this legislation attempts to make modest adjustments and recognize that needs and conditions change over a year's time. i hope it does not represent too great an inconvenience to those members of this body who are much more comfortable in providing budget-busting tax gifts to the economic elite in this country rather than making even the tiniest government investment in programs that will help the lives of the unlucky a little -- make those -- make their lives a little bit better and the investments that might run the unholy risk of making the economy work nearly as well for average families as it does for the american elite who can afford to make large contributions to those fortunate enough to be honored by our constituents with the stewardship of the national interest. i want to say one other thing.

there are at least 50 decisions in this resolution that i'm flatly opposed to. there are many arguments in this resolution that i have lost. but the fact is, sooner or later if you're beginning -- if you're going to be responsible, you have to set aside your first preferences and simply do what is necessary in order to keep the government open so that congress doesn't become the laughing district of columbia stock of the country. the only responsible vote to cast on this proposition is an aye vote. i urge support for the resolution. with all of its shortcomings. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker. it's rare indeed i have the opportunity to watch my chairman speaking from the well, the minor adjustments in this package that caused him to be unhappy amounted to some $33

billion. if both of us dislike it so much, mr. obey and we both voted no, maybe we could bring the turkey down and start all over again. in the meantime, lest i dwell too long, we're now nine weeks past the beginning of the new fiscal year and congress has yet to enact a single appropriations bill. out of 12 total for 2011, two have passed the house while 10 bills have never even been considered by the full committee. as a result of this historic breakdown of regular order, the house will soon be considering what many people are describing as a full year continuing resolution to keep the government operating through the end of the current fiscal year. truth be told, it's more of a c.r. rolled into an omnibus spending bill because of the adjusted spending levels, the $33 billion i was talking about, and the many extraneous policy

provisions i was talking about as well. it's worth noting that none of these spending adjustments or changes in policy were ever debated or considered by the appropriations committee or the house this year. like so many other items added to bills in the democrats' era of closed rules, new program funding levels and legislative riders just somehow magically appear in bill after bill and particularly in this bill. for the record, i remain adamantly opposed to extending the c.r. for the balance of the fiscal year at democrats' current levels, which are too high, or at the inflated levels proposed in this package. rather than simply keeping the government running, this bill picks winners and losers among agencies and programs across the government by moving some i suggested $30-plus billion. for all kinds of programs.

none of it for defense. not surprisingly, labor, health and human services programs are are among the biggest winners in this package, receiving a $7 billion net increase over fiscal year 2010. the state operations also receives a $2 billion increase over current levels this c.r. omnibus provides $513 billion in base defense spending which is over $18 billion below the department's request. it is also over $11 billion below the level the defense subcommittee reported out back in july. while i freely admit that all spending including defense must be on the table as we look to rein in this historic set of deficit we must proceed smartly and wisely, especially when our troops are engaged in the battlefield. ultimately this approach is neither.

it shortchanges our troops at a time when we should be supporting them, at a time when we should be supporting our troops this bill uses defense funding as a piggy bank for the majority's domestic priorities. additionally, this legislation triples the time for which the department of interior has to approve exploration plans for offshore operators, extending the timeline for some -- from some 30 days to 90 days and essentially codifying the de facto moratorium offshore operators have been operating under for months this significant policy change, done without debate or a single committee or house vote, has far-reaching inch cakeses relating to both existing and future oil and gas leases. simply put, this is a christmas tree bill that provides more spending for the majority's many domestic priorities before their time in the majority comes to an

end in early january. i am encouraging our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about excessive spending to oppose any effort to extend the c.r. beyond february. that would allow the new republican majority to complete the unfinished f.y. 2011 appropriations bills. at the f.y. 2008 levels and save taxpayers some $100 billion. this would be the clearest signal the house could send to the american people that we got the message in november and are deadly serious about cutting spending. even as the house prepares to consider the c.r. omnibus, the house and senate majority are finalizing the details of a 12-bill, $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill. the senate faces a 60-vote hurdle to pass that omnibus bill but if they succeed, it will fall on the house democrats to pass it. and they will have to do it

