Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4167, National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4167, NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - March 02, 2006)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, warnings of mercury levels in fish, the safety of our children's milk, birth defect warnings, reducing lead in calcium supplements, cans, and wine bottle caps, if we pass H. Res. 702, the rule governing the National Food Uniformity Act, and ultimately the underlying legislation, these are but a few of the food safety laws that would be preempted.

We would be placing at even greater risk the health of millions of Americans, our children, and pregnant women. Parents would have less information about the harm their children would come to because of a simple meal. This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Information about the health implications of what we are assuming is abundant, and we should be an ally in helping parents to protect their children.

With this legislation, Federal food safety regulations would supplant State food safety laws. Even though our food safety system has been created to rely upon the States, the FDA will make recommendations on its Web site. But the States need to take this information and determine the best way to inform and protect their residents. There is a reason for this: 80 percent of the enforcement is at the State and local levels.

Let me take one example: mercury levels. Because of the implications of mercury in my home State of California, we have a program to place in-store notices about mercury levels. This concern about mercury has been raised by the Centers for Disease Control, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. I remember when my daughter-in-law Amy was pregnant with my granddaughter Anna. Her doctor repeatedly warned her about the harm mercury could cause her fetus. Fortunately, she was able to afford prenatal care and had the warnings, so Anna was born a perfectly normal child, free from any adverse effects of any mercury.

But what about those who do not have adequate prenatal care or have warnings? How do they learn about these? Most of us will never think to go to the FDA Web site before putting our shopping list together. We find out about FDA warnings because our State laws require them to be posted next to the supermarket fish counter. We see the sign as we shop.

As many of you are probably aware, certain fish contain high levels that can harm pregnant women and young children. High levels of mercury can damage the brain or kidneys. And this is in adults. Imagine what this can do to a developing fetus: blindness, seizures, speech problems, as well as nervous and digestive problems. But under this legislation, this program would be gone, as would the protections for our children. All that would remain is a posting on the FDA's Web site. Under President Bush's budget, the FDA's food safety funding would be cut by $445 million over 5 years. Where does this leave parents and the health of our children?

When it comes to our children's health, we should be setting the highest bar possible rather than the lowest common denominator. Why would we not warn parents of this potential for harm? I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I will be asking Members to vote "no" on the previous question, so I can amend the rule and allow the House to approve a plan that lets Congress vote up or down on the President's plan to turn over six of our Nation's ports to a government-run company in Dubai.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, my amendment to the rule would provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up legislation to guarantee that the House will have the opportunity to vote to block the President from moving forward with his deal to transfer operations at six of our Nation's busiest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

This legislation is nearly identical to a measure introduced by the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee that requires a thorough, in-depth, 45-day investigation of this contract followed by a report back to Congress on the results of that investigation. The only difference is that this bill requires a vote in the House and Senate to block the agreement if the President decides to proceed.

The same administration that talks tough on terrorism and protecting Americans on every front has now negotiated a secret, backroom deal to turn the management of these vital ports over to a foreign entity. And it has done so without going through the proper channels as required by law and without including Congress in the process.

The House must have the opportunity to play a role in this matter of national security. It is time for the Republican-controlled Congress to stop giving rubber-stamp approval to this administration at the expense of our Nation's citizens. This bill is the only way to guarantee that the House and Senate have the opportunity to vote on the Dubai deal, a vote that cannot be blocked by the Republican leadership.

Whatever Members believe about this deal and whatever results from this investigation, the House should be allowed to vote up or down on whether or not we want to turn control of six of our Nation's ports over to this foreign-government-owned entity.

I urge all Members of this body to vote "no" on the previous question so we can bring up legislation that gives Congress the right to participate and to vote on this matter of significant national security. Vote "no" on the previous question.

http://thomas.loc.gov/