Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I want to return for a moment, I think, to the focus of the discussion. I want to be absolutely clear. If this amendment passes, it will--it could incite a trade war. Brazil could immediately impose $800 million in retaliatory tariffs on a variety of U.S. goods.

I promise you, they won't retaliate against U.S. agricultural products. They'll go after ag chemicals and biotechnology products. And they'll go after veterinarian medicines and software and books and music and films. They'll go at everybody outside of production agriculture with their $800 billion in retaliatory tariffs.

Now, we can debate how we got here; and my colleague, the ranking member, gave a very good history of what led us to this point. But this amendment right here, right now would expose the U.S. to job-killing sanctions on goods valued at $800 million.

In 2010, the Obama administration finalized a framework agreement with Brazil that was a critical step in resolving this dispute about the U.S. Upland Cotton Program and export credits. And, yes, under the agreement, Brazil agreed to delay trade sanctions, trade retaliation until the 2012 farm bill was developed and put together. This amendment would circumvent the legislative process in what could only be described as a haphazard way that should be a relic of the past.

This amendment is an attempt to circumvent regular order, the democratic policy process, by changing policy on an appropriation bill. Now, I can assure you, I plan and we will have a full and open process when we start the farm bill debate. We'll debate the relevant issues dealt with in this amendment.

And on that note, I would serve a notice for record that next week, we plan to start the process of conducting an audit of all farm programs. This audit is just the beginning of the comprehensive and transparent process we'll use to draft the 2012 farm bill. Policy changes will be considered carefully with the input from industry stakeholders and constituents and within the larger context of improving the competitiveness and long productivity of American agriculture.

Let's not incite a trade war. Let's return to regular order. And if nothing else, my friends, remember, this bill is 13 percent lower than the previous spending bill. This Ag approps bill takes us almost back to 2006. We are giving our share in this appropriations process. And everyone in this room knows that whether it's the regular farm bill next summer or if we have some grandiose understanding on the national debt ceiling and spending, the deficit, we could well have a farm bill dramatically quicker than next summer, and we'll have a farm bill that reflects a dramatic reduction in resources compared to past farm bills.

Let the Ag Committee in regular order craft the policy, and then when we bring it to the floor--all of our friends, expert ag economists, we all may be together--you will have your shot, as you've had before. But please don't incite a trade war. Please don't ignore the regular order of appropriation authorization. Please be rational in what you do. We've got tough decisions ahead of us. Collin and I and the rest of the committee, we know that. We're going to do what we have to do. But let us do it in regular order, not in this fashion.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would have far-reaching and devastating effects for America's farmers. I'm not sure the gentleman is aware of the full extent of this amendment.

This amendment throws the Noninsured Crop Disaster Program into an arbitrary payment limit scheme. This program, in which farmers pay a fee to obtain crop insurance coverage, protects them from catastrophic events like flooding and tornados. If this amendment passes, farmers who have been flooded out are quite literally up a creek without a paddle. They won't get the coverage they've signed up for even though they've paid in.

This amendment would also affect the permanent disaster program. Producers were required to purchase crop insurance to be eligible for that program. This amendment would be a bait and switch--they've fulfilled their end of the bargain, but we're pulling the rug out from under them now.

There's a time and a place to debate the appropriate level of support for farmers. I welcome that debate as a part of the 2012 farm bill process which will in effect begin next week. The Agriculture Committee will be auditing farm programs for effectiveness and efficiency, and then we will seek input from across the country on the best way to support our farmers and ranchers while making good use of taxpayer dollars.

Discussing farm programs in the context of a farm bill will represent honest, transparent policymaking. This amendment prevents that discussion from taking place by altering the terms of the contracts with farmers once they've already been signed. Protecting farmers during catastrophic weather events is the least we can do to maintain a stable food supply in our country.

My colleagues in the Midwest have seen firsthand the devastation that comes with flooding. My colleagues in the Southwest know how droughts can turn healthy farms into desolation. For that reason alone, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. But I also urge you to oppose it because policy changes like this should be conducted within the broader context of all farm bill policy.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Cindy Smith, the outgoing Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). She has served as Administrator of APHIS since September 2007, ably carrying out the mission of APHIS: protecting American agriculture.

