Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2868, the so- called Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009.

It no longer surprises me that the Democratic leadership is, once again, racing to impose more government mandates on our farmers, ranchers and small businesses without considering the economic impact of their actions. From cap-and-trade to food safety and soon to health care, rushing ill-conceived, ill-timed legislation through Congress has shamefully become the norm around here.

In renaming the bill the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act to the Chemical and Water Security Act, I appreciate that the authors of the bill at least acknowledge that it has nothing to do with protecting our country from acts of terrorism but, rather, that it has everything to do with pacifying the extreme environmental lobby.

Some have said that agriculture should not be concerned about this legislation. Well, if that were true, then a coalition of agriculture groups, which includes the American Farm Bureau Federation, would not be circulating a letter to all Members of Congress urging them to vote against it.

Let me be clear: this bill will have a deep and negative impact on the agriculture industry.

Under the current regulatory framework, which I would support to reauthorize, farmers would have an extension appropriate to the small risks they impose. Under those regulations, chemical facilities are treated fairly and work with the Department of Homeland Security in a cooperative manner to enhance site security.

This legislation destroys that relationship. This legislation contains absolutely no authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant extensions to farmers for the future. In fact, under this bill, there is no authority for the Secretary to provide for the appropriate risk-based treatment of farmers or any other disproportionately affected groups when it reissues its regulations. That's not all.

Manufacturers and suppliers of agricultural inputs, like fertilizers and pesticides, will also not be exempt from the nonsecurity-related provisions of the bill. Such provisions will jeopardize the availability of those widely used

and lower-cost agricultural inputs that are essential for agriculture production.

In essence, this sets up a scenario where input supplies will be limited, where costs will skyrocket and where U.S. food security and the livelihoods of our farmers will be threatened.

Beyond devastating the agriculture industry, this bill does not provide any additional security against acts of terrorism, which is supposed to be its purpose. National security will actually be compromised since provisions of the bill will allow citizen lawsuits in the national and homeland security arena.

Mr. Chairman, this is an irresponsible and carelessly crafted piece of legislation that will impose mandates on family farms, small businesses, hospitals, and universities. It expands the environmental legal framework under the guise of security; and it fails to preserve, let alone expand and protect, current security protections for our country.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to discuss H.R. 1713, which would name the South Agricultural Research Laboratory of the Department of Agriculture in Lane, Oklahoma, and the United States Post Office facility in Bennington, Oklahoma, in honor of my friend and predecessor, Wes Watkins.

Wes has enjoyed a long and distinguished career in public service, first as a member of the Oklahoma State Senate and then as a United States Congressman from Oklahoma's Third District for 20 years. During his tenure, Wes had the honor of serving on three of the House's most prestigious committees, including Appropriations, Budget, and Ways and Means. Before Wes, no other Congressperson had ever served on all three of the House's major committees during their career.

Beyond his committee work, Wes was intimately attuned to the financial needs of the constituents back home in Oklahoma. Recognizing the hardships Oklahoma families had to endure on a daily basis, Wes used his committee assignments to steer resources back to the Third District of Oklahoma. As a part of his efforts to restore financial security to his constituents, Wes took a particularly strong interest in economic development issues, which no doubt changed the economic landscape of Oklahoma's Third District for the better.

Let there be no doubt, had it not been for Wes's dedication and strong leadership, Oklahoma's Third District would not have been what it is today.

On behalf of Wes Watkins and my constituents back home in Oklahoma, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to a fellow member of the Oklahoma delegation, Congressman Cole.

Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as you've heard my colleagues in the Oklahoma delegation address today, Wes is a unique individual. He is a self-made man. In a world where the American ideal is coming from nothing to becoming something, which is the ideal goal, I think, of all of us, Wes represents that. Remember, he was born just across the line in Arkansas in 1938. He lived his life in Oklahoma. He was born in the Great Depression period, a time of economic challenges for all Oklahomans and all people in rural America. He came from a family that had tremendous challenges. But he and his mother and his brother overcame those. He put himself through university at Oklahoma State. He was southeast district FFA vice president. He was State president of what was then the Future Farmers of America. He made himself a homebuilder. He got himself elected to the State senate over tremendous opposition. He got himself elected to the United States Congress.

This individual that we know as Wes, and many Americans on the floor remember as our colleague, Congressman Watkins, is an amazing fellow from the absolute, most humble beginnings in a great little community called Bennington to accomplish for his friends and neighbors back home, because everyone was his friend and everyone was his neighbor, what he did is a testament. That is why I am so pleased and we are so pleased on this side of the aisle to name these two important facilities in the old 3rd Congressional District in his honor because he worked incredibly hard for the good folks of the 3rd District of Oklahoma and, by the actions he took, improved everything for all of us across America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Mississippi. This resolution recognizes the 100th anniversary of the first experimental forest, which was created in 1908, at Fort Valley, Arizona. Today, there are 78 of these forests in 30 States contributing valuable research and knowledge to help us better manage one of our most precious natural resources, our 750 million acres of forests across America.

