Dennis Cardoza

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. In the underlying bill.

Mr. CARDOZA. And this allows the FDA to act even quicker; in fact, mandates it.

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.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), the author of the bill.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the Chairman how much time I have remaining.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to offer my amendment to H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act. H.R. 4167 creates two separate petition processes for States that may petition the FDA requesting approval for State labeling requirements. Under the first, the States are given a transitional period to request FDA approval of existing State regulations for food labeling. The second creates a process for States to petition the FDA to approve a national standard for new food labeling requirements, or to exempt a State from certain requirements of national uniformity. My amendment deals only with the latter, the process for States to petition the FDA to approve national standards for future labeling requirements. The bill sets strict timelines for FDA action on State petitions for future national standards. Petitions must be published in the Federal Register within 30 days of receipt and made available for public comment. The FDA must approve or deny within 60 days of the close of the public comment period, unless an extension is requested in order to gather more information. However, in all cases, final action must be rendered no later than 120 days after the close of the public comment period. While I applaud the author for including these timelines, I feel it is important to have an even swifter resolution for those State petitions that may affect our most vulnerable populations. My amendment would further expedite consideration of State petitions seeking adoption of national warning requirements in three circumstances: first, where the proposed warning relates to cancer-causing agents; second, where the proposed warning relates to reproductive effects or birth defects; and, third, when the requested warning is intended to provide information that will allow parents to understand, monitor, or limit a child's exposure to cancer-causing agents or reproductive or developmental toxins. My amendment will help ensure that when a State believes a warning should be provided against possible serious health effects or birth defects, FDA consideration of the State request must occur in the shortest period of time possible. As a member of the California delegation, I stand by my support of the National Uniformity for Food Act, but I also recognize the importance of retaining a State's ability to advocate for their food safety warnings and that that be promoted nationwide. Ultimately, my amendment preserves the goal of H.R. 4167 to have uniform national warnings while also ensuring that Federal action on State requests for important health warnings is not delayed. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 4192, to designate the birthplace of our 42nd President, William Jefferson Clinton, as a national historic site and a unit of the National Park System. Currently, the Clinton birthplace home is owned and operated by a nonprofit Clinton birthplace foundation. While they are doing an excellent job of maintaining this site for the public viewing and educational purposes, by becoming part of the National Park System the Clinton birthplace will now be able to take full advantage of the National Park Service's vast resources. As a member of the Committee on Resources and at Mr. Ross' request, I have been down to southwest Arkansas to see the Clinton birthplace for myself, and I can personally attest to the great pride that fellow Arkansans feel for this site. Not only is Mr. William Jefferson Clinton a source of pride for the folks in his home State of Arkansas, but he is also a representative of the symbol of hope for millions of both Americans and those throughout the world who have seen his work. And you just need to tour the Clinton library to see the respect he received throughout the globe by the tributes housed at the library. I believe every Presidential birthplace should be preserved and protected as part of our Nation's history regardless of political party. I would like to also recognize that Speaker Hastert and Chairman Pombo have brought this bill to the floor. And I want to commend them for doing so in a nonpartisan manner, not treating this issue as a political football, but one of worthy legislation that deserves our support. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4192.