[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 172 (Tuesday, December 21, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8820-H8823]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 5116, AMERICA
COMPETES REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 2751, FDA FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT; AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2142, GPRA
MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2010
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1781 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1781
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
5116) to invest in innovation through research and
development, to improve the competitiveness of the United
States, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment
thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention
of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of
rule XXI, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
Science and Technology or his designee that the House concur
in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment shall be
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Science and Technology.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to its adoption without intervening motion.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2751)
to accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide
incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles
to replace such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less
polluting automobiles, with the Senate amendments thereto,
and to consider in the House, without intervention of any
point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule
XXI, a single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce or his designee that the House concur in
the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments shall be
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand
for division of the question.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2142)
to require quarterly performance assessments of Government
programs for purposes of assessing agency performance and
improvement, and to establish agency performance improvement
officers and the Performance Improvement Council, with the
Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House,
without intervention of any point of order except those
arising under clause 10 of I rule XXI, a motion offered by
the chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
or his designee that the House concur in the Senate
amendment. The Senate amendment shall be considered as read.
The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to its adoption without intervening motion.
{time} 1310
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr.
Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate
only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.
Res. 1781.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1781 provides for the
consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 5116, the America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The rule makes in order a motion
offered by the chair of the Committee on Science and Technology or his
designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 5116.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Science and Technology. The rule waives all points of order against
consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of
rule XXI. The rule provides that the Senate amendment shall be
considered as read.
The rule also provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to
H.R. 2751, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. The rule makes in
order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendments
to H.R. 2751. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule waives all points of order
against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause
10 of rule XXI. The rule provides the Senate amendments shall be
considered as read.
The rule also provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment
to H.R. 2142, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. The rule makes in
order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform or his designee that the House concur in the Senate
amendment to H.R. 2142. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the
motion, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
motion, except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the
rule provides that the Senate amendment be considered as read.
[[Page H8821]]
Mr. Speaker, all three pieces of legislation deserve to be approved
by this House.
Mr. Speaker, today we will take up a rule that helps this Congress
complete the work the American people sent us here to do.
It has been far too long since this Congress has addressed the issue
of food safety. Each year, 76 million Americans are sickened from
consuming contaminated food, more than 300,000 people are hospitalized,
and 5,000 die. In just the last few years, there has been a string of
food-borne illness outbreaks in foods consumed by millions of Americans
each day--from contaminated spinach to peanut butter to cookie dough.
This bill puts a new focus on preventing food contamination before it
occurs--putting new responsibilities on food producers and requiring
them to develop a food safety plan and ensure the plan is working.
By requiring importers to verify the safety of foreign suppliers and
imported food, the American people can rest assured that the food they
are eating is safe. And this bill allows the FDA to initiate a
mandatory recall of a food product when a company fails to voluntarily
recall the contaminated product upon FDA's request.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have asked Congress to help keep
them safe. The text of this food safety legislation in H.R. 2751 is
nearly identical to language passed by the House in the continuing
resolution on December 8, 2010, and passed the Senate on November 30,
2010, by a bipartisan vote of 73-25.
H.R. 2751, this stand-alone food safety legislation, passed the
Senate by voice vote on December 19, 2010.
Mr. Speaker, this rule also provides for the consideration of H.R.
5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. This bill
invests in innovation through research and development, to improve the
competitiveness of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, the jobs of the future will not just be found in the
industries of the past. They will be found in green technologies,
biotechnology and advances in medical devices. This bill makes vital
investments to keep America competitive in the global economy.
By making investments in the National Science Foundation, the
National Institute of Science and Technology and the Department of
Energy's Office of Science, America can be put on a path to double our
research and development capabilities in 10 years.
This funding will support programs to assist American manufacturers
and create a loan guarantee program to support innovation in
manufacturing. It will also support research and internship
opportunities for high school and undergraduate students, increase
graduate fellowships supported by NSF and DOE, and encourage students
studying in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math areas to pursue
teaching credentials, increasing the pool of qualified teachers for the
next generation of young innovators. It will also promote productivity
and economic growth by forming an Office of Innovation and
Entrepreneurship to foster innovation and the commercialization of new
technologies, products, processes, and services.
