Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3082) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my friend, for yielding me such time as I may consume today. And I want to thank the gentleman for the considerations that he has given me personally and professionally over the last year, and I would wish him the very best in this holiday season.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this completely closed rule and to the ill-conceived underlying legislation. Week after week, my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to bulldoze their massive spending and overregulations bill to the floor of the House with no Republican input and no regular order. As a matter of fact, even today at least one Member of the Democratic Party showed up with a darn good idea, and it was slam-dunked ``no'' on a party-line basis. By the way, the Republicans voted for that good idea.

What was promised 4 years ago was that this House would be the most open, honest, and ethical Congress, by our current Speaker Pelosi when she took the gavel. But this has been the most closed, secretive, one- sided, and flawed Congress, I believe, in history, matching the previous Congress.

The American people asked for change, and I think they got far worse in the election to elect this current Congress. They received a Democrat Congress that didn't listen to the American people and a Congress that acts on its own interests and not the interests of the American people or the taxpayer. And that's why we suffer from such low numbers of support by the American people.

Mr. Speaker, soon that, however, will change. But today it is more of the same, and I am here to discuss the rule for the continuing resolution, known

as a CR, for fiscal year 2011. It also includes the food safety bill which has been attached to that CR. So it is not a clean bill. My colleagues and I have not even had 24 hours to review the text of this legislation. This legislation, once again, continues to overspend and overregulate, a common theme over the last two Congresses. And we won't even use regular order to establish the process.

The underlying legislation is a CR to keep the government running through the rest of this fiscal year. The President has not signed one appropriations bill into law for this fiscal year, and our friends, the majority Democrats, have provided no budget. So this is their last- ditch effort to provide funding to keep the government running. Over the past 3 years, nondefense, nonhomeland security, and nonveterans affairs discretionary spending has increased by a staggering 88 percent. In the meantime, the Nation's debt has risen to $13.5 trillion--and that means that there is an additional $4.5 billion in deficit spending every single day. There have been back to back yearly record deficits day after day after day. The unemployment rate has risen--it is now at 9.5 percent--for 18 consecutive months. I might add that it rose to 9.8 percent in the latest economic report.

This CR does nothing to reverse this trend and, instead, continues the unsustainable high rate of spending passed by the Democrat majority, aided by, supported, and abetted by the President of the United States, our President, Barack Obama. This includes more spending for Federal agencies that already had seen huge dollar increases with the stimulus bill in 2009.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues and I have pledged to cut nonsecurity spending back to the fiscal levels of 2008, which would save the American taxpayers nearly $100 billion for what will end up being the next year of spending. Mr. Speaker, I believe that any responsible action by this House of Representatives should have been and should be to avoid raising the debt limit by making tough decisions today to avoid placing our children and our grandchildren in a further diminished position.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people, as they look at their own personal circumstances and as they look at the irresponsibility out of Washington, unfortunately continue to see taxing, borrowing, and spending as a national problem. And that has brought us nothing but the results of higher unemployment, more debt, more bankruptcy, more homes being lost, and more debt. Americans have called for this endless spree to end and for an era of fiscal discipline. I think, once again, even though we are after the election, that message continues to fall on deaf ears again today.

This country needs leaders who are willing to make tough decisions, fiscal decisions that will empower not only economic stability but also bring back to the American people jobs, the opportunity for them to be in a competitive marketplace and to understand that America must have jobs if we are going to provide our children and grandchildren with the future that they can believe in.

Once again, it is the Congress of the United States that continues to lead the effort of us towards higher deficits, higher unemployment, and higher problems for people back home. We disagree with that.

Mr. Speaker, as if the rampant spending wasn't enough, my colleagues, once again on the other side of the aisle, had to add what I consider to be an unfair and overregulated Senate food safety bill to the underlying legislation. Republicans remain committed to legislation that ensures the safety and security of America's food. However, this legislation comes at a heavy toll on producers and does virtually nothing to hold Federal bureaucrats accountable for their role in preventing food-borne illnesses. Oh, I'm sure we are going to hear about the number of people who get sick every year. We are going to blame everything on food processors and that process when, in fact, what we need to do is put rules and regulations in place that will better people's lives, and to allow the Federal Government to effectively work with consumers. That's not what this food safety bill does.

