Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, if you listen to the Republicans today, they are telling us don't bother them with the facts. Their minds are made up.

They are unaware of the fact that the Congressional Budget Office says that this is going to create 4 million jobs in the health care legislation. They don't tell us that the same Congressional Budget Office says that passage of H.R. 2 is going to increase the deficit by $140 billion. And they also are telling us the American people want this repeal. They don't.

They understand what this means. It means that no longer are people going to get the protections that the health insurance bill gives. No more protection, if the Republicans get their way, against preexisting conditions and rescisions denying people health care because of something that happened to them down the road before. No longer will Americans be protected against frivolous and improper behavior by the insurance companies.

This is a bad rule. It is bottomed not on facts, but on fiction. And if this body is to legislate and legislate well, we have to have the facts, not fiction, not deceit, not misleading statements by our Republican colleagues.

Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, a distinguished churchman, much loved in southeast Michigan who led the House of Representatives in prayer on September 5, 2007, has been called by the God he served so faithfully.

Reverend S.L. Roberson, pastor of Metropolitan Memorial Baptist Church in Ypsilanti, Michigan, passed away on November 11, 2010. His long and faithful service to his God and fellow man has endeared him to the people of the Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor region of Southeast Michigan in a very special way.

Reverend Roberson was a Marine and he served this country at Okinawa and Iwo Jima in World War II. When he came home he never stopped serving.

Reverend Roberson led the congregation at Metropolitan Memorial Baptist Church from 1954. He was a leader to that church and he was leader to the Ypsilanti community. He was a gifted communicator and he put that gift to work for his community, his congregation, and his nation.

Reverend Roberson leaves behind a grieving family and thousands of grieving friends and admirers.

He was commemorated in a celebration of his life at Metropolitan Memorial Baptist Church on December 18, 2010.

On behalf of the House of Representatives, which he led in prayer, I extend our condolences to his much loved widow, Mrs. Hollie Roberson, and his family.

Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, I rise today in strong support of this legislation, and I commend the United States Senate for passing this legislation before the end of 111th Congress. Today's consideration shows Congress's commitment to ensuring our children and grandchildren receive the education they need to compete in a global marketplace in the 21st Century.

While our country and our children have not lost the spirit of innovation and creativity, we have in recent years watched as our country has fallen woefully behind in educating our children. Passage of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act will help to reverse this trend by making the strong investments necessary in research, education and manufacturing.

This bipartisan legislation reauthorizes our basic research programs, making needed increased investments in the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology and laying the groundwork for doubling the authorized funding levels for these programs. Funding through these programs has been critical to hundreds of the faculty, staff, scientists and investigators in my district who rely on opportunities from these agencies to support their research. America COMPETES also reauthorizes the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, which has made great efforts at developing the energy technology of the future.

The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act investment in research cannot be fulfilled without a renewed focus in our education system on STEM education. H.R. 5116 will coordinate STEM education across the federal government to increase and bolster effective programs, increase graduate fellowships at NSF and DOE, support research and internship opportunities for high school and undergraduate students in STEM fields, and encourage students to enter into the education system as teachers to continue to build the next generation of scientists, educators, and researchers.

And of particular importance to my district, the America COMPETES legislation will provide critically needed help to our small- and medium-sized manufacturers who have been hard hit by the financial downturn. In order to improve competitiveness and access to capital, America COMPETES will create a new program that will provide Innovative Technology Federal Loan Guarantees for these manufacturers. To help manufacturers modernize and green their manufacturing practices, this legislation directs NIST to develop sustainability metrics and practices for manufacturers. To ensure manufacturers have a well- trained workforce, this legislation directs NSF to award competitive grants to strengthen and expand scientific and technical education and training in advanced manufacturing practices. To continue the success of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program centers, this legislation will also reduce the cost share contribution, ensuring access to invaluable assistance that increases technological capabilities, institutes green or lean manufacturing techniques, and promotes increased sales.

