Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and achievements of Former Representative Bob Davis. I was deeply saddened to hear the loss of my friend Bob, a true Michigander. Through attending public schools in Mackinac County, miming a small Michigan business, and serving as a city council member, state representative and senator, Bob came to understand the state on every level. By the time he came to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1979, he truly understood the needs of Michigan's people. From his work with then- Governor George Romney to reduce the tolls on the Mackinac Bridge, to his work in the House Armed Services Committee to procure major defense weapons systems, he always worked toward tangible results for those he was serving.

Bob and I not only shared a love for Michigan and its people, but also a deep appreciation for the outdoors. Some of his greatest achievements while serving in the U.S. House were through his role as the Ranking Member on the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. He was able to help establish the Upper Peninsula's Keweenaw National Historic Park, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and to protect the Great Lakes from invasive species. Even after his passing, Bob Davis' legacy and achievements will live on, in no small part through the natural and historic lands of Michigan that he fought to protect and preserve.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the moment of silence in memory of former Representative Bob Davis of Michigan.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 701, honoring the 50th Anniversary of the Dyke Marsh Wildlife Preserve.

Fifty years ago, commercial dredging and dumping operations threatened the very existence of Dyke Marsh. In 1959, Congress designated Dyke Marsh as a protected wetland habitat, allowing it today to provide a vital habitat for over 6,500 species of animals and plants, and serve as one of the national capital area's most cherished wetland and wildlife preserves.

I am proud to have taken part in the designation of Dyke Marsh. The best times of my life were hunting and fishing with my dad and, later in life, with my children. I want to ensure others are able to enjoy the outdoors in that same meaningful way.

This anniversary reminds me of the great times John Saylor, Henry Reuss and I shared while working on environmental and conservation legislation together. They were great friends and legislators, and I am proud of what we were able to accomplish. John was wise to have once said: `We are a great people because we have been successful in developing and using our marvelous natural resources; but, also, we Americans are the people we are largely because we have had the influence of the wilderness on our lives.'

I am also reminded of a quote by another great leader, Winston Churchill. Churchill, as you know, enjoyed the occasional drink. One day he was meeting with a group of women who were offended by his consumption of alcohol. They said `Mr. Churchill, if you lined the walls of your office with the alcohol you have consumed, it would be up to here.' Churchill looked up, thought for a moment, looked at the ladies and said, 'So much to do, so little time.' We should be proud of the good our work towards conservation has done, but remember we have more to do

The Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Moran, is to be commended for his hard work in protecting Dyke Marsh and for the good work he has done from his perch in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior. Important conservation programs are better off because of his wisdom and diligence.

I also want to take a moment to recognize the hard work of the Friends of Dyke Marsh. This organization, currently under the leadership of Glenda Booth, has done a great job of protecting this beautiful space and getting the story of Dyke Marsh out. Friends of Dyke Marsh is an outstanding advocacy organization and they have much of which to be proud.

I urge all my colleagues to rise and commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Dyke Marsh Wildlife Preserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 26, a resolution granting honorary citizenship to the great Revolutionary War Hero, Casimir Pulaski. As a proud Pole, I am pleased to cosponsor this resolution and thank my friend, colleague, and fellow Pole from Ohio, Representative Dennis Kucinich, on its introduction.

Casimir Pulaski left Poland, already a renowned war hero, in search of freedom. Upon arriving in America, Pulaski wrote to George Washington, ``I came here, where freedom is being defended, to serve it, and to live or die for it.'' During the Revolutionary War, Pulaski led a legion of cavalry known as the Polaski legion, for which he later became known as the father of the American cavalry.

Casimir Pulaski played a major role in securing American freedom from the British. On September 11, 1777, Pulaksi participated in his first military engagement at the Battle of Brandywine where he helped avert defeat and saved the life of George Washington. Four days later, Washington elevated Pulaski to rank of Brigadier General of the American Cavalry. In February, 1779, the Pulaski Cavalry Legion ejected the British from Charleston, South Carolina and in October of that year, Pulaski mounted an assault against British Forces in Savannah, Georgia. On October 9, 1779, Pulaski was mortally wounded and transferred aboard the USS Wasp where he died at Sea on October 11, 1779.

