the chair will deduce to two minutes the time for any electronic voting after the first in this series. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part a on house report number 111-233, offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murtha, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the ayes prevailed by voice so the. the clerk: part a, amendment number 1, printsed in house report number 11-233, offered by mr. murtha of pennsylvania. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a@"k @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@s

the house will be in order.

mr. jackson: mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. jackson: mr. speaker, are these two-minute votes or five-minute votes, this series? the chair: two-min votes. mr. jackson: they will be two-minute votes. the chair: the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 3, printed in part a on report 111-233, offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and own the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part a amendment number 3, offered by mr. flake of of arizona. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes f$$sáu

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 99, the nays are 338, the amendment is not agreed. to the clerk will read. the clerk: page 147, line five, this act may be cited as the department of defense appropriations act 20 10. the chair: under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 3326, pursuant to house resolution 685, i report the bill back to sundry amendments back to the chair. -- to the house. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 685 reports the bill back to

the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. pursuant to house resolution 685, the question on adoption of the amendments will be put engrosse. the question is -- en gresse. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the amendments are adopted. the question son adoption and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for fiscal year ending september 30, 20150, and for other purposes. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will members please clear the well. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise?

>> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will re-- is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> in its present form, i am. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. prix ling hughesen of new jersey moves to recommit the bill to the committee of appropriations with ordered to report the bill back to the house forthwith -- mr. frelinghuysen: i ask unanimous consent that the motion be rr ared -- considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the gentleman will have five minutes. first, the house will come to order. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: the motion to recommit i'm offering would restore funding originally included in the bill as reported by the appropriations committee for advanced procurement for 12 f-22

aircraft and allow the program to move forward. it would also provide an additional $100 million for the army military personnel accounts. these increases are offset by cutting $400 million in unrequested funds for the presidential helicopter, a troubled program that the president himself has proposed to eliminate. my motion to recommit is consistent with the recently passed defense authorization bill which recognized the continued vital need for the f-22 by authorizing an additional f-22 aircraft and at the same time did not authorize additional funding for the president's helicopter. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. will members please take their conversations to the cloakroom. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: while much is made of the president's threatened veto of the bill

over the f-22, the fact of the matter is the president also threatened to veto over funding for the presidential helicopter. while i appreciate the president has a role in this process, it is congress, not the president, that has the power of the purse. i do not believe we should simply take the president's budget proposal and rubber stamp it. in addition, my motion to recommit begins to fill a known funding shortfall in the army military personnel account this is a will result from secretary gates' recent decision to increase the total army n strength by 22,000 troops to support the administration's afghanistan policy my motion would also leave intact the additional funds added in the murtha amendment for four of the air force's unfunded priorities. i inch my colleagues to support this motion -- i urge my colleagues to support this motion and i yield to the gentleman from utah, mr. wish shp, -- mr. bishop, a member of the armed services committee, the remaining time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: we know that to maintain air superiority requires two elements. one is the technological ability we know the f-22 provides, the other is the numerical superiority we have to have. which is why when this program was started, it was supposed to be 750 planes. even as late as last year, they were telling us 381 maintains the status quo. a number still maintained by the air national guard by 30 of the military study thovers last 15 years. even the chief of staff admitted that 243 is what they needed. the only person that said 187 are appropriate is the secretary of defense there is no study to verify that number that number is a political number, not a military number. as we go into the future, where the russians are building a new generation fighter with 200 too 300 extra planes to sell to

countries like iran and venezuela, when we couple that by cutting 250 legacy planes already in the air force and stopping the f-22, and having an f-35 which will not be available under the best of circumstances until 2014, maybe even 2016, as we are talking about it, what we are doing is putting ourselves in danger. 10 and 15 years out, of being on the wrong side of history. we cannot do that. this amendment mirrors what the house voted on the defense authorization bill. by putting back the procurement money for 12 f-22's and adding $100 million for military personnel to help the anticipated shortfall in the upgrade in what we are doing in afghanistan. this is the right thing to do. this is what the military needs. we should not simply make a political decision, because i hade to -- i hate to say this in a th crass of a way, but

when we authorize $5 billion for groups like acorn but $2 billion to keep 18,000 jobs going and provide planes for a another year, we need to look at our priorities. that $2 billion is for the defense of this country into the future. the military needs this plane. i yield back to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back and please support the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reeleds back. -- yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. murtha: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. murtha: i've said overed a over again -- over and over again i'm for the f-22. we'd need 222 votes for it here, and 60 votes in the senate to pass it. what i've done is try to robustly fund the program as it

is. in other words, they have 187, let's make sure it's funded adequately. let's make sure they have what they need. there are a lot of maintenance problems with the f- 2, no question about it. we need to make sure it's robustly funded. the presidential helicopter, $3.2 billion we spent on this thing, we should try to get something out of it. going to spend another $2 billion if you get it right. how much do you think you'll spend if you try to do another one? i'm trying to work something out with the white house on that and a number of other issues. i appreciate -- it took more time than i expected in this bill today but i'd appreciate a no vote on the motion to recommit and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time having expired, without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question son the motion to recommit.

mr. kucinich: on roll call number 663, i inadvertently voted no i intended to vote yes. i ask unanimous consent that the statement be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair announces a correction to an earlier vote tally. on roll call 666, the ayes were 76, the noes were 350. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rule, i call up house resolution 601 and ask -- 691, excuse me, and ask for

its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 691rk resolved that upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house 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. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening

motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce, and two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: though house will be in order. members will remove their conversations from the floor. on both sides of the aisle. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for one hour. ms. slaughter: thank you, 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. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: thank you.

