[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3041-3060]
[From the U.S. 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
       (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

[[Page 3042]]

     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--
       ``(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

[[Page 3043]]

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 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.

[[Page 3044]]


     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.
  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.
  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the National Uniformity for 
Food Act deserves our full support. The issue is important to consumers 
and has achieved bipartisan support.
  This act is consistent with our long tradition of prudent 
Congressional oversight of interstate commerce to protect American 
consumers. The act is simple. Its purpose is to provide equitable 
protection of consumers by requiring the States and the FDA to provide 
consumers with a single standard for food safety that is based on a 
consensus interpretation of all available science.
  I believe the National Uniformity for Food Act is the best way to 
ensure that the safeguards we now have over meat, poultry, drugs, and 
many other products be applied to packaged food. Under the bill, States 
would retain their important functions such as sanitation, inspections 
and enforcement. The act contains mechanisms to review State food 
safety laws and consider them for national application.
  This act provides important Federal protections, while retaining 
valuable input from States and coordination between State and Federal 
food safety experts. There is no better way to assure Americans that 
packaged food they find on our store shelves is safe for them and their 
families. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
important act.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, while I am a cosponsor of H.R. 
4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act, I am concerned about the 
process in which the bill was brought to the floor for consideration, 
without a committee hearing or markup. I believe that any major 
legislation should be subject to a committee hearing, where members can 
provide input and offer amendments. I support uniform, national food 
safety label standards, because I believe it will enhance consumer 
protection. I am, however, opposed to the process in which the House 
will consider this legislation today, which is why I am voting against 
H. Res. 710, the rule for consideration of 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.

[[Page 3045]]

       ``(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 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

[[Page 3046]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 3047]]

  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 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

[[Page 3048]]

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; post-
harvest 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 
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

[[Page 3049]]

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 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

[[Page 3050]]

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 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

[[Page 3051]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 3052]]

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, 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

[[Page 3053]]

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.
  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 methylmer-
cury 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

[[Page 3054]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 3055]]

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:

                             [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

[[Page 3056]]



                              {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
     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. CREN-
SHAW 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

  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 161, 
noes 259, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [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

[[Page 3057]]


     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

  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 253, 
noes 168, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 30]

                               AYES--253

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

[[Page 3058]]


     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 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

[[Page 3059]]

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
     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

[[Page 3060]]


     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
     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.

                          ____________________