Ms. Smith has dedicated her life to public service, and is a true success story. She started out at APHIS in 1979 as a clerk-typist. She worked her way from the bottom to the top of the agency, showing a real commitment to its important mission, no matter the job. She understands the value of leadership development. The APHIS Leadership Development Roadmap she inspired has served as a model for other Federal agencies.

As APHIS Administrator, Ms. Smith led a major regulatory agency that protects U.S. plant and animal health, administers the Animal Welfare Act, and conducts wildlife damage and disease management activities, overseeing more than 8,800 employees.

Ms. Smith has a unique ability to identify emerging issues and determine a course of action to attain high-quality outcomes that are technically sound while still respectful of the taxpayers' dollars. She understands how to build momentum for her ideas, while working closely with stakeholders on all sides of an issue to strengthen support and identify consensus.

When HINT influenza started gaining international attention in 2009, Ms. Smith provided key leadership in shaping USDA's response. She formulated an effective response plan, recognizing what the impacts and implications of detection in the U.S. livestock population would be, and how it would affect the swine industry. She directed APHIS to align animal health and human health officials at the Federal, State, and local levels to coordinate U.S. policy should H1N1 be identified in the U.S. swine herd, and she ensured the swine industry was included in the discussion. Under her leadership, APHIS and its partners developed action and communication plans that government and industry stakeholders praised for their inclusiveness and transparency. Once a case of H1N1 was identified, government officials spoke with one voice, providing a clear message to the public and stakeholders, assuring them of the safety of pork, and how APHIS and government efforts were protecting the swine industry and human health. Due to the groundwork she laid, the United States was able to avoid trade disruptions with Canada, and address concerns raised by Mexico.

With foresight, vision, and an ability to collaborate and get others behind her ideas, Ms. Smith demonstrated genuine leadership in what could have been a major crisis. Her efforts dramatically minimized the impact on American agriculture, and were of innumerable value to this country.

Ms. Smith has always demonstrated forward thinking. While she was Deputy Administrator for APHIS' Biotechnology Regulatory Services program, she recognized the growing importance of biotechnology in agriculture, as well as the need for more rigorous requirements for field tests of GE crops. She was instrumental in developing a program to help companies and researchers enhance their compliance with biotechnology regulatory requirements. Through its proactive approach to compliance, companies who participate in the Biotechnology Quality Management System are better able to analyze their operations, identify vulnerabilities, and see that they're addressed. The program she helped implement ensures accountability by confirming that trials of these necessary and beneficial crops are conducted responsibly. The program she created continues to grow, as more and more universities and small and large businesses recognize the value of participation.

Ms. Smith's integrity, dedication, professionalism--and perhaps most importantly, her leadership--have served the United States well in all these endeavors. While she is not retiring from federal service, and has taken a new role as APHIS' Chief Advisor for Government, Academia, and Industry Partnership, I wanted to thank her for her 32 years of service with APHIS, her successful tenure as administrator, and her continued commitment to the American people and U.S. agriculture.

I rise in support of H.R. 910.

Mr. Chairman, for more than 2 years, we have watched Obama's Environmental Protection Agency try to expand its authority over American agriculture. Most telling of the EPA's irrational regulatory approach is how it has concluded that the breath we exhale and the gas that livestock expels are dangerous pollutants and should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

During a recent Agriculture Committee hearing, the EPA Administrator said agriculture is currently exempt from the proposed regulations because the EPA has targeted only the largest greenhouse gas emitters. This doesn't provide any certainty to our farmers and ranchers, especially since, in a recent interview, Lisa Jackson was

quoted as saying that the EPA will begin looking at regulating greenhouse gases from farms as soon as 2013, which counters her own remarks at that hearing.

Additionally, a mythical exemption doesn't insulate farmers, ranchers and rural businesses from the higher energy and operating costs they'll face from other industries hit by these regulations. Whether it's the fuel in the tractor, the fertilizer for the crops or the delivery of food to the grocery store, this backdoor energy tax will increase the cost of doing business in rural America.

I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, and protect agriculture from EPA's overreach. This bill will prevent the EPA from running wild across America's farms and from subjecting our producers to more burdensome regulations that threaten to put them out of business. Rural America has never stopped being a good place to live; so it's our job to make sure it's a good place to make a living, too.

I rise in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the piece of legislation before us today must be passed and placed on the President's desk as soon as possible if we want to prevent a possible blitz of regulatory burdens on our farmers and ranchers.