mr. speaker, today the house will consider h.r. 2749, the food safety enhancement act legislation that will help to make our food supply safer, 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 died from eating the same simple foods that we take for granted and consume every day. think ability that for a minute. our -- think about that for a minute. our country, one of the wealthiest in the world with one of the most bountiful food supply has been in the grip of a food panic that shows no signs of easing up. peanut butter, spinach, cookie dough, beef, tomatoes, sprouts, pis tashyows, every day it seems like it is something new. we know that every year, 76 million americans are sickened from consumer 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 are not random, unpredictable events, but widespread and systematic and sadly, they are also preventable. they come a about because of flawin our food safety system. i'm happy to say these gaps in protection are closed by this legislation. under this bill, we give the f.d.a. new authority, new tools and a new source of funding to carry out its vital mission. thanks to this bill, the f.d.a. will make more frequent inspections of food processing facilities, develop a food traceback system to pinpoint the source of food-borne elnesses and have enhanced powers to ensure that imported foods are safe. it provides the f.d.a. better access to 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 facility this is a 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 bill before us is bipartisan. it's worth noting the bill was approved by the energy and commerce committee back on june 17 by voice vote. that's how broad the support was. and 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 ask unanimous consent, mr. chairman, to enter a copy of an editorial from today's "new york times" into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: 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 a best safety plan showing how it would meet those standards. right now several years or more can elapse before the f.d.a.

does a full on-site inspection after foodacility. most inspections are done by states and not all plants are visited. under this bill, so-called high-risk facilities, one where there have been problems in the past, or ones handle easily spoiled items like raw seafood would have to be inspected by the f.d.a. every six to 12 months. lower risk facilities which deal with items like dry packaged product was no history of causing problems would be inspected every 18 months to three years. there ends the quote. as others have noted, the legislation is supported by a range of organizations, including consumers union, consumer federation of america, american public health'socialation, association of schools of public health, center for science and the public interest, the pugh charitable trust, trust for america's health, and the grocery manufacturer's

association. i was disappointed yesterday that some farm organizations seemed unwilling to support the legislation even after the committee negotiated in good faith to address their concerns. that lack of of of support cost us the 2/3 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 or organic farms would be covered. another concern centered on what the bill would mean to small organic farmers and whether the larger f.d.a. power would interfere with their operations. the bill specifically says the f.d.a. can only issue standards for the riskiest products, and the f.d.a. is also directed to take into consideration the impact on small scale and

diversified farms and on wildlife habitat, conservation practices, water shed protection efforts, and/or beganic production methods. and another issue centered on whether confidential farm records might be disclosed by the f.d.a. to others. in fact, the only new records that the f.d.a. can have access to relate only to fresh produce for which the f.d.a. 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 and 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 small family-run organic farm. let me touch on one other issue as well. the legislation does not include

stronger 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 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 our food supply is safe as it can be. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i

may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you again, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague from new york, ms. slaughter, chair of the rules committee, for yielding time. this is a bill i know she feels strongly about. mr. speaker, this bill's being brought to the floor as a rule bill today because it failed to win enough votes to pass under the suspension calendar yesterday. it's being brought to the floor under a closed rule. this is yet another closed rule on top of an entire appropriation season filled with closed rules. and i come before you today deeply concerned by the closed rule we have before us. after promising the american people during campaign season that this be would be the most open and honest congress in history, speaker pelosi has gone back on her word by making this the most closed and restrictive congress in history. instead of having their ideas heard, the american people are being silenced with speaker

pelosi's justification that, quote, we won the election so we decide. majority leader hoyer stated this past february his agreement with restoring the house to the regular order process of legislating. he said, quote, i think that is a very important pursuit. our committees and members are served on both sides of the aisle by pursuing regular order. regular order gives to everybody the opportunity to participate in the process in a fashion which will affect, in my opinion, the most consensus and best product, end quote. if the majority leader believes this, then why, mr. speaker, are we faced with another closed rule today? as my colleagues have expressed time and time again, bringing this number of bills to the floor under closed rules is unprecedented. it does an injustice to both democrats and republicans who want to have the opportunity to offer amendments and participate in debate with their colleagues over pressing issues of our

time. by choosing to operate in this way the majority has cut off the minority and their own colleagues from having appropriate input in the legislative process. this is not the way the greatest deliberative body in the world should operate. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i would also reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield four minutes to the gentleman from kansas, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempor the gentleman from kansas is recognized for four minutes. mr. moran: i thank the speaker. i thank the gentlewoman. mr. speaker, based upon yesterday's vote on h.r. 2749, the food safety enhancement act, one would think that the democrat leadership would say, wait, maybe we have some issues here that need to be taken care of. maybe we should refer this bill to the committee on agriculture and get some of these problems cleaned up.

instead of taking the lesson from yesterday's defeat on this bill on the suspension calendar, the democratic leadership has decided to run this bill in the house under a closed rule with no debate and no amendments. i would ask with what's the problem with referring this bill to a committee of jurisdiction to make technical yet necessary changes? why not allow an amendment to clean up some of the problem's problems regarding production agriculture and other rural businesss? all of us want to support a food safety bill. i'll say that again, all of us, including me, want to support a food safety bill. i also believe that if the majority would allow a referral to the committee on agriculture, this food safety bill would receive wide and bipartisan support. however the democrat leadership is taking its my way or highway approach that leaves those of us from rural america under able to support this legislation. yesterday when 2749 was on suspension, i raised issues that concerned farmers and ranchers. the primary concern is an

inadequate exemption for grain farmers and livestock producers. true, the bill exempts grain farmers from performance standards and record keeping from growing and harvesting activities, but it fails to exempt on-farm grain storage and transportation activities. so while i thank the members of the energy and commerce committee for trying to accommodate us, it's still not right and needs -- more needs be to be done. another problem i'd like to raids today involves the grain handling industry which affects thousands of small grain elevators across the country where farmers deliver their grain. many of these facilities are already subject to usda grain enspecials. many are also subject to state and federal warehouse licensing fees. however this bill gives duplication authority to f.d.a. to do inspections. it also imposes a one-size-fits-all registration fee for grain handling facilities large and small. what's the point of fee? grain elevators are already subject to licensing fees so it must be to impose another revenue raising tax. country of origin label