Madam Speaker, I believe strongly that it is our moral duty to prepare our children and grandchildren with the education and training necessary to be successful in a highly competitive, and increasingly globalized marketplace. By allowing our education system to fall behind our peers, we have slipped in this duty. The America COMPETES legislation will once again put us on the path towards a strengthened education system, and a talented and competitive workforce that will continue the high-risk, high-reward research, innovations and technology development that this country is renowned for. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act will allow the United States to truly compete with our neighbors abroad, which is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1781, I call up the bill (H.R. 2751) to accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles to replace such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less polluting automobiles, with the Senate amendments thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous matter into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), who has been the chairman of our Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, who's done the wonderful investigative work that has brought us to where we are in exposing the dangers to our food supply by imports and other things, with my commendations and good wishes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and very much interested in the matter before us. She has worked on it a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes again to my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Waxman, for purposes of correcting the record on certain erroneous statements made.

Mr. Speaker, I have only one further speaker on this side, so I suggest to my good friend from Pennsylvania, if he desires to speak, he should speak forthwith.

The gentleman is a complete gentleman. I don't want to deny him any opportunity to be heard. I want to thank the gentleman. He is always courteous. I express my gratitude to him for the way he behaves.

I yield myself 5 minutes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time we have seen this bill. It came out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce unanimously. It was informally referred to the Committee on Agriculture, where they had a chance to take a look at it. It passed the House overwhelmingly on two occasions in a slightly different form. It then came back here and it was passed yet another time with the changes virtually to make it identical to that form in which it is. Those changes have been removed in some regards because they were mostly simply technical changes. So it has passed this body three times before this. This is the fourth time we have considered it. The Senate has passed it twice. On Sunday night, they passed it under a unanimous consent procedure.

The bill has enormous support, and all of the consumer organizations support it. Almost every business group in the field of food manufacturing and processing supports it: The Grocery Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Consumer Federation of America, the American Public Health Association, the Bakers Association, the Beverage Association, the American Public Health Association, Pew Charitable Trust, the U.S. PIRG, and also the Food Marketing Institute as well as the Center for Science in the Public Interest. There is literally little, if any, opposition to the consideration of this legislation.

The Senate took from last summer when the House passed the bill until just a few weeks ago to pass the bill over there. It only passed for the final time on Sunday night. I want to agree with my good friend from Pennsylvania; the House's skill as a legislative body is far superior to that of the other body, and if they would leave the legislation alone, I think I could assure the House that we would pass better legislation than they do over there.

But having said these things, we are about now to be forced at the last minutes of this session to choose between not passing a superb bill and passing no bill at all because we want to achieve a greater level of perfection.

This is the first significant change in food and drug law with regard to foods since 1938. At that time, you could test foods down to a few parts per thousand. Today, you can do it down to parts per billion and parts per trillion, and food is being affected by huge numbers of new, incredibly complex known and unknown molecules that are inserted.

The bill before us serves a basic and necessary and admirable purpose. It is going to have the purpose of seeing to it that the American consumer can again have confidence in the safety of their food supply.

Our manufacturers, our growers, and our processors do the best job in the world. The problem is we now import something like about one- quarter to one-third of our food supplies, and those food supplies are coming from places like China. And we have had some scandals of the most appalling character with regard to both domestic and imported food, but mostly with regard to imported food: bad seafood and shellfish from China, unsafe leafy vegetables like spinach and celery from China, bad berries and fruit from Chile and other places like that, peppers from Mexico that got mixed in with salsa and caused the collapse of the American tomato industry.

These are things that will be corrected by us having people available in Food and Drug to properly investigate, to properly correct and properly see to it that these unsafe foods don't get into our food chain, with the consequences not only that they poison Americans, but, worse, that they destroy American industry and cost us the faith of the American consuming public for some of the best manufacturers and processors in the world. The Chinese put melamine in milk. They sent us all manner of dangerous and unsafe food.