The 6-month delay that the EPA was granted by the court this past Monday evening may have bought us more time, but the delay does not fix the underlying problem.

The impact on those pesticide users who will be required to obtain a duplicative permit will be the same in October as it is today. There is no difference in the burden, the cost, or the real impact on their livelihoods. The only thing this extension provides farmers is 6 more months of regulatory uncertainty. We must act now to give our farmers the certainty they need to continue to produce the safest, most affordable, and abundant food supply in the history of the world.

If Congress does not act, more than 40 States will face increased financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the new permitting requirement process during a time when many States are already being forced to make difficult budget decisions. This would be a crushing blow to an already fragile economy. Giving EPA and the States more time to develop a permit system does nothing to minimize the unnecessary expense this uninformed court decision has imposed.

Governments at all levels are facing a fiscal emergency. This exercise represents a tremendous waste of valuable time and resources. There is no need to send our States down a path of fiscal disaster when we have the opportunity to put a stop to it all today.

It was always the intent of Congress to exempt pesticide use from the Clean Water Act. The decision of the court represents a fundamental ignorance of congressional intent that will not be rectified by a delay. Congress has no choice but to act now.

I would like to serve note that on the Ag Committee as chairman, I'm very pleased with our point person's efforts on this behalf, Subcommittee Chairwoman Jean Schmidt. I'd like to thank our ranking member, Mr. Peterson, of the full committee, and subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Baca, for working with us in a very bipartisan way to address this issue. We all agree something has to be done, something needs to be done, and we have an opportunity to do it.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

This transfer of funds was established as part of an agreement negotiated between the U.S. and Brazilian Governments. As a result of this agreement negotiated by the USTR and USDA, Brazil agreed to suspend retaliation against U.S. exports. If this amendment passes and the funds are not transferred in compliance with the agreement, then the U.S. will be in violation of the agreement. Brazil would then have the right to immediately impose punitive tariffs on U.S. exports. What Mr. Kind's amendment does is invite a trade war.

The U.S.-Brazil agreement is in place only until the 2012 farm bill is completed. This provides an opportunity for the U.S. to determine what adjustments to current law are necessary as a part of the next farm bill to bring the U.S. cotton program into compliance with the WTO ruling. This amendment should not be on this bill. It is a policy change.

Please join me in defeating this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Why are we making policy decisions in an appropriations bill? This amendment changes current law. This is a decision that needs to be made in the context of the next new farm bill. We'll consider the farm bill next year in an open and transparent manner. We have a committee process that can review the merits of any proposal and all proposals. And they'll be debated and they'll be considered and allowed for the Members to offer their opinions and cast their votes.

In fact, if you look at the 2008 farm bill under Chairman Peterson's leadership, we made significant reforms. Yes, cuts in the areas, lowering the overall payment caps significantly. But I guess the opponents of farm programs will not be satisfied with that until every last marketing tool has been eliminated.

I know it is a popular parlor game in some circles to see how far you can jerk farmers around, but making these changes midstream in a 5-year farm bill is disruptive to market decisions that producers have made in some cases years ago. All farmers and ranchers want certainty. They plan to work under current law.

Plain and simple, the author of this amendment wants to change agricultural policy, and this debate does not belong in this bill.

And I would remind my friends, we today, this week, are a part of a bold,

new, open legislative process. Maybe that's not how you did it in the past, but when we do this farm bill, it will be done in committee and on the floor in the same open way we're doing this.

Let the process run its course. Let us work our way through this open process when it should be done in the next farm bill next year. Is that so much to ask?

Madam Speaker, I rise today to claim the Agriculture Committee's time, which I believe I am sharing with my colleague from Minnesota, and I yield myself 5 minutes.

Today, American agriculture is under attack. Every day, the administration seems to demonstrate just how vastly disconnected it is from the folks who feed us. The administration fails to realize that rural America's economy is dependent upon agriculture. The in-your-face approach that the administration has taken regarding government regulation has increased the cost of doing business for America's farmers and ranchers. If the administration is allowed to continue down this path, the only choice many farmers and ranchers will have will be to stop farming altogether. From the dairies of Vermont to the wheat fields near the Chesapeake Bay to the cornfields in the Midwest, American agriculture is under a constant barrage of irrational and unworkable regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, which are burdensome, overreaching, and that negatively affect jobs in rural economies.