Experimental forests allow the Forest Service to engage in important research on the threats that our forests face such as invasive species and diseases. These forests allow for Federal research to be conducted on plant and wildlife communities in controlled settings. We know about how best to ensure the health of our forests, rangelands and watersheds, and share their knowledge with States, localities and private landowners.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 511. This bill will allow the Secretary of Agriculture to terminate certain flood easements in the village of Caseyville, Illinois, in return for compensation. Termination of easements is essential for flood protection projects in Caseyville. This bill has passed the House Agriculture Committee with no opposition. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Today I rise in support of H.R. 3175. This bill will allow the Ag Research Service (ARS) to sell 2 acres of land in southeast Florida to the local government of Miami-Dade County, Florida, for the purpose of constructing a new fire station. Current response times for firefighters in the village of Palmetto Bay and South Coral Gables have fallen below the district-wide average, and there is a safety concern for local residents and neighborhoods. ARS has no current use for the land and supports the sale of the fire station, as does local government and local residents. Miami-Dade County will pay market price for the land along with all associated costs.

The Congressional Budget Office has scored H.R. 3175 at no cost to the Federal Government. This bill passed the Agriculture Committee with no opposition, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the Congresswoman from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 940, a bill which gives the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to sell 50 acres of national forest land along the Lower Saline Lake in the State of Louisiana. The bill, drafted with the assistance and support of the Forest Service, gives the first option to purchase this tract to a group of residents who already own cabins on the land.

The sale of 50 acres relieves the Forest Service from the burden of performing maintenance and cleanup of the land and gives the task to private citizens who are ready and willing to assume this responsibility. CBO has scored this bill, and it will not have a cost for the taxpayers. The purchaser of the land will be responsible for all costs and fees associated with the transaction, further ensuring that the taxpayers will not be forced to pay for this legislation. This bill passed out of

the House Agriculture Committee unanimously, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Alexander) for whatever time he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the minority has no further speakers; therefore, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Indiana. The hardwood industry is an important industry for many rural communities across the country, employing more than 500,000 people in all 50 States. The products of this industry are a part of our daily lives. Indeed, we can see the products of their labor in this very Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution calls for any future green building programs to give full consideration to the inclusion of hardwood material. This is a commonsense idea to allow the clean, renewable resources to be included in any program that promotes environmentally friendly construction of public and private buildings.

The hardwood industry is of vital economic importance to hundreds of thousands of families across rural America, and I believe it's important to show these families that we appreciate the work they do and the responsible manner in which they cultivate their natural resources.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

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

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 1002. This bill expands the boundary of the National Forest in North Carolina. The expanded boundary will make it possible for the Forest Service to purchase a privately owned parcel of land for the purpose of creating a parking area and trail access. As my colleague has noted, the Forest Service supports this bill and funding is included in the fiscal year 2010 Interior appropriations bill to purchase the land. The bill passed out of committee unanimously. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, having no additional speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010: This project, a SOCOM/ Oklahoma State University collaboration, will perform testing, integration and commercialization of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (CBRNE) and command, control, communications, computers, intelligence surveillance, reconnaissance (C4ISR) sensor-related technologies.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The ASSET program develops, tests, and transfers cost-effective logistics support technologies to reduce the costs associated with support of aging weapon systems and aircraft. The program addresses DOD needs for procuring replacement parts for aging systems and aircraft, and helps DOD confront problems associated with corrosion.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to commend the service of my constituent Dr. Sanku S. Rao, M.D., who recently completed a one-year term as President of the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI).

Dr. Rao has practiced Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine in Enid, Oklahoma at St. Mary's Regional Medical Center since 1979. He is a member of the American Society of Internal Medicine, serves as Chairman of the Oklahoma Blood Institute, is President-Elect of the Garfield County Medical Association, and is Board Certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Rao was elected President of AAPI for 2008-2009. AAPI has entered its 28th year, and with 15,000 members, it is one of the largest ethnic medical associations in the nation. Dr. Rao is truly committed to the Indian American community and serves as a vital link between the medical communities in the U.S. and India. As President of AAPI, Dr. Rao organized the Indo-U.S. Healthcare Summit in New Delhi, India in January 2009. Medical specialists from the U.S., India, and the UK discussed prevention, treatment and the management of six major diseases including heart disease, diabetes, infectious diseases, HIV, tuberculosis, and allergies, and promoting better maternal child health care. Dr. Rao established a free endoscopy clinic at a hospital in Hyderabad, India and has assisted young Indian American physicians to secure residency positions in the U.S.