The Senate took up H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization on
December 17, 2010, and passed it with an amendment by unanimous
consent.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can all get behind a bill that helps
keep America driving the pace of technology.
I also believe that we can all get behind the final piece of this
rule that allows for consideration of H.R. 2142, the Government
Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act of 2010.
This bill requires each federal agency to draft plans that identify
areas where the agency could improve its performance. At a time of year
when many of us are making resolutions to better ourselves and to rid
ourselves of our bad habits, I think it's fitting that Congress and our
Federal government takes a look at itself to see where we can improve.
Mr. Speaker, we were not sent here to be lame ducks. And this
Congress has proven to be anything but, despite attempts to slow or cut
off the process. This Congress has been one of the most productive in
history--at a time when we need to be doing a little less nation-
building around the world and more nation-building here at home. These
important pieces of legislation will continue that productive work.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today very disturbed by the lack of respect the
ruling Democrat elites have shown for the will of the American people
since election day. Having lost 63 seats in the House and six seats in
the Senate, one would think the liberal Democrat regime would think
twice about continuing their reckless pattern of spending that has been
so overwhelmingly rejected by the American voting public. However,
these Washington elites have spent their last days grasping frantically
to their waning power and continuing to spend, spend, spend, even in
the final hours before Christmas.
This rule is a slap in the face to the institutional integrity of
Congress and the way this body is intended to operate.
Mr. Speaker, I have an article that I would like to insert in the
Record from The Wall Street Journal of November 30. This article talks
about what has been happening since we have come back into session, and
I think it is something that we need to be talking about.
Also, I want to say that rather than having conference committees
meet to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions
of bills, Democratic leaders have waited until the last minute and the
House will now concur with the Senate-passed measures, sending them to
the President.
Thus far in the 111th Congress, only 11 conference reports were
considered in the House and 25 amendments between the House and the
Senate, which denies the minority a motion to recommit. In the 109th
Congress, 25 conference reports were considered and only one amendment
between the Houses, on which the Rules Committee made a motion to
recommit in order. The 109th was when the Republicans were last in
control.
In Pelosi's New Direction for America, page 24, it states, ``Bills
should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open,
full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that
grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a
substitute.''
It is clear that the House Democrats on the Rules Committee have not
lived up to this promise. Instead of allowing sufficient time for
debate on these separate measures which collectively authorize billions
upon billions in new spending and grant Federal regulators even more
overreaching power, the Democrat elites are arbitrarily presenting us
with one overarching closed rule for three separate and enormous pieces
of legislation.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I will urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bills.
[From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 30, 2010]
Federal Freeze Play
American Federation of Public Employees President John Gage
yesterday derided President Obama's federal pay freeze as a
``slap at working people.'' It might better be described as a
small but symbollc first step toward reining in a ballooning
federal payroll that is a slap at the non-government workers
who pay the bills.
Mr. Obama proposed a two-year pay freeze for all civilian
federal employees, a move that will save taxpayers $2 billion
in fiscal 2011 and $28 billion over five years. (Congress
must approve it.) As cost-cutting goes, this is modest: The
freeze doesn't extend to new hiring, bonuses or step
increases. It doesn't even match the three-year freeze
recommended by the President's deficit commission. But it is
more than this Administration has ever been willing to
consider, and it suggests that Mr. Obama, post-midterm-
shellacking, realizes he must show some willingness to
restrain the growth of government.
It certainly needs restraint. As the nearby table shows
(see accompanying table--WSJ November 30, 2010), federal
employment has grown by a remarkable 17% since 2007 to an
estimated 2.1 million nonmilitary full-lime workers
(excluding 600,000 postal workers). This is the largest
federal work force since 1992, when civilian employment at
the Pentagon began to shrink rapidly after the Cold War.
These federal employees operate in a pay-and-benefit
universe that no longer exists in the private economy.
According to recent analyses by USA Today, total compensation
for federal workers has risen 37% over 10 years--after
inflation--compared to 8.8% for private workers. Federal
workers earned average compensation of $123,000 in 2009,
double the private average of $61,000. Unions like to argue
that federal jobs are unique, yet in occupations that exist
both in government and the private economy--nurses,
surveyors, janitors, cooks--the federal government pays 20%
more than private firms.
