Recognizing the region from Manhattan, Kansas, to Columbia, Missouri, as the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor, and for other purposes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 317 designates the region from Manhattan, Kansas, to Columbia, Missouri, as the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor. Manhattan, Kansas, is slated to become the new home of the foot-and-mouth research in the United States as part of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, NBAF as it's called. This is where my problem is with this resolution.

Foot-and-mouth disease is a highly contagious animal disease, infecting nearly 100 percent of the animals exposed to the virus. There have been two outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom this decade. The first resulted in the slaughter of more than 6 million animals, and it cost that country more than $16 billion. The second outbreak is suspected to have come from an accidental release from a government lab. It is estimated that a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the United States could cost as much as $40 billion, and it would devastate the U.S. livestock market.

For more than 50 years, research on foot-and-mouth disease in the United States has been done off Plum Island, which is off the coast of New York's Long Island. The natural water barrier protects our animal population from an accidental or intentional release of the disease from the island research facility.

House Resolution 317 states: ``More than 45 percent of the fed cattle--40 percent of the hogs and 20 percent of beef cows and calves produced in the United States--are located within 350 miles of Kansas City.''

I am baffled as to why we would want to move the foot-and-mouth disease research into the heart of Kansas given these staggering statistics. An accidental or an intentional release of foot-and-mouth disease in this enormous beef and pork population would bring our livestock industry to its knees.

As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, I held a hearing in the last Congress on the Bush administration's ill-conceived plan to move foot-and-mouth research off of Plum Island and onto the mainland of the United States.

In response to my subcommittee's hearing, Congress required the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a study to determine if foot-and-mouth disease can be done safely on the mainland. DHS's study was then to be evaluated by the Government Accountability Office, GAO. DHS rushed

through a study; and in July, GAO released their analysis of the DHS study. The GAO report found numerous flaws in the study, including that DHS did not use foot-and-mouth disease virus-specific modeling to study the impact of a release into a community. Instead, they used a modeling system for radiation.

DHS's study was based on unrepresentative accident scenarios, outdated dispersion modeling techniques and inadequate meteorological data. The economic analysis did not incorporate market response to the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, which would have been related to the number of livestock in the site's vicinity. DHS did not effectively characterize the differences in risk between mainland and island sites. DHS did not effectively integrate the components of its risk assessment.

As you can see, the Government Accountability Office has significant concerns about this flawed DHS study. The GAO concluded that DHS did not meet the standards set forth by Congress to prove that foot-and- mouth disease research can be done safely on the mainland. As a result, we've called for an independent third-party study to be conducted. This study would correct the problems outlined in the GAO study.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the gentleman from Kansas and with my friend from Pennsylvania in recognizing the area set forth in House Resolution 317 as the animal health corridor, but I really do have problems with moving foot-and-mouth disease research into the center of livestock production in the United States without any proof that it can be done safely. If the Department of Homeland Security is going to pursue this dangerous tempting of fate, I think the American people should have an accurate assessment of what economic devastation could befall us should there be a release of foot-and-mouth disease from this new facility in Manhattan, Kansas.

Again, I understand where the gentleman is going, and I understand what he is trying to do to promote his State and to promote his area, but let's not rush to judgment here, especially when there are so many unanswered questions about whether this research can be done safely.

If they want to recognize H. Res. 317 as the animal health corridor, I have no problem; but I'd ask that they strike the NBAF language, and then I would be able to support the legislation. As it stands right now, the way the legislation is written, I reluctantly would oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am having some difficulty understanding how it is that we are on the floor today debating this resolution. I would like to first speak to the claims made by my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the majority whip, in pointing out what are alleged to be precedents for this resolution.

As he knows, those instances that he referred to, whether it be the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) or the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) when they came to the well of this body to speak to our colleagues, it was as a result of conduct displayed, number one, in the case of Mr. Stark, during debate on the floor of this House, and number two, on the part of Mr. Thomas, conduct that took place among members in a committee on which I sit, the Ways and Means, two very distinct situations from the one we have here at hand.

