Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2749) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve the safety of food in the global market, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 691, I call up the bill (H.R. 2749) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve the safety of food in the global market, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009.

I remind my colleagues that this bill was up before us yesterday and got 280-something votes in favor of it. It is a good piece of legislation. It is bipartisan. It will fundamentally change the way in which we ensure the safety of our food supply and protect American consumers, farmers and business. I would note it came out of committee in a bipartisan fashion, unanimously, by voice vote.

A series of foodborne disease outbreaks have laid bare unacceptable gaps in our food-safety laws, and this will be the first major change in our food-safety laws with regard to food and drugs since 1938.

In the past 2 years alone, we have witnessed issues of melamine in infant formula and in milk products, and we have seen tainted peppers from Mexico, harmful seafood and shellfish from China, E. coli in spinach, and problems with strawberries and raspberries. Each year, in spite of the fact that we have the most careful and safe food in the world, we find that 76 million people contact a foodborne illness in the United States. According to CDC, some 5,000 die.

This legislation contains significant policy solutions that will address this situation. It is largely based upon legislation I introduced last year along with Energy and Commerce subcommittee Chairmen Pallone and Stupak.

We have worked for months with our Republican colleagues in a bipartisan fashion on the Committee on Energy and Commerce to get this bill right. We have worked with our colleagues on the Agriculture and the Ways and Means Committees to address their concerns, and I believe we have done so.

In the end, we have a bill that strikes an important balance; it does not create unnecessary burdens for farmers and small businesses, but it does allow FDA to retain all its existing authority. It takes no authority from the Department of Agriculture or the Committee on Agriculture, and it gives FDA new authorities that it needs to trace and prevent food-safety problems that may originate on the farm or in other sectors of the food supply chain. And we have carefully protected the farmers against intrusion by the Food and Drug Administration.

I want to talk about key provisions in the bill. Under the legislation, FDA has clear authority to issue and require manufacturers to meet strong, enforceable performance standards to ensure the safety of different types of food.

FDA will establish a food trace-back system so that the public health officials can easily determine the source of foodborne disease outbreaks and protect farmers and producers against unwise and inadequate judgments because of lack of personnel and money.

FDA is going to be required to inspect all food facilities more frequently. And the bill requires FDA to inspect the riskiest ones at least once per year.

FDA will be given new authority to ensure that imported foods are safe, a source of major concern and hazard to our people.

FDA will be given new tools--recalls, record access, penalties to punish bad actors, and the ability to act quickly when presented with a food-safety emergency.

FDA will get a new dedicated source of funding from a $500 million annual registration fee on food facilities to help it conduct its work of keeping America safe. And this provision and the rest of the bill are supported by American food producers.

FDA will not be the only cop on the beat. Our food producers will focus also on prevention and have a well-deserved and shared responsibility between FDA and food manufacturers to keep our food supplies safe.

The bill will require manufacturers to implement preventive systems to stop outbreaks before they occur. All food facilities will be required to conduct hazard analyses, assess potential food-safety risks, and develop plans to keep the food supply safe.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this bill that is overly burdensome for farmers small or big. We have worked hard--and I believe we have succeeded--in protecting farms of the family size from burdens that could harm their business and their way of life. My own district has many small farms and people with whom I work closely on agricultural matters, and I believe that they will be satisfied with this legislation.

It is a fact here--and I want to address the concerns that I have heard--that farmers who sell a majority of their product direct to the consumers are exempt from the fee system in this bill. Farms that sell directly to consumers, restaurants, and grocery stores will also be exempt from the trace-back system.

Some have expressed concern that FDA will have access to confidential farm records and make them available for distribution. This is not so. FDA is already limited in the types of records they can access under the law, and they cannot access financial data, pricing data, personnel data, research data, or sales data other than shipment data regarding sales.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 additional minute.

I have also heard concern that FDA will have the authority to issue safety standards that will apply to farms and interfere with organic farming practices. I want to make it clear that that is not so. In fact, FDA is prohibited from imposing safety standards unless it determines those standards are ``reasonably necessary to minimize the risk of serious adverse health consequences or death,'' a very, very high standard that they have to meet. This will ensure protection of the concerns of organic farmers and that they are taken into consideration before issuing standards. This is why it has the support of the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee and members of that committee from both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, this is a product of bipartisan cooperation. It is supported by industry. It was approved unanimously by a voice vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee. It reflects findings of more than 20 hearings on the failure of our food system safety processes conducted by five different committees of the House over 3 years. It addresses weaknesses in the food-safety system at FDA that were identified under the Bush administration and included in concerns under the current administration.

H.R. 2749 it is a well-vetted, mature piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2749. It is old enough to vote; it is over 21 years old.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a good bill. It will protect the American people, the American consumers, and it will not hurt American industry, which supports this bill.