Now we are giving the agency, Food and Drug, the authority it needs. This does not invade the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee. It was very carefully kept to see to it that it stayed within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee.

I yield myself 2 additional minutes.

It creates a new focus on prevention, and it shares responsibility between FDA and the food manufacturers so that they can cooperatively work to keep the food supply safe, working together.

It also is going to require manufacturers to implement preventive systems to stop outbreaks before they occur, and it is going to allow our Food and Drug Administration, for the first time in history, to police and to protect the entry into this country of foods coming from abroad, where most of the peril to our American consumers lie.

It also is going to allow our investigators and Food and Drug people to see to it, and this is a word of art, that the American law with regard to good manufacturing practices is carried forward in those other lands so that bad food cannot originate elsewhere and then come in to the United States because of shoddy manufacturing practices.

It gives Food and Drug power to ensure that foreign importers meet U.S. standards, and it will assure that foreign growers and producers will be treated with the same care and attention that American growers and producers are so our growers and producers can know that they are facing an even and level playing field. It gives FDA new enforcement tools, mandatory recall authority, authority to detain tainted products, and protections for employees who serve as whistleblowers.

This legislation is long overdue. It will address a situation which is shameful.

Today, according to the latest statistics, 48 million Americans are sickened by bad food, some 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 are killed yearly. We can dawdle around and let the House and the Senate wait until next year to perhaps pass a different bill. Whether it will be better or not is open to question.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

Whether it will be better is open to question. But I will tell my colleagues, during that time there are going to be Americans sickened, there are going to be Americans killed, and there are going to be Americans hospitalized. American manufacturers and processors and growers are going to have the quality of their food products impinged, not by their carelessness or bad behavior but, rather, by the misbehavior of foreign producers, foreign manufacturers, and others who are sending things in here like milk products with melamine. Melamine is a constituent, believe it or not, of Formica.

It kills people. It kills babies. And China sells these products to their own people. If they will kill their own people with that kind of trash, imagine the glee with which they will sell that kind of trash over here to threaten the well-being and the safety and the trust of American consumers, businessmen, manufacturers, producers, and growers.

I beg you, the safety of your constituents, of our people, is at stake. And I hope you will work with me to pass this legislation so that we can make our consumers not only trust the system but also to know that it is going to work to protect them.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

I hope if there's enthusiasm for doing further work on this, that my colleagues will join me next year in doing the same thing with regard to pharmaceuticals. And I remind you that the committee has worked not in opposition to American industry, but rather the committee has worked with American industry, which supports the legislation.

Would it be better if we were passing the House bill? Absolutely. Is it worse and weaker because we're passing the Senate bill? Of course. But having said that, you're making Americans safe in spite of the fact that the U.S. Senate has to take a ride with this legislation

to, quite frankly, the weakening of this legislation.

I want to commend my colleagues who have participated: Mr. Waxman, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Stupak, Ms. DeGette, and Ms. DeLauro. And I want to commend the staff: Katie Campbell, whose last day this is; Virgil Miller; Rachael Sher; Eric Flamm; and Emily Gibbons, who have made this possible. Our legislative counsel has labored vitally on it, and we owe real thanks to Warren Burke and Megan Renfrew.

I want to commend my Republican colleagues. I know that they're not supporting this legislation, and I grieve about that. But the harsh fact of the matter is they were very helpful in doing this in times past. And I want to pay particular tribute to Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Deal, and Mr. Barton, but I do want it known that were it not for the labor of three great men in the other body, we would not be where we are. Senator Harkin, Senator Durbin, and Senator Reid have contributed vitally to the success which we've had in making the American consuming public safe. And I hope that the people will understand we have served them well.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, secure in the knowledge that you're protecting Americans and you're saving the lives and the health and the well-being of the American people by passing H.R. 2751.

I rise today in strong support of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation with deliberate speed.