Voters have swept GOP reformers like New Jersey's Chris
Christie and Wisconsin's Scott Walker into gubernatorial
office precisely to rein in bloated public-employee pensions
and salaries. If Mr. Obama is serious about cutting spending,
his pay freeze needs to be an opening bid for a leaner, more
modestly compensated, federal work force.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished
colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
[[Page H8822]]
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, once again I must rise in opposition to this
rule to reconsider the Senate language from S. 510, the Food Safety
Modernization Act--now contained in H.R. 2751, a bill related to the
Cash for Clunkers program.
As I have stated before, I believe our Nation has the safest food
supply in the world. I also believe that we must continually examine
our food production and regulatory system and move forward with changes
that improve food safety.
I am very disappointed in the process by which this legislation is
being considered. What we have here is another expansion of Federal
power without benefit of thorough consideration. This is the stimulus
bill, cap-and-trade, and the health care bill all over again.
The House version of this legislation was rolled out in draft form
and marked up in the Energy and Commerce Committee over a couple of
weeks during the summer of 2009. During all that time, members of the
House Agriculture Committee stood ready and willing to work on this
legislation. It is unfortunate that, despite a clear jurisdictional
claim, the House Agriculture Committee did not demand that the bill be
referred, conduct hearings on its provisions, and work our will to make
improvements.
During the committee hearing in the summer of 2009 on the general
topic of food safety, not a single producer witness would support the
bill. It was a stunning failure to fulfill our legislative
responsibilities. Despite this, the House Democratic leadership chose
to attempt to pass this legislation under a suspension of the rules.
Because of the flawed legislative process and lingering concerns about
the contents of the bill, it was defeated. Failing to learn the lesson
of that vote, within days, the leadership subsequently secured a closed
rule denying Members the opportunity to participate in the legislative
process and rammed it through the House in the summer of 2009.
{time} 1320
They sent the legislation to the Senate, where it languished for over
a year.
In the closing days of Congress, the Senate sent us its version of
food safety legislation with an unconstitutional revenue measure, which
effectively killed the bill. Then the House leadership won another
closed rule, which prohibited any reasonable debate on the provisions
of the legislation and sent it back to the Senate in a mammoth,
irresponsible, long-term continuing resolution, which failed in the
Senate.
So now the Senate sent its bill back to us as a free-standing
measure. This time, it's stuffed into a Cash for Clunkers bill in order
to once again bypass any reasonable debate. And here we are again with
the same legislation negotiated outside of regular order. The Senate
was originally unwilling to conduct a conference with the House,
claiming there wasn't enough time. The Senate continues to offer its
bill to us on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
Mr. Speaker, we've had nearly a month in which this side of the aisle
was ready, willing, and able to sit down and resolve our issues and to
move forward. Unfortunately, the majority leadership in this season of
giving has chosen to once again bypass the normal legislative process,
exclude nearly every Member of this body, other than a select few in
the Speaker's inner circle, and ram this legislation that, for all
intents and purposes, could have been a bipartisan victory. Instead,
what we're left with is another example of the sort of nonsense that
the voters of America rejected just a few weeks ago. This is no way to
do business, and our constituents were not subtle when they spoke last
November.
Mr. Speaker, let me return to where I started. We have the safest
food supply in the world. Anyone who follows current events knows that
our food-producing system faces ongoing safety challenges.
Unfortunately, neither this legislation nor the process by which it is
being considered will address those challenges. Our Nation's farmers,
ranchers, packers, processors, retailers and, most importantly,
consumers deserve better.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to prolong this debate, but
if I could just make a couple of observations in the aftermath of the
gentleman's speech. I should remind my colleagues that each year, 76
million Americans are sickened by contaminated food that they consumed.
More than 300,000 of them are hospitalized and more than 5,000 each
year die. We've heard about tainted eggs, tainted spinach, tainted
peanut butter, tainted cookie dough. We haven't updated our food safety
laws in decades.