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

I want to thank the gentleman for his hard work both in the Investigations Subcommittee and on the legislation. He and Mr. Deal and the ranking Republican member, our good friend Mr. Barton, have been enormously valuable in the work that has been done to bring us to where we are. I commend him and I thank him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 2 minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee of jurisdiction on this matter, Ms. DeLauro.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the distinguished gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

If the gentleman would yield, the answer to that question is, yes.

The answer to that question is, no.

The answer to that question is, yes; and I will have a more detailed response.

If the gentleman from California would yield, I would like to give a more exhaustive response to my friends.

First, we've been hearing complaints that the bill will put unfair, inappropriate, and unnecessary burdens on farmers, particularly small, diversified, and organic farms. We have worked hard to avoid doing that. I want to tell my good friends we would be extremely concerned if this bill created a conflict between food safety and other farm practices aimed at protecting and sustaining the environment. The bill therefore has a number of important provisions designed to prevent such conflicts.

For example, it requires FDA to take into consideration the impacts of any produced food safety standards on small-scale and diversified farms or on wildlife habitat, on conservation practices, watershed protection efforts, and organic production methods. It prohibits FDA from setting any such standards unless these standards are necessary to minimize the risk of serious adverse health consequences or death.

The bill also requires FDA to work in coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to issue such standards. USDA administers the National Organic Program and will be working with FDA to ensure that the safety standards are compatible with organic standards.

Let me speak now to the question about the traceability system in the bill. The traceability provisions in the bill are a critically important part because they allow FDA to quickly track down the sources of food-borne outbreaks. Before FDA can establish any traceability requirements, the bill requires FDA to go through an extensive information-gathering process with public meetings and a pilot project.

As a part of the process, it requires FDA to consider the costs and the benefits and the feasibility for different sectors of the food industry of any traceability technologies under consideration. And for any regulation that would have an impact on farms, FDA must coordinate with USDA and take into account the nature of the impact on the regulation on farms.

Additionally, FDA will be prohibited from requiring farms selling food directly to consumers, restaurants, or grocery stores to participate in this system.

So I believe we can be confident that whatever traceability system is developed will appropriately take into account the needs and interests of the farmers. And I assure my two good friends that I will work with them to see to it that these commitments are kept.

I thank my two colleagues for their valuable assistance to the committee.

If the gentleman will yield to me just briefly, I want to commend the gentleman not just for a fine statement, but also for the long and strong support he has given for this kind of legislation and protection for industry and for the consumers.

I would like to observe that the concerns the gentleman has expressed are very valuable and are included in the legislation, particularly in seeing to it that foreigners now have to meet the same requirement that Americans do.

Americans produce and process safe food. Foreigners do not. This will assure our people that they can rely on Food and Drug to protect them not just from American producers and from American processors, but also from the foreigners, who are slipping in dangerous substances.

I want to commend the gentleman and thank him.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted at this time to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for purposes of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), a superb Member of this body and a great friend of mine.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would appreciate it if the gentleman didn't praise me, and instead let me say good words about him.

He is a valuable member, a valuable member of our committee. He works hard. He is smart and decent and has been great on this issue. We are proud of him.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), a very distinguished Member of this body, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the House and an extremely wise defender of American agriculture and American farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I am the only speaker remaining on this side, so if my good friend from Illinois would like to proceed, I will follow him in closing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to commend my friend and colleague, Mr. Shimkus, and I want to express my gratitude to him. I also want to express my gratitude to Chairman Waxman, Chairman Stupak and Chairman Pallone, the legislative and appropriation and investigative committee chairmen of the Commerce Committee for the outstanding work they did in preparing this legislation. Also Representative DeGette and Representative Sutton.

My colleagues Mr. Barton, Mr. Deal and Mr. Shimkus on the minority side have worked very well, carefully, thoughtfully with us, and I owe them a debt of thanks and gratitude. Staff Members like Rachel Sher and Eric Flamm have worked hard on this, as has my friend, Virgil Miller. Chairman Peterson and Jim Costa of the Agriculture Committee have been wise advisers and helpers in coming to a bill that could be agreed on by the two committees. Representative Levin, Chair of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Ways and Means Committee has been extremely important, as has Representative DeLauro, the Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee. And Jeanne Ireland, a former staff member of this committee, has been of enormous help in the drafting of the legislation.

We had a long list of supporters. The Obama administration; Grocery Manufacturers Association--the people who sell are going to understand that they're being charged a participation fee; the Wine Institute; Wine America; Distilled Spirits Council of the United States; Center for Science in the Public Interest; Consumers Union; Consumers Federation of America; Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention; Food & Water Watch; Government Accountability Project; National Consumers League; Pew Charitable Trusts; and Safe Tables Our Priority are all active supporters of this legislation.