Again, I don't understand how it is a priority that we are here on this particular resolution. The resolution, as has been pointed out, creates no job. The resolution does nothing to do anything to increase access to quality health care. The resolution does nothing to address the issues of national security. Plain and simple, this resolution does not reflect the priority of the American people.

Now, President Obama came to this Chamber last week and he admonished us, Mr. Speaker. He admonished us to stop with the partisan bickering. In fact, he echoed the sentiments that he expressed during his inaugural address when he said, ``We may still be a young Nation, but it is time to set aside childish things.''

Now, as the leader said, as the gentleman from South Carolina himself said, he admits that what he did was inappropriate. He was on national television indicating he shouldn't have done it. He wouldn't do it again. He also said to the Nation, he called the President. As the leader indicated, the President graciously accepted the apology. I am told the Vice President has also accepted the apology. What more does the gentleman want? That's why I am at a loss as to what this is if it is not a partisan stunt.

So I believe we ought to accept what the President and the Speaker and others have said: Let's get on with the business of the people. Let's try and get over the divide and stick to the course of trying to work on things we agree on, or things that we have a potential to do away with the disagreements, not the partisanship.

Now, this is the bill. This is the famed H.R. 3200, Mr. Speaker, and there are several issues in here the American people have spoken out on. The first is the claim that we ought to be able to keep what we have if we are talking about health insurance. On page 16 of the bill, there is a section entitled, ``Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage.'' That's what we all are trying to do for the 85 or some percent of this country who has health insurance.

You know what, our side says despite that title, there are provisions in there which begin to require individuals and their insurers to do certain things which make it somewhat difficult if not impossible to allow for folks to keep what they have.

The next issue that is of import certainly to the American people and to this body is the question of access to Federal benefits by those who are here illegally.

Now, the President stood on this floor in this body, Mr. Speaker, and said that he did not believe that there was any access for those here illegally to Federal benefits. In fact, on page 143, there is a section which speaks to the issue that there should be no Federal benefit for those here illegally.

The problem that we have on this side is there is no requirement of verification of legal status. And in fact the White House, in fact Senator Baucus and others have since come out and said, You know what, you're right. These are the kinds of things we could be doing right now to try and accomplish what it is that the American people have sent us here to do, and they expect us to do that in a deliberate manner that produces a positive result, which means we all have got to do that living within our means and to ensure that we do not break the bank in passing this health care reform measure.

So I implore this House, Mr. Speaker, let's try and get back to the business of the people.

I thank my dear friend from Pennsylvania for making available to me this time.

I would tell my colleagues this is a dangerous bill, and I would urge them to be careful about what you say about it because, if ever the location of this facility in Kansas causes an outbreak of animal disease or human disease, your remarks today will make great quotes by your opponents against you in the following election.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation recognizing the region from Manhattan, Kansas, to Columbia, Missouri, as the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor. It's a nice idea, but none of the work that has to be done under the National Environmental Policy Act or under other proper laws relating to the location of facilities of this kind has been fully and adequately and properly done. So what we're doing is just getting ready to locate what, essentially, could be a fine time bomb in the area to which we refer in the legislation-- certainly, a foolish action.

The location of the current facility was picked because of its location off the shore of New York. It's on an island and it's isolated. Indeed, although in 1978 livestock on the island were infected after an accidental release of animal virus, the virus did not and could not reach the mainland. That is a warning to all here present.

In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security, I must assume in its usual slovenly fashion, proposed to move the animal disease facility to the mainland. Within hearings in the oversight committee, chaired by Mr. Stupak, in the Energy and Commerce Committee, we learned from the committee that not only did DHS not adequately study the dangers of transferring foot-and-mouth disease onto the mainland but also that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease would wreak havoc on the livestock industry, potentially costing $40 billion in economic damage.

An outbreak of this disease in Britain caused $16 billion in damage, spurring an economic panic that almost shut down the government. Given the hundreds of billions of dollars at which our livestock industry is valued, an outbreak of FMD in the United States would be vastly more destructive.

DHS has since selected Manhattan, Kansas, as the new location for the facility for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility. The legislation, H. Res. 317, states that more than 45 percent of the fed cattle in the United States--40 percent of the hogs produced and 20 percent of the beef cows and calves--are located in the Kansas City region.

