standards
in our country for what we consume? That just gives you, excuse the
expression, a taste of who is for the bill.
Now, this amendment allows States to retain and establish their own
food safety warnings or standards to protect consumers in four key
areas. It is against the risk of birth defects, it is against
reproductive health problems, cancer and allergic reactions. Those are
four major areas that every single person in this country cares about
because they are so serious.
Without this amendment, States are going to have to come to the
Federal Government and say, mother, may I?
My friends, nothing is broken. Nothing is broken. Were it not for
these special interests that have lobbied so hard for this, which is
what is wrong with Washington, D.C. today, we would not have to be on
the floor fighting to protect what local governments and State
governments have, the laws they have placed on the books.
Now, here is an example. Here is an example of what we have in
California. This is the warning. This is the warning that is in the
grocery stores and the appropriate places for pregnant women and others
to warn them: ``Pregnant and nursing women, women who may become
pregnant, and young children should not eat the following fish,'' and
it names them.
You know what is going to happen when this thing becomes law? It is
going to be buried on a Web site at the FDA. Who the heck is going to
go on a Web site at the FDA to read the fine print to find out if they
have a warning? That warning is not enforceable. That is why we are
offering this amendment in the most key health areas. I would urge my
colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to add one more comment to this: Whose
constituent has come up to them and said, ``Get rid of these good laws
in our respective States and local governments''? Not one of my
constituents has.
This march to folly, and that is why attorneys general across the
United States are opposed to it, it is why food and agriculture heads
from States are opposed to it. This is not about consumers, this is
about special interests.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this debate has certainly
turned some interesting corners in the last few weeks, and again we are
fast approaching as many hours debating as there are pages in the bill;
226 cosponsors and 59 Democrats joined in a bipartisan effort for
national food safety labeling, a pretty powerful thing.
I commend Mr. Waxman for standing up and saying that we need national
nutrition labels across the country. Why? Because the periodic tables
in California are not any different than the periodic tables in
Michigan or Maine or Florida, thank goodness. Science is science is
science.
If we are going to protect pregnant women, if we are going to protect
children, if we are going to protect mothers and fathers, if we are
going to be for apple pie and Chevrolets, then we ought to do it in all
50 States, because a chicken grown in Louisiana is going to end up on a
plate in Michigan; peas grown in Florida are going to end up in
Louisiana; crawfish is going to come north and west and south, and we
are going to send navy beans south, and we grow some good ones up there
in Michigan. We have cherries that are going to go all across the
country. This is an interstate matter.
I can't think of anything more important than our food safety. I have
heard so much misinformation, even today. ``It is going to wipe out the
laws to protect consumers.'' Wrong. This bill will not do that. ``The
AGs are all for this bill for the right reason.'' Two of the issues
that they talked about, preempted in their letter, were factually
incorrect. It wasn't right. They were making the wrong argument. They
were wrong.
Sulfites in Michigan, I happen to agree with you. And I will tell you
what; if they are bad for Michigan citizens, I think they are bad for
all of the other 49 States. If you are traveling to see your mother and
you have a sulfite problem, if you are in Michigan today, you are fine.
If you are in Ohio, you are not going to do so well. That is wrong. We
can do better. This bill says we can do better.
I appreciate your passion for these issues. I don't think we are all
that far apart about wanting food safety. I don't. I think how we get
there is the problem.
So to have personal attacks and charges of backroom deals and those
things is wrong. I think you know it is wrong. I think we have come to
the point in the bill where you run out of facts and you start going in
a different direction.
This bill is about protecting the food safety of every American in
this great country. I think we ought to set aside maybe some of those
differences that we have and acknowledge this is the right thing to do,
like we did on nutritional labeling, like we did when we set the
standards of what food gets to be called organic, a Federal standard.
Why? Because we felt it was important enough to have a Federal standard
for the protection of every American, not just California, not just
Florida, not just Michigan.
Mr. Chairman, I have been a little disappointed with the tenor of
debate at times in this particular engagement on something I think is
so important and so critical to our safety, our food safety. I would
urge this body to reject this amendment. It tries to carve something
out to confuse consumers,