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, when the Bush administration learned that the American people wanted to allow the United Arab Emirates to operate U.S. ports, they were outraged. That outrage should be extended to this administration's pathetic record on securing our ports and our coastlines. Since September 11th, according to the U.S. Coast Guard, the Republican Congress has shortchanged America's seaports by more than $4 billion in security improvements. It is because of this serious lack of funding that only 6 percent of the cargo coming into our ports is ever checked. Port security is so bad that in December, the 9/11 Commission gave this administration a grade of D for checked baggage and cargo screening. House Democrats have tried to increase port security funding on this House floor four times over the last 4 years, and House Republicans have defeated our efforts every single time. They are not through. Once again this year President Bush is proposing eliminating port security grants by rolling them into the larger program. This forces port officials to compete for funding against rail and mass transit programs. It's time that Republicans wake up and see the serious threat that is existing at our port facilities in America.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you very much for recognizing me, Congressman Ross. It is truly an honor to be your friend and to have traveled with you to your district recently. It was a shame that we had to witness what we did when we witnessed those trailers sitting there, a government expenditure of nearly half a billion dollars with no person in America being benefited by that. It was really an outrage. I am so pleased that I serve with you as a member of the Blue Dog Coalition. I am very pleased I am one of the Blue Dog co-chairs. The Blue Dogs are a group of 37 conservative Democrats who are committed to fiscal responsibility and reforming the broken budget process in Washington. Our top priority is fixing the gross mismanagement of our Nation's finances. As moderates and fiscal hawks, the Blue Dogs have tried to reach across the aisle and engage in a real debate for fiscal responsibility. The 2006 budget is something of a sham. We need to return to honesty and accountability in this budget. I am deeply concerned with the continued deficit spending, the complete disregard for fiscally responsible policies and a fundamentally dishonest budget process. The President proposed, as you said, Mr. Ross, a $2.7 trillion budget which will decrease domestic spending a bit, yet leave massive $355 billion deficits. This $355 billion is not the whole story, though. The President's figures deliberately leave out the cost of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the potential future cost of rebuilding this gulf region that we have talked about tonight that is in so dire need of our work. It also leaves out a growing problem for Americans and that is the alternative minimum tax. All these costs are going to drive up the deficit even further. The President's budget is a nice break from reality TV, but it is a harsh reality for our Nation; and it does nothing to make the Federal Government more accountable to taxpayer dollars. Mr. Ross, I just want to thank you again for your leadership and taking us down there and for having the gumption to bring camera crews down there and expose this national tragedy of these trailers in your district. I just hope that FEMA will listen to our pleas from that day when we talked about what needed to be done, what should be done. I applaud your efforts in this area and thank you for being such a worthy advocate for our Nation's fiscal policies.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, it seems like our country, or at least the Republican leadership and the leadership in the Senate and the White House, has totally turned what our priorities should be as a Nation on its ear. We are not balancing the budget. That is the first mistake. But the second mistake is we are cutting education. We are cutting those who are most vulnerable and who could build this country into something better. And it just seems to me that if we would just invest in education, invest in the future of America, try to make sure that these young kids who go into foster care do not go into gangs; it costs us over $40,000 a year to incarcerate someone who goes astray, and so many foster kids go astray when they are put into so many different homes. The average number of homes that most foster kids go to is 12. I have talked to kids who have been in 24 different homes. They are placed, placed, placed because we do not have money in the system and people drop out, and it is no way to live one's live. Twenty-four homes. One young lady was a valedictorian in her class. I do not know how she did it, but she managed to break out of that system. She was in 24 different foster homes over her period of time. We can do better, Mr. Speaker. And I know Mr. Ross is for that, and I thank him for highlighting that fact.