Pulaski has long been recognized by our government as a vital figure in American history. In 1825, General Lafayette laid the cornerstone for the Casimir Pulaski monument in Savannah, Georgia, and in 1929, Congress passed a resolution recognizing October 11 of each year as Pulaski Day in the United States. I am proud to share a Polish heritage with Casimir Pulaski. The granting of honorary American citizenship is long overdue for this freedom-loving man who represents all that it means to be an American.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, while I support H.R. 1035, the ``Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Amendments Act of 2009,'' I rise to voice my most rigorous protest at its inclusion of S. 1023, the ``Travel Promotion Act of 2009.'' This legislation, which has not benefitted from proper consideration by the various committees of jurisdiction in this body, creates an unnecessary Corporation for Travel Promotion. In sharp contrast to my long-held view that private corporations can and should promote travel to the United States on their own, the Corporation for Travel Promotion, comprised of companies from the travel and tourism industry, will be the recipient of taxpayer funds to finance its operations. Admittedly, the Corporation will be required to match public sector funds with contributions from its members, but these matching contributions may be up to 80 percent in the form of goods and services, whose value is to be determined by the Corporation itself. This outrage underscores the deficient public oversight to which the Corporation will be subject, as well as the fundamental dearth in meaningful constraints placed on its operation under pending statute. Further illustration of this is the legislation's omission of a provision to prevent the Corporation from acting solely in the benefit of one constituent member, as well as no requirement that public funds appropriated to the Corporation be returned to the Treasury in the event they are not expended.

The questions of the Corporation's establishment, functioning, and funding aside, I feel S. 1023 neglects to consider the more basic reasons for declining travel to the United States. Anecdotal evidence suggests potential foreign visitors take issue with America's reputation of late, particularly in the wake of the Iraq War, and moreover are confused and very likely offended by the difficulties of obtaining a visa to this country and the unfriendly treatment when they arrive at its borders. We would do well to examine what must be done in order to rehabilitate our image internationally, as well as how to facilitate easier entry into this country, while maintaining a necessary degree of security. In short, simply creating a corporation to promote travel to the U.S. will not address the more essential elements of why fewer foreigners decide to come to our country as tourists.

Finally, I must also object to the apparent failure of this body to afford the Travel Promotion Act proper consideration under the auspices of regular order. I would note that during the 110th Congress, the Committees on Energy and Commerce, the Judiciary, and Homeland Security worked cooperatively to produce an amended version of this legislation for consideration by the full House. While I confess that bill was in no way perfect, it included much-needed improvements to the oversight and accountability measures applicable to the Corporation and, in my view, represented a more palatable alternative to the measure before us for consideration today.

In closing, I intend to vote in favor of H.R. 1035 but must voice my most rigorous protest at its inclusion of the Travel Promotion Act, legislation I find remarkably lacking in merit and deficient in due deliberation by this body.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong and full support of H.R. 3548, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009. This legislation is sorely needed in my home State of Michigan and I urge all of my colleagues to lend their support.

This legislation comes before the House at a critical time for many of our families. By the end of this month more than 300,000 jobless workers are expected to run out of unemployment compensation. The National Employment Law Project estimates that by the end of the year nearly 1.5 million workers will have used up their benefits. In Michigan it is expected that more than 62,000 will run out of their benefits by the end of December.

For the families that I represent this loss of benefits comes at a time when Michigan is continuing to struggle with over 15 percent unemployment. In the metro Detroit area unemployment is even higher at 17.1 percent unemployment. These are not families looking for a handout, rather they are relying on these benefits to pay their mortgage and put dinner on the table. I can think of thousands of workers in my district alone who can confirm that $310 a week does not stretch far.