[[Page H750]]

which is exactly where we don't want to go. That is just not a place
that we want to go.
Mr. Chairman, I think we know at the end of the day this is the right
thing to do. As a matter of fact, even in the letters sent in from
State bureaucrats and the trial lawyers who oppose this bill they are
saying, well, national labeling is okay, but we have some other
concerns. Why? Because you can't make a good argument about why uniform
labeling across the country for the protection of citizens and what
they put in their body is a good idea. What do we hear? Adulterated
food or poisoned food, you usurp our ability. No, that is protected in
this bill.
If we are going to argue about what we are doing, let's argue on the
facts, the correct facts. I think we all probably at the end of the day
know this is the right thing to do.
I am going to ask you to step aside from what you think you need to
do, step off your talking points, and say let us do something that is
good for America. Don't worry about politics and all the other people
that get involved sometimes outside of this building. Worry about what
is right for the people of America. You will come to the right
conclusion.
If you look at the facts that are wrong consistently in your
arguments, you are going to be with us. I appreciate your care and
concern. I know you are going to be with us at the end of the day.
I urge Members to vote in support of the bill and against the Capps
amendment.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would submit the consumers are united in opposing
this legislation and that the States have had a track record for
consumer protection. I would love to see the Federal Government
establish such a record.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the people who are supporting this law
were sincere, they would go to the Food and Drug Administration under
current law and ask them to adapt standards all across the country on
all of these issues. They don't have to wait until the State petitions
them. The Food and Drug Administration can look at a problem now and
say California has a law, Michigan has a law, those are good ideas. We
are going to survey what the States are doing and make them apply all
across the country. They could do that now. But this bill puts at risk
all the State laws, and that is what is really behind this legislation,
putting at risk all the State laws.
Now, the Capps amendment is a combination of amendments that were
offered in the Commerce Committee that had bipartisan support, very
close to a majority, but not quite.

{time} 1730

If we had a hearing, maybe the others would been convinced. And what
this amendment seeks to do is to say, all right, if this law goes into
effect at least where the States have adopted warning labels on
carcinogens, on reproductive toxins, on allergic reactions to sulfites,
leave those State laws alone, do not wipe them out, because you would
like to argue that there ought to be 50 laws, 50 States to have one
law, which can be done now. Leave those laws alone.
And it also says that when it comes to standards protecting children,
let the States decide that issue. There are many children who suffer
from cancer, and more and more we are learning that cancer is caused by
environmental exposures. And one of the major environmental exposures
is in food.
If a parent, and all parents want to know this, having petitioned
their State and have convinced their legislators to have a warning
label that there is a carcinogen in the food, why should the Federal
Government prevent that from happening, or have a standard that says
they will not be allowed to have carcinogens or certain toxins in food
that can harm children.
Why should States be precluded from doing that? I find it
disingenuous when the proponents of this bill say, I want the same
thing as what these States are providing. I just want everybody to have
it. The States do not have to act if the Federal Government has acted.
If the Federal Government has acted for everyone, then there is no need
for State laws; but if the Federal Government has not acted, the States
ought to be able to act on their own in this area.
So the Capps amendment that is sponsored by many of us is narrow, and
it simply says it will allow the warning labels if the States determine
them for carcinogens, reproductive toxins and allergic reactions. Let
the States act where they are trying to protect children from harmful
substances in food.
I urge support for the Capps amendment.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty understanding
why any State that feels that it has the good science and the research
to justify putting labels of warning on their products would be
unwilling to share that information with the agency at the Federal
level that is charged with that responsibility.
Now, unfortunately there is a more elemental argument that has not
really been addressed in this discussion here. And I do not question
anybody's motives. I regret that the last speaker maybe sort of
questioned the motives of some who are advocating this bill.
But let me harken back to days that predate even this institution and
this building in which we are now sitting. One of the fundamental
debates that engaged our original forefathers and colonists, the debate
between the old Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and the
Articles of Confederation that proceeded that, one of the critical
issues was the right to regulate interstate commerce.
Now, in those days, you could say, prior to our Constitution that
gave the authority to the Federal Government to regulate interstate
commerce, you could say, well, you are not going to be able to bring
your peanuts from Georgia or your peaches from South Carolina or your
apples from Vermont into my State unless you put my label on it. And
our Founding fathers decided that one of the reasons the articles did
not work was because you could not have a Nation that allowed these
barriers to be erected at the State lines.
Now, if the issue is the safety of the people of this country, how do
you justify not wanting those same protections for everybody?
Now, I think there has been a misstatement that has been repeated
here. If a State has a warning, and that warning is in place now, a
label, and they petition the Federal Government and the FDA, and they
say, we wish you to consider this, and the Federal Government just does
not take a position on it, then their State regulation remains in
effect.
If, however, the Federal Government looks at the issue, and the FDA
decides that the science does not justify impediment, then under those
circumstances, there would not be uniformity, and, therefore, the State
requirement would not be allowed to pertain.
So if the States are so sure of their position, I see no reason why
they would not want to share that information with the FDA so that the
other States can have equal protection, and not just reerect some of
the very barriers that created the impediments under the Articles of
Confederation and led to the right of this body, under this type of
deliberation, to consider under the interstate commerce jurisdiction
the right of uniformity in things that do have an effect about articles
moving in our interstate commerce.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I would submit to my chairman that I do not
know any State that would not be willing to share its information with
the Federal Government. On the other hand, the Food and Drug
Administration has had top scientists quit of recent time over
political pressures.
And the truth is that this bill would conceal information from
consumers about known risks for cancer, birth defects and allergic
reactions due to sulfiting agents. This bill guts important existing
warning laws. How are we going to live with this on our conscience,
that today help consumers make informed choices, have encouraged
manufacturers to remove harmful substances from their products?
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H751]]