Mr. Speaker, consideration of this bill today is what I hope will be the final step of a long legislative journey. My colleagues in this body passed similar legislation last July. Some 17 months later, we are working on the same issue.

The legislative fits and starts is in no way a reflection of the policy, however, the legislation has been the hostage of political games and procedural missteps. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act serves a necessary and admirable purpose--it will go a long way in boosting American consumer confidence in the safety of the nation's food supply. The many recalls that have confronted American consumers over the years--peanuts, melamine in milk, eggs, bad seafood and shellfish, unsafe leafy vegetables like spinach, bad berries and peppers--has called into question the ability of the government to adequately protect American consumers. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act addresses this concern head on and grants the Food and Drug Administration--the Agency with oversight of 80 percent of the nation's food supply--the authorities and resources it needs to effectively do its job.

Among other things, the legislation will:

Create a new focus on prevention, and a shared responsibility between FDA and food manufacturers to keep the food supply safe. It will require manufacturers to implement preventive systems to stop outbreaks before they occur;

Require FDA to inspect food facilities--foreign and domestic--more frequently;

Grant FDA new authority to ensure that imported foods meet U.S. safety standards and will assure foreign growers and producers must be treated with the same care that American growers and producers are; and

Grant FDA new enforcement tools, including mandatory recall authority, authority to detain tainted products, and protection for employees who uncover food safety violations.

Mr. Speaker, enactment of this legislation is long overdue and necessary--necessary for the millions of Americans who suffer from foodborne illness each year, and the thousands who die from it each year.

We will bring to a halt a shameful situation where 48 million Americans are sickened by bad food, 128,000--yes 128,000 Americans-- hospitalized and 3,000 people killed by bad food.

I strongly support the legislation before us today and urge my colleagues to cast an aye vote.

S. 510 Supporters

Obama Administration--FDA

American Bakers Association; American Beverage Association;

American Public Health Association; Center for Foodborne

Illness, Research & Prevention; Center for the Science In The

Public Interest; Consumer Federation ot America; Consumers

Union; Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association; Food

Marketing Institute; Grocery Manufacturers Association;

Institute of Shortening & Edible Oils Inc.; International

Dairy Foods Association; International Bottled Water

Association; National Association of Manufacturers; National

Coffee Association of U.S.A., Inc.; National Confectioners

Association; National Consumers League; National Restaurant

Association; The Pew Charitable Trusts; Snack Food

Association; STOP--Safe Tables Our Priority; Trust For

America's Health; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and U.S. PIRG:

Federation of State PIRGs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 4853 was negotiated in the dead of night, and I am outraged by the take-it-or-leave tactics employed to ram this legislation through the House, no less in a lame-duck session. This is not how good legislation is produced, and I am convinced we will feel the repercussions of this for years.

In considering H.R. 4853, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010, members of the House of Representatives confront the tragic choice of extending unemployment benefits and current middle-class tax rates at the price of enormous tax give-aways to millionaires and fat cats on Wall Street. At a time when American corporations are making record earnings and giving million-dollar holiday bonuses, we are extending tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans for two years but extending unemployment insurance for only 13 months. This greatly frustrates me, and I believe we must do more to help working families. Equally distressing is the fact that this lop-sided agreement hides another, more insidious provision that could promise to do future violence to the federal program upon which millions of senior citizens in this country rely for their very existence, namely Social Security.

I am somewhat comforted, however, that H.R. 4853 clearly mandates the shortfall in revenue to the Social Security Trust Fund caused by the bill's one-year payroll tax holiday be made whole with a transfer from the Treasury's General Fund. This measure is designed ostensibly to provide Americans with more take-home pay to spend or save as they see fit, but it earns only my hesitant backing for fear that Republicans will attempt to make this provision permanent when it expires next year. Such a move can only be seen as the first step leading to what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want most: privatizing Social Security.