without a single republican vote, i can assure you. mr. speaker, none of us believe we should shut down the government, but i cannot and will not support the this c.r. omnibus because it simply spends too much and contains unnecessary and extraneous legislative writers. if we pass a c.r. we should pass a clean c.r. funded at the f.y. twathe levels and demonstrate our commit -- 2008 levels and demonstrate our commitment to cutting spending. and, mr. speaker, just per chance the senate is not able to get those 60 votes, this could be the last time that my chairman, mr. obey, and i are on the floor together and as we do that, i wanted to recognize especially my staff director, jeff shocky, for the fabulous job he's done working for us over these years. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman

from can connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this continuing resolution that deals with the responsibility that we have to fund the government so that it can function. this bill represents some really hard choices, it freezes discretionary fending and this is a point that should not be lost. at a time when we are looking at those on the other side of the aisle that would pass a tax package that would benefit the richest 3% of the people in this nation. the richest 3% of the people in this nation will get a tax cut and so people have the at the merit to propose an estate tax to 1/4 of the 1% of the richest people in this nation while folks in this country and kids

are going hungry. the chairman should be commended for closing the grant short fall, for including critical investments and services needed to keep people from falling through the cracks. i commend him for the small and modest funds dedicated to early childhood programs, such as head start and child care. and as the chair of the agricultural appropriations subcommittee, this bill continues the important and necessary investments that we made last year in agriculture research, rural investment, nutrition and food aid, conservation and, yes, the public health. key federal agencies like the food and drug administration will have the resources it needs to meet its important responsibilities to the american people, to combat the continuing economic crisis, to provide food and nutrition that millions of americans currently rely on. this resolution includes language that allows the supplemental nutrition

assistance program and other crucial entitlement programs to be funded at the levels necessary to maintain participation in the current fiscal year. one out of five families is being -- is today on food stamps. one out of four children are going to bed hungry every single night in the united states of america. i urge my colleagues today to support this bill, with all of its difficulties it keeps the government functioning and we've made modest progress -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, if the house did what i suggested, that is to do a c.r. to the end of february, i would be introducing the gentleman from kentucky as the new appropriations chairman of the house, but in the meantime, i'm privileged to yield the gentleman four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields how much time? the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for four minutes.

>> i thank the speaker and let me thank the gentleman for yielding and he is a true gentleman. the long service that this man has contributed to the welfare of the nation, its defense, we can never repay jay lewis for the great job he's done in this committee. mr. speaker, how can we explain this year's so-called budget process? mr. rogers: should i begin with the historic failure to enact a budget resolution? how about the despicable way special interest bailout funds were dumped on the backs of our troops during the war supplemental debate? and what about the band-aid, border security supplemental that was used for political cover just months before the president proposed cutting the border patrol? and who could forget the fact

that this year marks the very first year the house has failed to pass a homeland security appropriations bill? a failure that came in the midst of several serious terrorist attacks and disrupted plots. and then there are the results. no discipline, no oversight, no bills. instead we have this monstrosity before us today, a measure that puts our fiscal and oversight responsibilities into a year-long c.r. that's laden with exceptions, gimmicks, riders and is based upon a strategy of the senate, although riding this bill with a gigantic, unaffordable omnibus bill that's never seen the light of day. mr. speaker, that's not a budget process, that's a failure of epic proportions.

as we were resoundingly told just five weeks ago, the american taxpayers are demanding far better from the stewards of their precious but limited dollars. we need a whole new ball game. no more bucking tough decisions, no more failing to prioritize our security needs, no more letting failing programs slide and no more enabling the overreach of federal agencies. we need to go back to the tough job of oversight. we need to go back and usher in a new era of collaboration and transparency and we need to do the hard work of cutting spending, right-sizing the government and restoring the trust of the american people. this c.r. marks the culmination of failure on all fronts, process, product and

performance. i urge my returning colleagues to reject this legislation and prepare to go to work in the 112th congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: can i ask the gentleman how many speakers he has remaining? mr. lewis: mr. chairman, i have three or four more speakers. mr. obey: we have none. mr. lewis: you have none? hallelujah. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i'm privileged to yield my colleague from virginia, mr. wolf, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. wolf: i thank the gentleman and i want to thank mr. lewis, too, for his service, thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition. everyone should know that in this continuing resolution there is the expansion of indian gambling. there is the expansion of indian gambling and probably nobody in this institution bar one or two people on the appropriations

