Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Reciprocal Market Access Act. In the wake of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, our country faces a difficult road towards recovery. As part of this effort, it is critical that we ensure that our trade policy is working as it should: to generate new opportunities for our businesses, strengthen American manufacturing capabilities, and reduce the unemployment rate that has risen to the highest level in decades.

American manufacturers of products ranging from optical fiber to autos and agriculture face continual problems with access to overseas markets. Our own trade negotiators do little to prevent this from happening, as it is often standard for trade agreements to open our markets fully to foreign competitors, yet we gain little market access in return.

We must provide our negotiators with unequivocal guidelines so that they do not relinquish our domestic trade protections without

gaining meaningful market access for American manufacturers in exchange. Unless other governments play by the rules and remove barriers to our exports, the U.S. should not acquiesce to their demands by further opening our market--which is already the most open market in the global economy. Unilateral disarmament in the face of foreign protectionist practices is unacceptable, and we must ensure that our trade negotiators do not undermine our industries and our workers.

The Reciprocal Market Access Act would instruct our trade negotiators to eliminate foreign market barriers before reducing U.S. tariffs. This bill would also provide enforcement authority to reinstate the tariff if the foreign government does not honor its commitment to remove its barriers.

This legislation also addresses a serious problem in the current trade negotiating process. Tariff and non-tariff sectoral barriers are compartmentalized, meaning that a tariff item can be reduced or eliminated by our negotiators without securing elimination of the non- tariff barriers that deny U.S. industry access to a foreign market. This legislation would give our government the right to revoke concessions to cut tariffs if our trading partners fail to implement negotiated commitments to eliminate barriers that had initially been identified by U.S. domestic producers for our negotiators.

The principle of reciprocity--the principle on which this legislation is built--is not new. In fact it is a principle that should be essential to any effective trade relationship. Cordell Hull, Democrat from Tennessee and Roosevelt's Secretary of State in 1933, was responsible for bringing this concept into the U.S. and global trade systems with the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934. It was this act which formed the basis for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Mr. Hull developed the Act to move away from the negative consequences of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised U.S. tariffs on thousands of imports to record levels. Smoot-Hawley established the United States as protectionist, and provoked a rash of retaliatory measures from our trading partners.

It is no longer the United States that is shutting its markets to foreign competitors. We have the most open market in the world, and continue to find ways to lower tariffs and eliminate market barriers. Yet this policy is often not reciprocated, as American manufacturers find significant barriers to foreign markets while they watch their own domestic market share dwindle. The result is quality American companies are forced to downsize or close their doors for good, and American workers are left jobless.

That is not free trade. Free trade involves a system where American companies are able to compete in markets uninhibited by barriers. It involves a level playing field for American companies and our trading partners. And I have no doubt that if given a level playing field, American companies and American workers can compete in any market.

The Reciprocal Market Access Act will mandate that at the very least any trade agreement does not put American companies and workers at a competitive disadvantage. It establishes what should be the standard for all trade agreements: a mutually beneficial trade relationship in which goods can be freely exchanged and that promotes economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 808 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered without any intervening motion except 1 hour of debate and, if applicable, one motion to recommit.

The bill was introduced on June 2, 2009, by Chairman Ike Skelton and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. The committee marked up the bill on June 16, 2009, and ordered it favorably reported, as amended, by voice vote June 16, 2009.

The Committee on Rules reported a structured rule making in order 69 amendments, which then passed the floor 222-202. And today we have the conference report that we have now concurred with the Senate.

Despite any differences about our ongoing missions in Afghanistan or Iraq, we all agree that funds that have already been approved as part of the annual spending plans should not be held up for any reason, not with our troops in harm's way.

The bill authorizes $550.2 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy and also authorizes $130 billion for overseas contingency operations for fiscal year 2010.

For our service men and women, it authorizes a pay raise of 3.4 percent for the military, expands TRICARE health coverage for Reserve members, bars fee increases on TRICARE inpatient care

for 1 year, and provides $2.2 billion for housing programs to improve the quality of life for our servicepersons' families.

On Afghanistan, the bill responds to concerns raised by Members of both parties and requires an assessment of progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan toward security and stability. It also bans permanent bases in Afghanistan and provides funds to train and equip the Afghan National Security Forces, the ANSF.