If you want a good warning as to why this legislation should not be adopted, that is it right there, because right in the middle of the greatest production of these kinds of animals, we are placing a facility that is going to handle--guess what--all manner of animal diseases, especially foot-and-mouth disease.

There is careful, thoughtful work that needs to be done to ensure that the industry is safe and that our people are safe and that they can understand that their government has done the proper work that it has to do to ensure the safety of the facility and the proper design of the facility.

Serious questions remain as to why the government needs to build the new NBAF in the first place; but, significantly, the fact that DHS continues to shirk its responsibilities to understand the risk of transferring the FMD to the mainland means that Congress must be very wary of sanctioning this new proposal regardless of the opportunities of the economic character that it might bring.

I would just warn my colleagues--and I say this with affection for my good friend who is the author of the legislation--that this is an unwise step to take at this particular time. I would urge my colleagues to ask themselves, if they don't ask anything else: Where are we going to bury all of the animals that are going to get FMD that are going to have to be exterminated because we have made an unwise choice in this matter?

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the President came to this House for a joint session of Congress to discuss how we as a Nation will reform health care. The debate over health care has made clear that the American people are actually paying attention to what is happening here.

During the President's speech, our colleague, Joe Wilson, made a mistake--a mistake that I believe was driven by both the substance and the emotion involved in this debate.

Immediately after he made that mistake, Congressman Wilson did the appropriate thing. He immediately apologized to the President. President Obama very graciously accepted his apology.

Mr. Speaker, recently, President Obama made a mistake when referring to actions of the Cambridge police while acknowledging that he did not have all the facts. In the national uproar that ensued, he called it a teachable moment. I thought that was a very human response to an incident that was blown totally out of proportion, in my opinion, and some actually inferred that it had racial overtones.

I think what we have here today, Mr. Speaker, is a teachable moment, and it has nothing to do with race.

Joe Wilson is a patriotic American who has defended our freedom in uniform as well as here in the United States Congress. He is the father of four sons who also served this Nation in uniform to defend our liberty, our freedom, our democracy. And we have all heard Joe Wilson speak on this floor, and he ends every floor statement with the same following words: God bless our troops, and we will never forget September the 11th.

Joe Wilson simply made a mistake and was forgiven by the person who was harmed by that mistake. Case closed. So why are we here? What can we be taught by forcing a vote on this resolution?

Well, I believe what is going on here, Mr. Speaker, today, is a reflection of the unease among the American people as they have watched this Congress enact a $700 billion Wall Street bailout, a $787 billion economic stimulus bill, a $1.8 trillion deficit, this year alone, placed on the backs of their children and their grandchildren.

They have been watching as Congress works on health care legislation that would fundamentally alter one of the most personal factors in their lives, and that is how to care for themselves and their families.

During the August recess we saw the frustrations of the American people when they came out in large numbers to exercise their rights guaranteed under the First Amendment--the right to free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to redress their grievances before government. And how were they treated when they did this? Some leaders of this House called them un-American, or an angry mob. All of this for simply making their voices heard.

I understand that democracy is sometimes difficult and it can instill passion. That passion, that love for our Nation and the belief in the idea that every American deserves to be heard is what makes America great. And we who are honored to serve here have a duty to listen.

The acrimony that has developed here is what needs to be stopped. We need to stop and we need to listen to one another. We need to focus on the needs of the people and do the work that they sent us here to do. Most importantly, get our economy moving.

I come from Michigan, where countless of my fellow citizens have lost their jobs and many have also lost their health care. The resolution that we are considering today will not create one job. It will not help one person get health care for their family. It will do nothing to allay the concerns of seniors who are worried about their Medicare. It will do nothing to get our economy moving again. It will simply inflame a debate that should have been over when President Obama accepted Joe Wilson's apology.

We can do better. The American people can do better. And, hopefully, in this teachable moment, we will learn.

I rise today in opposition to the resolution of disapproval of Mr. Wilson. A friend of mine back in Indiana likes to say that Washington, D.C., is 100 square miles surrounded by reality. That never felt truer than it does today.