committee have even read the bill. this overturns a supreme court decision. do you all know, on my side and that side, this overturns a supreme court decision. has anyone remembered abramoff and corruption and problems that have come about with regard to that? having such an erroneous provision, had an expansion, no markup, no markup on the natural resource committee, the election just said the american people want to know that we've read the bill, nobody's read this bill and now this is slipped in and i don't know who has slipped it in but quite frankly nobody -- mr. obey: would you like an answer to that question? mr. wolf: yes, sir. observe this was a republican amendment offered by mr. cole from oklahoma. it was voted in the subcommittee appropriations bill five months ago. mr. wolf: i don't care if it's a republican amendment or a

democratic amendment, it is a bad amendment and it will bring about major expansion of gambling. mr. obey: don't suggest it's been sneaked. it has not. mr. wolf: there have been no hearings, the department of interior has refused to answer a written request from members of congress to identify which tribe so nobody knows what tribes, nobody knows what tribes. nobody knows anything in this institution when it comes to this. the department of interior has refused to answer, there's no consultation with the states. this bill is almost a repeat, a repeat of how this congress and this city and this country got in trouble with the abramoff thing. this is scandalous. this provision, i don't care if it's a republican amendment or a democrat amendment, it is a bad amendment. it will bring about crime, corruption, a tax on the poor and it is a bad amendment. and because of all the great reasons that mr. lewis said and others said, this is another

good reason. this bill should be defeated because when you vote for this bill, you're voting for expansion of gambling all over this country. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin still reserves his time? web web -- mr. obey: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. obey: mr. speaker, i happen to agree with the gentleman from virginia on the substance of the issue. but the fact is that the interior appropriations subcommittee voted in open session with open debate to adopt the cole amendment. now, as chairman of the full committee, i don't have the luxury of producing bills that represent my own priorities. it is my obligation to try to find the center of gravity that enables to represent the views of the house. that's what we did on this issue and for the gentleman to suggest that there's anything corrupt about it is scarulous.

mr. wolf: what this is is it will bring major expansion. again -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves the balance of his time? the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. wolf: thank you. this will bring major expansion of gambling and i don't care what subcommittee, the average member came down here and were told tomorrow that they voted for major expansion of gambling, they will not have known. it is a bad bill, it is a bad idea that brings about crime and corruption and it's a tax on the poor and i heard -- i urge a defeat of this c.r. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to a member of the committee, mr. kingston of georgia, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i want to say that i do understand that we're here largely because there was not a budget this year

and we were unable to move bills under regular order and because of that here we have something that was published, as i understand it, last night at midnight and the list itself came out at 9:00 a.m. and as a member of the committee, i'm not sure what all these things are doing. i see that we are increasing the ag market and healthy food initiative, excuse me, it's not an increase, it's a brand new program. i'm ranking member of the ag committee, i don't know exactly what that is. i think that might be something that has been voted on but we have not had it through the committee. now, i understand a lot of these other things are old items that have gone through the committee, but that one is one that has not. the broadband, there's a $30 million increase in broadband loans. i'm very confused about that because the stimulus bill includes broadband loans, $7 billion. and then there's an f.d.a. increase of $470 million. f.d.a. has gone a lot of money over the past year, including

some of the stimulus, so i'm not sure why they're getting an increase when so many others are getting a cut. i noticed on another page that there is a rescission for the navy of $168 million and for the air force, $136 million. i also serve on the defense committee, there's been no debate on that. now on the next page we increase funding for the i.r.s., including $125 million for i.r.s. enforcement. i guess that's because people who won't get health insurance now, i.r.s. is going to get a lot more agents and they'll have more money to spend on prosecuting people who don't buy health care. then over here on the other page, we're cutting the cust -- border patrol by $225 million. we've got a problem as we all would agree on immigration, but we're cutting the custom and border patrol. i looked further, the c.d.c. is getting a cut of $57 million.