something included in this bill, but we don't need country of origin labeling for grain. unlike meat, grain is a fungible product and while it's possible although difficult to identify a stake, giving identity to tiny individual colonels of grain blended with other tiny kernels of grain is next to impossible. many of the food safety concerns members and their constituents have raised, i have yet to hear a complaint about the grain industry. this is because we have a system that works. instead of strengthening that system, this bill overlays another system of that bureaucracy. i oppose the rule and bill and would ask once again that the committee on agriculture utilize its jurisdiction to correct the flaws so that all of us can vote yes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas yield back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york continues to reserve. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i would now yield five minutes

to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: i thank the lady. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 2749, the food safety enhancement act of 2009. let me begin by saying that yesterday members from both sides of the aisle rejected the bill that was attempted to be rushed through congress. yet today we find ourselves considering the same legislation under a closed rule. once again we are barred from offering amendments. i simply have to ask, what's the majority leadership afraid of? we have said before and i will continue to say again today, this country has the safest food supply in the world. does that mean that there isn't room for improvement? no. does that mean that we shouldn't continue to examine our regulatory systems and find ways to make it better?

no. i don't think there is a single member of congress who wouldn't support reasonable proposals that improve the safety of what is already the safest supply of food in the world. but this legislation is woefully inadequate. it fails to achieve what we are all seeking for our consumers, an improved food safety system. the biggest challenge that i can point to is the fact that the bill expands the reach and authority of the u.s. food and drug administration. but does not require further accountability. this legislation does not require f.d.a. to spend any additional funds on the inspection of food. beyond that there are other provision that is are troublesome. one in particular would mandate that f.d.a. to set on-farm production performance standards. i am stunned more people are not outraged by this concept. that the federal government will tell our farmers and ranchers

how to do something that they have been doing since the dawn of mankind. even after changes that will limit the intrusion of the federal government on the farm, the bill still goes too far in the direction of trying to produce food from a bureaucrat as -- bureaucrat's chair in washington, d.c. there remains a host of other problems with this bill. for example, has anyone considered if it's wise to have the federal government grant licenses and charge fees for processing food? this would mean that the federal government could arbitrarily withdraw that license for technical violations of the law that ultimately would shut down an operation. has anyone even considered the consequences of the provisions of this bill? has anyone thought about how this would increase the cost of food for consumers and force food production out of the country? furthermore, the bill's quarantine authority allows

f.d.a. to quarantine the entire nation if there's evidence or just simply justification or information that a food commodity poses a health risk. . no consideration is given to processors, distributors. in particular, if the f.d.a. ultimately lifts the quarantine because it was wrong, the agency has no obligation, no authority or means to indem them for their losses. mr. speaker, let me say my original point, we have the safest food supply in the world. we must constantly work to improve our food safety system. but if we are sincere in making those improvements, then we must have a bill before us that's not the product of a rushed legislative process, where all the committees of jurisdiction were not allowed to fully participate.

yesterday, with the votes of members of both sides of the aisle we rejected that process and today we're considering the same legislation under a closed rule. once again, barred from offering amendments. i repeat, what is the majority afraid of? food safety should not be a partisan or a political issue. this should not be a fight. it should be a constructive process. defeat this rule, bring h.r. 2749 back to the committees, let all the committees of jurisdiction work their will and work their way so that we can create a bill that serves farmers, ranchers, processors, retailers and, yes, consumers. tell me what's wrong with that. tell me what's wrong with that. let's defeat the rule, let's finish the process, let's do better.

thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time to the gentlelady from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i want to yield myself 30 seconds to ask a question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. slaughter: if everything is doing so well in the united states, then why do 76 million americans get sick every year from contaminated food and 30,000 die? i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. faur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from recognized. mr. farr: i rise with mixed emotions but in support of the rule. and i represent the salinas valley, which is one of the most active production areas of the world, we are the salad capital of the world. when you have fresh produce, for example, lettuce, you don't have a kill step. you can't boil it before you eat it.

so you have to be very careful about how you grow this material so that you won't, lettuce and broccoli and brucele sprouts and all those -- brussel sprouts and all those things so you don't have those coming out from the field. we have an e. coli recall. and the difficulty we've had over the years is that essentially the federal responsibility for food safety is in the department of food and drug, the f.d.a.. the response for putry inspection and meat inspection is in the department of agriculture -- putry inspection and meat inspection is in the department of agriculture. it's been that way for a long, long time. what you hear in this bill is we need to have some national standards, the authority for those standards lies for other than meat and poultry with the food and drug administration.

so if you get these standards and some national credibility, equal playing field, then you're going to have to work on the food safety for agriculture and/or beganic and all those areas -- and organic and all those others. we've been trying to do that and the author of the bill, john dingell, has been a tremendous help in trying to understand the knew aunses of small farmers, of -- nuances of small farmers, of organic farmers. but i hear from folks that they don't know much about growing practices out there, they do agree we need to have these national standards, that this is the only way we're going to ensure that all food we serve in this country, which is the safest food eating country in the world, is going to be even safer. so i share the concerns raised by the minority, but i think that the best answer to the problem is to work in a constructive way so that we can

develop constructive regulations that benefit everyone. and that is an equal playing field, not a split between the usda and the f.d.a. thank you very much. i yield back the remainder. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from new york reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to my colleague from pennsylvania, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from thompson is recognized for three minutes. mr. thompson: well, i thank the gentlelady from north carolina for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation. this bill was brought to the floor yesterday under an expedited rule and in order to push the bill through. the bill failed to garner 2/3 vote. now, i have three main objections to the bill in the current form, the cost to farmers, the overreach of f.d.a. and the process of the majority has taken to bring this to the floor today.

let me begin by saying that food safety is one of the highest priorities of our farmers, the usda and the agriculture committee. in my view, having a safe and abundant domestic food supply is a crucial public health matter and is equally imperative to our national security. although america has the safest food supply in the world, there are clearly are improvements that need to be made to our system. however, this legislation is not a step in the right direction. the bill would do little if anything at all to improve food safety. yet, we'll have a substantial impact among the 2.2 million farms, many which are family owned and operated. specifically, i'm concerned with the increased cost this bill will charge farms in the form of unnecessary fees and registrations. farmers will not be able to sell their products without paying expensive annual registration fees. enacting this legislation could place significant new financial and administrative burdens on the food -- with on the food and drug administration.