Although it is easy to lose sight of an individual family in the crowded pages of statistics and multi-colored graphs we use to try to quantify unemployment in this country, hearing the thousands of stories of my constituents struggling to stay afloat in these still-difficult times is enough to argue the necessity of this bill. One of those stories was told to me by a man named Dave from Taylor. Dave is 58 years old, but is unable to retire due to both a lengthy period of unemployment as well as being a victim of identity theft. He moved back to Michigan to be close to his daughter, but still struggles to find work despite, in his words, ``trying just about everything.'' Folks like Dave are not simply sitting around and idly hoping for a job. They are actively searching every day and we must give them more time to do so.

Another story highlighting the need for this extension was told to me by a man who introduced himself as Will at the Southeast Michigan Rehiring, Retraining, and Relief Fair I hosted in early September. Will was a Senior Information Technology Project Manager with GM for 19 years, but despite a great deal of time and effort to both network and go through traditional channels, he continues to struggle to find employment. Although Will is following leads on jobs he discussed with recruiters at the job fair, his situation is emblematic of the displaced auto workers from all sectors of the industry who will likely require retraining to find a new job as well as the continued unemployment benefits throughout that process to support themselves and their families.

Under this legislation States that have a three-month average of total unemployment rate of 8.5 percent will be eligible for up to 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits. This would bring the total amount of potential Emergency Unemployment Compensation to 46 weeks for 29 States.

The additional 13 weeks of benefits included in this legislation is far from being enough to solve the problem of unemployment, however, it will provide some peace of mind for our families and give our workers additional time for their job search. And with six people looking for each available job, we know that this extension will be valuable.

For those that doubt the need for this extension, consider that both Moody's Economy.com and the Congressional Budget Office have found that such an extension is an effective economic stimulus. For every dollar of unemployment benefits, $1.64 is provided in economic stimulus.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this legislation and as the federal representative for the State with the highest unemployment, I urge all of my colleagues to express their support for this extension and vote in favor of H.R. 3548. Please do not let Congress's holiday gift to our families in need be the exhaustion of their unemployment benefits.

Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. For far too long private lenders have saddled our students with thousands of dollars of debt, all so they could make a profit. Today Congress puts an end to this ensuring that all students who desire a higher education can do so in an affordable manner.

When I was growing up I was told that in order to have a good job you must graduate from grade school, and then it was high school and now it is college. Unfortunately the reality is that all too often, many of our brightest and best are not pursuing college because they cannot afford to do so. I hear time and time again from my young constituents who are working two or three part-time jobs all so they can take a class or two a semester. We cannot allow our brightest minds to burn out before they can complete their degree. Higher education should be an opportunity and not a burden.

H.R. 3221 will change this by ensuring that the students are the focus of our higher education system once again. This legislation will change the way the student loan system functions by ensuring all new loans are operated through the Direct Loan program, saving the taxpayers $87 billion and guaranteeing our students have access to low- cost, reliable federal loans.

The savings from this change will be directed towards increasing government grant loan assistance for tuition payments. Pell grants, which serve nearly seven million students, will be increased to $5,550 in 2010 and to $6,900 by 2019. To ensure that these grants continue to keep up with the rising costs of tuition, beginning in 2011 the grants will be linked to the Consumer Price Index.

In my district more than 13,000 students rely on the Pell grant to help pay for their schooling. This increase of funding would be critical for each one of these students and would increase the total amount of Pell grant awards in the 15th District from $34 million to over $85 million.

This legislation will also simplify the FAFSA, making it easier for families to apply for financial aid. By permitting families to use information from their tax returns, the FAFSA process will be more streamlined and effective for our students. This is critical for families in the 15th District who submitted nearly 38,000 applications last year and are anticipated to submit 56,000 in the 2012 school year.

H.R. 3221 also lowers the interest rates on government-subsidized loans helping to lower college debt after graduation, which will be critical to the nearly 334,000 students in Michigan who rely on these loans.