can i have 10 more seconds? mr. lewis: i'm happy to give the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman. over here we're cutting grants for academic competitiveness. i think one thing we all agree on is we need our students to be as competitive as possible. but we are increasing congress' budget. house of representatives, $2 million increase. capitol police, $8.8 million. the congressional budget office, $1.7 million. the g.a.o., $1.5 million. congress is getting an increase while we cut academics. on another page a myriad of things we're cutting out of the military. this run into the millions of dollars. and i noticed here in a very small account we're actually cutting opec, which is the

overseas insurance account that underwrites loans for emerging markets, it's one of the few federal agencies that makes money. maybe that's why we're cutting them but it would appear to me that that kind of behavior should be well rewarded but under the c.r. they're getting a cut. so i respectfully think we should put this thing back two or three months and -- i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: can you tell us how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin has five minutes remaining, the gentleman from california has 10 3/4 minutes. mr. lewis: i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, for two minutes. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding, i rise in opposition to this c.r., having failed to present one of the 12

annual appropriation bills to the president, this body finds itself in the position of scrambling to pass legislation to keep the government running this year is different. this year the outgoing majority wants us to accomplish much of its agenda long before republicans take control. it would seem that if you fail to pass legislation in regular order, that would fund the government for the coming year, that you should at least recognize that we've had an election and if you can't finish the work of all those who are coming in -- allow those who are coming in to go ahead with their own budget. republicans have called to cut spending to fiscal 2008 levels. this, i think, continues funding at 2010 levels. that might not seem significant until you realize that that's $100 billion difference. when you're running these kinds of deficits, when you have this kind of debt that makes a difference.

the first rule when you're in a hole is to stop digging. certainly the first rule when you're running a deficit like we are is to stop spending. if we can cut to it fiscal 2008 levels rather than 2010, we should do it. we're digging a deeper hole that we'll have to fill in later or make deeper cuts later on. i would encourage everyone reject this c. are r., pass a short-term c.r. so we can deal with this responsibly in january or february, rather than continuing funding at an unsustainable level. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole a member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cole: i thank the chairman for yielding. i have not intended to speak on this particular issue. i had the opportunity to hear my good friend, mr. wolf, in debate recently and i wanted to come down to the floor and correct a

misimpression he has about the so-called fix, let me begin by thanking my good friend the chairman for allowing us to put that legislation in the bill. i proposed the amendment on the floor which passed unanimously on a bipartisan vote by our subcommittee in the interior. the bill, frankly, the measure has absolutely nothing to do with gaming. as a matter of fact, the supreme court fix that it addresses didn't involve gaming at all. it involved a housing case, land put into trust and used for housing by an indian tribe. what the supreme court has done by a very narrow interpretation of the 1934 indian reorganization act is create two classes of indian tribes, some of whom can receive land in the trust as they have for 80 years by secretaries of the interior of both parties and some of whom now cannot. almost all the cases involved here, almost every single one,

involved cases that have absolutely nothing to do with gaming. this is a solve trinh issue and process issue. if this fix is not made, it would not have been made without the support of the members of the committees of jurisdiction and the united states senate who said this was the best vehicle and the best way to go. but if the fix isn't made, we are going to have billions of dollars worth of litigation and have enormous disruption of economic development, soing my friend is under a misimpression, mr. speaker. i wanted to make that point for the record, again, i wanted to thank my friend, mr. obey for working with us and his staff and my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, chairman moran, for working with us for a bipartisan solution to a real problem. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, for my last speaker, i believe, i'm pleased to yield one minute to mr. turner of ohio.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. turner: i rise in strong opposition to this c.r. specifically because of section 2142. the democrats are holding hostage the funding necessary to sustain our nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities until the senate ratifies the new stark treaty. the administration opposes this provision. in fact its offered its unequivocal commitment to recapitalize and modernize the enterprise. for important issues that must be resolved. russian intentions, missile defense limitations and nuclear modernization. just yesterday, myself and incoming armed services committee chairman mckeon and 14 others -- mckeown and 14 ores sent a letter about these.