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Price of Georgia). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Capps) will be postponed.

Amendment No. 6 offered by Ms. Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 109-386 offered by
Ms. Wasserman Schultz:
At the end of the bill, add the following section:

SEC. 3. ENSURING ADEQUATE INFORMATION FOR INFANTS, CHILDREN,
AND WOMEN OF CHILD-BEARING AGE.

Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall have any effect upon a State law, regulation,
proposition or other action that establishes a notification
requirement regarding the presence or potential effects of
mercury in fish and shellfish.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 710, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Deal) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman
Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, Members, I ask your support of my amendment, which will
add State fish and shellfish methylmercury notification laws to this
act's current list of exemptions.
The gentleman from Georgia outlined that if there is a problem with
any food, that we should have national notification so that everyone in
America may be notified regarding those concerns. The problem in
particular when you are talking about fish and shellfish is that much
of the problem deals with recreational fishing. So, for example, in
Georgia, you might have a different level of mercury in the lakes and
rivers there as opposed to the level of mercury in the lakes and rivers
in Michigan. So it is imperative that we have the ability to notify,
under a State's discretion the level of mercury poisoning and the
caution and concern that those residents should have in that particular
State.
Methylmercury poisoning is a growing crisis in our country. The FDA
recommends that pregnant women completely stop eating larger predatory
fish, because the average methylmercury content per serving is so high
that just one male is unhealthy.
The American Academy of Pediatrics reports that children and pregnant
women can have significant exposure if they consume excess amounts of
fish. Several States have begun to address current mercury levels. In
fact, 44 States have issued some form of a methylmercury advisory.
Members, I know you all share my concern for our children's health
and well-being. This amendment will not undermine the sponsor's intent.
There are other exemptions in this bill. If there is any substance that
we exempt and ensure that there can be differing levels of advisories
across the country, it is methylmercury poisoning.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's
intention here. But, again, the facts of the case are this: The
toxicity level of those fish, if it is higher or lower in any
particular place, the threshold that makes it toxic is the same.
It is the same for people in California. It is the same for people in
Texas. It is the same for people in Michigan. So what we are saying is,
yes, this is a very important issue, and we need to make sure that we
understand what that toxicity level is. And if there are unique
challenges to any particular State, that State can apply through the
FDA for that particular area. We have even built provisions into the
bill to take into consideration.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, a woman who does not have access
to prenatal care, who does not know that she is pregnant, who already
has a high level of mercury poisoning in her bloodstream, as many, many
women across this country do, and then becomes pregnant and continues
to consume high levels of oil-based fish, how is that woman supposed to
be advised that she should not continue to eat tuna, mackerel, salmon
without going to the doctor? Is she likely to have access to a computer
and the FDA's Website to get that warning? I really doubt it.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Well, again, the State can apply for those
warning labels. There is nothing in here that prevents that from
happening. And, again, if it is good for a woman in Texas or Missouri,
or fill in the blank, it is good for all 50 States. The toxicity level