the bill provides the f.d.a. with more regulatory authority over farming activities when currently such activities are already regulated by the agriculture experts at usda. usda is doing a great outreach work on food safety and has a presence in every county across this country. in other words, usda is already doing a great deal of work on improving food safety and, therefore, food safety does not need to be additionally regulated by the f.d.a. i admit that some modest steps were taken to improve the bill, specifically regarding livestock although they did not go far enough to improve the overall bill. the united states department of agriculture have a strong record. they work hard to partner with industry. they work hard to have consumer input and they work hard on consumer education regarding food safety. frankly, my coffin slides with the usda rather than the f.d.a. i also have some substantial concerns of the process that was taken to bring this measure

to the floor. this legislation was bypassed. this was never received consideration by the committee tasket with agriculture oversight. -- tasked with agriculture oversight. i again strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule. and i thank the gentlelady and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield four minutes to the chairman amayor tuss of the energy and commerce committee and dean of the -- emeritus of the energy and commerce committee and dean of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dingell: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dingell: mr. speaker, we're hearing much fiction and little fact. i want to say what i say with great respect and affection to

the gentleman from oklahoma. but an understanding of what it is what we're 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. and americans' food is the safest in the world, but it is not as safe as it should. and it should be known that much of the lack of safety of american food comes becomes of foreign producers whose production cannot be traced and checked. we're going to hear complaints about the tomato pepper problem

that we had a few years ago. that occurred because there was no way of tracing or finding how these goods moved through commerce. similar situations have occurred with regard to seafood, shellfish, with regard to berries, grapes, with regard to all manner of levee vegetables and foods -- leafy vegetables and foods. it's because food and drug cannot control what comes into this country and it occurs because the food and drug don't have a way to properly deal with it. in the instance of major failures, it has occurred because the food and drug does not have sufficient authority to focus on the specific wrong doers and wrongdoing -- wrongdoers and wrongdoing. and 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 acid ousley averted intrusion in the food and agriculture committee. and extension discussions were held between the commerce committee members and the committee on agriculture. respectful, open, friendly discussions. and if there's troubles inside the agriculture committee, that's 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 f.d.a. 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. and 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. milk products, unsafe seafood, unsafe shellfish, unsafe meats, mushrooms that are unsafe. and so if now the manufacturer or the processor pays no fee -- ms. slaughter: i yield two minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. dingell: pays no fee and doesn't register, he can't bring this food into the country to poison americans. just recently, we had a major peanut scare. eight people died we know of. large numbers were sick. 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. now, we will shortly be seeing seeing an attempt by my republican colleagues to come forward with a motion to recommit that will raise money that the 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 reached the hands of the consumer. that is extremely important because without that a disaster impends with regard to the people who are sickened and killed but it is also going to impact on the farmers, the producers and the 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 are 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. ms. slaughter: let me yield the gentleman another minute. mr. dingell: i'm sorry. ms. slaughter: i yield you another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. teeng mr. dingell: and i will use that minute wisely, madam chairman. first to thank you for an excellent rule. second, to thank you for the leadership you have shown not only on this matter but other difficult matters of concern, especially to the american consuming public. . the bill is not a new piece of legislation. it has been a number of investigations by the commerce committee. we find people being killed by the inadequacy of food and drug

and inability to protect the american people. this is a good bill. as i have pointed out, it has gone through many it rations. i hear my friends on the republican side complaining about the bill. but the changes about which they complain are changes that were made to meet the concerns of the agriculture committee's vice chairman and changes that were made to meet the concerns of producers, manufactures and growers. i urge support for the rule and the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: i yield three minutes to the former chairman of the ag committee, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. goodlatte gat i thank the gentlelady and the gentleman from oklahoma for their leadership in attempting to address this issue, even though

we bring a bill to the floor under a closed rule with no opportunity not only on the floor of the house, but also in the house agriculture committee to mark up a bill that proposes to make food safer. unfortunately this bill does little if anything to enhance food safety. the legislation does not require the u.s. food and drug administration to spend one additional penny on the inspection of food. yet the legislation ip poses significant regulatory burdens on small businesses without holding the regulatory agency accountable. the bill contains an expanded registration requirement that creates a federal license to be in the food business. like the democrat stimulus bill, cap and trade and the proposed health care bill, this is another example of broadening the size and scope of government, raising new taxes on small businesses and intruding on the lives, the private lives of americans.

on performance standards, new language added to the bill would exclude crop producers from f.d.a. regulatory theory -- authority. there was language that would relieve producers of some of the burdens of the law. although these are needed changes, they do not go far enough. this bill still leaves our fruit and vegetable producers subject to regulatory burdens. we can expect to have a federal agency telling farmers how to do their jobs. registration of food processing facilities was envisioned as a commonsense way of helping identify facilities under the bioterrorism act of 2002. this provision turns registration into a federal license for any food business to operate by charging exorbitant fees making it unlawful to sell food without a registration license and allowing the f.d.a. to suspend a company's

registration. tracing simply adds regulatory burdens without knowing it can be done in the first place. there is no requirement that the system be feasible or affordable. recordkeeping, broad recordkeeping authorities will impose significant regulatory burdens, minimal consideration is given to risks associated with a product produced at the regulated facility when developing the recordkeeping requirements. the language lacks discretion from pro prite tear information. it allows the f.d.a. to quarantine an area if there is credible evidence that food poses a health risk. no consideration is given to economic losses suffered by food producers, processors or distributors in the quarantine area. the ranking member of the agriculture committee will offer

something that will help to correct that later on and i hope everyone will support that measure. mr. speaker, i would ask if the gentlewoman would yield an additional minute. ms. foxx: i will. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. goodlatte: the f.d.a. lifts the quarantine for lack of evidence. the agency has no obligation, authority or means to indem anyfy producers for their losses. under the animal health procks act, the f.d.a. has done an outstanding job and must pay back producers who suffered such losses. it allows them to act on suspicion to cease distribution of food. no consideration is given in this legislation for indemnification for economic damages particularly if the f.d.a. was wrong. from a public health and safety point of view, it offers little protection or assurance.