And these agencies which previously had concerns about the legislation have either lifted their opposition, become neutral or actively support H.R. 2749: United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable; Western Growers; American Farm Bureau Federation; National Association of Wheat Growers; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Turkey Federation; National Chicken Council; National Pork Producers Council; National Corn Growers Association; American Soybean Association; U.S. Rice Federation; American Feed Industry Association; United Egg Producers; and the American Sheep Industry.

We have seen that in the long time since legislation was passed to bring food and drug up to national needs back in 1938, that many changes have occurred that have required significant changes, both in the authority of FDA, in its moneys and its abilities to deal, not just with domestic producing problems, but with problems overseas, from which we are receiving lots of dangerous and unsafe food commodities and food products.

This legislation gives food and drug the authority that it needs, the ability to trace, the ability to hold producers abroad accountable, and it sets up a system where foreigners have to participate in the same responsibilities American producers, manufacturers and growers have to, and it enables Food and Drug, for the first time, to have real authorities to enforce the laws of the United States on food safety to protect Americans against unsafe foods coming in from abroad.

And I would remind my colleagues that Food and Drug has neither the resources at the points of entry, nor do they have the personnel at those places to inspect foods coming in. This changes that situation. It is also true that the legislation does something else of importance to our people, and that is, it sees to it that where misbehavior occurs abroad, those same penalties that would be assessed against Americans are assessed against foreigners. This is an important matter of competition to American producers and manufacturers. It sees to it that they are fairly treated, and that there is no more unfair competition by people who could market unsafe commodities to the detriment of American consumers and American growers, producers and processors.

So the legislation is good. A system of assuring responsibility and traceability is available for the first time. And Food and Drug has the authority to terminate the ability of foreigners to sell in this country for the first time in a way which is consistent with American trade laws and the obligations of American people with regard to the safety of food. So, it is a good piece of legislation, and I would urge my colleagues to support it. I would have them know that this is bipartisan, this is a good piece of legislation. It is legislation which protects American people, which sees to it that Americans will no longer be dying of dangerous foods imported into the United States, and it will see to it that American producers are treated fairly in the world marketplace without jeopardy of violation of our law.

It also will see that Food and Drug has the personnel, the resources that it needs to protect the American people, and it is kind to the budget of the American taxpayers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I reserve a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Under rule XVI, clause 7, and the language of the rule, it says no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment. And I'd point out that that is applicable to the questions before us. I would note that the language of the motion does take and separates the receipts that will be gotten from the registration fees, so that 50 percent are available to defray the costs of additional safety inspection of food; but 50 percent shall be available for use under section 137. But the purpose of that is, rather, for the preemptive purchase of product from facilities as defined in section 415. This allows the broadest kind of purchase of food.

The legislation itself allows certain specific actions, none of which involve purchase of food, particularly under such broad circumstances as the motion allows. The bill only allows expenditure of these registration fees for the following purpose: records access, traceability, recall authority, authority to detain, subpoena authority, prohibition or restriction on the movement of bad food. No further authorities for purchase or expenditure of this money are permitted.

This goes well beyond the fundamental purpose of the legislation and, as such, it constitutes a violation of the rules, going beyond that which is the fundamental purpose of the legislation and so constituting a violation of rule XVI, clause 7 of being not germane.

Mr. Speaker, I would observe that the language of the legislation nowhere authorizes purchase of food. Under the number of the legislation appears the language, to amend the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to improve the safety of food in the global market and for other purposes. And then, down there where you follow, following the words, a bill, and it says, to amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to improve the safety of food in the global market and for other purposes. Nowhere in the legislation, in my reading, have I been able to find the authorization for the purchase of food or the purchase of food to achieve safety.

I would observe that the language of the motion to recommit permits the purchase of the food without restriction, without restraint or limit. It is some of the grandest authority that is given and well beyond any authority which Food and Drug now has or seeks. Food and Drug has no authority in this area whatsoever for the purchase of food. And the purchasing of food is not for the purpose of protecting the American people, of seeing to it that Food and Drug can properly assure the safety of the food or the protection of the American consumers. And the language that is, I think, most particularly descriptive of what the proposal does, it follows line 3 at page 2. It says, the Secretary of Health--and this is, I'm reading at line 6--the Secretary of Health and Human Services may make a preemptive purchase related to activities by the government in carrying out any provisions of this act or amendment made by this act.

That might be good language for the Committee on Agriculture to present to the House, but it is no language that you will find in Food and Drug and none that would be suggested by the commerce committee.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bad motion to recommit. With all due respect for its author, we know that the FDA has been chronically starved of resources, particularly in the food area and particularly in its ability to protect the American people.