The food safety measures in the underlying bill impose significant regulatory and cost burdens on the food processing and food producing system.

It increases costs for food producers and, ultimately, consumers and does not require the Federal Drug Administration to spend one additional penny on the inspection of food for safety purposes.

The bill expands the FDA's authority to dictate on farm production practices and performance standards. This means Congress is about to give the FDA, who is already overworked and has limited resources and even less expertise, the specific power to dictate to U.S. farmers how best to farm. Our Nation's farmers do not need more Federal Government bureaucrats who sit behind a desk in Washington telling them how to do their job.

Additionally, this legislation institutes and expands registration requirements for food processing facilities, which essentially amounts to a Federal license to be in the food business. This would make it unlawful to produce food without a registration license, allowing the FDA to suspend a company's registration, once again a big Federal empowered government in Washington, D.C., at the expense of jobs and the price that consumers have to pay.

Like any Federal agency, the FDA makes mistakes, yet this bill does nothing to ensure agriculture producers don't take massive financial losses caused by the mistake of the FDA. For example, in 2008 when the FDA mistakenly attributed an outbreak of salmonella to tomatoes, it cost the industry $100 million.

Mr. Speaker, there is no way for us to legislate out of Washington, and there is no way to ensure that the FDA will not make such mistakes again in the future and wrongly implicate agriculture processing to food-borne disease outbreaks that can once again cause severe economic losses to the farmers and ranchers of America who cannot only not afford them, but who produce the highest quality of safety products anywhere in the world to American consumers. This is not going to be addressed properly in this legislation. It is simply about empowering Federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

In an article in The Wall Street Journal from December 2, 2010, related to the food safety bill, it states that ``food-borne illnesses have fallen by nearly one-third over the last decade, largely because businesses have already every incentive to police themselves.'' Yet this legislation gives the FDA new powers over the 2.2 million farms and the 28,000 food producers in America.

In true fashion, my Democrat colleagues continue to push their own agenda, overwhelming the American consumer. They have shut out Republicans over the last 4 years, and they continue to shut out common sense and the American people. Continuing on the path of reckless government spending will only put the United States further in debt, burdening future generations.

Mr. Speaker, we disagree with taxing, spending, and overregulating. Overregulation that increases costs to consumers and food producers will add just another fiscal restraint on families, not just in the congressional district that I represent, but all across this country. Congress must do a better job. We tax too much, we spend too much, we regulate too much, and we listen too little in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I think you can count me in that I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts is right. Much of what this President does propose and in these last two Congresses what they proposed, Republicans have objected to them, and it is for a simple reason: We don't want to support the things that don't work. We want to support the things that will help the American people not only to have a better economy and to take care of themselves, but we are not for growing the size of the Federal Government that is in our lives now, a food safety bill that will do what I believe is quite the reverse but will be expensive and will come at the cost of consumers bettering their ability to have a safe food chain.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Cheyenne, Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

(Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, Mr. Lucas, the gentleman who was selected today by the new Republican majority this next Congress to be the Agriculture Committee chairman. The gentleman, Mr. Lucas, spoke very clearly not only on behalf of farmers and ranchers across this country, but really on behalf of a group of people who are in the food chain of this country, who all the way up through grocery stores and providers of content make sure that the food safety lines of this country are properly taken care of.

There are so many food workers all across this country who have established not only high standards as a result of their advocacy for not just their job, but the greatest opportunity around the world for us to make sure that consumers get the benefit of clean food, the opportunity to know more about not only the caloric intake, but to make sure that the value of our food is held for consumers at a proper price.