Think about it. Our economy is struggling, families are hurting, and Congress is poised to demand an apology from a man who has already apologized. Extraordinary.

First, let me stipulate that Joe Wilson is a good man and a man of integrity. He is a devoted husband to his beloved Roxanne, a proud father of four American servicemen.

I have traveled with Joe into some pretty tight spots, like many of my Democrat colleagues have. I have seen his devotion to our soldiers. I have never failed to be inspired by his love for the men and women of this country in uniform, his love of his country, and his constituents.

The Old Book tells us a harsh word stirs up anger. We might have seen a little bit of that last week. In the midst of a highly partisan speech by the President of the United States, Joe made a mistake. Immediately after the speech was over, Joe recognized his mistake and he offered his sincere apology to the President and the President's staff. And he was right to apologize. But it's important to note that, despite his admitted error, the broader national interest was actually served.

The American people didn't send us here just to get along. They sent us here to get it right. Ironically, because of Joe Wilson's outburst, we have been engaged in nearly a week-long debate about what's really in H.R. 3200. In fact, now the American people know there's nothing in the Democrat's bill

in the House that requires an individual to verify their identity or citizenship, leaving open the very possibility of undocumented workers receiving health care benefits. This was concurred in by the Congressional Research Service that noted in the absence ``of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure, undocumented immigrants could receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits.''

If you need any further proof, the White House clarified their position last Friday, stating their support for verification expressly of an individual's citizenship.

Despite the controversy and the sound and the fury, Congress has a shot to get it a little more right than they would have otherwise.

Let me speak, as I close, about the broader issue of bringing this resolution to the floor of the Congress today. I was home in Indiana yesterday. Hoosiers were shocked with the news that one of our most storied companies, Eli Lilly and Company, was announcing 5,500 layoffs.

I was in Evansville, Indiana, in August, on the very day that Whirlpool announced they were closing a factory and sending more than a thousand jobs out of that city and out of this country forever.

More than 2 million jobs have been lost since the so-called stimulus bill was passed. Fifteen million Americans were out of work. Yet here we are, taking time in the people's House to demand an apology from a man who has already apologized.

The American people want better. The American people want less politics and more jobs. They want Congress to set aside petty partisan politics and come together to take action to get this economy moving again.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Last Wednesday was not a good day in the House, but today is worse. Today we see politics overwhelming this institution. The American people are tired.

So let me say again, without the din of the gavel, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, put attention back on the work that the American people sent us here to perform, and that is to serve the interests of their families and the interests of this Nation with everything we've got. I'm with Joe; vote ``no.''

I thank the gentleman from Kansas for yielding and thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled why this discussion has come up this afternoon. This has been a long selection process to get NBAF to where it is located today.

Many facilities were researched. They looked at it. They decided the best place in all of America, based on past history, based on facility, based on geography, based on the plan and place was to select Manhattan, Kansas.

Now, we have the same similar lab research going on around America today and also in Canada. In fact, there are facilities at Fort Detrick, Maryland, very close here to Washington, D.C. It's considered safe even though the research there is somewhat as dangerous, if not more dangerous, to humans than what we are discussing today.

We also have CDC laboratories in Atlanta, Georgia, and in other high- population areas, places in Texas have similar research going on. But in Winnipeg, Canada, they have the very same research going on 70 miles from the United States border and in the cattle country of Canada, and yet there are no concerns.

Now, the NBAF facility is going to be the same, whether you locate it in Kansas or Georgia or Texas or whether somebody else here would like to have it in their home district. We are going to have plans in place to make sure that this is a well-protected facility, a level 4 security, BSL 4, as it is referred to. It is going to be safe, it's going to be effective, and it's going to provide the continuation of a low-cost, stable food supply that is marketable worldwide because of the safety research.

So for us to put a red herring out there that this is not a safe facility or that there are some concerns, you know, this has been studied by DHS. They do have a preliminary plan in place, God forbid something should ever happen, but they are satisfied that this level 4 facility is going to meet the requirements.