an act was introduced whereby the manufacturer evaluates their process and institutes site controls rather than an amendment to detect problems rather than testing finished product. that is the better way to go. i urge my colleagues to impose this closed rule and bad bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: may i inquire of my colleague if she has any more speakers. ms. foxx: we may have another speaker. and i will be speaking additionally on the rule. ms. slaughter: i will reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: the concern about closed rules is not just one expressed by republicans.

democrats have expressed their own frustrations with the closed manner in which this congress is being operated, but nothing has changed. in february, a group of democrats garnered more than 60 signatures on a letter to majority leader hoyer calling for a prompt return to regular order. in the letter they stated that quote committees must function thoroughly and cooperation must ensue between the parties and the houses to ensure that our legislative tactics enable rather than impede progress, end quote. this was written by as i said over 60 democratic members. they went on to say, quote, in general, we must engender an atmosphere that allows partisan gains to cease and collaboration to succeed. we look forward to working with you to restore this institution, end quote. so not only does the closed rules process hurt and exclude republican members, it hurts and

excludes democrat members as well. by prevering to stifle debate, the democrats have denied their colleagues on both sides of the aisle the ability to do the job they have been elected to do, offer ideas that represent and serve their constituents. the democrats in charge are denying members the ability to offer improvements to legislation and this is an injustice to all of their colleagues. and this rule and this bill are prime examples. the democrats in charge are limiting what ideas can be debated on the floor and what constituents can be represented in this house. our constituents in both republican and democrat districts are struggling to make ends meet, are facing unemployment and are simultaneously being shut out of participating in a debate over how their taxpayer dollars are being borrowed and spent by the federal government. mr. speaker, it is very concerning to me that the democrat majority has chosen to

silence their colleagues on both sides of the aisle yet again. in doing so, they have chosen to keep the millions of constituents we represent from having a voice on the floor of the people's house. my colleagues have offered a lot of reasons why this bill underlying this rule is not a good bill and needs to be improved. but i want to make a couple of comments about that also. this bill actually does very little to enhance food safety. in fact, i want to call attention again to the motto of the state of north carolina, to be rather than to seem. we have a bill here called the food safety enhancement act that does very little to enhance the safety of food. as my colleague from virginia said just now, not one -- f.d.a. is not being required to spend

one extra dime in inspecting food. but it gives unprecedented authority to the food and drug administration by imposing mandatory recall quarantine authority, warrantless inspection authority and country of origin labeling requirements. by enacting user fees on inspections and licensing requirements on food facilities, this bill essentially puts a tax on consumers by increasing the price of food. so much for the promise that taxes would not go up on people who make less than $250,000 a year. this bill grants the authority to shut down and determine what qualifies as a health concern. this bill leaves our nation's fruit and vegetable producers subject to regulatory burdens by allowing the f.d.a. to regulate

crops, dictating to farmers how they should be farmed. we have been farming since the very beginning and we have been doing it without the regulatory guidance of the f.d.a. this bill reminds me of the tactics of the former soviet union and we know how successful that was. this bill requires the secretary of health and human services to establish a tracing system for food. each person who produces, manufacturers, processes, transports or holds such food would have to maintain the ped agree of the origin and previous distribution of the food. this bill does not explain how far foods would have to be traced back or foods with multiple ingredients. it's unclear how much it will cost farmers and taxpayers. this bill also creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to

$100,000 for individuals. the bill would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any facility that holds, processes or manufacturers foods, even though farms are technically exempt, f.d.a. has defined farm very narrowly. people making food such as vegetables, cheeses or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive small and start-up producers out of business during difficult economic times. the bill would empower to -- would empower the f.d.a. to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. it puts the federal government right on the farm dictating to our farmers. and yet, mr. speaker, it never went through the agriculture committee. this bill that will directly impact american farmers was never vetted through the established processes in the agriculture committee, doing a great disservice to the american

people. why is the democrat leadership refusing to allow committees with jurisdiction over this matter to offer their ideas and join in the legislative process? this bill will cost taxpayers nearly $2.2 billion over five years. every day i hear from constituents their concerns that the federal government in washington is borrowing and spending too much. the american people know that in these tough times, they should save, not spend money. however the federal government does not reflect the common sense i see throughout my district. the democrats in charge continue to borrow more and spend more, increasing our federal deficit on the backs of our children and grandchildren. this bill will increase the deficit even more by borrowing and spending money we do not have. we can no longer blame the deficit and economic difficulties today on the previous administration. the democrats in charge have shown they do not care by the

deficit by continuing to dig america into a bigger and about bigger hole with reckless money. this borrowed money is being spent by speaker pelosi and the obama administration and as a result the unemployment rate will continue to rise and the deficits will continue to increase. i urge my colleagues to vote down the previous question and the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from new york is recognized and has the right to close. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker and i would like to close by reiterating what i said before. 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 f.d.a. and i urge a yes vote on the previous question and on the rule. and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: all time having been yielded back, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the resolution is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does gentlelady from new york rise? ms. slaughter: i send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 172, resolved in

section 132-a of the legislative reorganization act of 1946 when the house adjourns on the legislative day of friday, july 31, 2009, saturday, august 1, 2009, or sunday august 2, 2009 on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leaderor his designee it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. tuesday, september 8, 2009 or until the time of any re-assembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution whichever occurs first and that when the senate recesses or adjourns on any day from thursday august 6, 2009 through tuesday august 11, 2009, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leaderor his designee, it stay in recess or adjourned until noon on september 8, 2009 or such other time on that day as may be specified in the motion to recess or adjourn or until the time of any re-assembly pursuant