The gentleman, Mr. Lucas, has noted a number of times on the floor that this industry, the agricultural industry, and the supermarket industry really have taken steps to ensure that their products are not only safe and secure, but that consumers have an opportunity to understand how to utilize those products when they receive those products from a store, perhaps, or where they buy their products. And this is part of that chain that I believe that this legislation just misuses. And consumers, through their ability to use food, whether it's refrigeration, whether it's in cooking procedures, whether it's mixing these products, how they would hold these out certainly has a lot to do with the food safety and the aspects that come as a result of that.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard me say it over and over, but the American people I think expect something better and different. I must confess that in the near future that what we will do when Republicans come to the floor this next Congress starting January 5, we will take the legislation and run it through committees. We will include feedback and ideas from not just Republicans, but also the Democrats who want to be a part of this process, who get up and come to this town to represent their people, people who have elected them, people who have confidence in the way we do things.

Taxing, spending, overregulating is not the way that this Congress should run; and the American people feel that, unfortunately, so plainly. Today all the way to the end, it is yet another example about how the American people see because they hear firsthand about overregulation, excessive spending, and continuation of more of the same.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation, to vote ``no'' to stop the reckless fiscal policies that not only Speaker Pelosi but the Democratic Party have pursued over the last 4 years. Irresponsible not only in terms of the fiduciary responsibility that they had to openly discuss with the American people, the appropriations process, the budgeting process, but perhaps more importantly, I believe what is the responsibility of this body to work effectively as a purveyor of the taxpayer money in working with the administration.

All we have done is send them a signal, you go spend all the money you want, we will make it available to you, rather than an understanding of the give and take of the expectations of performance by the American people of where each of these dollars should be spent and what we should expect back in return. I think it's always bad when a blank check that's filled in is given to somebody without an understanding of that. The United States Government should not allow this. That will change.

A vote ``no'' is going to allow farmers and food producers also, because this bill is together, it's going to take away their rights, it's going to add more rules and regulations, it's going to add more government interference, it's going to get in the way of what I believe is a food safety issue.

It's time to end the idea of big government and big spending. We are here on the floor again to make sure that the American people understand this, that there is a group of people who will certainly see things differently.

But I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, we will show up with better ideas. Get ready, hope is on the way.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1755, I call up the bill (H.R. 3082) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the pending legislation.

I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I'm bringing a resolution to the floor that I have minimum high regard for, to say the least.

America is facing serious problems, the most depressing is that we have the biggest divide between the haves and the have-nots since the Great Depression. Over the last decade, 80 percent of the growth in our economy has gone to the luckiest 10 percent out there. Meanwhile, the economy is sputtering along, and families are hurting. And what has been Washington's response? Apparently, it is to spend nearly $80 billion over the next 2 years to give supersized tax cuts to millionaires and another $24 billion to give families worth $10 million a pass on paying taxes on their good fortune. This occurs at the same time that Washington politicians are singing pious songs about the need for deficit reduction.

I hope that the Congress is not too ``offended'' to recognize that, yes, we must deal with long-term budget deficits; but if this country is to grow for everybody, we also need to confront our investment deficits in jobs, in education, in infrastructure, and in science and technology. That is the context in which this bill, to keep the government functioning for a year, is being considered.

This bill freezes discretionary appropriations at the 2010 level for the rest of the fiscal year, spending $46 billion less than the President asked for this year. It adjusts last year's priorities in three main ways: It funds the current shortfall in Pell Grants for college students; it meets the increased medical needs for our veterans; it makes adequate adjustments to meet military pay and health costs. It provides the Department of Defense $513 billion, which is $4.9 billion more than last year with corresponding cuts on the domestic side of the ledger, I'm sorry to say.