The amendment offered before us would raid that money and would use it for the purpose of purchasing food. The food is not designated as to how or why it might be purchased. I would point out that this breaks an agreement and an understanding that the committee had in this legislation with regard to the support by the food production industry, especially the parts of the industry that will pay the tax.

The bill only authorizes a modest $500 registration fee for food facilities. The motion to recommit asserts the bill does not require the FDA to spend one additional penny on the inspection of food. This is a serious untruth.

On Page 23, the bill directs the FDA to spend its registration fees on food safety activities. The bill explicitly provides that food safety activities include conducting inspections. This money will be diverted from the inspection and the protection of the American people, and it will not be available for the activities of Food and Drug. It might give relief to somebody,

and it might even be somebody who needs relief, but there's no standards whatsoever given as to who will get the money, how it will be spent, on what, and for what purposes.

The bill requires the FDA to adhere to a rigorous mandatory inspection schedule based on risk. This bill does nothing to enhance that, but it takes money away from the protection of the American consumer by having proper inspections at points of entry or inspections in other countries. That is a bad situation and one which is going to seriously hurt the safety of the American public.

The bill is carefully crafted to ensure that the American Food and Drug Administration will protect American consumers and American manufacturers, processors, growers, and the farmers of this Nation. It enables them to focus on where there is danger, and it enables them to provide the kind of protection that all of those entities need, especially the farmers, the processors and the producers, because today the broad authority that Food and Drug has is no longer sufficiently focused to enable the correct and direct focus on the dangers to the American public.

The bill gives Food and Drug modern authorities to safeguard the food supply, but it gives them the money to do the things that they have to do to protect the American industry and the American-consuming public.

This legislation diverts 50 percent of the receipts that we would get under the legislation from the protection both of producers and from the protection of the American-consuming public.

The bill has provisions that ensure that FDA cannot use its ability to stop distribution recall or to detain or to prohibit or to restrict the movement of food. The Food and Drug Administration will have to use modern authorities in a very careful way, in a way which has the support of the consuming public and of the people whose names and whose organizational structures I mentioned earlier.

We have found out what an inadequately funded FDA does. This legislation will ensure that those evils will persist. The amendment reduces funds to FDA. It thereby increases the likelihood of outbreaks and of danger to the health of the American people and of hurt to the American producers, growers, and farmers.

This is a bad amendment. It is an amendment which threatens the support of industry for this legislation by diverting the money into unwise, unnecessary and undue expenditures which threaten the basic purposes of the legislation. It is bad legislation, and it will worsen what is a carefully thought-out bipartisan bill, which has been produced in consultation, not just with the industry but with the Agriculture Committee, with the administration and with both the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, which wastes money and which jeopardizes the life, safety and the well being of American consumers and the well being of American farmers, agriculture, and producers. It's a bad, bad motion to recommit.

I urge the House to reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the majority on the committee that handles the bill is entitled to close; is that correct?

Then I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I will simply observe as follows: the motion to recommit asserts that the bill does not require FDA to spend one additional penny on the inspection of food. That is totally false.

On page 23 of the bill, it directs FDA to spend its registration fees on food safety activities. On line 18, the bill explicitly provides that food safety activities include conducting inspections. The bill also requires FDA to adhere to a rigorous mandatory inspection schedule based on risk.

I yield now to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 691 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina, Representative Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act, legislation that will help make our food supply safer and cleaner and provide much-needed peace of mind to American families.

Too often recently, we have watched horrible news reports showing stories of Americans who have become terribly sick or have died from eating the same simple foods that we take for granted and consume every day. Think about that for a minute. Our country, one of the wealthiest in the world with the most bountiful food supply and endless choices for consumers, has been in the grip of a food panic that shows no signs of easing up. Peanut butter, spinach, cookie dough, beef, tomatoes, sprouts, pistachios--every day it seems like it's something new.

We know that every year 76 million Americans are sickened from consuming contaminated food, and 5,000 of those persons die. This issue has probably touched every one of us in some way. In too many cases, they're not random, unpredictable events but widespread and systematic. And sadly, they are also preventable. They come about because of flaws in our food safety system. I am happy to say that these gaps in protection are closed by this legislation.

Under this bill, we give the FDA new authority, new tools, and a new source of funding to carry out its vital mission. Thanks to this bill, the FDA will make more frequent inspections of food processing facilities, develop a food trace-back system to pinpoint the source of food-borne illnesses, and have enhanced powers to ensure that imported foods are safe.

The bill provides the FDA better access to the records of food producers and manufacturers without having to wait for an outbreak of food-borne illness.

The bill provides strong, flexible enforcement tools and, importantly, it strengthens penalties imposed on food facilities that fail to comply with safety requirements.

We require food facilities to have safety plans in place to identify and mitigate hazards, one of the best ways to make an immediate improvement to food safety.

The legislation before us is bipartisan, and I think it is safe to say it will fundamentally change the way we protect the safety of our food supply.