This EPA is mostly interested in pursuing the extreme agenda of environmentalist groups without any consideration for the impact it will have on our farmers and ranchers. For example, the EPA wants to treat milk spills like oil spills simply because milk contains animal fat. The EPA has suggested that milk storage should be regulated under the Clean Water Act as large oil tanks. The EPA wants farmers to till fields without producing any dust. Clearly, the folks at the EPA have never stepped foot on a farm in western Oklahoma, or otherwise they would know that dust happens, and all the regulations in the world can't eliminate its existence. The EPA wants farmers to ensure that none of the spray we use for pests drifts even 1 foot away from the original source.

The EPA has started an unprecedented re-reevaluation evaluation--yes, I said re-reevaluation--of the popular wheat control product Atrazine. In 2006, the EPA completed a 12-year review involving 6,000 studies and 80,000 public comments, yet one of the first orders of business for the Obama administration was to start all over after an article appeared in The New York Times. The EPA is trying to regulate watersheds based off of inaccurate and flawed models--a problem recognized even by the top officials at USDA.

The list goes on and on. But what further illustrates the alarming frame of mind of the EPA is that the agency has gone so far as to recently hold a contest for the public to create videos explaining what Federal regulations are ``important to everyone.'' In many instances, the agency is overreaching its authority. Instead of operating within the law, the EPA believes it can order Congress to pass legislation that gives it more authority and threaten to regulate anyway if Congress chooses not to act.

The message from the President is clear: Pass a cap-and-tax bill or we'll pursue an endangerment finding. Pass more authority to regulate watersheds or we'll proceed with an Executive order.

Sadly for America's farmers and ranchers, these regulations are not limited to the EPA. The Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyard agency's proposed rule on purported ``fairness'' far exceeds congressional intent expressed in the 2008 farm bill. It lacks a credible economic analysis and has so far been the result of a regulatory process that can only be described as flawed. We have a responsibility to producers, packers, processors, retailers--and yes,

consumers--to continue to examine this proposal's implications and act accordingly.

In addition, over the past several months the CFTC and other Federal financial regulators have been engaged in writing unprecedented new regulations over the derivatives market. As Chairman Gensler reported in our committee yesterday, since September alone the CFTC has issued 39 new rule proposals involving thousands of pages of regulation. By comparison, before Dodd-Frank, the CFTC averaged about five rules per year. The speed with which the CFTC is issuing new rules precludes their ability to conduct an adequate cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the rules do not impose unnecessary or undue regulations on our financial system and our economy. And unlike many of the provisions of Dodd-Frank, title VII is not limited to financial firms. In fact, it has the potential to impact every segment of our economy, from farmers and ranchers to manufacturers and energy companies to the fields of health care and technology.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Many of the rules the CFTC has proposed would substantially increase the costs of hedging for commercial end-users, extending Wall Street regulation to Main Street companies. As we work to revive the economy and create new jobs, we simply cannot afford sweeping new regulations that are poorly vetted, that impose substantial costs that outweigh the benefit for our financial system and our economy, or that are crafted in the interest of speed rather than in sound policy.

The Agriculture Committee has set forth an aggressive oversight plan that will shine a bright light on these regulations and show the real- world consequences of them. I hope the administration will work with us in our efforts. Our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and small businesses are all counting on us to do it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The ranking member is always a pleasure to work with.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), one of our subcommittee chairmen.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another outstanding subcommittee chairman on the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the subcommittee chairwoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

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

I yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds to conclude.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a first-term subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to one of the senior members of the House Agriculture Committee and one of our subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the Congresswoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

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

Madam Speaker, I next yield 1 minute to the good gentleman from the great First District of Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), my neighbor from across the line in Kansas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I would note to my colleagues on the floor, as you have seen today, the members of the House Agriculture Committee are very concerned about the impact that these regulatory issues have on farmers, ranchers, on processors, on the American consumer; and we are very committed to working in a bipartisan way with our colleagues on the entire Ag Committee to try and make sure that this onerous, burdensome, potentially economically destructive path that we seem to have gotten on in recent years is reversed.

We will use the oversight hearing process. We will use every tool available to us, working with other committees. We will in areas where perhaps we have some jurisdictional questions at least dwell upon the impact and the effect of direct regulation.

