[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 30 (Thursday, March 9, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E332]]
                NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 8, 2006

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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:

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4167 is being considered today 
without benefit of hearings and with no Subcommittee markup. As a 
result, Members have not had a full opportunity to learn about and 
debate the provisions of this legislation. This is no minor bill--it 
would bar States from adopting food safety, labeling, and warning 
standards that are not identical to Federal standards.
  State food and drug officials are very concerned about the impact 
this bill could have on public health. They have expressed their 
opinion that this legislation would harm homeland security. The State 
food and drug officials are certainly a credible group and their 
concerns are not new.
  Almost two years ago, the Association of Food and Drug Officials told 
us that a bill virtually identical to the one before us today, 
``threatens to eviscerate this system. The ramifications of this bill, 
intended or not, will dissolve our Nation's biodefense capabilities.''
  They went on to say that this legislation ``undermines our Nation's 
whole biosurveillance system by preempting and invalidating many of the 
State and Local food safety laws and regulations that provide the 
necessary authority for State and Local agencies to operate food safety 
and security programs. The pre-9/11 concept embodied in this bill is 
very much out of line with current threats that confront our food 
safety and security system.''
  They also said that preemption and invalidation of State and local 
food safety and security activities will ``severely hamper'' the U.S. 
Food and Drug Administration's ability to detect and respond to acts of 
terrorism. They added, ``Our current food safety and security system 
will be significantly disrupted . . . and our inability to track 
suspected acts of intentional adulteration will be exploited by those 
who seek to do harm to our Nation.'' The Association of Food and Drug 
Officials has recently restated these concerns with respect to H.R. 
4167.
  On September 23, 2004, I wrote a letter to Secretary Thompson asking 
whether or not he agreed with these assertions. I never received a 
reply to my letter, so here we are today, voting on this bill and we do 
not know whether or not the Administration believes it poses a threat 
to homeland security. Indeed, we do not have the benefit of the 
Administration's views on any aspect of this bill. Does the 
Administration support this bill, or not? This bill affects public 
health and the American public deserves more than stony silence from 
this Administration.
  What is wrong with having a hearing to explore what the language in 
this bill means? Why was the report on this bill filed less than 24 
hours before amendments were due at the Rules Committee? Why did the 
Rules Committee deny important amendments such as an amendment by 
Representative DeGette to ensure that FDA has the necessary funds to 
implement the law, or an amendment by Representative Stupak to allow 
States to warn consumers when their meat has been injected with carbon 
monoxide?
  This process will ultimately hurt the ability to get legislation to 
the President's desk. I am sympathetic to the need for national 
uniformity, however, I cannot support this bill without more careful 
consideration.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

                          ____________________