It is worth noting the bill was approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee back on June 17 by voice vote. That is how broad the support was.

We know this bill enjoys a lot of support from all Members. It received 280 votes yesterday, including 50 Republican votes that I'm happy to have and very confident that the bill will enjoy the same level of support today.

I will enter a copy of an editorial from today's New York Times into the Record. The page made the following points:

``Under the current system, the FDA can only try to coax a food production facility to voluntarily recall its product after people have grown sick or even died. The legislation, the best in years, would give the agency a great deal more power and responsibility to prevent such outbreaks. The FDA would finally have the authority to set strong science-based safety standards for the growing, harvesting, and transporting of both domestic and imported food. The agency would then require each food production facility to come up with the best safety plan showing how it would meet those standards.

``Right now several years or more can elapse before the FDA does a full onsite inspection of a food facility. Most inspections are done by States and not all plants are visited. Under this bill so-called high- risk facilities, ones where there have been problems in the past or ones that handle easily spoiled items like raw seafood, would have to be inspected by the FDA every 6 to 12 months. Lower-risk facilities, which deal with items like dry packaged products with no history of causing problems, would be inspected every 18 months to 3 years.''

As others have noted, the legislation is supported by a range of organizations including Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, American Public Health Association, Association of Schools of Public Health, Center for Science and the Public Interest, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Trust for America's Health, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

I was disappointed yesterday that some farm organizations seem unwilling to support the legislation even after the committee negotiated in good faith to address their concerns. That lack of support cost us the two-thirds support needed for passage.

I want to address a few other concerns, including one complaint that every farm has to pay an annual $500 fee. I would like to point out that that requirement does not apply to farms that sell directly to consumers, meaning most if not all small family organic farms would not be covered.

Another concern centered on what this bill would mean to small organic farmers and whether the larger FDA power would interfere with their operations. The bill specifically says the FDA can only issue standards for the riskiest products, and the FDA is also directed to take into consideration the impact on small-scale and diversified farms and on wildlife habitat, conservation practices, watershed protection efforts, and organic production methods.

Yet another issue centered on whether confidential farm records might be disclosed by the FDA to others. In fact, the only new records that the FDA can have access to relate only to fresh produce for which the FDA has issued a safety standard or that is the subject of an active investigation of a food-borne illness outbreak.

It is my hope that the small farmers in my district in upstate New York and elsewhere see this bill as a positive step forward in improving safety. Ultimately, we should feel confident about the quality of our food regardless of whether it comes from a big farm or a small family-run organic farm.

Let me touch on one other issue as well. The legislation does not include strong new language to restrict the current overuse, I would say abuse, of antibiotics by farmers who raise livestock for human consumption. We have legislation that has a strong and growing number of supporters who, like me, worry that the use of nontherapeutic antibiotics in our food supply poses an enormous and growing health risk for all Americans. It is my plan to make a strong push on this legislation later in the year, and I hope all my colleagues who are ready to vote for this food safety bill will be with us when we take up the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act.

Let's approve this food safety bill right now and start taking steps to make sure that our food supply is as safe as it can be.

[From The New York Times, July 30, 2009]

Vote for Safer Food

Far too many Americans are falling ill after eating foods

tainted with salmonella, E. coli and other pathogens. The

Food and

Drug Administration, which is charged with protecting much of

the nation's food supply, doesn't have the authority or the

tools to do its job. The House of Representatives can start

to fix that problem if it votes this week to approve the Food

Safety Enhancement Act.

Under the current system, the F.D.A. can only try to coax a

food production facility to voluntarily recall its product

after people have grown sick or even died. The legislation,

the best in years, would give the agency a great deal more

power and responsibility to prevent such outbreaks.

The F.D.A. would finally have the authority to set strong

science-based safety standards for the growing, harvesting

and transporting of both domestic and imported food. The

agency would then require each food production facility to

come up with the best safety plan showing how it would meet

those standards.

To investigate possible food problems, the F.D.A. would be

able to demand far more information during inspections, and

it would be required to set up a process for tagging food to

make it easier to trace the source of a food-borne illness.

The tomato business was devastated last year when tomatoes

were blamed for an outbreak of salmonella that was really

caused by tainted jalapeno and other peppers.

Right now, several years or more can elapse before the

F.D.A. does a full on-site inspection of a food facility.

Most inspections are done by states, and many plants are not

visited at all. Under this bill, so-called high-risk

facilities--ones where there have been problems in the past

or ones that handle easily spoiled items like raw seafood--

would have to be inspected by the F.D.A. every 6 to 12

months. Lower-risk facilities, which deal with items like dry

packaged products with no history of causing problems, would

be inspected every 18 months to three years. For that reason,

the F.D.A. will need more inspectors, but it is unclear

whether new license fees of $500 a year per food facility

will be enough to pay for them.