I promise you over the course of this session of Congress the next 2 years, it will be one of the highest focuses of the House Agriculture Committee, and perhaps, if we are successful, we will enlighten some unelected bureaucrats. Perhaps, if we are successful, we will prevent the implementation of rules and regulations that will not only prevent jobs from being destroyed but perhaps, if they are unfortunately implemented, destroy jobs that exist in this country. That's our commitment on this committee. That's our effort. We pledge very much to do that.

With that, Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit, pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(a) of the Rules of the House, a copy of the Rules of the Committee on Agriculture, which were adopted at the organizational meeting of the Committee on January 25, 2011.

Appendix A of the Committee Rules will include excerpts from the Rules of the House relevant to the operation of the Committee. Appendix B will include relevant excerpts from the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In the interests of minimizing printing costs, Appendices A and B are omitted from this submission.

Rules of the Committee on Agriculture 112th Congress

Mr. Speaker, once again I must rise in opposition to this rule to reconsider the Senate language from S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act--now contained in H.R. 2751, a bill related to the Cash for Clunkers program.

As I have stated before, I believe our Nation has the safest food supply in the world. I also believe that we must continually examine our food production and regulatory system and move forward with changes that improve food safety.

I am very disappointed in the process by which this legislation is being considered. What we have here is another expansion of Federal power without benefit of thorough consideration. This is the stimulus bill, cap-and-trade, and the health care bill all over again.

The House version of this legislation was rolled out in draft form and marked up in the Energy and Commerce Committee over a couple of weeks during the summer of 2009. During all that time, members of the House Agriculture Committee stood ready and willing to work on this legislation. It is unfortunate that, despite a clear jurisdictional claim, the House Agriculture Committee did not demand that the bill be referred, conduct hearings on its provisions, and work our will to make improvements.

During the committee hearing in the summer of 2009 on the general topic of food safety, not a single producer witness would support the bill. It was a stunning failure to fulfill our legislative responsibilities. Despite this, the House Democratic leadership chose to attempt to pass this legislation under a suspension of the rules. Because of the flawed legislative process and lingering concerns about the contents of the bill, it was defeated. Failing to learn the lesson of that vote, within days, the leadership subsequently secured a closed rule denying Members the opportunity to participate in the legislative process and rammed it through the House in the summer of 2009.

They sent the legislation to the Senate, where it languished for over a year.

In the closing days of Congress, the Senate sent us its version of food safety legislation with an unconstitutional revenue measure, which effectively killed the bill. Then the House leadership won another closed rule, which prohibited any reasonable debate on the provisions of the legislation and sent it back to the Senate in a mammoth, irresponsible, long-term continuing resolution, which failed in the Senate.

So now the Senate sent its bill back to us as a free-standing measure. This time, it's stuffed into a Cash for Clunkers bill in order to once again bypass any reasonable debate. And here we are again with the same legislation negotiated outside of regular order. The Senate was originally unwilling to conduct a conference with the House, claiming there wasn't enough time. The Senate continues to offer its bill to us on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

Mr. Speaker, we've had nearly a month in which this side of the aisle was ready, willing, and able to sit down and resolve our issues and to move forward. Unfortunately, the majority leadership in this season of giving has chosen to once again bypass the normal legislative process, exclude nearly every Member of this body, other than a select few in the Speaker's inner circle, and ram this legislation that, for all intents and purposes, could have been a bipartisan victory. Instead, what we're left with is another example of the sort of nonsense that the voters of America rejected just a few weeks ago. This is no way to do business, and our constituents were not subtle when they spoke last November.

Mr. Speaker, let me return to where I started. We have the safest food supply in the world. Anyone who follows current events knows that our food-producing system faces ongoing safety challenges. Unfortunately, neither this legislation nor the process by which it is being considered will address those challenges. Our Nation's farmers, ranchers, packers, processors, retailers and, most importantly, consumers deserve better.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again in opposition to H.R. 2751, originally dealing with the Cash for Clunkers and now containing the Senate language S. 510, the Food Safety and Modernization Act.

As I've stated repeatedly, I believe our Nation has the safest food supply in the world. I also believe that we must continually examine our food production and regulatory system and move forward with changes that will improve food safety.

This legislation is the product of a flawed process. It will lead to huge regulatory burdens on our Nation's farmers and ranchers. It will raise the cost of food for our consumers, and it contains very little that will actually contribute to the goal of food safety. It gives the Food and Drug Administration lots of additional authorities with no accountability. In fact, with the inclusion of the so-called Tester amendment, some argue that it is a step backwards.