Now I'm sure we'll hear a lot of talk about a number of changes in the bill, the number of hard choices we had to make in this package to try to keep Uncle Sam from being Uncle Scrooge this holiday season. John Wesley admonished us to ``do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.'' This product falls embarrassingly short of that goal. But I make no apologies for the fact that the committee has done its dead level best within the constraints under which we are operating to make some modest adjustments, to salvage some investments which over the long haul just might create more jobs than tax breaks for millionaires and adjustments that might ease the financial desperation faced by so many families today who cannot afford to send their kids to college, to find decent child care, or to

provide adequate medical attention to their needs.

So we have had the unmitigated gall to shift additional funds to the Social Security Administration to ensure that people get their benefits without undue delay.

In an outrageously socialistic attempt to provide some additional health safety protections for miners who have all too often been the victims of the mindset of owners who put more emphasis on profitability than they do on miner safety, we shifted about $50 million into that account.

I hope that the Congress is not so penny-wise and pound foolish that they will object to our decision to shift funding to further our efforts to ferret out waste, fraud, and abuse in Social Security and Medicare.

And on a day when temperatures are dropping to 5 above zero in my hometown, and we were a balmy 23 degrees here in Washington last night, I hope this Congress isn't too offended that we have recommended $190 million above last year for homeless assistance grants to combat the growing number of families who are living on the streets, thanks to the ``brilliance'' of political leaders in Washington in managing this economy. Those are a few of the modest changes that we have made in what would otherwise be an automatic pilot course of action in a straight continuing resolution.

Within the same dollar limits, this legislation attempts to make modest adjustments that recognize that needs and conditions change over a year's time. I hope it does not represent too great an ``inconvenience'' to those Members of this body who are much more comfortable providing budget-busting tax gifts to the economic elite in this country rather than making even the tiniest government investment in programs that will help the lives of the unlucky by making their lives a little bit better with investments that might run the unholy risk of making the economy work nearly as well for average families as it does for the American elite who can afford to make large contributions to those fortunate enough to be honored by our constituents with the stewardship of the national interest.

I want to say one other thing. There are at least 50 decisions in this bill that I am flatly opposed to. There are many arguments in this bill that I have lost. But the fact is, sooner or later, if you're going to be responsible, you have to set aside your first preferences and simply do what is necessary in order to keep the government open so that Congress doesn't become the laughingstock of the country. The only responsible vote to cast on this proposition is an ``aye'' vote. I urge support for the resolution, with all of its shortcomings.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, could I ask the gentleman how many speakers he has remaining.

We have none. I reserve my time.

Would the gentleman like an answer to that question?

This amendment was a Republican amendment offered by Mr. Cole from Oklahoma. It was not slipped in. It was voted in in the subcommittee appropriation bill 5 months ago.

Don't suggest it's been sneaked. It has not.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to agree with the gentleman from Virginia on the substance of the issue. But the fact is that the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee voted in open session with open debate to adopt the Cole amendment.

Now, as chairman of the full committee, I don't have the luxury of producing bills that represent my own priorities. It is my obligation to try to find the center of gravity that enables us to represent the views of the House. That's what we did on this issue. And for the gentleman to suggest that there is anything corrupt about it is scurrilous.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time remains.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. Don't worry, I am not going to take it all.

Mr. Speaker, I had not expected to get into this kind of a discussion today, but I think the comments of a previous speaker from the other side illustrate just another reason why I am glad to be leaving this place.

When I came here, I don't think there were very many Members who would reach a conclusion that if someone disagreed with them on substance that somehow they were morally defective.

In a civilized, adult, legislative body, Members would recognize that there can be legitimate policy differences that can be highly controversial and that you can have honorable people on both sides of the question engage in honest debate and discussion about those issues.

In the main, that is what Members of this House usually do, but I have noticed a tendency in recent years on more and more occasions for Members to substitute hyperbole for thought and to substitute attacks on character for attacks on argument, and I find that sad indeed.

I do not know of a straighter shooter in this Congress than Mr. Cole. He is a highly partisan individual. He at one time ran the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, but he did it with honor and, in my view, he has brought honor to this place in the way he has handled himself on a wide variety of issues as long as I have watched him operate.