The bill does not solve all of the problems of food safety,

of course. There will still be a patchwork of federal

inspection programs done by a variety of different agencies.

In the future, one food agency that works for consumers and

food producers makes more sense. Right now, the F.D.A. has

the responsibility for 80 percent of the nation's food

supply, and this bill would give it a lot more of the muscle

it needs to do that job.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to ask a question: If everybody is doing things so well in the United States, why do 76 million Americans get sick every single year from contaminated food and 5,000 of them die?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee and dean of the House.

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

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

I will reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by reiterating what I have said before, that in the United States, every single year 76 million Americans get ill from contaminated food, and 5,000 die.

As a scientist, I, for one, would like once more to feel pride and confidence in the FDA.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my colleague from New York (Ms. Slaughter), Chair of the Rules Committee, for yielding time. This is a bill I know she feels strongly about.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is being brought to the floor as a rule bill today because it failed to win enough votes to pass under the Suspension Calendar yesterday. It's being brought to the floor under a closed rule. This is yet another closed rule on top of an entire appropriation season filled with closed rules. And I come before you today deeply concerned by the closed rule we have before us.

After promising the American people during campaign season that this would be the most open and honest Congress in history, Speaker Pelosi has gone back on her word by making this the most closed and restrictive Congress in history. Instead of having their ideas heard, the American people are being silenced with Speaker Pelosi's justification that ``we won the election; so we decide.''

Majority Leader Hoyer stated this past February his agreement with restoring the House to the regular order process of legislating. He said, ``I think that is a very important pursuit . . . our committees and Members are served on both sides of the aisle by pursuing regular order. Regular order gives to everybody the opportunity to participate in the process in a fashion which will affect, in my opinion, the most consensus and the best product.''

If the majority leader believes this, then why, Mr. Speaker, are we faced with another closed rule today? As my colleagues have expressed time and time again, bringing this number of bills to the floor under closed rules is unprecedented. It does an injustice to both Democrats and Republicans who want to have the opportunity to offer amendments and participate in debate with their colleagues over pressing issues of our time. By choosing to operate in this way, the majority has cut off the minority and their own colleagues from having appropriate input in the legislative process. This is not the way the greatest deliberative body in the world should operate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The concern about closed rules is not just one expressed by Republicans. Democrats have expressed their own frustrations with the closed manner in which this Congress is being operated, but nothing has changed.

In February, a group of Democrats garnered more than 60 signatures on a letter to Majority Leader Hoyer calling for a prompt return to regular order. In the letter, they stated that ``Committees must function thoroughly and inclusively, and cooperation must ensue between the parties and the houses to ensure that our legislative tactics enable rather than impede progress.'' This was written by, as I said, over 60 Democratic Members.

They went on to say, ``In general, we must engender an atmosphere that allows partisan games to cease and collaboration to succeed. We look forward to working with you to restore this institution.'' So not only does the closed rule process hurt and exclude Republican Members, it hurts and excludes Democrat Members as well.

By preferring to stifle debate, the Democrats in charge have denied their colleagues on both sides of the aisle the ability to do the job they've been elected to do, offer ideas that represent and serve their constituents. The Democrats in charge are denying Members the ability to offer improvements to legislation, and this is an injustice to all of their colleagues, and this rule and this bill are prime examples.

The Democrats in charge are limiting what ideas can be debated on the floor and what constituents can be represented in this House. Our constituents, in both Republican and Democrat districts, are struggling to make ends meet, are facing unemployment, and yet are simultaneously being shut out of participating in a debate over how their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being borrowed and spent by the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, it's very concerning to me that the Democrat majority has chosen to silence their colleagues on both sides of the aisle yet again. In doing so, they have chosen to keep the millions of constituents we represent from having a voice on the floor of the people's House.

My colleagues have offered a lot of reasons why this bill underlying this rule is not a good bill and needs to be improved. But I want to make a couple of comments about that, also. This bill actually does very little to enhance food safety. In fact, I want to call attention, again, to the motto of the State of North Carolina, ``To be, rather than to seem.''

We have a bill here called the Food Safety Enhancement Act that does very little to enhance the safety of food. As my colleague from Virginia said just now, the FDA is not being required to spend one extra dime on inspecting food. But it gives unprecedented authority to the Food and Drug Administration by imposing mandatory recall, quarantine authority, recording requirements, warrantless inspection authority and country-of-origin labeling requirements.

By enacting user fees on inspections and licensing requirements on food facilities, this bill essentially places a tax on consumers by increasing the price of food. So much for the promise that taxes would not go up on people who make less than $250,000 a year.

This bill grants the FDA the authority to shut down or inspect businesses and determine what qualifies as a health concern.