Mr. CARDOZA. That is exactly right.

Mr. CARDOZA. $600 million.

Mr. CARDOZA. That is exactly right.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) for organizing this on behalf of the Blue Dog Coalition. It is truly an honor to be one of the cochairs of the Blue Dogs and to serve on that illustrious body with you. I want to start off tonight talking about not our priorities, but what I heard one of our respected colleagues talk about just before we went on. Mr. Paul talked about how he thinks that we are going in the wrong direction in the country. I did not hear his whole presentation, but I thought it was an interesting indictment of his own side of the aisle, because he felt that we had not done the right thing by balancing the budget and going along. He does not like the direction of where we are going. I thought he spoke a lot of truth tonight. I just wanted to highlight that and say, as Mr. Boyd did previously, that we really are about trying to figure out bipartisan solutions to making a new direction for our country and a better direction, where we pay as we go, where we do not build up these huge debts, and do not leave a huge legacy of debt to our children. Two weeks ago on this floor, you and I had a colloquy with regard to the debt and the priorities of our country. Two weeks ago we talked about a reconciliation bill that actually, instead of reducing the national debt, increased the national debt by $20 billion; but that is not even necessarily the worst part of this. The worst part of it is when we are making the debt worse by what the Republican leadership is proposing, and we do not have the right priorities, the right family values, the right values for our Nation in the reconciliation package. In fact, the Republican reconciliation package cuts out $600 million for foster children, orphans, and abused children. They are taken out of their families and put in homes, cuts of $600 million. We never have had more abused and orphaned children in this entire country. There are over half a million children in our country that are not living with their parents. They have been taken out of their parents' home either because their parents have gotten into trouble, cannot take care of them any longer, or have abused them. And they are living with someone else. We are cutting the funds to provide programs for those children when we are giving tax cuts, or we are proposing tax cuts, we are not doing it, it is the other side of the aisle, tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, people who make over $1 million a year. Now, I do not believe in class warfare. I believe in a society in America where we can raise everyone's ship, and I hope those orphans some day make $1 million a year. But we are not going to do it without education, without good homes for these children, without providing a way and a path for them to do better. And as you said last time we spoke about this, Mr. Ross, I know a little bit about this, because I have two wonderful children, Joey and Elaina, who my wife and I adopted out of foster care. They are wonderful children. They have done very well in our home. But it is because we gave them a chance. And the reality is too many children in America are not going to get a chance if the Republican priorities of reconciliation are left to stand. And I have got to ask a simple question tonight. Out of a $2 trillion budget, is it not possible for the Republicans to find a better place to cut than orphans and abused children right before Christmas? I have to ask the question: Is it not possible to find a place better to cut? When I told my children that I adopted, my wife and I adopted, about these cuts, they said, Daddy, go back up there and tell them not to do that. That is not the right thing. And if my children, who are 11 and 8, 12 and 8, I will get in trouble if I do not correct that because they are watching tonight, if they know at that age that there is a better place to cut, then certainly the adults in this Chamber should know there is a better place to cut than those folks. I just have to say in this Christmas season, I certainly hope the ghost of Christmas past does not come and visit those Members who vote for this reconciliation package with that particular cut in it. You know, we can do better. We can have a new vision for America where we build up our educational system, where we take care of those who are most in need amongst us, and where we balance the Federal budget. It is called the Blue Dog 12-step plan. I am just so proud to have been here with you tonight, my colleagues here, Mr. Ross from Arkansas, Mr. Tanner from Tennessee, and Mr. Boyd from Florida. They are really the backbone of our organization. Mr. Boyd and Mr. Tanner have been leading this charge for a number of years. I am just so proud to be in their company. I think if we get the chance, we will provide a better and more direct path for America. Thank you, Mr. Ross, once again for leading this effort tonight. I am proud to be with you. I have one last thing to say. There was a fellow from your district who became President, a man from Hope, Arkansas. When he left office, it was projected that we were going to have a $5.4 trillion surplus. And, instead, the current leadership has giving us an $8 trillion deficit. That is a far cry from having a surplus and being on good financial footing. I just hope that you can help us lead the Nation, Mr. Ross, from your little community of Hope, Arkansas, into a better path. Thank you for doing this tonight.

Mr. CARDOZA. I would be happy to, Mr. Ross. Number 12 is to make Congress do a better job keeping track on government programs that it passes. As Mr. Tanner said earlier, we have basically abdicated our responsibility in this one-party form of government that we have right now. We are doing no oversight. We are not keeping tabs on the bills that we pass. In fact, the last four planks in the Blue Dog program all sort of relate to the same kind of thing. It is about accountability. It is about making sure that we read the bills, that we require honest cost estimates, that we make sure that the new bills fit the budget that we have already passed, and that we make sure that Congress does an adequate review on the bills that we have passed. They are just basic commonsense tenets. If you look back at the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, it is a perfect example of how this process has gone off the rails. And it has cost twice as much. I remember Mr. Dooley had a competing bill, but I think it probably did more for seniors than the one that we passed. And he could not even get a score from the Congressional Budget Office to say how much his bill was going to cost. That is just wrong. A Member of the Congress should be able to get the score. We should all have the score. The American people should be able to get the lowdown on what a bill costs and have that up front 3 days at least before we pass it.