will not change. The danger of that toxicity level will not change.
Let me tell you what else happens, and we need to be real careful
about this, because we need to blend all science and remove emotion,
because this is what we found happened. It was an interesting study,
and I would encourage the gentlewoman to read it. It is the Tufts
Health and Nutrition Letter that recently reported on several studies
that documents some of the government warnings about mercury in fish
can do more harm than good. It is interesting why.
They reported that the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis conducted
this study, which concluded that if Americans cut their consumption of
fish by one-sixth, as they did after the mercury-focused 2001 warning,
an additional 8,000 deaths per year will occur annually from heart
disease and stroke.
What we have found is that you have to got to blend good science,
remove the emotion, because in some cases it would be appropriate to
consume fish because it is healthy. There are some of those fish oils
that are very good for you.
And what they found is, listen, you guys are doing more harm than
good. You are killing 8,000 more people a year because we have an
obesity problem in America, we have a health consumption problem in
America. This is causing more harm than good. So we have got to find
that balance.
I argue that good science is good science. Again, if we apply the
periodic tables in all 50 States uniformly as we should, with
scientific lenses, we are going to come to the right conclusion to
protect every pregnant woman in America.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Rogers) misunderstands this proposal, and it is different than the
previous ones, because the State laws that we are talking about here
are, for example, the State of Connecticut's legislature is currently
considering a law to say that a grocery store will post information. I
am not talking about warning labels, but they can put up a sign in the
grocery store that certain fish ought not to be used by pregnant women.
There have been an estimated 300,000 newborns who are exposed to those
dangerously high maternal mercury blood levels from, among other
things, fish.
So, one, I do not think it is constitutional for the Federal
Government to say a State cannot ask grocery stores in that State to
put up a warning sign. But the State, to say that we want all 50 States
to put up warning signs in the grocery stores, I do not think the
Federal Government, Food and Drug Administration has ever passed that
kind of requirement. They deal with labels on food. This is not a label
on food issue. This is simply an internal State advisory, and those
State laws ought not to be put at risk.
As far as the risk/benefit of eating fish, and you are healthier even
if you eat fish with more mercury and PCBs, that talks about adults. We
are talking about, in this amendment, pregnant

[[Page H752]]

women. And we ought to let them have that information, especially if
the States adopt the kind of law that Connecticut is looking at. And we
should not block that from happening.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the
gentlewoman from Florida. As cochair of the Children's Environmental
Health Caucus, I have tried to raise awareness here in the Congress
about public health risks for children caused by environmental
contaminants.
It is well known that certain fish and shellfish contain high levels
of mercury that can harm babies, unborn babies, the nervous systems of
young children, and these levels of mercury in different States vary.
That is the key point. Many States have enacted shellfish safety laws.
Many of the environmental and consumer protection laws that we now take
for granted around the country first appeared in individual States.
So there are variations of contaminants in individual States. There
is also a different willingness in different States to protect their
consumers. This bill, I am afraid, without amendments like Ms.
Wasserman Schultz's will result in the lowest common denominator
applying, for, in other words, the weakest standards.