to section 2 of this concurrent resolution whichever occurs first. section 2, the speaker of the house and the majority leader of the senate or their respective designees acting jointly after consultation with the minority leader of the house and the minority leader of the senate shall notify the members of the house and the senate respectively to re-assemble at such place and time as they may designate if, in their opinion, the public interests shall warrant it the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yeas have it and the concurrent resolution is agreed to. >> i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by will rise. yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on agreeing to house concurrent resolution 172, will be followed by five-minute votes on the

adoption of h. res. 691 and motions to suspend the rules with regard to h h.r. 2728 if

just in the original text of the bill but in addressing some concerns we think are very, very helpful. i want to pledge to my ag republican friends and i'm from an agricultural district and a lot of group this is a support them are good friends of mine and we want to ensure that we can continue to move forward as the bill does. a couple of issues that the chairman emeritus din el gell -- chairman emeritus dingell

said, the bill does not require farms to register with the f.d.a. and they don't have to pay a fee. access to farm records is restricted. livestock and poultry are exempt from the bill. grain and related commodities are exempt from produce standards. usda regulated farm facilities are not subject to the bill, and allows farms to be exempt from traceability requirements. beas -- we as a committee both in oversight and investigation, then as a full committee we couldn't sit on the sidelines anymore. as we saw case after case of food borne illnesses that -- we had to come together in a way to address this, i think we've done it, i think it's a good product, can there be some fixes as it moves forward? it can, but i ask my colleagues to support this bill and i thank the speaker and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: i want to thank the gentleman for his hard work

both on the investigative subcommittee and the full committee. he and mr. barton have been enormously invaluable in the work we have done. i commend him and i thank him. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: mr. speaker, at this time i yield to the distinguished chairwoman of the appropriations subcommittee of jurisdiction on this matter, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, what is this bill about? what is it about? food borne illness in the united states of america kills 5,000 people every single year. we went to war in iraq and afghanistan when 3,000 people unbenongse that they went to -- unbenonks that they went to work that day and weren't coming home and we went to war in afghanistan as a result. we know that 5,000 people every year die of a food borne illness, and an illness, my

friends, that can be preventive. stand with the mother and the father of a 2-year-old child. the parts who went to the grocery store and brought home spinach or sprouts or lettuce and their child died because of e. coli. stand with the son and daughter of an elderly person in a nursing home who ate a peanut-based product and wound up dying because of that. having survived illness, that's what this bill is all about. we can prevent food borne illness in the united states of america. we can prevent 5,000 deaths every year. that's what this bill is focused on. it is of critical importance. it is about the health and the safety of american families. that health and safety is not only threatened in airports and border checkpoints or harbor containers, it's on fridges, on kitchen tables.

and for too long the cornerstone of our food state system, the food and drug administration, has had ancient tools and an outdated mandate at its disposal. this bill rectifies that oversight. it gives the f.d.a. the means to deal with the dangers that are posed by a global food systems and enhances the agency's to prevent contamination before it happens. it looks at risk-based inspection and says what are the foods at highest risk? let's set up some performance standards to deal with that. let's put merck nisms in place so we can -- let's put mechanisms in place so we can protect industry as well. that is part of this effort as well. performance standards are the backbone for monitoring an effective process and the control system. i would urge the f.d.a. to develop testing protocols for each performance standards that it sets. this includes ongoing industry

testing programs supported by periodic sampling by the f.d.a. we have an opportunity. mr. dingell: i yield the gentlewoman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. ms. delauro: thank you. we have an opportunity. the laws and the man and the statutes at the food and drug administration today are inadequate to protect the food and the safety of the american people and at the very same time put at risk the industries that teal with these products. the industry has come forward and said, give us standards. that's what this bill is all about. we have an obligation today to pass this bill and to make sure that we say to the american people we are doing everything that we can to prevent 5,000 deaths every single day and particularly the most vulnerable are our children and the elderly. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: yes, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume, the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, let's face it. the recent events have shown us that the current system regarding food safety is not working. and i want to compliment those members that have been actively involved in this from those on our committee on oversight and investigation that exposed many of the problems to obviously the leadership on both sides, republicans and democrats, as we move this bill through our subcommittee and then full committee by a voice vote. oversight and investigation subcomttee found severe problems. we're very aware of those problems. because those problems have been exposed nationally. obviously we have a number of very bad actors. but they have jeopardized the whole food chain. we remember the peanut butter issue and spinach and tomatoes. we need to be deliberate, to tackle the issue and obvious be bipartisan to resolve the

issue, and that's what this legislation does. farms, as mr. shimkus indicated, farms are not required to register with the f.d.a. there are no large fees associated with this bill. there is no duplication with the usda, as i understand it. my district in southwest michigan has a whole number of different food sources, from fruits and eventually tabbles, to giant food processors -- vegetables to giant food processors like kelloggs. consumers need to know for sure that there is a mechanism in place to identify when a product in fact is bad, it meeds to be recalled, and this system -- this bill as it's moved through committee has shown that bipartisan support. i would urge my colleagues on both sides to support it. i yield my time back to mr. shimkus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan.