Now, my concerns about the legislation are not limited to the unforgivable process. There are serious public policy concerns as well. The Tester amendment is an illustrative example. Intended to shield small and local producers from the burdens of the new food safety law, it is opposed by virtually all of the major organizations representing farmers and ranchers. Normally, these groups would be expected to support a provision that sought to protect their farmers and ranchers. But they oppose the Tester amendment and any legislation that contains it because it adds to the layers of food safety regulation by creating yet another tier of regulatory standards that will only confuse our consumers.

Further, by exempting small domestic companies from Federal standards, I fear, and this is a legitimate fear, that we will be required to exempt similarly sized companies in developing countries from our standards. This approach does not make food safer. It eliminates important consumer protection and puts our citizens at increased risk.

With respect to the Tester amendment, I question the value of any law that is so onerous to an industry that Senators believe segments of that industry should be excluded from it. It would be wise to reconsider the entire legislative approach.

Now, there are other problems as well in the bill. New regulation authority for food processing facilities will create what amounts to a Federal license to be in the food business. Registration of food processing facilities was originally envisioned as a commonsense way to help FDA identify facilities under the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. This bill turns it into a license to operate, making it unlawful to sell food without a registration license, and allowing FDA to suspend the company's registration. This is the type of government intrusion into commerce that Americans rejected in early November of this year.

Another provision of particular concern would mandate the Food and Drug Administration to set on-farm production performance standards. For the first time, we'd have the Federal Government prescribing how our farmers grow crops. Farming, the growing of crops and the raising of livestock, is the first organized activity pursued by man. We've been doing it for a long time, and we've been doing it without the FDA on the farm.

The vast majority of these provisions, along with the recordkeeping requirements, traceability, mandatory recall authority, will do absolutely nothing to prevent food-borne disease outbreaks from occurring but will do plenty, do plenty, to keep Federal bureaucrats busy. And these are all the sorts of things that could be worked out through the normal legislative process, but only if there's a process.

Mr. Speaker, let me return to where I started. We have the safest food supply in the world. Anyone who follows current events knows that our food production system faces ongoing food safety challenges, and I stand ready to work with my colleagues, all of my colleagues, to address those challenges.

Our Nation's farmers, ranchers, packers, processors, retailers, and consumers deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule on the continuing resolution.

Mr. Speaker, among other things, I object to the inclusion of Senate language from S. 1510, the Food Safety Modernization Act.

Let me be perfectly clear: I believe our Nation has the safest food supply in the world. What we have here is another expansion of Federal power without benefit of thorough consideration. This is the stimulus package, cap-and-trade, ObamaCare all over again.

Members of the House Agriculture Committee have stood ready and willing to work on this legislation. Despite this, the present majority leadership tried to pass this under suspension of the rules and lost. Failing to learn the lesson of that vote, they then secured a closed rule and essentially rammed it through the House.

Now, in the closing days of this Congress, the Senate has sent us their version on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and included revenue provisions that, under the Constitution, must originate in the House. Faced with this dilemma, once again the present House leadership has chosen to short-circuit the legislative process by sticking this legislation on the continuing resolution.

This is the sort of nonsense that Americans rejected just a few weeks ago. Why isn't the present majority leadership listening?

Now, for sure, we may have differences. However, I am confident that an open and deliberative process would allow us to resolve these differences. Unfortunately, the present leadership has chosen a path that denies the minority the opportunity to participate. I am certain this is not how they would like to be treated.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who follows the current events knows that our food production system faces ongoing food safety challenges. I just want to serve notice that I stand ready to work with my colleagues to address those challenges. I must ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule so that we can address those issues in regular order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, H.R. 3082, the continuing resolution. Among many other issues, I object to the inclusion of Senate language from S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act.

Let me be clear: I believe our nation has the safest food supply in the world. I also believe we must continually examine our food production and regulatory system and move forward with changes that improve food safety.

This legislation is the product of a flawed process. It will lead to huge regulatory burdens on our nation's farmers and ranchers. It will raise the cost of food for our consumers, and it contains very little that will actually contribute to the goal of safer food. It gives the Food and Drug Administration lots of additional authorities with no accountability. In fact, with the inclusion of the so-called Tester amendment, some argue that it is a step backwards.