unfortunately, this legislation would hold these concerns. section 2412 is irresponsible, dangerous and must be opposed. i ask unanimous consent that our letter that we sent be made part of the record. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. lewis: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 10 3/4 minutes. mr. obey: i yield myself such time as i may consume, and don't worry, i'm not going to take it all. i had not thought to get into this discussion today but i think the comments of a previous speaker from the other side illustrate just another reason why i'm glad to be leaving this place. when i came here i don't think there were very many members who would reach a conclusion that if

someone disagreed with them on substance, that somehow they are morally defective. in a civilized, adult legislative body, members would recognize that there can be legitimate policy differences that can be highly controversial and that you can have honorable people on both sides of the question engage in honest debate and discussion about those issues. in the main, that is what members in this house usually do. but i have noticed a tendency in recent years on more and more occasions for members to substitute hyperbole for thought and to substitute attacks on character for attacks on argument.

i find that sad indeed. i do not know of a straighter shooter in this congress than mr. cole. he is a highly partisan individual. he at one time ran the republican congressional campaign committee. but he did it with honor and in my view, he has brought honor to this place in the way he has handled himself on a wide variety of issues, as long as i've watched him operate. i do not believe that he or any other member of the interior subcommittee who dealt with the issue at hand demonstrated anything but an honest effort to try to deal with a court decision which played fruitbasket upset on years and

years of legal precedent. i am for one proud of the service i've had in this place with people like the gentleman from oklahoma. and i would simply urge all members as i leave this chamber to remember that there are good people on both sides of the aisle who have honest, hard-fought views and hard-earned views and have a right to express them without some off the wall member accusing them of corruption. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time and urge an aye vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan.

mr. waxman: i yield -- >> i yield to myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i urge my colleagues to support the food safety provisions. with the help of my good friend, the gentleman from texas, reported the bill unanimously. mr. dingell: why is it here? it's substantially the same as the bill passed by the hoss and substantially the same as that passed by the senate. it cures the weak thovepbs food and drug administration and the fact that about a third to a quarter of our food is imported from abroad where there's no real protection for american consumers. some 5,000 americans die every year of bad food, 300,000 go to the hospital and 77 million get sick.

this bill gives the food and drug administration the authority to do what needs to be done. if we do not pass this legislation, we'll find that legislation like this cannot come to the floor before late in the spring or in the summer of next year. i urge my colleagues to respect the problems that we have, see to it that americans are protected against unsafe food coming in from china. milk with mel mean, unsafe -- with melamine, unsafe strawberries, unsafe fruits and vegetables, unsafe fish and seafood and shellfish, all manner of unsafe food is being brought in and sold to the american people because of the inability of the food and drug administration to protect the american people. this legislation will cure and address those problems. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas.

mr. barton: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous con sent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. barton: i rise in respectful and regretful opposition to the continuing resolution. the primary reason that the energy and commerce committee has time on the floor is because of the inclusion of the food safety act in the continuing resolution. the food safety act bill that passed the house last year was the result of bipartisan cooperation between chairman waxman and subcommittee chairman pallone, chairman dingell, myself, then-subcommittee ranking member nathan deal, and others on the republican side. it was a result of a number of years of work, it was an open process, it was an inclusive process and the result was a

very strong bipartisan vote both in the committee and on the house floor. i believe on the house floor 59 republicans joined with almost every democrat to send that bill to the senate. the bill that's come back from the senate that's been included in the continuing resolution is not the house bill as amended, it is a senate bill that is significantly different in several respects. the inclusion of what's called the tester amendment in the senate bill means that some farms, small farm, and along the borders between the united states and mexico and the united states and canada would be exempt from some of the requirements of the bill, the methods of payment are different, the house had a registration fee, an annual registration fee that is not included in the senate version. senate version.