This bill leaves our Nation's fruit and vegetable producers subject to regulatory burdens by allowing the FDA to regulate how crops are raised, dictating to farmers how they should farm. We've been farming since our earliest beginnings as a species, and we've done it without the regulatory guidance of the FDA. This bill reminds me of the tactics of the former Soviet Union, and we know how successful that was.

This bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a tracing system for food. Each person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports or holds such food would have to maintain the full pedigree of the origin and pre-use distribution history of the food. This bill does not explain how far foods will have to be traced back, or how it will be done for foods with multiple ingredients. Given these ambiguities, it's unclear how much it will cost farmers and taxpayers.

This bill also creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to a total of $100,000 for individuals.

The bill would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any facility that holds, processes or manufactures food. Even though farms are technically exempt, FDA has defined ``farm'' very narrowly. People making foods such as

lacto-fermented vegetables, cheeses or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive small and start-up producers out of business during difficult economic times.

The bill would empower the FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the Federal government right on the farm dictating to our farmers. And yet, Mr. Speaker, it never went through the Agriculture Committee. This bill that will directly impact American farmers was never vetted through the established processes in the Agriculture Committee, doing a great disservice to the American people. Why is the Democrat leadership refusing to allow a committee with jurisdiction over this matter to offer their ideas and join in on the legislative process?

This bill will cost taxpayers nearly $2.2 billion over 5 years. Every day I hear from constituents their concerns that the Federal Government in Washington is borrowing and spending too much. The American people know that in these tough times they should save, not spend money. However, the Federal Government does not reflect the common sense I see throughout my district. Instead, the Democrats in charge continue to borrow more and spend more, increasing our Federal deficit on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

This bill will increase the deficit even more by borrowing and spending money we do not have. We can no longer blame the deficit and economic difficulties today on the previous administration. The Democrats in charge have shown they do not care about the deficit by continuing to dig America into a bigger and bigger hole with more reckless spending. This borrowed money is all being spent by Speaker Pelosi and the Obama administration, and as a result, the unemployment rate will continue to rise and the deficit will continue to increase.

I urge my colleagues to vote down the previous question and the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing much fiction and little fact. I want to say what I say with great respect and affection for the gentleman from Oklahoma, but giving an understanding of what it is we are doing and why is very important here.

I represent farmers and I represent consumers. Almost all of us have some farmers, and all of us represent consumers. The safety of both is important.

Understand that Food and Drug has been starved of authority and starved of money for a long time. The last meaningful reform in Food and Drug occurred in 1938. America's food is the safest in the world, but it is not as safe as it should be. It should be known that much of the lack of safety of American food comes because of foreign producers, whose production cannot be traced and checked.

We are going to hear complaints about the tomato pepper problem that we had a few years ago. That occurred because there is no way of tracing or finding how these goods move through commerce. Similar situations have occurred with regard to seafood and shellfish, with regard to berries and grapes, with regard to all manner of leafy vegetables and foods. It occurs because Food and Drug cannot control what enters this country, and it occurs because Food and Drug does not have the authority to properly deal with it.

In the instance of major failures, it has occurred because the Food and Drug Administration does not have sufficient authority to focus on the specific wrongdoers and wrongdoing. So every American producer is hurt. We have enabled Food and Drug and required them to address this by a focused effort.

Now, with regard to the authorities given, first of all, we have assiduously avoided any intrusion into the authority of the Agriculture Committee. Extensive discussions were held between the Commerce Committee members and the Committee on Agriculture; respectful, open, friendly discussions.

If there are troubles inside the Agriculture Committee, that is not a matter that the Commerce Committee can address. But we have achieved the approval of the chairman of the committee, who spoke yesterday, as my colleagues will remember, in favor of the legislation which we now discuss.

What does the legislation do? First of all, it keeps the FDA off the farm. Second of all, it is aimed at seeing to it that we have a responsible program for control. It requires registration of producers and manufacturers. That is very important, because without that, Food and Drug doesn't know who is doing what and has no real control to assure that good manufacturing practices, a word of art, are applied by the industry at every phase.

The Chinese are notoriously sloppy in their handling of food: melamine in milk products, unsafe seafood, unsafe shellfish, unsafe meats, mushrooms that are unsafe.

So, if the manufacturer or the processor pays no fee and does not register, he can't bring the food in this country to poison Americans.

Just recently, we had a major peanut scare. Eight people died, that we know of. Large numbers were sickened. We had a similar problem with other nut products, and the result has been that, again, people were sickened. I mentioned the other kinds of problems that we have confronted, including berries. Americans are dying because Food and Drug does not have the authority to protect them, and American producers and American agriculture is being hurt in enormous amounts because of this.