While I maintain my strong reservations about portions of this tax package that benefit only the wealthiest two percent of all Americans, my colleagues and I cannot in good conscience return to our districts without having secured an extension of unemployment benefits and existing tax rates for middle-class families so aggrieved by the current recession. The good people of the 15th District need the stability of assured unemployment benefits to help get them through this holiday season, giving them time until they find stable employment.

Now is one of the times when it is ultimately better for our government leaders to come together on common ground where it can be found, instead of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. In this case, the government is taking real action to stimulate the economy and help those desperately in need. Democrats are making the choice to protect millions of Americans struggling to keep food on the table and keep the heat on while searching hard for a job. According to the Center for American Progress, the tax deal would save or create 2.2 million jobs through 2012. In Michigan, the importance of the unemployment extension cannot be overstated. In November 2011, almost 300,000 Michiganders will lose their unemployment benefits without federal action. These are real numbers, and this is real money that will have a positive impact on our economy at a time when it is desperately needed.

Absent a better choice, I will vote in favor of H.R. 4853. I do so as Dean of this House and the proud son of a man who helped pass the Social Security Act but demand my colleagues' sacred vow that this bill's payroll tax holiday never again be extended. To do so would be an indefensible assault on the economic and social progress achieved by generations of working-class Americans. I assure you, Madam Speaker and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I will do everything in power to make sure Social Security is protected from rascality and available for not only current recipients, but also their children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter of H.R. 2965, the Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. I want to thank Representative Patrick Murphy (D-PA) for his unrelenting advocacy for repealing this discriminatory law and Majority Leader Hoyer for his leadership on this issue.

The time is long overdue for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT), the current law that says a member of the Armed Forces--one that would give his or her life defending our country--may not reveal his or her sexual orientation nor may the military ask about it. Just as today's Americans shake their heads at the thought of a segregated military--and indeed society--I suspect that generations to come will do the same at the shift we made in 1994 from the outright to tacit discrimination of homosexuals in the military. Indeed, if military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, and retention are among the factors the military considers important to the overall success of our Armed Forces, one can hardly argue that DADT, which has brought about over 14,000 servicemember discharges, was and is the right course of action. Mr. Speaker, our nation is engaged in conflicts in multiple theatres and we are in desperate need of troops, as well as foreign language translators, and yet because of DADT, there is a segment of the population who want to serve openly and who, for all intents and purposes, face a sign saying they ``need not apply.''

The debate over DADT raises an interesting question about how the course of history might have changed had homosexuality been a factor in allowing military service for these distinguished warriors:

The Spartans, the preeminent military leaders of Sparta, known for military dominance; Julius Caesar, the father of the Roman Empire; Augustus Caesar, the first Emperor of the Roman Empire who ushered in the Pax Romana; the Emperor Hadrian; Alexander the Great, creator of one of the largest and most influential Empires in ancient history; The Sacred Band of Thebes, the elite force of the Theban army in the 4th Century BC.

King Richard I, also known as Richard the Lionheart, a central Christian commander during the Third Crusade; Frederick the Great, credited for creating a great European power by uniting Prussia; Herbert Kitchener, British Field Marshal renowned for his leadership during World War I; Lieutenant Colonel, T.E. Lawrence also known as Lawrence of Arabia, who successfully led the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire; and, Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, who authored the Revolutionary War Drill Manual which became an essential manual for the Continental Army, helping to lead the United States to victory over the British in the Revolutionary War.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider this hypothetical, let us turn to the crux of the issue which is that any discriminatory law runs contrary to the principles of this great nation. ``Let us hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . .'' That, Mr. Speaker, is the preamble to the Declaration of Independence and it is the epitome of who we are and what we stand for as a nation--we need to strive to uphold this quintessential value. DADT is discriminatory and we must end this harmful policy. Who knows how many of the 14,000 plus discharged would have gone on to excel in their military careers. It is time to allow them back in to the military to show us and prove that we, as a society, will no longer tolerate the outrageous discrimination that occurs. The gravestone of decorated Airman Leonard Matlovich, who revealed his homosexuality to his commanding officer, tragically reads, ``When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.'' Let us ensure we never again have such a grave marker. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on H.R. 2965.