there are a number of tax issues with the senate bill that we have a problem with in the house that if it's not included in the c.r., the food safety bill would be subject to what we call blue slipping here in the house of representatives. so it really is difficult to be in opposition to the food safety bill, because of the unity of purpose and the spirit of cooperation that existed in the energy and commerce committee when the food safety legislation was passed last year. but our friends in the other body, as is more often than not the case have tended to ignore our work product and send us theirs at the last moment with a take it or leave it attitude. ranking member and soon to be

agricultural committee chairman, frank lucas and i have sent a letter to our speaker suggesting that we would be more than willing to go to conference with our friends in the other body. we are going to be in session at least another week, perhaps two. we could have a conference. we could probably agree on a bipartisan, bicameral food safety bill that would pass muster in both bodies. i'm still hopeful that might occur. with regards to other items in the continuing resolution that are not part of the food safety act, there are numerous things that we find objectionable. the f.c.c., the federal communication commission is going to receive $350 million, which is an increase of over 4.5% from fiscal year 2010 and more than $14 million than what

they perhaps asked for. in the continuing resolution in terms of health provisions, there is funding for several sections of the health care law that we believe to be objectionable. the funding for public awareness, for example. so far, h.h.s. has spent over $3 million for television ads featuring one of my favorite actors, andy griffith. "the andy griffith show," one of my favorite television shows when i was growing up, but i have a little bit of problem watching mr. griffith talk to seniors about the important new benefits of the current health care law as a pitch master for something that in all likelihood we are going to change, perhaps

even repeal next year. independent groups have found that some of these ads have misled seniors. they claim benefits that will be available while ignoring cuts to medicare advantage and others in the medicare payment rate. this is misleading and unfortunate. in the area of telecommunications, it exempts the universal service fund from the anti-deficiency act. this would allow the government to obligate money to carrier subsidies before we have the money in hand. most of us on the minority side, soon to be the majority side of the aisle, find that to be very objectionable and quite frankly, irresponsible. so i again on the food safety bill that passed the house, i voted for it. i have nothing but respect and comply mepts for mr. waxman, mr.

dingell, mr. pallone and others, but the c.r. version of food safety that we are being asked to vote on today is not the version that came out of the house. for that reason, i oppose and the basic c.r. overall, there are numerous reasons from an energy and commerce perspective to oppose that. we would ask for a no vote and i reserve the balance of my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: i yield to the chairman of the energy and commerce committee 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: the house passed the food safety bill a year ago in july, 2009. and we waited for the senate to act and they recently acted by 73 to 25 in favor of the legislation. when we had it before us, there were 283 supporters.

now, the senate made some changes in the bill, but all of the advocacy groups have told us that f.d.a. needs this legislation to be able to protect the american people from unsafe food, whether it's domestic or foreign imported foods. this legislation gives them important tools to have clear authority to issue and require manufacturers to meet strong enforceable standards to ensure the safety of various types of foods. this bill does not create unnecessary burdens for farmers and small businesses. it would allow f.d.a. to exercise their new authorities and require manufacturers to implement actions like preventive systems to stop outbreaks before they occur. i would have preferred the house bill rather than the amendment in the senate bill, but sometimes you have to accept a change that you may not favor at

first blush. but to have us defeat this bill and have the american people go without the tools at f.d.a.'s hands to stop unsafe foods would be irresponsible. i urge support for the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: we would be delighted to receive extra time. at this time, i yield to the distinguished the gentleman from new jersey, chairman of the subcommittee on health, committee on energy and commerce, one of the original sponsors, 1 1/2 minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, chairman dingell and all the work you have done on this bill and so many other bills. there shouldn't be any more time for delay.

every time we have a food safety crisis, eggs, spinach or pepper, we shake our heads and say we don't have the tools to protect it. each year 76 million americans are sickened from consuming contaminated food and 5,000 people die. as the bill we are going to vote on today perfect? certainly not. the food safety act would give the f.d.a., the ability and the authority to protect consumers from contaminated foods. f.d.a. will ensure food safety through more frequent inspection, the development of a food trace-back system to pinpoint the source and enhance pours to ensure that imported foods are safe. it helps to ensure that food is safe before it is distributed, before it reaches store shelves and the kitchens of american families. we have the most productive and

most sufficient food distribution system in the world but we need to have the safest food supply. people need to know the foods they select and males they put on the kitchen tails are safe. we started this job in the house. let's finish it today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. dingell: if the gentleman from texas would yield me time, i would be delighted. mr. barton: i will yield to the gentleman two minutes. mr. dingell: i want to commend him for his help on this legislation. mr. barton: on the house-passed bill. mr. dingell: i want to address that because i want the house to understand the great job the gentleman did and the fact that the senate in an unusual action did only slight damage to our bill. at this time, i yield to my