My concerns about the legislation are not limited to the unforgiveable process. There are serious public policy concerns as well. The Tester amendment is an illustrative example. Intended to shield small and local producers from the burdens of the new food safety law, it is opposed by virtually all of the major organizations representing farmers and ranchers.

Normally, these groups would be expected to support a provision that sought to protect their farmers and ranchers. But they oppose the Tester amendment--and any legislation that contains it--because it adds to the layers of food safety regulation, creating yet another tier of regulatory standards that will only confuse our consumers. Further, by exempting small domestic companies from Federal standards, I fear we will be required to exempt similarly sized companies in developing countries from our standards. This approach does not make food safer-- it eliminates important consumer protections and puts our citizens at increased risk.

With respect to the Tester amendment, I question the value of any law that is so onerous to an industry that Senators believe segments of that industry should be excluded from it. It would be wise to reconsider the entire legislative approach.

There are other problems in the bill as well. New registration authorities for food processing facilities will create what amounts to a

federal license to be in the food business. Registration of food processing facilities was originally envisioned as a commonsense way of helping the FDA identify facilities under the bioterrorism act in 2002. This bill turns it into a license to operate, making it unlawful to sell food without a registration license and allowing the FDA to suspend a company's registration. This is the type of government intrusion into commerce that Americans rejected in early November.

Another provision of particular concern would mandate the Food and Drug Administration to set on-farm production performance standards. For the first time, we would have the Federal government prescribing how our farmers grow crops. Farming, the growing of crops and raising of livestock, is the first organized activity pursued by man. We've been doing it for a long time. And we've been doing it without the FDA.

The vast majority of these provisions, along with recordkeeping requirements, traceability, and mandatory recall authority, will do absolutely nothing to prevent food-borne disease outbreaks from occurring, but will do plenty to keep federal bureaucrats busy. And these are all of the sorts of things that can be worked out through the normal legislative process. But only if there's a process.

Mr. Speaker, let me return to where I started: we have the safest food supply in the world. Anyone who follows current events knows that our food production system faces ongoing food safety challenges and I stand ready to work with my colleagues to address those challenges.

Our nation's farmers, ranchers, packers, processors, retailers, and consumers deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to this bill. This bill includes more than $1 billion to settle the Pigford discrimination suit against USDA, in addition to the billion dollars we have already spent. While I want to see a resolution to the settlement, I cannot, in good conscience, support the process through which we attempted to address these problems.

The House passed H.R. 4783, a bill intended to encourage charitable contributions, by voice vote in March. What we have received back from the Senate instead is a bill that will cost the taxpayers more than $5 billion. By using this procedure, we are unable to offer a motion to recommit to change the bill. Additionally, we are considering this legislation under a closed rule, which prevents any Member from offering an amendment.

We are rushing through consideration of a massive spending bill. The Senate acted on this 269-page bill 10 days ago, and we are already bringing it to the floor. Let's slow down and ensure that we consider this massive bill in a thorough and deliberative process.

Sadly, I must urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I must rise today in opposition to H.R. 4785, the Rural Energy Savings Program Act. As a result of the Democratic leadership's failed policies, we are now considering a bill that creates two new government funded programs to address high energy bills and energy demand. We are considering creating a program that duplicates thousands of other efficiency measures that Congress has passed and funded in the billions of dollars over the last several years.

H.R. 4785, as reported by the Agriculture Committee, would require the government, through USDA, to front nearly a billion dollars to rural electric cooperatives so that they can, in return, make what might potentially be risky loans to their customers for energy- efficiency projects in their homes. The investments made in this program would only benefit an estimated 1.5 million of the 43 million customers served by rural electric cooperatives. Energy efficiency is an important step in an overall energy plan. But creating a new government funded program is not the solution.

This issue can be addressed in the farm bill by making adjustments to current programs. The 2008 farm bill included a provision that would have allowed rural electric cooperatives to

expand clean energy production and provide affordable electricity for more of its customers.

However, the provision was stripped by the current Democratic leadership. As a result, rural electric cooperatives cannot access RUS lending for new base load generation. In other words, base load generation from sources such as nuclear, natural gas, and clean coal technologies are difficult, if not impossible, to finance through the program now.

