Nathan Deal

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

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.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty understanding why any State that feels that it has the good science and the research to justify putting labels of warning on their products would be unwilling to share that information with the agency at the Federal level that is charged with that responsibility. Now, unfortunately there is a more elemental argument that has not really been addressed in this discussion here. And I do not question anybody's motives. I regret that the last speaker maybe sort of questioned the motives of some who are advocating this bill. But let me harken back to days that predate even this institution and this building in which we are now sitting. One of the fundamental debates that engaged our original forefathers and colonists, the debate between the old Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and the Articles of Confederation that proceeded that, one of the critical issues was the right to regulate interstate commerce. Now, in those days, you could say, prior to our Constitution that gave the authority to the Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce, you could say, well, you are not going to be able to bring your peanuts from Georgia or your peaches from South Carolina or your apples from Vermont into my State unless you put my label on it. And our Founding fathers decided that one of the reasons the articles did not work was because you could not have a Nation that allowed these barriers to be erected at the State lines. Now, if the issue is the safety of the people of this country, how do you justify not wanting those same protections for everybody? Now, I think there has been a misstatement that has been repeated here. If a State has a warning, and that warning is in place now, a label, and they petition the Federal Government and the FDA, and they say, we wish you to consider this, and the Federal Government just does not take a position on it, then their State regulation remains in effect. If, however, the Federal Government looks at the issue, and the FDA decides that the science does not justify impediment, then under those circumstances, there would not be uniformity, and, therefore, the State requirement would not be allowed to pertain. So if the States are so sure of their position, I see no reason why they would not want to share that information with the FDA so that the other States can have equal protection, and not just reerect some of the very barriers that created the impediments under the Articles of Confederation and led to the right of this body, under this type of deliberation, to consider under the interstate commerce jurisdiction the right of uniformity in things that do have an effect about articles moving in our interstate commerce. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

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. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, not-for-profit charitable organizations provide an essential service in meeting the needs of the down-trodden and forgotten of our nation. Today I rise to recognize the honorable service of one such organization from my district that supports many who have fallen through the cracks. This group, Helping the Hurting, Inc., is dedicated to providing free counseling to single mothers as well as abused women and children, many of whom do not have Medicare, Medicaid, or any other kind of insurance. This guidance has assisted thousands during their time of deepest need in circumstances ranging from substance abuse to marital hardships to managing personal finances. Helping the Hurting's aid goes beyond counseling services to offering a food bank, clothes closet, and even helping low-income individuals find ways to get their prescriptions at a lower cost through Patient Assistance Programs. The organization's founder Daniel Staats has helped many through his 17 years of service who felt forgotten by all those around them, and I salute his admirable sacrifice and dedication to those in need.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute the thousands of small businesses across the United States which, by definitional size, are classified as micro enterprises. More than one-half of the nation's economic engine is fueled by small businesses. Micro enterprise embraces strategic economic development relative to the smallest of the businesses, generally with five employees or less. Once called ``mom and pop'' businesses, they no longer equate to the folksy moniker. In many cases across rural America, the micro enterprises become capital for human development and poverty alleviation. It is documented and recognized that micro enterprises create jobs, generate income, build assets and enhance interpersonal skills among its owners and their employees. Micro enterprises utilize a valued conduit for financial training, business development and loans. Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) earn this designation through rigorous Department of Treasury standards. The CDFIs interface with the men and women who have a dream of owning and growing a small business; it is they who extend credit and become de facto partners in entrepreneurial enterprises throughout the land. Micro enterprises and CDFIs also partner with foundations, community banks, regional banks, state economic development agencies, the Small Business Administration, the Federal Home Loan Bank and other like- missioned federal agencies such as the Appalachian Regional Commission. As traditional working capital is beyond the financial reach of many, a unique collaboration steers these business entities toward success and self-sufficiency. The Association for Enterprise Opportunity strives to assist underserved entrepreneurs in starting, stabilizing and expanding businesses. As its national conference is held in May in Atlanta, the economic capital of the southeastern United States, I welcome them to my state. The host of the national conference is the Georgia Micro Enterprise Network, a nonprofit organization dedicated to making a difference in the economic lives of Georgians. The conference will celebrate the vision of micro enterprise success, and we, as Members of Congress applaud that success and commend the myriad venturous fibers which make our nation's great economic quilt as strong as ever. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Does it require uniformity?

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. All right. Thank you.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. If the gentleman would further yield, yes. For example, Federal law contains what is referred to as the ``basic adulteration standard,'' which provides that a food is adulterated if it bears any added poisonous or deleterious substance which may render the food injurious to health. All States have a provision that is identical to this provision of Federal law.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. The gentleman is correct on both of those points.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, this has been a good debate, and I appreciate the interest and concern. And to my good friend, Mr. Waxman, who has handled it on the other side, I am glad he has now become converted to being a States' righter. Back in 1990 when he was the author of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, we heard exactly the opposite arguments. I was not here, but I am told those were the opposite arguments because as far as nutrition labeling, it does require uniformity across the country. Now, if labeling on nutrition requires consistency, why should not there be consistency in warning labels of the foods that people eat?

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. You would not advocate repealing that law and giving it back to the States, I would assume?

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4167.