Mr. Speaker, over the past several months I have thought quite a bit about what I would do if the DREAM Act came to the floor for a vote. I have studied the legislation and how it affects our current immigration laws. I have looked into how the DREAM Act would affect things like student loans, grants and other Federal subsidies. I have spoken with constituents, both for and against, about the legislation. I have considered the affect of the DREAM Act being signed into law on the prospect of comprehensive immigration reform--I asked, most importantly, does this simply allow us kick the can on that matter down the road for yet a few more years?

Today, Madam Speaker, I rise in favor of the legislation. As I mentioned, it has taken me some time to come to this conclusion, as I am tired of throwing patches at the immigration problem. Ultimately, we need a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and Madam Speaker, we need it desperately. However, I cannot in good conscience hold hostage young people who were brought to this country by their parents to a comprehensive reform bill. The DREAM Act is a small patch for a problem that has eluded our Nation for decades. Our country needs comprehensive reform, not piecemeal fixes.

All of this said, the DREAM Act will provide opportunity and hope to young immigrants brought to this country by their parents who, through no fault of their own, cannot be a meaningful part of our society without this Act. Most of these individuals speak English as well or better than their native tongue and they consider the United States their home, but they cannot realize their dreams because of their immigration status.

The DREAM Act is no ``get-out-of-jail-free card,'' however. For individuals who meet minimum qualifications, such as being in the United States for 5 years before enactment and under 16 years old before coming here, the DREAM Act requires that its beneficiaries participate in one of the two most enduring institutions of American society: military service or higher education. In addition, DREAM Act beneficiaries must be in a conditional immigration status for a decade before becoming legal permanent residents. In so doing, the DREAM Act only gives legal status to those who really want to be here and at the same time creates new horizons for an untapped and eager group of young people to contribute to the country's long-term well-being. Indeed, improving our military readiness, increasing the number of college- educated workers, and expanding the Federal, State, and local tax base are among the bill's virtues. And the DREAM Act will not allow a ``chain migration'' as some opponents of the law have been saying. In fact, only after a DREAM Act beneficiary waits the full 13 years it would take to become a U.S. citizen are they able to petition for immediate family to gain legal status in the United States. Immediate family would have to wait in family immigration lines before being able to immigrate. And family members already here illegally face additional barriers under current law that will continue to make it difficult to obtain legal status. That is not a ``get-out-of-jail-free card.''

As I stated earlier, I do not vote for this bill without reservations. The DREAM Act is just a temporary fix to a serious problem. It is my sincere hope that within the year period required by the bill for individuals to apply, we will be able to consider, in a bipartisan manner, a comprehensive bill that will fix our broken system.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes in support of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the part which was reported out by the Committee on Energy and Commerce unanimously, the food safety provisions. It, with the help of my good friend, the gentleman from Texas, reported the bill unanimously.

Why is it here? First of all, it's substantially the same as the bill passed by the House. Second of all, it is substantially the same as that passed by the Senate. It is a bill which cures the weakness of the Food and Drug Administration and the fact that about a third to a quarter of our food is imported from abroad where there is no real protection for American consumers.

Some 5,000 Americans die every year of bad food, 300,000 go to the hospital, and 77 million get sick. This bill gives the Food and Drug Administration the funds, the authority that it needs to do the job that has to be done.

If we do not pass this legislation, we will find that legislation like this could not come to the floor before late in the spring or in the summer of next year. I urge my colleagues to respect the problems that we have, to see to it that Americans are protected against unsafe food coming in from China, milk with melamine, unsafe strawberries and berries, unsafe fruits and vegetables, unsafe leafy vegetables, unsafe fish and seafood and shellfish. All manner of unsafe commodities are being brought in and sold to the American people because of the total inability of Food and Drug under current law to now protect the American people. This legislation will cure and address those problems.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Texas has any extra time, we would be delighted to receive it over here.