One point I would like to make is that in Kansas State we have been doing similar research for quite some time in the past decade, completely safe in a level 4 facility. We can start the beginning of this research today. The only thing that's really

holding this up is this lack of funding, and there is something critical going on in the funding scheme. The Federal Government has promised to come up with 36 million. It's going to be matched by the State of Kansas.

But if we delay the construction, we delay the protections that would be put in place. And it's very shortsighted for us to question, after the fact, all the research, all the decisions, the fairness in the process and the decision that was made.

It was a good decision. It's the right location. We are going to move forward with this to protect our food supply and protect the people of America and make marketable agricultural products worldwide.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I missed recorded votes on the House floor during the week of Monday, September 14, 2009.

Had I been present on Monday, September 14, 2009, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 696 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 6), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 697 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 459), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 698 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 59).

Had I been present on Tuesday, September 15, 2009, I would have voted ``Present'' on rollcall vote No. 699 (On agreeing to H. Res. 744), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 700 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 317), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 701 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 22), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 702 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 3137)

Had I been present on Wednesday, September 16, 2009, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 703 (On agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 746), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 704 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 260), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 705 (On agreeing to the Hall (TX) amendment to H.R. 3246), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 706 (On agreeing to the Donnelly (IN) amendment to HR. 3246), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 707 (On agreeing to the Massa amendment to H.R. 3246), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 708 (On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 3246), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 709 (On passage of H.R. 3246)

Had I been present on Thursday, September 17, 2009, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 710 (On agreeing to the Hoekstra amendment to HR. 3221), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 711 (On agreeing to the McMorris Rodgers amendment to HR. 3221), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 712 (On agreeing to the Foxx amendment to HR. 3221), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 713 (On agreeing to the Himes amendment to H.R. 3221), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 714 (On agreeing to the Minnick amendment to HR. 3221), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 715 (On agreeing to the Schauer amendment to H.R. 3221), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 716 (On agreeing to the Teague amendment to HR. 3221), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 717 (On agreeing to the Guthrie amendment to HR. 3221, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 718 (On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 3221) because as an original cosponsor and a strong supporter of H.R. 3571, the Defund ACORN Act, I agree that it is absolutely necessary to prevent all Federal taxpayer dollars from going to ACORN, and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 719 (On passage of H.R. 3221).

I know Joe Wilson. I've worked with him in the halls of this Congress in committees and I have traveled with him to Iraq. A retired Army colonel, all four of his sons followed Joe into military service.

In the 7 years that I have known him, I have never known Joe Wilson to say an unkind word about anyone. Joe is a good and honest man. He is the kind of person who, if he disagrees with you, does it without being disagreeable.

Just as it was wrong for my Democrat colleagues to boo former President Bush in this Chamber, it was wrong for Joe Wilson to speak out of turn. The difference is that Joe Wilson apologized and the President very graciously accepted his apology.

Every Member in this Chamber has uttered words they wish they could have said differently. I know Joe made his comment out of frustration because there seems to be a large gap between health care rhetoric and reality.

What the President said did not match up with the bill that came before the House. This is the same bill that was discussed last month in many town hall meetings across our country. His comment provided Americans with an opportunity to discuss the differences between the bill they've seen and the ideas that the President mentioned in Wednesday's speech.

On the issue of illegal immigrants in health care reform, in three committees here in this very House Republicans offered up amendments to clarify to ensure that illegal aliens would not be included in the health care reform bill. In all three committees, those amendments were resoundingly defeated by my Democrat colleagues.

All Americans heard the President say, If you like your plan, you can keep it. But those words directly conflict with the CBO's findings that cuts to Medicare Advantage plans in H.R. 3200 would result in millions of seniors losing their current plan. That's not keeping the plan that they like.

Further still, we heard the President say that his plan would not add one dime to our deficits. Again, that's contrary to CBO's findings that say that H.R. 3200 would increase deficits by $239 billion over 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, there's a lot of frustration in our districts and throughout America about H.R. 3200. We need to stop wasting time and get down to the business of drafting a bipartisan health care bill that addresses the needs of all Americans.

Think of how many Americans lost their jobs and lost their health care coverage during this 1 hour of debate that we're having today. We need to get down to the serious business that our constituents sent us here for. That's the very least that we can do. That's our job.