Dr. Rao exemplifies the success story that has made Indian American physicians so vital to our health care system. He graduated Valedictorian of St. Paul's High School in Hyderabad and received his medical degree with distinction from the Institute of Medical Sciences in Hyderabad. He completed his medical residency and fellowship in New York and has been a longtime resident of Oklahoma. He lives in Enid with his wife, Dr. Sanku Rohini, and has two children, Archna and Ameet Rao.

I want to congratulate my constituent Dr. Sanku Rao for his able service as the national President of the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009.

Let me begin by saying that yesterday Members from both sides of the aisle rejected the bill that was attempted to be rushed through Congress. Yet today we find ourselves considering the same legislation under a closed rule. Once again we are barred

from offering amendments. I simply have to ask: What's the majority leadership afraid of?

We have said before, and I will continue to say again today, this country has the safest food supply in the world. Does that mean that there isn't room for improvement? No. Does that mean that we shouldn't continue to examine our regulatory systems and find ways to make it better? No. I don't think there is a single Member of Congress who wouldn't support reasonable proposals that improve the safety of what is already the safest supply of food in the world. But this legislation is woefully inadequate. It fails to achieve what we are all seeking for our consumers: an improved food safety system.

The biggest challenge that I can point to is the fact that the bill expands the reach and authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration but does not require further accountability. This legislation does not require FDA to spend any additional funds on the inspection of food.

Beyond that there are other provisions that are troublesome. One in particular would mandate FDA to set on-farm production performance standards. I'm stunned that more people are not outraged by this concept, that the Federal Government will tell our farmers and ranchers how to do something that they have been doing since the dawn of mankind. Even after changes that will limit the intrusion of the Federal Government on the farm, the bill still goes too far in the direction of trying to produce food from a bureaucrat's chair in Washington, D.C.

There remains a host of other problems with this bill. For example, has anyone considered if it's wise to have the Federal Government grant licenses and charge fees for processing food? This would mean that the Federal Government could arbitrarily withdraw that license for technical violations of the law that ultimately would shut down an operation. Has anyone even considered the consequences of the provisions of this bill? Has anyone thought about how this would increase the cost of food for consumers and force food production out of the country?

Furthermore, the bill's quarantine authority allows FDA to quarantine the entire Nation if there is evidence or just simply justification or information that a food commodity poses a health risk. No consideration is given to economic losses suffered by food producers, processors or distributors. In particular, if the FDA ultimately lifts the quarantine because it was wrong, the agency has no obligation, no authority or means to indemnify producers for their losses.

Mr. Speaker, let me revisit my original point. We have the safest food supply in the world. We need to constantly work to improve our food safety system. But if we are sincere in making those improvements, then we must have a bill before us that is not the product of a rushed legislative process where all the committees of jurisdiction were not allowed to fully participate. Yesterday, with the votes of Members on both sides of the aisle, we rejected that process, and today we find ourselves considering the same legislation under a closed rule, once again, barred from offering amendments.

I repeat, what is the majority afraid of? Food safety should not be a partisan or political issue. This should not be a fight. It should be a constructive process.

Defeat this rule. Bring H.R. 2749 back to the committees. Let all the committees of jurisdiction work their will and work their way so that we can create a bill that serves farmers, ranchers, processors, retailers and, yes, consumers. Tell me what is wrong with that. Tell me what is wrong with that.

Let's defeat the rule. Let's finish the process. Let's do better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, the nature of this bill contemplates a number of different things that try to address and protect the supply of domestic food in this country, food in general, I should say. The bill, the language offered, the motion, refers to using 50 percent of these fees collected under section 137 of the motion, which is referenced on the second page. This is just an additional item to all of the things already outlined in the bill in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, once again, let me express my gratitude to the chairman emeritus and to the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. They have both put a great deal of effort into developing this very important piece of legislation, and they are to be commended for their attempts to accommodate the concerns raised by members of the minority party of the Agriculture Committee.

During the past few days, I have discussed many of the more objectionable provisions of this legislation. Today, I am hopeful and optimistic, in offering this motion to recommit, that we can at the very least address two of the bill's most glaring omissions.

Specifically, I would like to focus on what I believe to be a lack of accountability on the part of the Food and Drug Administration. The legislation before us provides the agency with numerous punitive authorities as well as a new source of revenue charged to people wishing to be in the food business, but it does not require the FDA to spend one additional penny on the inspection of food.

I am hopeful that my colleagues will agree that this is something that we can and should address in this bill as it leaves the House. Therefore, I propose that FDA spend a portion of the funds collected as registration fees for additional food inspections in the United States of America. Let's face it, if we are going to call this bill the Food Safety Enhancement Act, we should probably have something in here that actually enhances food safety.