At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New

Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, one of the original sponsors of this legislation.

If the gentleman from Texas would yield me a little time, I'd be delighted.

I thank the distinguished gentleman. And by the way, I want to commend him for his help on this legislation.

I want to address that because I want the House to understand, first of all, the great job the gentleman did, but also the fact that the Senate, in an unusual action, did only slight damage to our bill.

At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished friend from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, who is regrettably leaving us at the end of this Congress, for his outstanding leadership in this matter as chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee and for the outstanding work he did to put us where we are so we can pass this legislation.

At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

At this time, I find I have no further speakers until I close, and I believe it is the right of this side to close, so at this time I ask my dear friend from Texas to say whatever he has in mind, and I urge the House to note that he is worth listening to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my dear friend from Texas for the superb job he did in working with us on this bill. The House bill was a superb bill. It came out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce unanimously, and it passed the House by an overwhelming vote. It has the endorsement of everybody in the industry, and it has the support of all of the consumer organizations and by the administration and the

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4853, the ``Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010.'' Put very simply, our vote on this bill today is a statement of values. Do we stand with middle-class American families, whose lives and livelihoods have been devastated by the recession, or do we stand with the wealthy scions of finance and industry who drove this country off an economic precipice of gargantuan proportions? There can be no justification for holding tax relief for middle-class families hostage by supporting those who did nearly irreparable harm to our great Nation, and those members of the House who vote against this bill should forever be ashamed of putting the interests of Wall Street fat-cats before those of the vast majority of American families.

My Republican colleagues seem to be blind to this reality and will no doubt work this very day to make a public statement of their unflinching support for the wealthy at the cost of providing tax relief to the middle-class Americans who need it most. This, sadly, should come as no surprise, given Republican opposition to extending unemployment insurance. As if denying 800,000 Americans--and over 180,000 people in my home state of Michigan--extended unemployment benefits at the time they need it most is not enough, Republicans now seek to bar tax relief to middle-class Americans in a cynically transparent attempt to allow the wealthy to continue lining their pockets.

In closing, I would remind my friend, the erstwhile Minority Leader, that he stated some months ago on ``Meet the Press'' that he would support a middle-class tax cuts-only bill if it were his only choice. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minority Leader now has the opportunity to make good on that statement. If he does, his conscience will thank him.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in appreciation of Lloyd A. Semple. On December 2nd he will step down after a successful tenure as Chair of the Michigan Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. Lloyd has provided extraordinary leadership in shepherding The Nature Conservancy into its next decade of conservation. As Chair, he held the gavel as the Great Lakes Project was launched on Mackinac Island in 2008, and was at the helm when The Nature Conservancy completed the largest conservation project in Michigan's history.

Lloyd joined the Michigan Board of The Nature Conservancy in 2003 and has remained an active member of the Board through his tenure as Chair, which started in 2008. His philanthropic nature is further exemplified by his positions as Vice Chairman of the National Audubon Society's Board of Directors and member of the Executive Committee of the Detroit Zoological Society's Board of Directors. These commitments require time and energy, which Lloyd has selflessly volunteered year after year.

It is my belief that we do not inherit the Earth from previous generations, but we borrow it from future ones. By continuing to expand our scientific knowledge and by conserving pristine wildlife habitat, we are fulfilling our role as stewards of the environment. Lloyd Semple successfully championed this vision as Chair.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 50th Wedding Anniversary of Ronald and Patricia Andrews. On November 26, 2010, Ron and Pat will celebrate a half century of their union.

The Andrews were married in St. Mary Magdalen Church in Melvindale, Michigan. Pat grew up in Melvindale and graduated from Central Michigan University. Ron grew up in Bay City, Michigan and graduated from the University of Michigan. They have three wonderful children: Sandy, Chris and Jennifer and they are the proud grandparents of three granddaughters: Alexandra, Alison and Alyssa.