So here's the deal. If you want to do a better job of protecting the
American consumer, you will have an opportunity, if you vote for this
rule, to vote for the food safety bill. If you don't, then vote down
the rule and vote against the bill when it comes up.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lucas has spoken very eloquently about one piece of
the legislation rolled into this rule. I would like to speak about all
three of them, briefly. One piece is H.R. 5116, the COMPETES Act, a
behemoth, authorizing nearly $86 billion, which is $22 billion above
the fiscal 2010 base amount and $8 billion above the original 10-year
``doubling path.'' This is in addition to the nearly $5 billion in
additional funding that was provided in the so-called ``stimulus''
bill.
When H.R. 5116 was authorized in 2007, it enacted approximately 40
new programs. The new spending under H.R. 5116 would create at least
seven new government programs, many that are not associated with
research and development, and others that are duplicative and
unnecessary. This is plain wrong, Mr. Speaker.
It's worth recalling that when H.R. 5116 was originally considered by
Congress earlier this year, Republicans attempted to make several
constructive changes which were systematically blocked by the ruling
liberal majority. One of these changes would have saved billions of
taxpayer dollars by reducing the authorization levels to FY 2010 levels
and freezing them for 3 years. However, in an effort to obstruct
Republicans, the liberal Democrat elites did the American people
disservice by using a series of parliamentary tricks to shove their
bill through without allowing any Republican input.
Mr. Speaker, in these difficult economic times, American families
across the country are tightening their belts and cutting their
spending. Why then are the Democratic elites increasing spending by $22
billion with this legislation and creating new duplicative government
programs? The American taxpayers cannot afford this bill.
The second bill encompassed by this closed rule which the Democrat
elites have brought before us today is H.R. 2751, the FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act, again, which my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas)
has spoken on so eloquently. This bill increases spending by $1.4
billion, subsequently increasing the price of food and increasing the
size of government without actually improving food safety.
This hastily considered closed rule provides for consideration of yet
another bill, H.R. 2142, the Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and
Performance Act of 2010, which is so riddled with problems that last
week it failed to garner the votes necessary to pass under a suspension
of the rules. Instead of taking this as an opportunity to fix the flaws
and address the other concerns prompting the bill's failure, the ruling
liberal Democrats predictably chose to ram it through by any means
necessary. And since they've wasted so much time tilting at windmills,
they find themselves here in the waning days of this lame duck Congress
scrambling to address issues that should've been dealt with through a
responsible legislative process.
As they wait for the Senate to act, they're refusing to yield any
free moment to pursue one of their last opportunities to slam through
another so-called rule--unworthy even to be called a rule--providing
for consideration of flawed legislation, such as H.R. 2142.
This bill would amend the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993, GPRA, a law which currently requires agencies to develop 5-year
strategic plans, annual performance plans, and actual program
performance reports. Unfortunately, under the rules of debate provided
for by this rule, the ruling Democrat majority refuses to allow Members
to offer these types of
[[Page H8823]]
real reform ideas or any other amendments, leaving this legislation
unlikely to do anything to change the incentives facing decision-makers
and will not end the perpetual funding of failing Federal programs.
As has been made perfectly clear to the ruling liberal Democrat
leadership, many are concerned that although there's no cost estimate
available for this version of the bill, it authorizes $75 million over
5 years to establish agency performance officers and interagency
councils, but does not contain an effective means to consolidate or
eliminate ineffective programs at each agency. If you add the 17,800
employees that the food safety bill is contemplating and then the new
employees that will be required under the GPRA bill, we are adding to
the number of Federal employees. But we should be decreasing the number
of Federal employees.
I want to talk a minute about what has happened in terms of Federal
employees since the Democrats took over the Congress. In 2007, there
were a total of 1,832,000 executive branch employees and in the
civilian agencies there were 1,173,000. In 2010, it goes to 2,148,000
and 1,428,000. Federal employment has grown by a remarkable 17 percent
since 2007, to an estimated 2.1 million nonmilitary full-time workers.
This is the largest workforce since 1992.
Also, Mr. Speaker, according to a recent analysis by USA Today, total
compensation for Federal workers has risen 37 percent over 10 years,
after inflation, compared to 8.8 percent for private workers. Federal
workers earned an average compensation of $123,000 in 2009--double the
private average of $61,000.
{time} 1330
Mr. Speaker, our country cannot afford this expansion of the Federal
Government. We need to be reducing the Federal Government, not
expanding it.