I do not believe that he or any other member of the Interior subcommittee who dealt with the issue at hand demonstrated anything but an honest effort to try to deal with a Court decision which played fruit basket upset on years and years of legal precedent.

I am, for one, proud of the service that I have had in this place with people like the gentleman from Oklahoma, and I would simply urge all Members, as I leave this Chamber, to remember that there are good people on both sides of the aisle who have honest, hard-fought views and hard-earned views and have a right to express them without some off-the-wall Member accusing them of corruption.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting for the funding bill before us today but not without deep reservations. Each of the appropriations subcommittees considered bills for Fiscal Year 2011, but only two were brought to the floor for a vote. All twelve appropriations bills deserved a vote by the full House. Instead, we are freezing spending levels across the board and carrying forward most of the spending decisions made last year without a full and fair debate on the consequences for today's economy and today's needs. Surely this action does not live up to the responsibility that our constituents have entrusted to us.

The results of our failure to fully weigh the tradeoffs of our spending choices are not inconsequential. Even though serious questions remain about the effectiveness and safety of full body imaging devices, this bill increases funding for the Transportation Security Administration to procure, deploy, and staff new full body scanners in America's airports. To keep spending levels constant, the bill unilaterally ends funding for certain election reform programs, reduces funding for high speed rail, and forces the Department of Energy to raid funding for renewable energy and basic science programs in order to pay for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy. This one-year funding bill freezes the pay of our dedicated public servants for two years even though non-military federal worker salaries did not create our deficit and a freeze will not solve our budget problems. While I'm pleased that this bill includes funds for a 1.4 percent military pay raise and additional funding to help our troops and their families, I regret that the bill includes tens of billions of dollars for ongoing combat operations in Afghanistan. Our continued military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not making us safer, and the billions we are wasting on these wars is money that could be far better spent at home--to hire more police for our communities, build new schools, and replace our aging and increasingly dangerous road and rail bridges.

Yet even with these and many other significant problems, this bill will keep our government operating and uphold many of our important commitments. Low-income working families will receive badly needed childcare and housing assistance. Our military personnel will receive the benefits and care they need, and our veterans will have their benefits claims processed in a more timely manner. We will fully fund our aid agreement with Israel and maintain assistance programs for other countries, including Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan. Students will continue to receive Pell grants, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency will have the resources necessary to respond to natural disasters.

The choice presented to us in the form of this bill should not be. We are putting off the tough decisions that deserve careful consideration and reasoned compromise. We can and should make that effort. Yet on balance, I believe this bill is necessary, even if the process and the product are clearly insufficient.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, S. 510, and to commend the Senate for its hard work in crafting and amending the bill to ensure that it would not adversely impact small and family-owned farms.

According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control, each year 76 million people (25 percent of the population) become sick, 325,000 are hospitalized and 5,000 die from foodborne illnesses in the United States. In recent years, the United States has experienced many incidents of food contamination, caused by biological and man-made toxins, from spinach contaminated with E. coli bacteria, to imported wheat gluten from China contaminated with the industrial chemical melamine, to the largest beef recall in United States history--more than 143 million pounds of beef products--due to downer cattle having entered the food supply, to another of the largest food recalls in the nation's history when Georgia-based Peanut Corporation of America recalled all of its peanut products due to salmonella contamination.

These clear instances of food contamination highlight that we are long overdue in passing comprehensive food safety legislation. I was pleased to support a strong House version of this legislation when it was considered in July 2009. While I am sorry we cannot win final approval for our stronger legislation, the bill before us today includes many of those important reforms, and represents the most comprehensive set of food safety reforms put forth since the 1930s.