Increased funding will also be directed to our community colleges, many of whom in Michigan are overwhelmed with trying to serve the thousands of dislocated workers who are looking to start their second career. I have always believed that our community colleges and universities deserve equal treatment; however, this recession has made demonstrated the many different types of students our community colleges serve. This legislation will help these colleges to work more closely with our business community, the state and job training programs and adult education programs to ensure our adult learners have access to the support they need to complete their degree or certificate. And for the over 177,000 students currently enrolled in Michigan community colleges, we must ensure that they have safe, quality facilities in which to learn. Under H.R. 3221 Michigan will receive nearly $88 million to help finance projects to repair or construct new community college facilities.

Overall this legislation makes unprecedented and much-needed reforms to our student aid system, however, we must also ensure that our colleges and universities have the resources and the support they need to implement this bill. I know for the colleges and universities in my district, they are already struggling with reduced financial assistance from the state, therefore, we must ensure that the consideration of any financial match is

weighed against the current situation in our economy, and what our schools are already committed to doing to assist needy students.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to rise in support of this legislation and I urge strongly that my colleagues do the same. We have all watched the tuition at public and private colleges double, then triple as time has passed, creating a burdensome gap for our students to overcome. The students of this country are our greatest hope--they are our future doctors, our future lawyers, our future teachers and our future public servants. To not ensure that they have an affordable, quality education would be to shortchange their success and the success of our country.

I rise to thank my dear friend, the gentleman from Tennessee, for his courtesy to me and for the expeditious way in which he has handled this bill. The Nation owes him a debt for this and for many other things. And I thank him.

I also rise in strong support of H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009. I want to commend my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Peters, for the superb work that he and his staff have done on this important piece of legislation. And I want to also thank my colleagues on the Republican side, including the Republican coauthors and my good friend, the ranking minority member of the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

The bill that we consider today is going to help America to grasp the new technology in automobile manufacturing and save jobs and opportunities for our people in the future.

It will augment the Department of Energy's ability to research and to develop advanced technologies, which are necessary for the fuel- efficient vehicles of tomorrow. I take no small degree of personal interest in this subject, as several of the companies, such as A123 Systems, are located in my district, and they will produce new types of technologies under H.R. 3246 which will help them to foster these efforts, which are so much in our national interest.

Not only do these technologies have the potential to reduce vehicle fleet emissions and national fuel consumption, freeing us from dependence on foreign oil, but also their production represents a growth industry, something of which my home State, Michigan, and which the entire country is in great need. H.R. 3246 is therefore both an environmental and an economic blessing.

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 3246, and I commend, again, my dear friend from Tennessee

and my friend from Michigan for their authorship and for their leadership of this important matter.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Ann Arbor Host Lions Club as they celebrate their eightieth year of service to the people of Ann Arbor and the state of Michigan.

The Lions Club has spent decades faithfully serving the City of Ann Arbor and have aided the area in times of prosperity and hardship. Since 1929, the Lions Club has maintained its presence in the community through a variety of events, including but not limited to White Crane drives, active participation in Habitat for Humanity and strong support for countless local and state-wide programs.

As members of the world's largest community service organization, the men and women of the Ann Arbor Host Lions Club should be commended for their dedication to the residents of the greater Ann Arbor area. The Lions Club's desire to give back to the community was directly responsible for the creation of the Michigan Eye-Bank, a state-wide charitable organization that has offered sight restoration to thousands of people.

The citizens of Ann Arbor can take immense pride in being members of a community that has engaged and been served by the wonderful group of dedicated and compassionate volunteers that constitute the Ann Arbor Host Lions Club. Their generosity and charitable activities have been visible in the community for several generations and it is my hope and wish that their outstanding work receives praise and recognition.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise and join me in commending the Ann Arbor Host Lions Club on eighty years of charitable support and service to the community.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, the War of 1812, also referred to as ``America's Second War of Independence,'' was a defining conflict in our Nation's history that today is often overlooked.