mr. dingell: mr. speaker, i yield at this time to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. farr, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farr: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. i rise to engage in a colloquy with my friend, the distinguished gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell. we are passing an historic food safety measure today, and i truly appreciate the effort that you, the committee staff have made to move this legislation to the floor today. as a member of congress who represents the salad bowl of the world, salinas valley, i feel that landmark legislation is overdue and look forward to working with my colleague as the process moves to the senate and then to conference committee. also as a member of the agriculture appropriations committee, i look forward to working with the gentleman to allocate the resources necessary to make the safest food in the world even safer. i'd be remiss if i didn't mention my concerns with the fee structure in this measure, and i appreciate the effort by the chairman and the committee in its -- and it's my

preference to find a more equitable fee that does not inhibit our farm families from taking advantage of new markets. as a member of the organic caucus, i have concerns about the interplay between this bill and the national organic program. it is in -- it is my understanding, mr. chairman, that this bill would not establish any requirements for organically produced or processed products which are in conflict with the requirements established in the organic foods production act of 1990. and usda's national organic program regulations. and would this bill necessarily -- mr. dingell: the answer to that question is yes. mr. farr: thank you. and would this bill necessarily require small farms to participate in the expensive and unworkable electronic traceability system that f.d.a. would set up? mr. dingell: the answer to that question is yes. mr. farr: i'll yield the remaineder of my time to my

colleague, mr. blumenauer of oregon, to make sure that the organic and small growers have a voice. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as i reesht the leadership -- appreciate the leadership of the chairman. it's great to see that food safety receive the attention it deserves. i'm especially concerned about the language regarding interaction between the wildlife, livestock and farming practices. biodiversity is a prerequisite for a healthy farm. we should not penalize farmers from utilizing techniques such as naturescaping and national hedgerows to enhance soil quality. we should target reform and safety towards practices which have been directly linked to food disease outbreak rather than limiting approaches that farmers have used for centuries to reduce their dependence on pesticides, herbicides and other carbon intensive farming techniques.

i'd like the assurance from the chairman that he'd work with us as the food and drug administration develops these criteria so they will consider the needs of small farms and the practices of organic farmers. mr. dingell: the answer to that question is yes. and i will have a more detailed response. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. chairman, for your courtesy. thank you, mr. farr, for permitting me to participate in this colloquy with you. mr. dingell: if the gentleman from california would yield, i'd like to give a more exhaustive response to my two friends. we've heard that it would put burdens on farmers, particularly organic farms. we've 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 f.d.a. to take into consideration the impacts of any produce food safety standards on small scale and diversified farms or on wildlife habitat, on conservation practices, watershed protection efforts and organic production efforts. it prohibits f.d.a. of setting such standards unless these standards are necessary to minimize the risk of serious adverse health consequences or death. the bill also requires f.d.a. to work in coordination with the united states department of agriculture to issue such standards. usda administrators the national organic program and -- administrator -- administers the national organic program. let me talk about the tracability system in the bill. the tracability system is

important because it allows f.d.a. to track down the sources of food borne outbreaks. before f.d.a. can establish any tracability requirements, the bill requires f.d.a. to go through an extensive information gathering process with public meetings and a project -- as a part of the process. it requires f.d.a. to consider the costs and the benefits and the feasibility for different sectors of the food industry of any tracability technologies under consideration. and for any regulation it would have an impact on farms, f.d.a. must coordinate with usda and take into account the nature of the impact on the regulation on farms. additional f.d.a. would be prohibited from requiring farms selling foods to consumers, restaurants or grocery stores to participate in this system. so i believe we can be

confident that whatever tracability system is developed will appropriately take into account the needs and interests of the farmers. i ensure my two good friends that ilwork with them to see -- i will work with them to sees these commitments are met. mr. farr: i really appreciate that. mr. blumenauer: thank you, sir. mr. dingell: i thank my colleagues. the speaker pro tempore: the house will receive a message from the senate. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed with an amendment h.r. 3183, making appropriations for energy and water development and replated agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes, in which the concurrence of the house has requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. before i yield time to my colleague from florida, i'd like to recognize myself for 15

seconds. mr. speaker, i want to recognize my colleague, mr. putnam, and mr. costa, for their bill, the safe fee act. it was of great help when they did that. i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to my colleague from florida, mr. putnam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. putnam: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from illinois for his leadership on this issue and the sponsorship of the fee safe act which has the key principles incorporated into the bill we are debating today. i rise in support of the bill we are debating today it is a bipartisan bill built on a bipartisan effort and a model that could and should be followed for the other big issues facing this congress. it's unfortunate that the process that was taken did not adequately include our agriculture committee, and i would hope that as we move this issue forward that it will

continue to improve upon that because it is important that our agriculture committee and our representatives from rural america have input into this and the bill will benefit from their input. the scare this is a undermined consumer confidence in our food supply over the last several years have often time bns as a result of international food product, imported food goods, as they have been domestic. this bill takes an important step forward in setting the same standards on imported food that we place upon domestically produced food as well that is a major step in the right direction. one only need look at the controversy over baby formula. at the economic devastation that came from the misleading public statements by the f.d.a. about tomatoes grown in america which turned out to have been

food borne illness originated from hall pen yows imported from mexico, to learn the lesson that this legislation must apply the same standards to imported foods as it does to domestic this legislation implemented risk-based assessmentsing something that is very important as we look at the breadth and depth of the food industry as it's become globalized, as the world has become smaller, as americans' tastes and preferences have changed and they desire produce from latin america and spices from asia. this challenge will continue to grow. this, by placing risk-based science into the bill, will allow us to build up and maintain public confidence in our food supply. that's really the crux of the matter between our producers and our consumers. that on this issue of food safety, there is no distinction

between the interests of the farmer and the shopper in the grocery store because the farmer loses out if f.d.a. and usda cannot rapidly and accurately trace back the source of food borne illness. if they paint the industry with a broad brush, economic losses are severe. so the interests of the -- interests of the farmer are that we have a modern, effective, regulatory system. the interest of the con -- the interests of the consumers are that we have a modern, effective, regulatory system so they have a high level of confidence in the items they've purchased to put on their family's kitchen table. there must be the highest possible standard and the best possible science behind that law. as this issue moves forward, improvements can be made as it relates to the quarantine, as it relates to traceability, and most importantly as it relates

to the implementation of this bill as it relates to state and local governments. the state departments of agriculture and health, who by definition are delegated much of the respornsability by f.d.a. to implement this legislation. they must have the resources and authority and full cooperation of f.d.a. there have been breakdowns in the past where f.d.a. did not share as much as they should. this bill does much to address that and can do a bit more. and in an era where organic farming continues to grow in popularity, we must be sensitive to the ever-changing forms and trends in american agriculture. with that, i'm proud to support the legislation and i appreciate the leadership of my friend from illinois and my friend from michigan on this issue. mr. dingell: i want to commend the gentleman not just for a fine statement but for the long and strong support he's given