Now, another issue that is very troubling and the one we hear repeatedly from farm groups is the issue of indemnification. I would point out that the chairman emeritus and the ranking member explained that concern in a Dear Colleague that was sent out last night. The issue of indemnification can be illustrated with the example of what happened to tomato crops in 2008.

The FDA mistakenly attributed an outbreak of salmonella to tomatoes. It was later discovered that contaminated peppers were the actual source of the illness. However, the discovery came after a large part of the 2008 tomato crop was destroyed, and the industry suffered, perhaps, $100 million in losses as a result.

I appreciate that Mr. Dingell and Mr. Barton feel that the passage of this bill will reduce the number and the severity of these mistakes in the future. I truly hope they are right. We must not kid ourselves into believing that the FDA will not make such mistakes in the future. Wrongly implicating agriculture products to food-borne disease outbreaks can cause severe economic losses to farmers and ranchers, who can ill afford them. Unfortunately, this legislation does not address this real concern.

We attempt to address this omission in our motion to recommit. We propose that some of the money coming from the registration fees be set aside for preemptive purchase products from producers. Remember, these purchases only result from direct government action. These changes will not fix everything that we feel to be wrong with the legislation, but they will address some of the more significant problems.

Nothing in this motion adds to the cost of the bill, but it does strengthen FDA accountability, and it guarantees enhanced food safety inspection.

Once again, let's direct that half the money goes to food inspection. Let's make sure the other half of this registration money is available to correct the mistakes that the FDA may make.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this motion. Let's clean up two of the biggest problems, and let's move forward. I urge all of my colleagues to support this motion once again.

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

I reserve the right to object, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, could I note for the record: Has the gentleman not used his 5 minutes?

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

I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I truly regret that I must rise in opposition to this legislation, H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009.

Let me begin by saying that 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 look for ways to improve food safety. However, the bill before us today does little to accomplish the goal of enhancing food safety. One glaring example is the fact that the authors of the bill did not require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration--``require'' being the operative phrase--to spend one additional penny on the inspection of food.

The bill before us today is the product of a flawed process. This is just another example of Federal power without the benefit of careful consideration. It is what we have come to expect from the majority leadership of the 111th Congress. We could point to the stimulus package, cap-and-trade, and soon the health care bill as examples of a blatant disregard for the legislative process and for the American people, for whom we work. As of last night, no one had seen a copy of this bill.

It is tragic that despite a clear jurisdictional claim, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee did not demand that the bill be referred, conduct hearings on its provisions and work at the committee's will to make improvements.

But this is not just a matter of jurisdiction between two committees. The real losers today are farmers, ranchers, and, yes, consumers. During a recent committee hearing on the general topic of food safety, not a single producer witness would support this bill in its current form. This is a stunning failure to fulfill our legislative responsibility.

One provision of particular concern would mandate that the Food and Drug Administration 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 the raising of livestock, is one of the first organized activities pursued by man. We have been doing it for a very long time, and we have been doing it without the FDA.

New language to the bill would exclude row crop producers from FDA regulatory authority over growing and harvesting crops. Language was also approved that would relieve livestock producers from some of the burdens of the law. Although these are needed changes, they do not go far enough to make the bill acceptable.

This bill still leaves our Nation's fruit and vegetable producers subject to objectionable regulatory burdens.

There are other problems in the bill as well. New registration authorities for food processing facilities create what amounts to a Federal license to be in the food business. Hundreds of millions of dollars in associated fees represented by a new tax on food production, along with regulatory burdens, will increase the cost of food for consumers, increasingly forcing food production out of this country, unfortunately.

New quarantine authorities for FDA will undermine animal and plant inspection control programs that have been in place at USDA for decades.

The vast majority of these provisions, along with new penalties, record-keeping requirements, traceability, labeling, country-of-origin labeling, will do absolutely nothing to prevent food-borne disease outbreaks, but will do plenty to keep the Federal bureaucracy busy. These issues can be worked out through the normal legislative process, but only if there is a process.

Mr. Speaker, let me return to where I started. We have the safest food supply in the world. Anyone following current events knows that our food production system faces ongoing food safety challenges, and I stand ready to work with my colleagues to address these challenges. But this is not the way to create law.

We should not suspend the rules to pass this bill. Our Nation's farmers, ranchers and consumers deserve better, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio, the minority leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

I yield the entire sum to myself, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the ranking member, Mr. Barton. You were kind to help us. You were kind to work with us. But the bottom line is the minority party of the Ag Committee should not have to go to the Energy and Commerce committee to work on an ag-related section of the bill.

Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate you. But you shouldn't have had to have done it.