The bill would provide the FDA with direct mandatory recall authority, replacing the current system which depends on individual producers to issue recalls. It would also require food producers to develop food safety plans, including identifying potential risks of contamination or other hazards, and identifying the mechanisms through which those risks would be controlled. Hazards required to be identified and controlled are very broadly defined, including biological and chemical hazards, natural and man-made toxins, pesticides, drug residues, parasites, allergens and other contaminants, whether intentionally or unintentionally introduced. The bill would increase the number of FDA inspections at all food facilities. In addition, the bill establishes a food tracing system through which consumers could rapidly be identified and deaths and illnesses could be minimized in the event of a contamination outbreak. Finally, importers would be required to verify that all imported foods comply with United States food safety requirements, and the FDA would be allowed to deny entry to a food that lacks FDA certification for high-risk foods, or that is from a foreign facility that has refused U.S. inspectors.

In particular, I want to thank my colleagues in the Senate for responding to many of the concerns raised by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, NSAC, and constituents from my district that the bill would negatively impact small and family-owned farms, and value- added producers. As stated by the NSAC, ``[a]s a result of grassroots mobilization and much negotiation this bill now provides scale- appropriate food safety rules for small farms and mid-sized farms and local processors that sell to restaurants, food coops, groceries, wholesalers and at farm stands and farmers markets.''

The bill before us today includes several key Senate amendments that addressed the NSAC's concerns. For example, the Tester-Hagen amendment clarifies existing law exempting from FDA registration requirements farms that market more than 50 percent of their product directly from the farm or from farm stands or farmer's markets. In addition, it provides less costly alternatives to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Plans, HACCP, to farms that directly market more than 50 percent of their product to consumers, stores or restaurants within their state or within 400 miles of the farm, and have gross sales of less than $500,000. The HACCP is a system through which food safety hazards at producers are identified, evaluated, and controlled, and the Tester-Hagen amendment allows qualifying farms to satisfy HACCP requirements by documenting that they comply with state laws or by providing the FDA with documentation identifying potential hazards, controls implemented to address those hazards, and monitoring mechanisms.

The Stabenow amendment establishes a competitive grant program for food safety training, giving priority to small and mid-sized farms, beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, and small food processors. The Bennet amendment alleviates paperwork requirements applicable to all small farms, and requires the FDA to allow on-farm processing and other flexible mechanisms through which small farms may comply with the preventative control plan and produce standards requirements of the bill. Other important amendments that protect small and mid-sized farms would allow the FDA to exempt farms that engage in low-risk or no-risk value-added processing from regulatory requirements, exempt small farms from traceability and recordkeeping requirements if they sell directly to consumers or grocery stores, and remove requirements that negatively impact wildlife and wildlife habitat on farms.

I thank my supportive colleagues again for their leadership and comprehensive action on this matter, and I urge my undecided colleagues to support this bill.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I rise in respectful and regretful opposition to the continuing resolution. The primary reason that the Energy and Commerce Committee has time on the floor is because of the inclusion of the Food Safety Act in the continuing resolution.

The food safety bill that passed the House last year was the result of bipartisan cooperation between Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman Pallone, Chairman Dingell, myself, then-subcommittee Ranking Member Nathan Deal, and others on the Republican side. It was the result of a number of years of work. It was an open process, it was an inclusive process, and the result was a very strong bipartisan vote both in the committee and on the House floor. I believe on the House floor, 59 Republicans joined with almost every Democrat to send that bill to the Senate.

The bill that's come back from the Senate that's been included in the continuing resolution is not the House bill, as amended. It is a Senate bill that is significantly different in several respects.

The inclusion of what's called the Tester amendment in the Senate bill means that some farms, small farms along the borders between the United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada would be exempt from some of the requirements of the bill.

The methods of payment are different. The House had a registration fee, an annual registration fee. That is not included in the Senate version.

There are a number of tax issues with the Senate bill that we have a problem with here in the House; if it was not included in the CR, the food safety bill would, in all likelihood, be subject to what we call ``blue slipping'' here in the House of Representatives.

So it really is difficult to be in opposition to the food safety bill because of the unity of purpose and the spirit of cooperation that existed in the Energy and Commerce Committee when the food safety legislation was passed last year. But our friends in the other body, as is more often than not the case, have tended to ignore our work product and send us theirs at the last moment with a ``take it or leave it'' attitude.