for this kind of legislation, protection for industry and the consumers. i'd 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. american pross deuce and process safe food. foreigners do not. this will ensure people that they can rely on food and drug to protect them not just from american producers and american processors, but also from the foreigners slipping in dangerous substances. i want to commend the gentleman and thank him. mr. putnam: i thank the chairman emeritus and dean of the house. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: i'm delighted to yield to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, the chairman of the subcommittee on livestock, dairy, and poultry, mr. scott, one minute. mr. scolt: thank you so much,

mr. chairman. -- mr. scott: thank you so much, mr. chairman. i want to state that under the us a pises of my subcommittee, food safety is something we handle. it's important as we move forward on this that we have got to make our food supply safe. there's no greater thing we can do for the american people and the people of the world than to give absolute assurance that our food supply is safism come from a state in georgia where we had an jut break from salmonella in which we lost eight lives. eight lives that would be alive today if we had this bill in place. because we would have a record process of accessing records that we don't have now. now, in order to get -- now, before this bill is passed, in order to get records from a manufacturer or food processing plant, we can't get it until

the food outbreak occurs. but under this bill, when we are inspecting the plant, we will be able to get access to those records. if this was in place, eight americans would be alive today. now, mr. speaker, we're losing 76 million americans to food poisonning from our food supply a year. 5,000 are dying. 5,000 are dying. there is no more important thing we can do. i've heard comments from those who oppose this bill that this bill does nothing. but it does, mr. speaker. it provides for us to have inspections at food plants every six to 12 months. you know how we're inspecting them now? once every 10 years. the american people deserve better than this. they deserve for us to have a

traceback system so that we can trace back and get the origins of the outbreak as quickly as possible. a tremendous bill, a tremendous bipartisan effort, and the american people are expecting us to pass it and pass it overwhelmingly. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i don't have any additional speakers, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: mr. speaker, i yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from new york for purposes of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. maloney: i rise in strong support of this bill and ask unanimous consent to place my comments in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from illinois continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: mr. speaker, at this time i yield to my distinguished friend from utah,

a superb member of this body and great friend of mine, mr. mathieson, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. matheson: mr. dingell helped me figure out how to address lead glazing in ceramic plates on which we eat our foods. this came to my attention when a child was sick and they investigated the home where the child was living and couldn't find a source of lead. it was discovered the child's mother had been heating food in the microwave oven, the bowl or plate she was using wasn't properly sealed, it was leaching out into the food, and when she fed the baby, the baby

was getting lead poisoning. most people don't realize lead glazing is used on plates. they come in with f.d.a. labels because the food and drug administration has authority over it. they see a label from the federal government and probably think it's safe. there's a requirement that there's labeling so consumers know. if it's properly glazed it's not necessarily a danger but people have the right to know that i commend my friend from michigan who has been working on this issue and aware of it for a long time he worked with my office extensively to come up with a way to make progress on this issue. it's included in this bill. he's a great legislator, i'm glad he helped me figure that out. i yield back my time. i yield to my friend. mr. dingell: i'd appreciate it if the gentleman didn't praise me and let me say good words about him, he's a valuable member of the committee, he's hard-work, smart, decent and he's been great on this issue.

the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from illinois continue to reserve? mr. shimkus: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: it's my privilege to yield to a very distinguished member of this body, chairman of the agriculture committee of the house and an extremely wise defender of american agriculture and american farmers, my good friend mr. collin peterson, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peterson: i want to commend chairman emeritus dingell for all his hard work on this issue, not only in this session of congress but many sessions past. we are hopeful that we can move this legislation forward and get additional safeguards in place for food safety in this country.

we also want to commend the other members of the energy and commerce committee for their work on this in a bipartisan basis. good to see some bipartisan effort happening in the house and there was some good work done. we did have some concerns in the agriculture committee that we engaged in some discussions and negotiations with mr. dingell and others on the staff of the energy and commerce committee and we think we have further improved the bill in terms of how it relates to agriculture. we were table clarify things in terms of livestock and grain farmers that -- there was some concern about the language and we cleared up things in terms of performance standards and recordkeeping. there were, as the bill came

out of energy and commerce, concerns registered by some of the farm groups, some of the them even indicated they might oppose it, but at this point, because of the changes that have been made, we now have groups that in the past had some concerns, they're now either neutral or supporting the bill, the united food and vegetable group, the american farm bureau, national association of wheat growers, the cattlemen beef association, turkey fend ration, chicken council, soybean association, rice federation, american food industry association, the united e.g. producers -- the united egg producers, wheat growers and bar lee growers are now either supporting the legislation or are neutral on the legislation. we believe we have addressed the concerns of agriculture. we believe this is a good bill. i encourage you to support this bill and again commend my good

friend and colleague, chairman emeritus dingell, for the good work he's done for his staff. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from illinois continue to reserve in mr. shimkus: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: i'm the only speakerer maining on this side if my good friend from illinois would like to proceed, i'm follow him in closing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i'd like to yield myself such time as i may consume and close briefly sway ceying this is good to see on the floor. when we did take a very difficult issue, one that's been languishing for 21 years, and work with young members and new members like adam putnam and distinguished chairman emeritus dingell and get in a room and move a bill that has the support of almost everybody

and -- in the food processing and agriculture community and marketing. i've sat in numerous hearings. as i said in my opening statement, every time we had an oversight and investigation hearing, there'd be an alert of another food borne illness. we just knew we couldn't continue down this that route as my colleague, mr. putnam, said, it's going to be helpful to the harmers, it's going to be helpful to the processors when we bring more security and safety and knowledge that we continue to produce the best food supply in the world and it also will help us with the imported products. that was a big issue in our debate. so with that, -- this has worked well we should try a bipartisan method on things like energy and things like health and maybe we will get