{time} 1745

Currently some States have shellfish safety laws, but not all. Some
States have fish consumption/methylmercury advisories, but not all New
Jersey does. By preempting these State laws, we hurt the consumer and
the health of children.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, we have already seen evidence of action at the Federal
level in March of 2004. In fact, the FDA and the EPA issued a joint
guidance to consumers about the issue of mercury in fish. And that
guidance was designed to try to strike a careful balance that would
demonstrate both the benefits of eating fish as well as the potential
dangers associated with exposure to mercury.
If the bill passes as presented, and this is an issue with regard to
warning on fish, there are several things that would be authorized: A
State, if it feels it has a peculiar situation, could petition for a
waiver so that they could apply a nonFederal standard to their warning.
There is absolutely nothing in the bill that would prohibit a State
from issuing warnings. It just cannot require that the manufacturer or
distributor be the one that be required to place warnings on the
product. But the State could issue whatever warnings it saw fit to do
so.
I think, as Mr. Rogers related earlier, the Tufts Health and
Nutrition Letter, indicating that you have to be careful that you do
not do more harm than good sometimes by issuing warnings that are
blanket in nature, I think that clearly indicates we could go in the
wrong direction.
We believe the bill strikes a careful balance. It does allow States
that have peculiar situations to ask that they be allowed to put
additional warnings on products in their State if they think that is
justified. We believe that the current Federal policy on mercury,
however, in fish is an appropriate and adequate one, and I would urge
the defeat of this amendment.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Wasserman
Schultz amendment.
It is widely known that mercury is a highly toxic chemical,
especially to our children. It causes entire clusters of cells in the
developing brain to die. It causes loss of fine motor skills, learning
disabilities, and seizures. Later in life, it can translate into kidney
diseases, and immune system disorders.
One of the primary ways children are exposed to mercury is through
consumption of fish--either they eat it or their mother does. At the
same time, eating fish that is not contaminated has been shown to be
important to childrens' health.
The best way to deal with the problem is to stop mercury from getting
into our environment in the first place. Of course, this administration
and Congress have repeatedly refused to take substantive action to
require coal burning power plants to take responsibility for their
toxic mercury releases that end up in our fish. But because mercury
pollution is allowed to persist, people are forced to take on the coal
plants' responsibility by trying to avoid fish that are contaminated.
In recognition of this, some States are considering laws that will
label fish that are high in mercury. It is a critical consumer
empowerment tool that is the last line of defense for those who do not
want their children or themselves to be exposed to this toxic
substance.
But the Food Uniformity Act would undercut States' ability to even
provide that basic level of protection through labeling. So not only
does the bill undercut States rights, but it also undercuts personal
responsibility.
The Wasserman Shultz amendment makes an exemption for labeling laws
that apply to mercury and fish and shellfish. It is a commonsense
amendment. Please join me in supporting it.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
One of the things I want to point out that I think is important to
note is that the petition process that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Deal) pointed out, that whole process has been scored by the GPO. They
have estimated that it would cost $400,000 per petition.
Should we be creating the obstacles to information that women need? I
will give you an example. I have a 2\1/2\-year-old baby girl, and I
first found out about the dangers of methylmercury when I was pregnant
with her and my OB-GYN told me, do not consume tuna. Do not consume any
oily-based fish.
Think about someone who does not have the access to prenatal care
that I had. We have absolutely got to make sure that depending on the
levels of mercury poisoning in a particular body of water in different
States, that each State be able to decide the type and method of
information that they provide, and that we not leave only the ability
to notify women and parents of young children about the dangers of
methylmercury on a Web site put out by the FDA. That would be
inappropriate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Price of Georgia). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman
Schultz).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Wasserman Schultz) will be postponed.

Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 109-386 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Cardoza of California.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Waxman of California.
Amendment No. 5 by Mrs. Capps of California.
Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Wasserman Schultz of Florida.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cardoza

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cardoza) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 417,
noes 0, not voting 15, as follows:

[[Page H753]]

[Roll No. 27]

AYES--417

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--15

Burton (IN)
Costa
Cubin
Cummings
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Evans
Gonzalez
Norwood
Nussle
Ros-Lehtinen
Salazar
Sweeney
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield

{time} 1814

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Waxman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Price of Georgia). The pending business is
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) on which further proceedings
were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164,
noes 255, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 28]

AYES--164

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Frank (MA)
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--255

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham

[[Page H754]]

LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Burton (IN)
Costa
Cubin
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Evans
Gonzalez
Meek (FL)
Millender-McDonald
Norwood
Ros-Lehtinen
Salazar
Sweeney

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Price of Georgia) (during the vote). Members
are advised there are 2 minutes remaining.