There is also language in the bill that requires a reporting system to register and track all the U.S. defense items that are provided to Afghanistan and Pakistan, to help combat waste and fraud. This is especially important in light of recent news stories showing that millions of dollars destined for Pakistan to battle militants in al Qaeda have been diverted to either the domestic economy or ``for other purposes.'' In fact, between 2002 and 2008, while al Qaeda regrouped, only $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually made it to the Pakistani military, according to two Army generals quoted in an Associated Press story from earlier this week. I will insert that story into the Record.

Billions in U.S. Aid Never Reached Pakistan Army

(By Kathy Gannon)

Islamabad, Pakistan.--The United States has long suspected

that much of the billions of dollars it has sent Pakistan to

battle militants has been diverted to the domestic economy

and other causes, such as fighting India.

Now the scope and longevity of the misuse is becoming

clear: Between 2002 and 2008, while al-Qaida regrouped, only

$500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually

made it to the Pakistani military, two army generals tell The

Associated Press.

The account of the generals, who asked to remain anonymous

because military rules forbid them from speaking publicly,

was backed up by other retired and active generals, former

bureaucrats and government ministers.

At the time of the siphoning, Pervez Musharraf, a

Washington ally, served as both chief of staff and president,

making it easier to divert money intended for the military to

bolster his sagging image at home through economic subsidies.

``The army itself got very little,'' said retired Gen.

Mahmud Durrani, who was Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S.

under Musharraf. ``It went to things like subsidies, which is

why everything looked hunky-dory. The military was financing

the war on terror out of its own budget.''

Generals and ministers say the diversion of the money hurt

the military in very real ways:

Helicopters critical to the battle in rugged border regions

were not available. At one point in 2007, more than 200

soldiers were trapped by insurgents in the tribal regions

without a helicopter lift to rescue them.

The limited night vision equipment given to the army was

taken away every three months for inventory and returned

three weeks later.

Equipment was broken, and training was lacking. It was not

until 2007 that money was given to the Frontier Corps, the

front-line force, for training.

The details on misuse of American aid come as Washington

again promises Pakistan money. Legislation to triple general

aid to Pakistan cleared Congress last week. The legislation

also authorizes ``such sums as are necessary'' for military

assistance to Pakistan, upon several conditions. The

conditions include certification that Pakistan is cooperating

in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, that

Pakistan is making a sustained commitment to combating

terrorist groups and that Pakistan security forces are not

subverting the country's political or judicial processes.

The U.S. is also insisting on more accountability for

reimbursing money spent. For example, Pakistan is still

waiting for $1.7 billion for which it has billed the United

States under a Coalition Support Fund to reimburse allies for

money spent on the war on terror.

But the U.S. still can't follow what happens to the money

it doles out.

``We don't have a mechanism for tracking the money after we

have given it to them,'' Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Mark

Wright said in a telephone interview.

Musharraf's spokesman, retired Gen. Rashid Quereshi, flatly

denied that his former boss had shortchanged the army. He did

not address the specific charges. ``He has answered these

questions. He has answered all the questions,'' the spokesman

said. Musharraf took power in a bloodless coup in 1999 and

resigned in August 2008.

The misuse of funding helps to explain how al-Qaida,

dismantled in Afghanistan in 2001, was able to regroup, grow

and take on the weak Pakistani army. Even today, the army

complains of inadequate equipment to battle Taliban

entrenched in tribal regions.

For its part, Washington did not ask many questions of a

leader, Musharraf, whom it considered an ally, according to a

U.S. Government Accountability Office report released last

year.

Pakistan has received more money from the fund than any

other nation. It is also the least expensive war front. The

amount the U.S. spends per soldier per month is just $928,

compared with $76,870 in Afghanistan and $85,640 in Iraq.

Yet by 2008, the United States had provided Pakistan with

$8.6 billion in military money, and more than $12 billion in

all.

``The army was sending in the bills,'' said one general who

asked not to be identified because it is against military

rules to speak publicly. ``The army was taking from its

coffers to pay for the war effort--the access roads

construction, the fuel, everything. . . . This is the

reality--the army got peanuts.''

Some of the money from the U.S. even went to buying weapons

from the United States better suited to fighting India than

in the border regions of Afghanistan--armor-piercing tow

missiles, sophisticated surveillance equipment, air-to-air

missiles, maritime patrol aircraft, anti-ship missiles and F-

16 fighter aircraft.