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Ross. You know, what you just spoke about is a matter of priorities. It is what I spoke about earlier when I was talking about the foster care system and was there not a better place to cut. Number five on our planks of the 12 step program for Blue Dog fiscal responsibility is make Congress tell the taxpayers how they are spending our money. The American people want to know that their tax dollars are being spent on our national priorities. I got to tell you, if you ask the folks around the country what our national priorities are, they are going to tell us they want to get those folks in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama back on their feet. That is a priority. Education is a priority. Fighting the war effort is a priority. But what happens here in Congress is we pass these bills on voice votes. And today, just today in this House, on a voice vote they passed a continuing resolution for 30 days, until December 31, well, two weeks. And we are spending billions and billions of dollars on a voice vote. I got to tell you, I know that if the American people knew all the money that is being spent in that continuing resolution, they would not be happy about it. So the Blue Dogs have decided that we need to tell the American people what the priorities are. We need to tell the American people what we are spending their money on. We have proposed that no bill should pass Congress above the threshold of $50 million, which is a significant amount of money in anybody's book, without a vote of Congress. We need to tell the American people where we are spending their money. If we are going to spend billions, we have to take a vote. Today we should have had a vote. It should not have been a voice vote, just agreed upon. We should have had a vote on that continuing resolution.

Mr. CARDOZA. You have to go see your banker and justify it.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. That is right, Mr. Ross. Not only does it cut those two populations but it is done to pay for tax cuts, to pay for additional tax cuts.

Mr. CARDOZA. Well, I do, Mr. Ross. In fact, I have two children that were adopted out of foster care. My wife and I are blessed to have two children from foster care. I just cannot believe that we cannot find a different place to cut. I know after dealing with the foster care system that there are a lot of things that do not work in that system, but it is not that there is too much money in the system, because having seen it up close, there is not too much money in the foster care system. We don't have enough resources. We can save kids from going into a life of crime or being victimized in other ways that cost society much greater amounts. Incarcerating one prisoner is over $40,000 a year. If we lose a young person because of the way they are treated in foster care and being abused a second time after they have been abused either in their home or abandoned or neglected like my children were, if we lose them in the system, it will cost society much more in the long run. I have a word that I want to call this. I believe we should call this Scrooge-onomics, because I believe it is just the wrong priorities. The other side in my priority has adopted Scrooge-onomics. Just like in the movie and in the book written by Charles Dickens, I just hope that my colleagues on the other side don't wake up with a nightmare of the ghost of Christmas past when they sleep in their nice warm homes, in their nice warm beds on Christmas day, that they have totally forgotten about those children who don't have the same kind of advantages that they have in life. I would ask them to abandon Scrooge-onomics and adopt a vision for America that is much more compassionate, conservative but compassionate, truly compassionate, and adopt a vision that we can all be proud of instead of abusing our foster children a second time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ross for yielding to me. I have to say the citizens of the gentleman's district in Arkansas are certainly ably represented. It is interesting that before, as he was talking here earlier and mentioned that we are spending in excess of a half billion dollars a day just on interest on the national debt, I was thinking I do not know how much his State budget is per year, but my State budget in California is around $100 billion a year. And if we were to take his State's budget and Mr. Scott's State budget and add them all together with my State's budget, I would bet that we would still be below the annual number of what we pay in interest alone. So if we think about all of the work that our local governments do in our States and we take three States, Georgia, Arkansas, and California, that is a huge, vast sum of money that we are paying just in interest on the national debt.