Nathan Deal

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act. The manufacturing and distribution of the things we eat and drink is now a national industry. Coca-Cola, which is based in my home State in Atlanta, Georgia, for instance, is shipped to every corner of the country and throughout the world. Many believe that it is just common sense for these types of food manufacturers and distributors to have one labeling standard for the country, not 50 standards for 50 States. More importantly, in order to make informed choices, consumers need consistent information. When a food warning is supported by science and consumers need to know it, the same warning should be applied to food everywhere. H.R. 4167 achieves that result. With a mobile society, inconsistent warning requirements are guaranteed to confuse. When it is a matter of health and safety, a little confusion can have catastrophic effects. A person in North Augusta, South Carolina, for example, can walk into a store and buy a product with no warning label. The same person could walk across the street to a store in Augusta, Georgia, and buy the same product but have a warning label attached. Does this make any sense? Of course not. It does not make any more sense to the shopper than it makes here in the House today. When people need to be warned that a food product may hurt them, everyone needs to be warned. Uniformity in food regulation and labeling is not without precedent. Meat and poultry are regulated under uniform standards. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 requires uniform nutrition labeling. If consistency in nutrition labeling is warranted, consumers should certainly have the benefit of consistency in warning labels of the food they eat. Some have rightfully argued that State-specific circumstances might necessitate a warning unique only to their State. This bill acknowledges that fact by inviting States to assert their unique problems and ensure that they will get a fair and fast response from the Food and Drug Administration. I would also like to dispel some of the misinformation that opponents of the bill have been perpetuating. In no way will this bill hinder the ability of States to respond to public emergencies. If a State feels there is an imminent public health threat that must be protected by requiring manufacturers and distributors to put a warning label on their product, they can do it immediately. All this bill requires is they tell the FDA of the threat. That is something they should be doing anyway and in most cases are already doing. Additionally, this bill does not affect a State's ability to issue its own notification to the public, to embargo a product, or to issue recalls when they deem that necessary. Finally, this is mostly a question about food safety, but there is a broad economic aspect to it too. Making consumers deal with 50 different labeling requirements is not without cost. In effect, it divides America into 50 different markets where each of the products cost the consumer just a little more to buy. The men who wrote our Constitution decided that letting each State wage trade wars with its neighbors was a terrible idea, so they outlawed it by putting the Federal Government in charge of interstate commerce. It is hard to see the Framers changing their minds today so that one big market for American food can revert to 50 little markets where consumers pay more and get less. Consistent requirements will lead to consistent results for those who make our food, and consistent information will lead to consistently better and safer choice for our consumers. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4167. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, yes, it is. I would add that, under the bill, ``identical'' means that the language in the State law is substantially the same as that in the listed sections of Federal law and that any differences in language are not material. This is important to understand.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, no, it is not. Careful analysis of that list shows that of the 77 State laws listed, 55 would not be preempted. Let me give you two examples. First, included on the list is an Alabama law that sets nutritional standards for grits. This uniformity bill does not deal with nutritional standards or with grits, so the Alabama law is unaffected by the bill. Secondly, the list includes several State laws that require that fish be labeled as previously frozen, if that is the case. These laws are not affected by the uniformity provision because those State fish labeling requirements are not warnings. Of the 22 State laws that would be affected by the bill, 14 authorize States to adopt requirements for food and color additives that are different from Federal requirements. Although these laws would be preempted under the bill, the fact is that none of the 14 States that have these laws have any current requirement for food or color additives that are different from Federal requirements. So, in spite of all the wild assertions that the uniformity bill would nullify ``the bulk of the State food safety laws,'' as one opponent has put it, the fact is it would do nothing of the sort.