``Pakistan insisted and America agreed. Pakistan said we

also have a threat from other sources,'' Durrani said,

referring to India, ``and we have to strengthen our overall

capacity. ``The money was used to buy and support capability

against India.''

The army also suffered from mismanagement, Durrani said. As

an example, he cited Pakistani attempts to buy badly needed

attack helicopters.

Pakistan asked for Cobra helicopters because it knows how

to maintain them, he said. But the helicopters were old, and

to make them battle-ready, the Pentagon sent them to a

company that had no experience with Cobras and took two

years, he said.

As a result, in 2007, Pakistan had only one working

helicopter--a debilitating handicap in the battle against

insurgents who hide, train and attack from the hulking

mountains that run like a seam along the Afghan-Pakistani

border.

The army was also frustrated about not getting more money.

Military spokesman Gen. Athar Abbas said the U.S. gave

nothing to offset the cost of Pakistan's dead and wounded in

the war on terror. He estimated 1,800 Pakistani soldiers had

been killed since 2003 and 4,800 more wounded, most of them

seriously.

The hospital and rehabilitation costs for the wounded have

come to more than $25 million, Abbas said. Pakistan's

military also gives land to the widows of the dead, educates

their children and provides health care.

``These costs do not appear anywhere,'' he said. ``There is

no U.S. compensation for the casualties, assistance with aid

to the grieving families.''

Even while money was being siphoned off for other purposes

on Pakistan's end, the U.S. imposed little control over or

even had specific knowledge of what went where, according to

reports by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The

reports covered 2002 through 2008.

The reports found that the Pentagon often ignored its own

oversight rules, didn't get adequate documents and doled out

money without asking for an explanation.

For more than a year, the Pentagon paid Pakistan's navy

$19,000 a month per vehicle just for repair costs on a fleet

of fewer than 20 vehicles. Monthly food bills doubled for no

apparent reason, and for a year the Pentagon paid the bills

without checking, according to the report.

Daniyal Aziz, a minister in Musharraf's government, said he

warned U.S. officials that the money they were giving his

government was being misused, but to no avail.

``They both deserved each other, Musharraf and the

Americans,'' he said.

Within this bill is authorization for 30 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and the continued development and procurement of the F136 Joint Strike Fighter competitive engine but does not authorize the advance procurement of F-22 aircraft.

It authorizes $6.7 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, MRAP, vehicles and fully funds the new MRAP all-terrain variant requirement for Afghanistan. We've seen far too many reports of our troops dying because their vehicles are ripped apart by roadside bombs. We can and will do better to protect them from these risks.

Under the provisions of this bill, the military will increase by 30,000 Army troops, 8,100 marines, 14,650 Air Force personnel, and 2,477 Navy sailors in 2010. It also authorizes an additional 30,000 Army troops in fiscal years 2011 and 2012.

The bill provides support for the plan to increase the size of our civilian workforce so that we can reduce DOD's reliance on contractors for core acquisition functions. This is also a most important point to cut down on fraud and waste. The bill also provides DOD with the needed flexibility to reform the DOD hiring process to reduce the fraud and abuse through enhanced contractor oversight, which is long overdue.

The bill speaks to vessels carrying DOD cargo in high piracy risk areas by requiring that they be equipped with appropriate nonlethal defense measures. And it strengthens the DOD's

ability to face threats and vulnerabilities by improving research and promoting military and civilian cyber workforce development.

It improves accountability and oversight in awarding defense contracts by providing the Defense Department the authority to require return of award and incentive fees. The bill prohibits a company from being awarded future contracts if its action leads to a servicemember's death or severe injury. This, of course, is in response to the number of soldiers who were electrocuted by bad plumbing work.

To address concerns about the treatment of detainees, the bill bans interrogation of detainees by contractors and requires the Department of Defense to give the International Committee of the Red Cross prompt access to detainees held at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility in Afghanistan.

In addition, the bill reforms the Military Commissions Act to clarify rules and improve trial procedures to make military commissions fair and effective, and puts new revisions into place that would forbid the use of statements alleged to have been secured through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

Finally, the bill provides the accused with the enhanced ability to select his own counsel and to make hearsay evidence harder to use in court. It improves procedures for the handling of classified information while also permitting military commissions to continue existing cases for 90 days or until revisions have been made to supporting court manuals and handbooks.