Even more alarming is that this is not the bill that was reported by the Committee on Agriculture. Instead, the Democratic leadership created a bill that is five times larger and includes a program that was already stripped, already stripped, the Home Star program, on the House floor by bipartisan support. It will give the Department of Energy another program and billions more in taxpayer dollars to administer.

Why would Congress add to a failed stimulus policy? The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act alone created the $5.25 billion Weatherization Assistance Program for home energy efficiency updates, which has been, some say, a colossal failure from an implementation perspective, and very well may have wasted huge amounts of taxpayers' dollars at the hands of the Department of Energy.

The Democratic leadership is pushing energy policy that will create increased and burdensome energy costs for Americans. As a result, we are creating new government programs that increase spending to address the consequences of those policies. I urge my colleagues oppose the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest confidence, faith and belief in the integrity and the intention of my colleagues as they work on this bill; but, Mr. Chairman, this is adding 5 billion more dollars on top of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that we have spent over the course of the last year and a half-plus that we don't have.

I would simply urge my colleagues, turn this bill back, let's not add $5 billion more on to what we have already spent. Let's fulfill our constitutional responsibilities and pass our 12 appropriation bills in regular session. Let's fulfill our responsibility to our constituents and the economy they have to work in by addressing the tax issues from 2001 and 2003, and let's just go home.

There is a political storm brewing out there. This is going to be a different body in January. Let's do what we are obligated to do under the Constitution and for our constituents and go home.

With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

While I claim the time in opposition, I would state for the Record that I support my good friend from Pennsylvania's amendment. I support his efforts to import more integrity into this. What I am afraid of is a duplicative program. More importantly, I support his attempt to make sure that that the program does not affect direct spending. As my good friend has mentioned, his amendment prohibits any direct or mandatory spending. What it does not do, however, is prevent appropriators from adding to our national debt by spending discretionary dollars on the program.

While I support my friend's efforts to be truly fiscally responsible, this act should sunset if it is not deficit neutral. Again, I support Mr. Holden's amendment and urge others to do the same. I would prefer language that more directly prevents direct spending, but this is what we have.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Barton.

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

I claim the time in opposition, Mr. Chairman, although I do not oppose the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment would simply direct the Secretary of Agriculture to provide assistance and technical advice to electric cooperatives who have been approved as qualified entities in an effort to improve the outreach to the rural communities it serves with unemployment rates above the national average, as the author noted. As I understand the amendment, it does not require special treatment; rather it focuses on promotion of the program to those communities that are hit hard by the failing economy.

I think the gentleman's intentions are laudable, and given the legislative framework that the majority leadership has us working in, I do not oppose this amendment. I do, however, think there are better ways to bring cheap and efficient energy to these communities.

The prohibition on lending in the last farm bill to increase base load generation from clean coal, natural gas, and nuclear technologies is the biggest hidden tax on rural Americans that I can possibly think of, administered by the present majority leadership.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In agriculture, we've learned the hard way, Mr. Chairman, that carve- outs and programs generally reduce the effectiveness of the programs. It's a simple economic principle. By focusing on the beneficiary instead of the results, the marginal utility is lowered.

Now, having said that, I can think of no more deserving group than the brave men and women of our Armed Services to be prioritized in any Federal program. Yes, I support and encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, S. 3656, the Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 2010, is a straightforward, 5-year reauthorization of a program that began with passage of the original legislation in 1999. The original act came as a result of many months of negotiations between a broad array of industry participants and required packers to report livestock purchase prices to USDA's Agriculture Marketing Service. Both producers and packers agree that mandatory price reporting plays an important role in transparent, accurate and timely decision-making for participants in today's livestock markets.

This program was last reauthorized during the 109th Congress. As with that original legislation and subsequent reauthorizations or amendments, S. 3656 represents a consensus view of many producer and packer interests with a direct stake in the reporting program. Anyone familiar with animal agriculture knows how challenging it can be to have this many competing interests--from producers to processors-- achieve an agreement.

S. 3656 will make some small changes to the existing reporting program. First, reporting of wholesale pork cuts will be required for the first time. The details of this new rule will be worked out in the rulemaking process. Second, there will now be reporting on a weekly basis of pork exports. Finally, the legislation directs the Secretary to implement an electronic system of dairy price reporting in the absence of an appropriation for this purpose.

Companion legislation, H.R. 5852, passed the House Agriculture Committee on July 28. Since mandatory price reporting expires on September 30, it is timely that we are acting today. I advocate passage of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.