Ranking member and soon to be Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas and I have sent a letter to our Speaker suggesting that we would be more than willing to go to conference with our friends in the other body. We're going to be in session at least another week, perhaps two. We could have a conference. We could probably agree on a bipartisan, bicameral food safety bill that would pass muster in both bodies. I'm still hopeful that that might occur.

With regards to other items in the continuing resolution that are not part of the Food Safety Act, there are numerous things that we find objectionable. The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission is going to receive $350 million, which is an increase of over 4\1/2\ percent from fiscal year 2010. It's even more than $14 million, as I understand it, than what they perhaps asked for.

In the continuing resolution in terms of health provisions, there is funding for several sections of the health care law that we believe to be objectionable. The funding for public awareness, for example--so far, HHS has spent over $3 million for television ads featuring one of my favorite actors, Andy Griffith. ``The Andy Griffith Show'' and Barney Fife were one of my favorite television shows when I was growing up, and I continue to watch it on reruns.

But I have a little bit of a problem watching Mr. Griffith extol to seniors the important new benefits of the current health care law simply as a kind of a pitch master for something that, in all likelihood, we're going to change, perhaps even repeal next year.

Independent groups have found that some of these ads have misled seniors. They claim benefits that will be available while ignoring cuts to Medicare Advantage and other reductions in the Medicare payment rate. I think this is misleading and unfortunate.

In the area of telecommunications, the continuing resolution exempts the Universal Service Fund from the Anti-Deficiency Act. This would allow the government to obligate money for carrier subsidies before we actually have the money in hand. Most of us on the minority side, soon to be the majority side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, find that to be very objectionable and, quite frankly, irresponsible.

So again, on the food safety bill that passed the House, I voted for it. I have nothing but respect and compliments for the leadership of Mr. Waxman, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Pallone, and others. But the CR version of the food safety bill that we're asked to vote on today is not the bill that came out of the House. And for that reason, regretfully, I oppose it.

And on the basic CR overall, there are numerous reasons from an Energy and Commerce perspective on the minority side of the aisle to oppose that.

So we would ask for a ``no'' vote, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan.

On the House-passed bill, not this bill, but the House-passed bill.

I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman's indulgence.

We are going to have to suggest that the Members on the minority side vote ``no'' on the CR because of a number of reasons that our friends on the Appropriations Committee have alluded to.

If we could have a conference between the House conferees and the Senate conferees on the food safety bill, we could come to some reasonable compromises where we could recommend a vote for the food safety bill as a stand-alone bill. That is still possible to do or would be possible if the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate and the chairmen of the appropriate committees in the House and Senate were willing to go down that road. In this Congress, those types of conferences have been few and far between. So we are stuck here in a situation where you have a reasonably good piece of legislation that passed the House, a not as reasonably good piece of legislation that came out of the Senate at the last moment and is being attached to a continuing resolution that shows that the majority in both this body and the other body have refused to take their funding responsibilities very seriously for the last year.

So as much as good as is in the food safety part of the bill, and as hard as Chairman Waxman and Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Pallone have worked on that part of it, I still believe that the correct vote on this bill today is a ``no'' vote.

So, Mr. Speaker, we do ask that Members vote ``no'' on this. The good parts of the legislation we will hopefully bring back very quickly in the next Congress and have a vote in regular order early in the year.

With that, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the bill today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3082, the ``Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.''

This legislation includes extensions of Federal-aid highway, public transit, highway and motor carrier safety, and aviation programs.

The timely consideration of this measure is especially critical given that the current extensions of these transportation programs lapse on December 31, 2010.

Division B of this bill extends the current surface transportation programs for nine months, providing a total investment level of $54.8 billion for these programs in fiscal year 2011. This investment includes $42.3 billion for the Federal-aid highway program and $10.5 billion for Federal transit programs.