The bill matches the administration's request for $9.3 billion for missile defense programs and provides the resources necessary to meet threats facing the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies, and provides $2.2 billion to support the Department of Energy's nonproliferation programs. It strengthens the Stockpile Stewardship Program to ensure that the nuclear weapons stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable without the use of underground testing.

Further, the bill provides technical and financial support to local law enforcement and prosecutors that they can more aggressively try violent crimes which are motivated by the victim's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability; expands the ability of Federal prosecutors to try similar types of cases in Federal court if State or local officials are unable or unwilling to prosecute these cases; and criminalizes attacks against U.S. servicemembers because of their service to their country.

I want to address one last point. The bill includes new hate crimes legislation that will prohibit offenses based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person. This kind of far-reaching protection is important for America, and I am proud to support it.

There are still far too many incidences of violence in and around our schools and churches. During the last 10 years, 69 persons have been killed or injured at church and another 122 children have died in or around their school. The numbers are devastating. One has only to look at the beating death of Chicago teenager Derrion Albert outside his high school, an honor student, to see how devastating it is to see violence in our schools. I hope this bill can help bring an end to that sorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.

I yield the gentleman 20 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution and ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 769, 770, and 771. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 769, ``aye'' on 770 and ``yea'' on 771.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, before I start, let me say that although I represent New York State, I want to make sure everybody understands that agriculture is the largest business in New York State, most of that obviously taking place up in eastern-western New York along the border. And we do know our cows.

A lot of debate on this bill is about food safety and the need to ensure that the products we consume are as safe as they can be.

I want to pause a minute here to respond to some of the comments that were made in the Senate just this last week, to which I take very strong exception. As many of you know, or may not--I'd like you to know--I've introduced legislation that would phase out

seven classes of antibiotics that are currently approved for nontherapeutic use in animal agriculture.

We held a hearing on the preservation of antibiotics for medical treatment last spring, which, for the first time, the new administration acknowledged that the issue of overuse of antibiotics in farm animals is serious and they are seeking a solution. The Rules Committee held a hearing on this on July 13 to gather testimony from the administration, the private sector, and the scientific community.

Now why is this bill necessary? Well, an estimated 90,000 Americans die every year from infections that are increasingly resilient against the most powerful antibiotics in the world. Seventy percent of those infections are associated with bacterial pathogens displaying resistance to at least one antimicrobial drug. And as much as 70 percent of all the antibiotics--I can't stress this enough--70 percent of all antibiotics and related drugs used in this country go to healthy food animals, not people, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Our legislation would in no way infringe upon the use of these drugs to treat a sick animal. It simply bans the nontherapeutic use--the constant, daily use by farmers who mix the medicine they buy in 50- pound bags to mix it in the food of the livestock in the hope that doing so will prevent the animals from getting sick.

Think about that for a moment. If anyone suggested that you mixed antibiotics every day in your children's cereal, you would think that's crazy. Not only that, you would understand that it's very dangerous and, more importantly, likely only to lead to a new class of drug- resistant ``super bugs'' that eventually stop feeling the effects of our best antibiotics.

A Senator claimed on the floor this week that Denmark, which has instituted the same restriction that we call for in this bill on the overuse of antibiotics, the result was an increase in animal mortality.

While criticizing a Time magazine article on this issue, he said, ``We only have to turn to our neighbor across the Atlantic to see how a ban on antibiotics has played out. The European Union made a decision to phase out the use of antibiotics as growth promoters over 15 years ago and in 1998 Denmark instituted a full voluntary ban, which in 2000 became mandatory. After the ban was implemented in 1999, pork producers saw an immediate increase in piglet mortality and post-weaning diarrhea.''

In fact, just the opposite is true. In a recent letter to Speaker Pelosi and to me, the National Food Institute of Denmark, concerned about the wrongful debate taking place in the United States, has written us that production has actually increased by 47 percent from 1992 to 2008. He also said that mortality of livestock was largely ``unaffected'' by the ban--but I will assume that they cleaned up, that they didn't stack up the animals who lived in their feces and rarely set foot outside the confined bin--but has improved again more recently. I would like to put a copy of that letter and report into the Record today.

In fact, it is my guess that several of my colleagues would agree with me and disagree with our colleague in the Senate.