distinguished friend from michigan, mr. stupak. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. stupak: i rise to support this continuing resolution which includes the food safety act. i want to thank chairman dingell, mr. waxman and mr. pallone and other members of the leadership to make this important legislation an important priority. the act will provide the f.d.a. with some of the resources and authority to effectively monitor our food supply. as chairman of the subcommittee on oversight investigation, i have held 13 food safety hearings, examining the failures of the f.d.a. and food industry to protect our nation's food supply. the findings of these investigations highlighted the needs for the first major overhaul of our food safety laws in 70 years. among its key provisions, this would establish a food tracing system and provide the f.d.a. with recall authority.

this bill is not perfect, but it is improvement over current law. i urge the next congress to look closely at providing the f.d.a. with a dedicated revenue extreme for inspection, requiring country of origin labeling and giving the f.d.a. the subpoena power it needs. despite the lack of these provisions, this bill as compromised with the senate, is a good bill and one that deserves to be passed by this congress and signed into law this year. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas has two minutes remaining and the gentleman from michigan has six minutes remaining. mr. barton: i'm reserving. i have no speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: mr. speaker, i thank the distinguished the gentleman from michigan who is leaving us at the end of this congress for his outstanding leadership and chairman of the oversight subcommittee and the outstanding work he did so we

can pass this legislation. at this time i yield to the distinguished the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this continuing resolution and especially the food safety provision. they represent a good first step in reforming our food safety system and reducing foodborne illness. this house passed much stronger food safety legislation in july, 2009. the bill before us today still includes critical reform and deserves our support. it provides the f.d.a. with several authorities that will help the agency better prevent food-borne illness, including increased inspection to inspect records relating to recalls, the creation of more accurate food facility registry, improved traces in the event of an

outbreak, and certification of certain food imports as meeting all food safety requirements. it will help us identify food-borne outbreaks more quickly. food safety should be a vital component of our national security and our job as the people's elected representatives and when it comes to the real potential of a full blown food-borne epidemic, we have been playing a dangerous game for far too long. our food safety efforts should not -- will not end with the passage of this bill. i believe we must establish a single food safety agency, one that will consolidate all the food safety functions spread across 15 federal departments under one roof. i will continue to fight for the single agency. i believe it is needed to ensure that the food in our supermarkets, restaurants and kitchens are safe. nonetheless, the food safety provisions in today's resolution

are a great first step. i urge my colleagues to support them. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: at this time, i have no further speakers until i close. i believe it's the other side to close. and i invite my dear friend from texas to say whatever he has in mind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has two minutes remaining. mr. barton: i appreciate the speaker's indulgence. we are going to have to suggest that members on the minority side to vote no on the c.r. because of a number of reasons because our friends on the appropriations committee have alluded to. if we could have a conference

between the house confereys and the senate conferees on the food safety bill, we could come to some reasonable compromises that we could recommend a vote for the food safety bill as a stand-alone bill. that is still possible to do or would be possible if the speaker of the house and the majority leader of the senate, chairman of the appropriate committees in the house and senate were willing to go down that road. in this congress, those types of conferences have been far and few between. so we're stuck here in a situation where you have a reasonably good piece of legislation that passed the house, a not as reasonably good piece of legislation that came out of the senate at the last moment and being attached to a continuing resolution that shows the party in the majority in both this body and the other body have refused to take their funding responsibilities very

seriously for the last year. so -- so as much good as in the food safety part of the bill and as hard as they have worked on that aspect of it, i still believe the correct vote on this bill today is a no vote. we do ask that members vote no on this. the good parts of the legislation will we will hopefully try to bring back very quickly in the next congress and have a vote in regular order early in the year. with that, i would ask for a no vote on the bill today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: i yield to the distinguished gentleman from california for the purposes of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, mr. speaker. i rise to revise and extend my