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

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. No. Reclaiming my time, let me give the Members of this body examples of some of the things that are excluded from it. The gentleman mentioned shellfish. Shellfish are specifically excluded from the provisions of this act. Some of the ones that I think most of us think of as the kinds of labels that may have peculiar application to locales that may not have application nationwide and that are therefore not included or prohibited from being placed on products are some of the following: open date labeling, grade labeling, State inspection stamps, religious dietary labeling, organic or natural designations, returnable bottle labeling, unit price labeling, and statement of geographical origin. Those all still continue to be allowed; they are not preempted by this legislation. I believe we have heard from a wide variety of people who represent points of view from their committee assignments on the Democrat side as well as the Republican side. The gentleman quoted my Democrat commissioner of agriculture from the State of Georgia. I called on my Democrat Member from the State of Georgia, who has served on the Agriculture Committee here in the House of Representatives, who said exactly the opposite of what our State agriculture commissioner says. Now, I think that the overall conclusion that we should reach is that this is a good piece of legislation. It is time that we recognize that there is a necessity for uniformity in labeling of food products, and this legislation moves us in that direction. I would urge the adoption of the bill when it is considered next week. Madam Chairman. I ask that this exchange of correspondence be included in the debate on H.R. 4167. Congress of the United States, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, February 28, 2006. Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Barton: In recognition of the desire to expedite consideration of H.R. 4167, the ``National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005,'' the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the bill. There are several provisions contained in H.R. 4167 that implicate the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Specifically, the legislation contains a number of judicial review provisions. The Committee takes this action with the understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4167, the Committee on the Judiciary does not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your including this letter in your Committee's report for H.R. 4167 and in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 4167 on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. They would have to comply with both. But what this deals with is labeling. If there is a label that is necessary for your people in Oregon to protect their safety, then it ought to be necessary for the people of my State of Georgia, and it ought to be uniform in that regard, and that is what we are saying.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I am prepared to close.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, many institutions affect the progress of communities and States across this Nation as we continually evolve in our march of civilization. Usually, those of us in government in particular think about those institutions being governmental units, or maybe even churches or philanthropic foundations. We usually think those are the institutions that affect this. Recently I was reminded of a rather profound affect that the banking institutions of this country have on our history, and especially history of my congressional district and my State. Yesterday, my good friend Wesley Smith celebrated 35 years of service as president of Northwest Georgia Bank. Now, most of you do not know where that is. But it is in, as its name implies, in northwest Georgia, headquartered in Ringgold, Georgia, right below the Tennessee line just south of Chattanooga. Wesley, in those 35 years, has become the longest-serving president of this rather dynamic banking institution, which itself was created in 1904. During the tenure of Wesley Smith, the bank has grown from $6 million to more than $500 million, has tripled its number of branch offices, and now operates in both Georgia and Tennessee. Wesley has served as chairman of the Georgia Bankers Association and is currently serving on the board of directors of the American Bankers Association. His service on community boards, chambers of commerce, college foundations, and other charitable efforts are simply too numerous to mention. But as I said, banking institutions have a unique history in and of themselves. In order to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Northwest Georgia Bank, a book was written, and it is a delightful read. It is one of those kinds of books that at first glance you would say is only self-serving, but it is not, as I read it. It reminded me of the history of my part of the country. This bank, first of all, had its initial beginnings back in 1856. It was part of an empire that was built in those days as the banking industry was beginning to take root in our country. But in 1856, we all know what came shortly thereafter, and that was the devastation of the Civil War. In Ringgold, which is there in the gap of Lookout Mountain, it was one of the major trade routes of olden days and certainly was one of the trade routes with a railroad coming out of Chattanooga. Many of you recall the story of the race of the General, the locomotive that was stolen during the Civil War, and it was recovered just north of the Ringgold area. But the bank itself was thriving, as was the community of Ringgold, until the Civil War. Being directly in the path of General Sherman's march after he left Chattanooga, the town of Ringgold and the bank were destroyed. As a result of that, for 40 years this community was without a bank. It had been literally burned to the ground, as had most of the town. But then in 1904 a gentleman, who had gained quite a reputation as a dynamic individual in the banking industry and was putting together a chain of banks, by the name of W.S. Witham came to Ringgold and started the bank again in that community. It survived in spite of closings in 1927 and 1933, survived the Great Depression, survived Roosevelt's bank holiday period, and continued to prosper, even with its ups and downs and even in spite of a daring daylight bank robbery where the president was held at gunpoint in this small community. Well, that is a very quick history of an institution in my part of the world. I congratulate the Northwest Georgia Bank, which is certainly unique. I most certainly congratulate my friend Wesley Smith for his 35 years of service as the president of that institution. I remind all of us again that we sometimes take for granted that not only the things that happen in governmental units affect the history of our country, but also institutions like banks play a vital role in weaving that tapestry that holds us all together.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about who won and who lost, let us talk about who did win. It was not special interests. It was those who qualify under the Family Opportunity Act who for the first time for families with disabled children who may be up to 300 percent of poverty will now be able to receive services. That will be 115,000 children who are disabled that will gain Medicaid coverage by 2015, according to CBO. The Home and Community Based Services, the estimate is that another 120,000 enrollees will be able to take advantage of this, getting services in their own home or in their community, rather than having to go to a nursing home. With the program that is included of money following the person, instead of people having to go into a nursing home again, they will be able to have services in their own home; and it is estimated that another 100,000 people are going to qualify for that over the next 8- to 9-year period. So those are some of the people who are certainly going to be benefited. Now let us talk about the program overall. Medicaid is a program that is out of control. Even with the reforms of slowing it down by three-tenths of 1 percent over the next 5 years, it is still going to grow at an estimated 7 percent growth rate; and over the next 10 years, we are going to be spending in State and Federal money $5.2 