My wife Deborah and I have known Pat and Ron for decades. Ron is a retired teacher and coach from Trenton High School. He is the treasurer of the Trenton American Legion and is an inductee of the Michigan High School Coaches Hall of Fame. Pat has been a member on the Board of Directors in numerous organizations ranging from the Salvation Army to the Detroit Area Girl Scouts. Along with my wife, she is a founding member of the Women Celebrating Life Downriver. Patricia was the former Focus editor of the News Herald Newspapers until she came to work for me as an immigration caseworker. She is a dedicated public servant, a fiercely loyal friend, and an ever-passionate advocate for my constituents.

It is an honor to know such decent, hard working and civic-minded people. Our community is, without question, better as a result of their years of service, and I am grateful to count them as my dear friends.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues please join me in honoring the 50th anniversary of the marriage of these two tremendous individuals.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support of S. 3307, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. This legislation has been a priority of the Obama Administration, and in particular the First Lady, because it is the right thing to do. Together the President and the First Lady have started a national conversation about why reducing child hunger and childhood obesity are laudable goals and I commend them for this. While this is not a perfect bill, today the House has the opportunity to send to the President a bill which will make historic investments and significant improvements to child nutrition programs.

For far too many students, the only quality meal they can count on is the one they receive during the school day, which is why I believe this legislation is critical to pass before the end of the 111th Congress. Last year in Michigan, more than 911,000 students counted on the National School Lunch Program to provide them with a meal. With one in five children living in poverty, the need to provide an affordable, healthy meal at school is greater than ever.

Furthermore, at a time when we are facing a growing child obesity epidemic, it is often difficult to find healthful foods in our nation's schools. That is why I support this legislation's goal to raise nutritional standards, increase the federal reimbursement rate for school lunch programs, and reduce availability of high-calorie junk food which crowds out healthier food options. Our students deserve access to more fresh, local food and healthy options during the school day.

If enacted, this legislation would provide Michigan with $8,391,000 to improve the nutritional quality of school lunches for low-income children across our State, as well as improve access to programs for school meals. Our schools will now receive an additional 6 cents per meal to help meet new meal standards. In addition, this legislation will help ensure the safety of the meals we are serving our students, by improving recall procedures and extending food safety requirements.

I am, however, gravely concerned though about the Senate's decision to pay for this legislation by using $2.2 billion in future cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or food stamp program. With 1.75 million Michigan residents relying on SNAP to put dinner on the table, this cut is irresponsible. It is my hope that President Obama will follow through on his commitment to replace this offset before these SNAP cuts slash food budgets for needy Michigan families.

Madam Speaker, I have often said that we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good, which is why I lend my support to today's bill. I hope my colleagues will join with me in passing the Healthy, Hunger- Free Kids Act, sending it to President Obama's desk before Christmas.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge my support of the one month patch to the Sustainable Growth Rate, but to state once again, that we cannot continue to kick this can down the road. I continue to support a permanent fix to the flawed SGR formula, like the one we passed in the House of Representatives last year. I also want to express my continued frustration that the Republicans in the United States Senate thwarted them from following the House's lead on this sound policy.

It is necessary that we pass this one-month extension today, but it is far from sufficient. Two weeks ago, I introduced H.R. 6427, the ``Medicare Physician Payment Update Extension Act.'' This legislation will extend the current physician Medicare reimbursements for 13 additional months. I believe this longer extension will give our seniors and physicians the peace of mind they need while Congress works on a permanent solution to this longstanding problem.

Tonight we will pass a one-month extension to ensure that seniors have access to the same doctors they do today, and so doctors will be fairly reimbursed for their services over the next month. However, when we come together to address this problem again in 30 days, I urge my colleagues to pass a permanent solution, or at minimum, pass a year long extension so that we can ensure some stability to the Medicare program.