remarks. i appreciate the great work chairman dingell did on this effort, unfortunately i can't support the continuing resolution, the food safety effort, the good work we did in the house that was sent to the senate, the senate amendments make it a flawed measure. this process should be based on science, not based on miles and sales and for those reasons i unfortunately will oppose the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: pl dingell: mr. speaker, i rise to close, i yield smeist such time as eremains. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dingell: i want to commend my dear friend from texas for the superb job he did working with us on this bill. the house bill was a superb bill, came out unanimously of committee and passed the house. it has the support of everybody in the industry and the consumer support administrations and the

food and drug administration. i want to commend chairman waxman, chairman pallone, chairman stupak and ms. degette for their outstanding leadership. mr. stupak did a very fine job of conducting the hearings which demonstrated the weaknesses of the existing law and made it possible for us to establish the need that has to be done. in my extension of remarks, i'll include the list of supporters of this legislation in industry and amongst consumers and i urge my colleagues to address that because this is a good and a strong bill. i'm going to commend rachel and eric on the committee and two members of the staff who worked directly for me on this important matter, mr. virgil miller and ms. katie campbell who did superb work here. the legislation before us has been changed by the senate but not in any significant way. i agree with the gentleman from texas that we should be going to

conference with the senate but regrettably, while we would be doing that, we would be failing to pass this legislation and winding up with a situation where americans would continue dying because poo food and drug is not able to do its job and protect us from bad foods imported into this cubtry but from some which is domestically produced this legislation gives food and drug the authorities they need to seize and to compel manufacturers to use best technology for the protection of american consumers. in other words, the work which is done now by food and drug, which is simply wrong doing, we would change the fact by addressing the problems before they become real by ensuring manufacturing uses the best practices.

they recognize that the food safety of the united states as well as the food safe i have to goods manufactured here is threatened by imports from places like china where they put melamine in milk products to up the amount of protein in milk. something which is poisoning babies and adults. and of course the roster of unsafe foods which we see come swoog the marketplace is a continuing source of fear, particularly when you contemplate the fact that it is coming in from china because we import now somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of our food. there's not time enough to conduct a proper investigation of the differences between the two bodies and a proper conference between the two bodies. i regret this as much as anyone. it is not the fault of this house that this has taken so long. it has taken the senate since

the bill was passed in the house in june of last year, not this year, and they have dawdled around and dawdled around as the senate always does with the end result that we are forced to take the senate bill. the problem which existed has been corrected in this legislation and we will find that the bill, although it is not as good as the house bill, will provide enormous advantages in the safety of american food products and food products sold to american citizens of -- by everyone who sells not only american companies but also the foreigners. i had observed that we cannot properly protect americans from unsafe foods imported unless we impose similar and identical burdens on americans because of the trade laws. i urge my colleagues to recognize that this legislation is something which is going to stop the death of about 5,000

americans a year, about 300,000 of whom get sick and about 77 -- about 300,000 who get sick, and 77 million who are sick and 300,000 are hospitalized, this is a very serious problem and it is my hope that we will be back next year with legislation to make the other food and drug powers sufficient to address the needs of the american public in pharmaceuticals, in other things under the jurisdiction of the food and drug administration. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to clause 1c of rule 19, further consideration of >> later, the house went on to pass the fiscal 2011 spending bill, and the 1.09 trillion dollar bill passed in a to do

12-206 vote. it extends funding for the federal government through next year. >> middle and high school students, as you work on your documentary for the student cam competition, here are some tips from judges. >> one of the things i look for is you, the student. i want to see you and your personality, and that helps your video stand out from the rest. >> what i like to see most are a real investment in care in the topic that you will be telling us about. be sure to be interested in what you're telling us. if you are not interested in what you are presenting, chances are we probably will not be either. >> i'm looking for videos where people have looked at the c-span content and said what elements of c-span video the most sense for telling the compelling story i'm trying to tell? >> for all the rules come inkling deadlines, prize

information, and how to upload your video, -- for all the rules, including deadlines, prize intermission, and how to upload your video, go to c-span -- order. >> today, "washington journal," with your live phone calls. after that, the u.s. house. reimbursement to medical providers. in about 45 minutes, we will discuss taxes with congressman john campbell and keith ellison. later, fannie mae and freddie mac with financial analyst janet tavakoli. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: good morning, thursday, december 9. a day of great deliberation and dealmakin