{time} 1824

Mr. MARCHANT and Mr. CRENSHAW changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. Capps

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 29]

AYES--161

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Cleaver
Conyers
Cooper
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--259

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Burton (IN)
Costa
Cubin
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Evans
Gonzalez
Millender-McDonald
Norwood
Ros-Lehtinen
Salazar
Sweeney

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Price of Georgia) (during the vote). Members
are advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1831

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Wasserman Schultz

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Wasserman Schultz) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 30]

AYES--253

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)

[[Page H755]]

Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonner
Bono
Boswell
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Duncan
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goode
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirk
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOES--168

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chocola
Clay
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryun (KS)
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Walden (OR)
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--11

Burton (IN)
Costa
Cubin
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Evans
Gonzalez
Norwood
Ros-Lehtinen
Salazar
Sweeney

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes
remain in this vote.

{time} 1839

Mr. PRICE of Georgia and Mr. OTTER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments in order under
the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Davis of Kentucky) having assumed the chair, Mr. Price of Georgia,
Acting Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House Resolution 710, he reported the
bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee
of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and the
third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Stupak

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. STUPAK. Yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Stupak moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4167, to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendments:
Page 4, beginning on line 1, strike ``Except as provided in
subsections (c) and (d),'' and insert ``Except as provided in
paragraph (4) and subsections (c) and (c),''.
Page 5, after line 16, insert the following:
``(4) Notification regarding treatment of meat, poultry, or
fish with carbon monoxide.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to a
notification described in such paragraph if the notification
concerns meat, poultry, or fish and warns that such food has
been treated with carbon monoxide.''.

Mr. STUPAK (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his
motion.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer this motion to
recommit. My motion protects the rights of States to notify consumers
about carbon monoxide treated meat, poultry and fish.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct your attention to these pictures.
Which meat do you think is older? The red meat on top, or the brown
meat on the bottom?
Both are the same age. Both have been sitting in a refrigerator, side
by side, for 5 months.
Mr. Speaker, the meat on the top has been packaged in carbon monoxide
which causes the meat to look red and fresh long into the future. The
meat on the bottom has not, and 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 you consume it, you could become severely ill from a food-borne
pathogen like E. coli, and possibly die.
Packing meat in carbon monoxide without labeling is consumer
deception at best; and at worse, it could become a major health threat.
The FDA, without looking at any independent studies, has determined it
has no objection to allowing meat to be packaged in carbon monoxide.
The FDA merely reviewed the meat industry's carbon monoxide proposal.
By allowing the injection of carbon monoxide in meat

[[Page H756]]

and seafood packaging, the meat industry stands to gain $1 billion a
year because as meat begins to turn brown, consumers reject it.
Color is the most important factor the public uses to determine what
meat they buy, according to studies dating back to 1972. Yet the FDA,
in making its decision, only looked at information provided to it by
the meat industry.