I would like to say further this version of the bill does not contain
an amendment considered in committee markup by Republican
Representative Schock and supported by Democrat Congressmen Cooper and
Quigley that would have established a more thorough process for
evaluating agency performance and eliminating programs that failed
performance standards, were found to be duplicative or determined to be
unnecessary.
H.R. 2142 mandates the creation of several new government-wide and
agency-specific management plans. However, it does not--does not--
increase executive accountability for failing programs.
Mr. Speaker, again, this bill is going in the wrong direction. What
it does is it allows agencies to design their performance plans and
then to measure their own results, using their own performance
indicators. Rather than requiring agencies to focus on achieving
measurable outcomes, the bill makes the creation of outcome-oriented
performance measures optional. This would be like, Mr. Speaker, letting
students set the criteria for getting their own grades, and we all know
that doesn't work very well.
Strangely enough, also in the process, the bill directs agencies to
``identify low-priority program activities,'' which is ridiculous
because, even if agencies had an incentive to label their own programs
as ``low priority,'' they do not. This begs the question of why such
programs are funded at all.
Mr. Speaker, the evidence is in. The liberal Democrat agenda has
failed. They need to go back to the drawing board and come back to the
American people with real solutions to their real problems. This isn't
the time to dither and blame the Republican minority for the
disappointing collapse of governance we have seen since the liberal
majority seized control of Congress in 2007.
I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to force the ruling
liberal Democrats to rethink their misguided proposals by rejecting
this rule and the underlying legislation and by protesting the liberal
agenda that continues to distract from private-sector job creation and
from getting the economy back on its feet.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, oh, my goodness. There are a lot of things that come
before the Members of this body that, I think, are worth getting all
worked up about and that, I think, sometimes understandably lead to
partisan bickering; but as to what we are talking about here today, to
me and to, I think, most people who are watching, this should be fairly
noncontroversial.
What we are talking about is a rule that will allow us to consider
three bills. One is called the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of
2010.
What does this radical bill do?
It authorizes funding increases for the National Science Foundation,
the National Institutes for Science and Technology, and the Department
of Energy's Office of Science for fiscal years 2010-2013, on a path
toward increasing substantially our investment in research and
development over the next 10 years. It is not even an appropriation. It
is an authorization.
So the Appropriations Committee next year can work their will and
decide whether to invest more in science so that we can compete in this
global economy, or will we not invest in science and actually do what
some of my friends on the other side of the aisle will tell you about
taking a meat ax to these programs, you know, and putting ourselves at
a competitive disadvantage?
This is a bill about supporting and expanding American energy
technology so we are not so reliant on foreign oil and so we don't go
to war over oil. It is a national security issue, but this somehow is a
controversial bill. This should pass easily.
The other bill that is so radical, according to my colleague on the
Republican side of the aisle, is called the Government Efficiency,
Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act.
What does this bill do?
It basically says to agencies and departments, look, you need to work
to come up with a plan to prevent unnecessary and wasteful spending and
to help eliminate Federal Government waste by working with us to help
us find where those wasteful areas are.
Now, this is what is causing such consternation on the other side of
the aisle? I mean, rather than just taking a meat ax and saying an
arbitrary percentage cut across the board, what this bill says is let's
think about what we're doing. Maybe we can cut 5 percent; maybe we can
cut 10 percent; maybe we can cut even more.
Well, let's do this in a sensible way where we don't adversely impact
services that directly impact the American people for the good. Let's
have a plan. Let's just not do this senselessly. Let's do this
sensibly. Somehow, this radical, awful bill has caused all this noise
by my colleague on the other side of the aisle.
The final bill is the Food Safety Modernization Act. Mr. Speaker, as
I said earlier--and it's worth repeating--in this country, literally 76
million Americans on a yearly basis are sickened by contaminated food
that they digest--76 million Americans a year. More than 300,000 of
them end up going to hospitals on a yearly basis, and 5,000 die.
So what is this Congress trying to do?
We are trying to find a way to protect consumers, and my colleague on
the other side of the aisle is all upset about it. Oh, boy. What a
terrible, awful idea to protect the health and well-being of the
citizens of this country by updating our food safety rules and
regulations, which haven't been updated in almost 30 years.
Come on. I mean let's move forward with this rule. Let's consider
these bills. I am sure they all will pass.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous
question and on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________