We will shortly be seeing an attempt by my Republican colleagues to come forward with a motion to recommit that will raise money that American manufacturers and producers are contributing to assure that Food and Drug can protect the consuming public and can protect the farmers, manufacturers and producers against unfair competition.

The bill makes it possible for us to track foods from the point where they are grown to the point where they reach the hands of the consumer. That is extremely important, because without that, a disaster impends with regard to the people who are sickened or killed, but it also is going to impact upon the farmers, the producers, and people in the industry.

This is a balanced, honest, fair, and friendly attempt to see to it that everyone gets the protection that Food and Drug can give. The Department of Agriculture, its inspection and its operations, is not impaired by this. And if my good friends on the Agriculture Committee on the minority side have business that they want to do with regard to their concerns on agriculture, I would urge them to do so, but not to raid the funds, not to oppose good legislation, not to prevent the protection of American consumers. The country deserves better.

I will use that minute wisely, Madam Chairman, first, to thank you for an excellent rule; second, to thank you for the leadership that you have shown, not only on this matter but many other difficult matters of concern, especially to the American consuming public. The bill is not a new piece of legislation. It has been around and has been the source of a number of investigations by the Commerce Committee, where we find that people are being killed by the inadequacy of authority of Food and Drug, by its inability to protect the American people.

This is a good bill. As I have pointed out, it's old enough to vote. It has gone through many iterations. Now, I hear my friends on the Republican side complaining about the bill. But the harsh fact of the matter is that the changes about which they complain are changes that were made to meet the concerns of the Agriculture Committee as expressed by its chairman, and changes that were made to meet the concerns of producers, manufacturers and growers. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I was a member of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee in the last Congress, serving 10 or 12 months in that position. And every time we had a hearing on some unsafe food product, another outbreak would occur. So we knew that we really had to get our heads together and try to address food-safety issues, and we think we've done that with this bill.

I want to thank Chairman Emeritus Dingell and I want to thank Chairman Waxman, Chairman Pallone and Chairman Stupak for working with Ranking Member Barton and Deal and myself to really move the bill forward in a way that we could pass it on a voice vote. I just only wish--and I think we could do this, we could do this on energy and we could do this on health if we really sat down and tried to work out the differences.

This is not an easy bill to pass. And as Chairman Emeritus Dingell said, 21 years he has been working on this. And this is not an easy thing to do. We did all we could. And I do appreciate the time that we spent on the floor and then with staff to work out the difficult options. And so we come here today with a pretty united bill, one that would have passed had it not been on the suspension calendar, and so we bring it up again today.

We have to have confidence in our food supply, and that's what we're trying to do in this bill. And this bill takes the necessary steps to move us forward.

The changes that we have made not just in the original text of the bill, but in addressing some of the concerns we think are very, very helpful. And I want to pledge to my ag Republican friends--and I'm from an agricultural district, and a lot of these groups that support them are good friends of mine. And we want to ensure that we continue to work forward and move forward as the bill does.

A couple of issues that Chairman Emeritus Dingell said was, you know, the bill does not require farms to register with FDA, and as a result farms do not have to pay a registration fee. Access to farm records is significantly restricted. Livestock and poultry are exempt from the bill. Grain and related commodities are exempt from produce standards. USDA regulated farms, facilities, and products are not subject to the bill. It allows farms to be exempt from the traceability requirements.

We, as a committee, both in the Oversight and Investigation and then as a full committee, we just couldn't sit on the sidelines anymore as we saw case after case of food-borne illnesses. We had to come together in a way to address this.

I think we have done it. I think it's a good product. Can there be some fixes as it moves forward? Yes, there can. But I would ask all my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), who is ranking member on the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my colleague, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize my colleagues Mr. Putnam and Mr. Costa for their bill, the Safe FEAST Act, which I was an original cosponsor on, which got rolled into this bill, and it was of great help when they did that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any additional speakers. I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and will just close briefly by saying this is good to see on the floor.

We did take a very difficult issue, one that has been languishing for 21 years, and worked with young Members and new Members, like Adam Putnam, and with the distinguished Chairman Emeritus Dingell, and got into a room and moved a bill that has the support of almost everybody in the food processing and agriculture community and the marketing of this.

I have sat in numerous hearings, as I said in my opening statement, and every time we would have an oversight investigation hearing there would be an alert of another food-borne illness, and we just knew we couldn't continue down that route.

As my colleague Mr. Putnam said, it is going to be helpful to the farmers. It is going to be helpful to the processors when we bring some more security and safety and knowledge that we continue to produce the best food supply in the world. It also will help us with the imported products, and that was a big issue in our debate.

So, with that, this has worked well. We should try this bipartisan method on things like energy and things like health, and maybe we will get there in months to come, I hope, because this is a much better process than us fighting altogether.

With that, again, I thank Chairman Emeritus Dingell, who really led the way for us to get to where we are today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.