Finally, I want to touch on one other issue relating to the legislation which we are speaking of, and it's the economy. This is a looming trade issue. Denmark and other European countries already are using strict food safety regulations against American products as we know. We all know exactly what has happened to our industries with each domestic food poisoning or health scare: Other countries respond by telling us they do not want to import our products, and the losers are our farmers and industries.

As this trend continues, I see nothing but downside for American farmers who may soon be told by more and more countries that their pork or beef or poultry or other products are potentially hazardous and cannot be imported.

Before I close, I want to speak a bit about an article that appeared on the front page of the New York Times this past Sunday. It told about a young woman named Stephanie Smith, 22 years old, who was paralyzed from eating hamburger, frozen hamburger bought at a market. And they traced the genesis of this hamburger, and let me tell you what they found:

Meat companies and grocers have been barred from selling ground beef tainted by a virulent strain of E. coli after an outbreak at Jack in the Box left four children dead. Tens of thousands of people are sickened annually by this pathogen, and Federal health officials estimate that hamburger is the biggest culprit. This summer, contamination led to the recall of beef from nearly 3,000 grocers in 41 States.

Now we talk about the cuts of beef that are used in this hamburger. Most of them are trimmings that they get from God knows where. We found in the hamburger that paralyzed Ms. Smith that some of it came from Uruguay. They are low-grade ingredients cut from areas of the cow likely to have had contact with feces which carries E. coli.

So the filthy cattle is brought in. And one of the most telling things is there are unwritten agreements between some companies standing in the way of ingredient testing. Many big slaughterhouses will only sell to grinders who agree not to test their shipments for E. coli according to officials at two large grinding companies. Slaughterhouses fear that one grinder's discovery of E. coli will set off a recall that they sold to others.

Food scientists have expressed increasing concern about the virulence of this pathogen since only a few stray cells can make you sick and there are no safety issues that we require about washing up, scrubbing everything. None of them are at all sufficient against this bug which has become more virulent. And I avow that that is because they are fed the antibiotic to kill E. coli almost daily.

On August 16, 2007, the day Ms. Smith's hamburger was made, the No. 3 grinder at the Cargill plant in Butler, Wisconsin, started up at 6:50 a.m. The largest ingredient was beef trimmings, which they call 50/50--half meat, half whatever--costing 60 cents a pound. Potential for this contamination is present every step of the way, according to both the workers and the Federal inspectors. The cattle arrive with smears of feces all over them. They are poorly kept. I would also like to put this article in the Record.

I hope people will read this. I think that we are really heading for a trade disaster as well as, most importantly, not making 90,000 Americans sick every year.

National Food Institute,

Danish Technical University,

Copenhagen, September 19, 2009.

Re meeting with a Congress delegation on the Danish

experience with stop for non-therapeutic use of

antimicrobials.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, United States

of America.

Dear Speaker Pelosi: We have just had the pleasure of

meeting with a delegation consisting of four members of the

House of Representatives, where we presented our data on the

effects of the stop for non-therapeutic use of antimicrobials

for food animals in Denmark.

We know that various rumours and sometimes ``creative''

interpretations of what has taken place in Denmark have been

circulated to members of the U.S. Congress, and we are

grateful for having been given this opportunity to correct

some of these stories.

We are very pleased that you have approved the visit by

this delegation, and would hereby like to send you a

complimentary copy of the data we presented to the

delegation.

If any further information is required, please do not

hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

Frank M. Aarestrup,

Professor.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 743, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 723, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 730, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall 718, I inadvertently voted ``no.'' I intended to vote ``aye.'' I would like the Record to reflect that.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join our armed services in congratulating Harris RF Communications on producing its one hundred-thousandth Falcon III AN/PRC-152(C) radio. This is an extraordinarily auspicious milestone and a testament to the dedication and hard work of the company's Rochester, New York workforce.

It is fitting to celebrate this achievement as this radio is used and sought after by every branch of the U.S. Department of Defense as well as several of our ally nations. It is a superior product and was recognized by the U.S. Army as one of 2007's greatest inventions. It has next-generation communications capabilities, but is still versatile enough to be compatible with existing communications systems. Plus it can be upgraded in the future to grow as new software and encryption technology advances.

I commend all of Harris' local employees for the critical work they perform every day in support of our soldiers. Their care and dedication is helping to keep our men and women in uniform safe while they serve our nation on faraway battlefields. Moreover, their communications systems enable our military to execute its mission efficiently and effectively so that threats are defeated while innocent lives are safeguarded.