trillion. Let us talk about some of the claims that have been made during the time we have been in recess that are without substance and fact. One is with regard to copays. The Governors told us they wanted to be able to put some personal responsibility back into the program and that copays were one way to do it. But we wanted to make sure that we did not hurt the most vulnerable. As a result, there are no enforceable copays to be charged to beneficiaries and families with incomes below the Federal poverty level. In addition, copays cannot be charged to a select group of individuals in these big categories: mandatory children, individuals receiving adoption and foster care assistance, preventive care and immunizations, pregnancy-related services, hospice residents, institutional spend-down populations, emergency services, family planning services, women who qualify for Medicaid under the breast and cervical cancer eligibility. Also one of the claims is that we would do away with the early screening of children. It is specifically included in the plan that these children must be included in the so-called ESPDT program regardless of whether the State elects to provide services in an optional format or otherwise. One of the other areas is with regard to the reforms we have made in asset transfers, the so-called ``millionaires on Medicaid.'' Yes, we have tightened the rules, as we should do. But we have specifically made sure that anyone who is in a legitimate hardship area will have an exclusion, and States are required to provide a review process to make sure that that happens. So we believe overall that the reforms are needed. There are the kinds of reforms that the Governors have asked us to make so that we can keep the program solvent; otherwise, as the Governors' national representatives on a unanimous basis told us in the committee, if we do not, Medicaid over the long haul will be unsustainable. So therefore I urge you to adopt the provisions that are included in this bill.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the provisions in this bill called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. This is absolutely critical legislation. It addresses parts of the important speech given by the President to address the threat of pandemic flu and other bioterror threats. The Health Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee has held several hearings on this important threat and the need to begin to have the manufacturing capacity to produce pandemic flu vaccine. Unfortunately, there is no business model that would have vaccine manufacturers take on the tremendous liability risks to produce such a vaccine. We must address this concern or we will have none. It's really that simple. This legislation does not actually provide any liability protection. What the legislation does is provide authority to the Secretary the ability to declare limited liability protection. The Secretary can use these declarations to make sure the vaccine gets developed and to make sure doctors are willing to give it when the time comes. These are, of course, hypothetical circumstances. So why are we passing this legislation? It's simple. We cannot afford not to take the important steps of making sure we can get and deliver a vaccine. We have also provided the outline of a compensation fund to address any adverse serious physical injury that might be caused by a vaccine itself. But again, this is a hypothetical. We don't have a vaccine yet. There is no pandemic flu yet. And no declaration of liability protection has been issued. Those who argue we are deficient because we have not yet put money in the compensation fund don't get it. You really can't do that until there is a reason to do so. If there is no pandemic flu, there will be no reason for a vaccine to be administered. Indeed, we can't really produce an effective flu vaccine until we have the specific pandemic strain. Right now there is no need for any compensation funding at all. Those who imply there is such a need are simply not relaying these facts properly to the American people. So what we have tried to do is think through the issues, provide the authority and be prepared, so that the Secretary and any Congress faced with the real deal can act quickly and responsibly. This legislation also provides billions of dollars in preparedness money to prepare for the threat of a possible pandemic flu, including upgrading the domestic manufacturing capability for a vaccine. This is the call of the President and I am pleased that Congress is supporting the President in making the Nation more secure from the threat of pandemic flu and other bioterror threats.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a physician familiar with this issue. (Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4568) to improve proficiency testing of clinical laboratories, as amended.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Each year, the licensed physicians and cytotechnologists who screen and interpret Pap tests save the lives of thousands of women by detecting the earliest signs of cervical cancer, a common cancer in women. Without question, these professionals serve a vital role in the health care delivery system of this Nation, and we owe them our sincere admiration and appreciation for the services they perform. However, our Federal bureaucracy has let these professionals and their patients down by neglecting to develop an effective and appropriate proficiency test for these individuals as required by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1998, commonly referred to as CLIA. Instead, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have recently chosen to implement an outdated and flawed testing system that was finalized over 13 years ago. This situation is unacceptable, and these professionals who are performing vital services deserve better. And that is why I have introduced this legislation. H.R. 4568 will place a hold on the current CMS testing system and require that a new rule be developed that accomplishes the following four goals: First, to reflect the collaborative clinical decision-making of laboratory personnel involved in screening or interpreting cytological preparations; second, to revise grading or scoring criteria to reflect current practice guidelines; and, third, to provide for such testing to be conducted no more often than every 2 years; and, fourth, to make such revisions to the standards for such testing as may be necessary to reflect changes in the laboratory operations and practices since the standards were promulgated originally in 1992. This is the least we can do for these professionals. And I want to thank my colleagues Sue Myrick, Tom Price, John Shimkus and Sherrod Brown for joining me in sponsoring this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee that has jurisdiction over this issue. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to respond to the gentleman and assure him that we understand his concerns with the whistleblower, but this is a situation in which government does have a role, but we are trying to make sure that government does not impose outdated regulations that are 13 years old and do not associate themselves with the current realities of the practice. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. While my colleague, Mr. Brown of Ohio, is my copartner in the issue of health care and he and I share many things in common, this bill being one of them, and I would disagree with his comments with regard to Medicare part D, I for one am pleased that we are finally offering senior citizens of this country the opportunity to have a prescription drug benefit plan. We can disagree on that, and we will probably have some disagreements in the future; but I do want to thank Mr. Brown of Ohio and his staff and the others on the minority side for their cooperation in dealing with this issue that is before us today on pathology licensure. I think that it is a bill that we need to act on quickly, and hopefully our colleagues across the way will do likewise.

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

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 the bill.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2520) to provide for the collection and maintenance of human cord blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and research, and to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program.