Today, I am introducing the War of 1812 Commemorative Stamp Act, a resolution which urges the United States Postal Service (USPS) to issue a postage stamp commemorating the War of 1812. With the bicentennial of the War of 1812 just three years away, issuing such a stamp is a fitting tribute to those who heroically defended our Nation's borders and secured a lasting independence from Great Britain.

Much of our popular American culture is a product of the War of 1812. It inspired the Star Spangled Banner, the first appearance of Uncle Sam, and the phrases ``Don't Give up the Ship,'' ``Remember the Raisin,'' and ``We have met the enemy and they are ours.''

The War of 1812 also has a great significance to the 15th Congressional District of Michigan and the citizens of Monroe, Michigan. Located in Monroe is the River Raisin Battlefield, the site of a major engagement that occurred during the American campaign in the winter of 1813 to retake Fort Detroit from the British. The Battle took the lives of nearly a thousand American Regulars and Militia in what was then known as Frenchtown.

This bloody event, arguably the largest land engagement of the War of 1812, gave birth to the emotional rallying cry ``Remember the Raisin,'' which prompted thousands to volunteer for General William Henry Harrison's spring 1813 campaign.

The people of Monroe dedicated themselves for years to restore the integrity of the battlefield in hopes of turning it into a national park and a place where history-lovers across the country could come to commemorate this landmark battle. In a show of its commitment, Monroe turned over the land to the federal government for free. Finally, after years of work, we were able to pass legislation to turn this important site into the River Raisin National Battlefield Park.

Madam Speaker, I'm certain there are similar sites throughout the country that represent part of our American history. I urge my colleagues to join me in my efforts to give the War of 1812 the recognition it deserves.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the National Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (NJATC) on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of their National Training Institute, which will be held this weekend at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. It will also be my pleasure to address this gathering back home in Michigan's 15th Congressional District.

I wish to commend the NJATC's National Training Institute for what they do for working men and women across the country. I believe they serve as an example of the good work labor unions have done for this country. I think it is entirely appropriate that the 20th annual National Training Institute will be held in Michigan, the state that most have deemed the birthplace of the American labor movement. This is a point in which I take great pride, as Michigan has long had a history of looking out for our workers and supporting the growth and success of our labor unions.

The partnership of the National Electrical Contractors Association and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is unique and it has led to a special training institute that puts a value on skilled trade and allows apprentices to ``earn while you learn.'' This is critical for those in Southeast Michigan and across the country, as they start their second career, or even begin their first. Skilled trades provide our families with respectable and fair wages, benefits that will provide for their families and training that will allow them to successfully complete various jobs within the electrical industry.

As the National Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee enters its 68th year, I would like to once again commend them for their fine work and congratulate them for the more than 350,000 apprentices which they have skillfully trained. I look forward to their 20th National Training Institute and I am so pleased that they will be holding this special event in Michigan's 15th Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the leadership and to commend my dear friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for his extraordinary leadership on this matter.

The success of the CARS program in just a few short days has been extraordinary. The program has been doing so well, in fact, that the initial $1 billion

allocated for the program is already running low. This is a great problem to have in the midst of all the difficulties that we confront. It's a sign that the program is not only working well and the consumers are very interested, but it's also proving that CARS is providing a jolt, a meaningful upward jolt to our economic recovery efforts.

This is a simple extension. It's an infusion of money in an area where it's needed and where it's working, and the legislation should not get bogged down by calls for changing the program. That would only serve to stall the extension and confuse consumers.

We cannot and should not make changes in an extraordinarily successful program that has only been operating for a week. That would be irresponsible. I would add that the additional $2 billion for the program has already been appropriated under ARRA and will not cost the taxpayers an additional dime.

I urge passage of the bill. I commend the leadership, and I thank my dear friend, the chairman of the committee, and the other members of the committee who have made it possible for us to consider this legislation so fast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 additional minute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer to that question is, no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to commend the gentleman and thank him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I reserve a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge the House to reject it.

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

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

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

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

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