The extension of surface transportation programs provides continuity of funding for infrastructure projects, cutting-edge research, and highway safety programs across the country that are putting Americans to work, saving lives, and fostering economic prosperity for businesses and consumers alike.

An extension of current programs and funding levels is a far cry from my preferred approach to addressing the nation's growing surface transportation challenges. Meeting the overall needs of the system and developing a 21st century surface transportation network worthy of being passed on to future generations can only be accomplished through the passage of a robust and transformational long-term surface transportation authorization act.

However, extending these programs through the end of the fiscal year will provide States, localities, and public transit agencies with the degree of certainty necessary to move forward with their capital programs while Congress continues to work toward passage of a long-term surface transportation authorization bill.

I am also very pleased that Division B addresses a concern that I have raised with the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act (P.L. 111-147) regarding the programmatic distribution of formerly earmarked funds that disproportionately benefited certain highway formula programs at the expense of other formula programs.

Division B distributes additional formula funds to States in lieu of additional Congressionally-designated funding. However, the HIRE Act distributed these additional funds to only six of the 13 Federal-aid highway formula programs. This extension act will instead distribute these funds among all 13 highway formula programs.

This change ensures that seven programs: the Appalachian Development Highway System; Rail-Highway Grade Crossing; Equity Bonus; Recreational Trails; Safe Routes to School; Coordinated Border Infrastructure; and Metropolitan Planning programs, receive additional funding in fiscal year 2011.

This approach is consistent with the approach taken in the 12 surface transportation extension acts enacted between 2003 and 2005, which distributed these additional funds through all Federal-aid highway formula programs.

In addition, H.R. 3082 includes an amended version of H.R. 5730, the ``Surface Transportation Earmark Rescission, Savings, and Accountability Act,'' which passed the House on July 27, 2010, by a vote of 394-23. H.R. 3082 eliminates unobligated balances for approximately 300 Member-designated projects contained in previous surface transportation authorization acts, including every surface transportation authorization act of the past two decades. The bill clears the books of projects that will not go forward and saves taxpayers more than $600 million. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey) for introducing H.R. 5730 and working to ensure its inclusion in the bill before us today.

Specifically, the bill:

Rescinds all remaining highway earmarks designated in the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (STURAA) (P.L. 100-17);

Rescinds all remaining highway earmarks designated in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (P.L. 102-240);

Rescinds all highway projects designated in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century (TEA 21) (P.L. 105-178) that have not obligated at least 10 percent of the funds authorized for the project; and

Rescinds all High Priority Project program funds authorized by the Safe, Accountable,

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59) that were not designated for use on a specific project.

Division C of the bill extends aviation programs, taxes, and Airport and Airway Trust Fund expenditure authority through September 30, 2011. These provisions will ensure that Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, programs continue without interruption pending enactment of a long-term FAA reauthorization bill. As I have said many times over the past four years, the House has done its part to move FAA reauthorization legislation forward, only to be stymied by the Senate. In the event that a long-term FAA reauthorization bill is not enacted prior to the end of the 111th Congress, this extension act, which authorizes FAA programs through the end of the current fiscal year, will provide a measure of stability and certainty to FAA programs.

Finally, the bill extends all requirements and conditions of the Federal surface transportation and aviation programs, including provisions regarding the utilization of disadvantaged business enterprises, DBE. DBE provisions have been applicable to the Department of Transportation's financial assistance programs since 1980, and are designed to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts.

On March 26, 2009, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing entitled ``The Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Programs.'' During the hearing, the Committee reviewed a large volume of recent evidence of race and gender discrimination from numerous sources. This evidence demonstrated that discrimination across the nation poses a serious obstacle to full and fair participation in highway, transit, and airport construction projects of women business owners and minority business owners, and provides a strong basis in evidence that there is a compelling need for the continuation of the disadvantaged business enterprise program to address race and gender discrimination in these transportation construction projects. Based on the Committee's continuing oversight of the DBE program, Congress specifically finds that the DBE provisions are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3082, the ``Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.''