It gives me great comfort to know that our soldiers are equipped with Harris radios because I know that Rochester's top-notch workforce makes products renowned for quality. Our service men and women depend on these radios working the first time and every time. Harris takes that responsibility seriously and I'm so proud to know that the company delivers.

This cutting edge technology that was developed and produced in New York's 28th Congressional District is yet one more example of how our region is a leader in innovation and development. Congratulations to Harris RF Communications and its employees for attaining this significant achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to introduce H. Res. 738 to recognize the accomplishments we have made in the fight to end violence against women in the United States in the fifteen years since President Clinton signed the Violence Against Women Act into law on September 13, 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This recognized the severity of the crimes associated with domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking, we have made great progress.

In 1993, a woman was raped every six seconds in the United States and a female was beaten every 15 seconds.

In July 1994, there were three times as many animal shelters in the United States as battered women shelters.

No doubt about it--the Violence Against Women Act has vastly improved access to support and care to women and families who are victims of domestic violence and stalking.

During a time, when women were still considered secondary to men, my colleagues of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues and I battled to explain the importance of protecting women form the horrors of violence and abuse.

In the House, I worked with former Representatives Patricia Schroeder, Constance Morella and now Senators Olympia J. Snowe, and Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer to author the Violence Against Women Act. In the Senate, Vice President Biden, then the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, championed the Senate version of VAWA.

The 1994 bill was a watershed, marking the first comprehensive legislative package designed to end violence against women. The protections and provisions afforded by the 1994 law were subsequently expanded and improved in the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 and they Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005.

VAWA has led to the reduction of domestic violence incidents reported. By reducing the need for emergency and medical responses, VAWA has averted more than $14 billion dollars in societal costs as VAWA-funded interventions have lowered domestic violence frequency and sexual assault rates.

VAWA has succeeded in bringing communities together to address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Prior to VAWA, few helping systems in a community addressed these crimes. Now law enforcement, prosecution, the courts, victim services and community based programs work together on the grassroots and statewide levels to develop long-term plans for addressing the crimes. VAWA has brought innovative practices to the field by funding demonstration projects, trainings, and supporting the development of specialized courts and police teams.

The Sexual Assault Services Program, created in VAWA 2005, enabled the country's 1300 rape crisis centers to reduce waiting lists, reach out to underserved communities, and provide more comprehensive services to survivors of sexual assault across the nation.

Since 1997, VAWA has funded the Sexual Assault Coalition Resource Sharing Project

(RSP) to develop and strengthen state and territorial sexual assault coalitions. In 1997, there were only 26 states with either no coalition or a coalition with no paid staff. Through VAWA and the efforts of the RSP in 2009 all 50 states and 5 territories have sexual assault or dual issue sexual assault/domestic violence coalitions in place.

During the last fifteen years, the National Center for Victims of Crime has witnessed dramatic improvement in the way our nation responds to stalking cases, progress greatly owed to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). By including stalking in the original landmark bill, Congress elevated this crime in our nation's consciousness and highlighted it as a serious offense requiring heightened attention.

With VAWA funding, the National Center for Victims of Crime created the Stalking Resource Center raise national awareness of stalking and to encourage the development and implementation of multidisciplinary responses to stalking in local communities across the country. VAWA has also provided crucial federal support for efforts by criminal justice officials and victim service providers to hold offenders accountable and to keep stalking victims safe.

VAWA has supported the Stalking Resource Centers work to create a model stalking code that will serve as a guide for lawmakers' initiatives to update their states' stalking laws to keep pace with an ever-changing, and has enabled the SRC to train over 30,000 multidisciplinary professionals across the country who work with and respond to stalking victims, better equipping them to respond to the crime of stalking.

I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the fifteenth anniversary of the signing of VAWA which took place on September 13, 1994 while recognizing the accomplishments we have made and the continuing commitment in the fight to end violence against women.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes Nos. 690, 691, 692 and 693. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 690, 691, 692 and 693.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Waterfront Brownfields Revitalization Act. This bill will authorize a much needed grant program to assist communities that are overcoming the unique challenges of waterfront brownfields and foster innovative approaches to remediation.