{time} 1845

It did not do its own independent research or studies. It did not
solicit any public comments. Currently States may pass their own laws
to notify consumers that their meat may be packaged with carbon
monoxide and may not be as fresh as it appears. But those laws will
about be overturned if this bill becomes law.
My motion to recommit is simple. It allows States to act regarding
consumer notification of carbon monoxide-treated meat, poultry and
fish. Is this really the standard we want for our country for the
public health and safety of food, which have been primarily left to the
States? We should not tie the hands of the States who want to protect
the health of their citizens from this deceptive practice.
The National Farmers Union, Consumer Federation of America, the
Center for Science in the Public Interest all agree on the State's
right to label this food should be protected.
One more prop. Take a look at this Coke can. Differing States have
different deposit amounts on it. States like Michigan has 10 cents;
States like Massachusetts, Maine, Hawaii, 5 cents.
According to this rule, there is no uniformity, every State does it a
little differently. It will still exist, but underneath the Rogers
amendment, we can't protect our meat from carbon monoxide. Why do we
have to have one standard here, but when it comes to returning the
deposit, we would have standards and we don't worry about uniformity?
Let's pass the motion to recommit.
I yield 1 minute to the Democratic leader.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this
important motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely certain that every woman who served in
this body is asked the same question I am as I travel across the
country as House Democratic leader. Why did you get involved in
politics?
I always respond in the same way. As the mother of five children, and
now the grandmother of five grandchildren, I view my work in politics
as an extension of my role as mother. All of us as parents want the
best for our children. We want to do everything we can to keep them
safe. But there are some things that are not in our power. For that we
look to government, for clean air, for clean water and for food safety.
Today Republicans in Congress are shredding the food safety net that
we have built in our country, and this bill puts our children and
future generations at risk. This bill, and the words in it, should be
fighting words for moms across the country about the safety of their
children.
The debate on this bill gives new meaning to the words ``food
fight.'' Mr. Speaker, that is why I am opposing this legislation. The
effects of this bill are breathtaking. It undermines the lifesaving
laws in place throughout our country, voiding approximately 200 State
laws on food safety and labeling. The bill will do away with shellfish
safety standards, laws in at least 16 States, milk safety laws in 50
States and restaurant and food service establishments, again in all 50
States. That is why 39 attorneys general, Republicans and Democrats,
are opposing this bill, because it increases risks and undermines
consumer protections. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the
Stupak amendment motion to recommitment.
You be the judge. When you shop for meat or fish, do you want to know
how long it has been on the shelf? The motion to recommit would ensure
States whether companies could treat packaged meat and fish with carbon
monoxide to make them look better.
Mr. Speaker, they say that a picture is worth 1,000 words. With that
thought, I will yield back my time, submit the rest of my words for the
Record, and urge my colleagues to observe this picture and decide if
you want to eat any of that meat. Vote for the Stupak amendment and
oppose the underlying bill. Vote for the children of America.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Price of Georgia). The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and thank my
friend from Michigan for offering the motion to recommit.
Let me say right up front that I don't want to eat anything that has
been sitting in the refrigerator for 5 months that hasn't been cooked.
Nobody is for that. I don't believe anybody is. I would point out,
though, that nothing in this bill prohibits a State from establishing a
freshness dating State provision. It is on page 14, and it starts in
line 11, and it goes through line 16. Nothing in this section or
section 403(a) relating to food shall be construed within a State or
political or subdivision of the State from establishing or enforcing or
continuing in effect a requirement relating to freshness dating.
The gentleman from Michigan's underlying motion to commit doesn't
really deal with the dating aspect, as in dating the food, trying to go
out on a date with some food, you know. It relates to the fact that it
would prevent carbon monoxide, CO, from being used as a preservative in
the packaging. The United States Department of Agriculture and the Food
and Drug Administration have, for the last 4 years, permitted that.
Right now there is a proceeding at the FDA on a citizen's petition that
is directly related to Mr. Stupak's motion to recommit.
There is absolutely no need to legislate in this area. If, in fact,
there is something wrong, and there is nothing wrong, there is no
scientific basis at all to say that using carbon monoxide as a
preservative, when you package the food, is a health hazard or a
scientific problem at all. But if it were to be, the FDA has a
proceeding right now. Plain and simple, this is more of a marketing,
competitive issue. There is a company that is at a competitive
disadvantage, and they would like to see carbon monoxide not be allowed
to be used.
That is a whole different market-based issue. That is not a
legislative issue. I would oppose the motion to recommit and support
the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170,
noes 254, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 31]

AYES--170

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
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

[[Page H757]]

Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--254

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hinojosa
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
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--8

Burton (IN)
Costa
Cubin
Evans
Gonzalez
Norwood
Salazar
Sweeney

{time} 1910

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Davis of Kentucky). The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 283,
noes 139, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 32]

AYES--283

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOES--139

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Garrett (NJ)
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman

[[Page H758]]

Weiner
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Burton (IN)
Costa
Cubin
Evans
Gonzalez
Larson (CT)
Norwood
Salazar
Sweeney
Thomas

{time} 1925

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________