America's industrial heritage was established along the banks of its rivers, lakes and coasts. Our nation's vast and interconnected natural water system helped provide the power that fueled our rise to international prominence, and allowed us to move our manufactured goods efficiently to all corners of the country. However, that legacy also includes many decades of environmental contamination on the waterfront. Abandoned factories, dilapidated mills and underutilized ports can be found along the shores of many metropolitan areas. As localities seek to reconnect with their waterfronts and revitalize their downtowns, brownfield barriers threaten to derail community efforts to create jobs, promote recreational opportunities, restore the ecology, increase tourism, and grow their tax base.

Waterfront brownfields present challenges beyond typical environmental assessment and cleanup projects. Hydrology, water quality, wetlands, endangered species, habitat, dredged materials, flooding, environmental infrastructure, navigation, and other considerations must be carefully addressed so as not to exacerbate existing site contamination. Typically, waterfront brownfields require the involvement of multiple governmental agencies. As such, waterfront brownfields require special attention and resources to overcome their larger hurdles.

In my own district, the city of Rochester, NY is currently working to revitalize its beautiful waterfront, while attempting to cope with the unique challenges that waterfront brownfields present. The city is undertaking a major community revitalization strategy to redevelop its port and waterfront area into a mixed use development, which will include housing, commercial, retail, and educational uses, enhanced recreation, new parks and open space, and improved public access to Lake Ontario, the Genesee River and the surrounding ecosystem. However, because the Port of Rochester was used extensively for industrial purposes from the late 1800s into the first half of the 20th century, significant environmental remediation will be required prior to redevelopment.

Initial investigations have found that more than ten acres of the site contain up to several feet of slag from a former iron works. Portions of the site are impacted from petroleum releases and unsuitable fill materials. Old Genesee River deposits on the site and bank sediments have been shown to contain high levels of heavy metals cadmium and silver as well as pesticides and furans. The marina must also be dredged. Before the waterfront reuse can proceed, the Port of Rochester must first address an estimated $500,000 in environmental assessment issues related to contaminated sediments, beneficial reuse of sediments, groundwater contamination, and waste characterization related to the construction of the marina--and an unknown level of remediation.

Madam Speaker, Rochester is not alone in facing these types of complicated and expensive challenges to redevelopment. Cities all across the country are dealing with similar roadblocks as they try to engage incorporate waterfront real estate into their redevelopment plans, from Yuma, AZ and Portland, OR in the west, to Savannah, GA, and Philadelphia, PA in the east, and almost everywhere in between where lakes and rivers exist.

My bill recognizes that the federal government can be an effective partner to communities interested in reconnecting with their waterfronts. Specifically, this legislation would authorize the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish a waterfront brownfields pilot demonstration program to provide localities and other eligible entities with up to $500,000 to assess and cleanup waterfront brownfields. The bill would also establish an interagency taskforce on waterfront brownfields restoration to identify barriers and potential solutions to waterfront brownfields revitalization, and seek methods for federal interagency collaboration on such projects.

As cities across the country struggle to thrive in a changing global economy, and as our domestic manufacturing continues to diminish, it is imperative that Congress do all that it can to help these cities redevelop and succeed. Industrialization and manufacturing helped make this country the power that it is today, but as manufacturing has moved overseas it has not only taken jobs and changed the economic base of many industrial cities, it has also left behind decades of contamination. This legislation will give these cities the support they need to redevelop in an environmentally safe way, and utilize their waterfront as an incredible economic asset.

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote for Safer Food

Far too many Americans are falling ill after eating foods

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

Food and

Drug Administration, which is charged with protecting much of

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

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

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

Safety Enhancement Act.

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

food production facility to voluntarily recall its product

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

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

power and responsibility to prevent such outbreaks.

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

science-based safety standards for the growing, harvesting

and transporting of both domestic and imported food. The

agency would then require each food production facility to

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

those standards.

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

able to demand far more information during inspections, and

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

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

The tomato business was devastated last year when tomatoes

were blamed for an outbreak of salmonella that was really

caused by tainted jalapeno and other peppers.

Right now, several years or more can elapse before the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

packaged products with no history of causing problems, would

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

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

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

will be enough to pay for them.

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

of course. There will still be a patchwork of federal

inspection programs done by a variety of different agencies.

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

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

the responsibility for 80 percent of the nation's food

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

it needs to do that job.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

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

I will reserve.

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

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

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes Nos. 650, 651, 652, and 653. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 650, 651, 652, and 653.