[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20169-20175]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2749, FOOD SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ACT 
                                OF 2009

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 691 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 691

       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 XXI. 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: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina, 
Representative Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule 
is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 2749, 
the Food Safety Enhancement Act, legislation that will help make our 
food supply safer and cleaner and provide much-needed peace of mind to 
American families.
  Too often recently, we have watched horrible news reports showing 
stories of Americans who have become terribly sick or have died from 
eating the same simple foods that we take for granted and consume every 
day. Think about that for a minute. Our country, one of the wealthiest 
in the world with the most bountiful food supply and endless choices 
for consumers, has been in the grip of a food panic that shows no signs 
of easing up. Peanut butter, spinach, cookie dough, beef, tomatoes, 
sprouts, pistachios--every day it seems like it's something new.
  We know that every year 76 million Americans are sickened from 
consuming contaminated food, and 5,000 of those persons die. This issue 
has probably touched every one of us in some way. In too many cases, 
they're not random, unpredictable events but widespread and systematic. 
And sadly, they are also preventable. They come about because of flaws 
in our food safety system. I am happy to say that these gaps in 
protection are closed by this legislation.
  Under this bill, we give the FDA new authority, new tools, and a new 
source of funding to carry out its vital mission. Thanks to this bill, 
the FDA will make more frequent inspections of food processing 
facilities, develop a food trace-back system to pinpoint the

[[Page 20170]]

source of food-borne illnesses, and have enhanced powers to ensure that 
imported foods are safe.
  The bill provides the FDA better access to the records of food 
producers and manufacturers without having to wait for an outbreak of 
food-borne illness.
  The bill provides strong, flexible enforcement tools and, 
importantly, it strengthens penalties imposed on food facilities that 
fail to comply with safety requirements.
  We require food facilities to have safety plans in place to identify 
and mitigate hazards, one of the best ways to make an immediate 
improvement to food safety.
  The legislation before us is bipartisan, and I think it is safe to 
say it will fundamentally change the way we protect the safety of our 
food supply.
  It is worth noting the bill was approved by the Energy and Commerce 
Committee back on June 17 by voice vote. That is how broad the support 
was.

                              {time}  1445

  We know this bill enjoys a lot of support from all Members. It 
received 280 votes yesterday, including 50 Republican votes that I'm 
happy to have and very confident that the bill will enjoy the same 
level of support today.
  I will enter a copy of an editorial from today's New York Times into 
the Record. The page made the following points:
  ``Under the current system, the FDA can only try to coax a food 
production facility to voluntarily recall its product after people have 
grown sick or even died. The legislation, the best in years, would give 
the agency a great deal more power and responsibility to prevent such 
outbreaks. The FDA would finally have the authority to set strong 
science-based safety standards for the growing, harvesting, and 
transporting of both domestic and imported food. The agency would then 
require each food production facility to come up with the best safety 
plan showing how it would meet those standards.
  ``Right now several years or more can elapse before the FDA does a 
full onsite inspection of a food facility. Most inspections are done by 
States and not all plants are visited. Under this bill so-called high-
risk facilities, ones where there have been problems in the past or 
ones that handle easily spoiled items like raw seafood, would have to 
be inspected by the FDA every 6 to 12 months. Lower-risk facilities, 
which deal with items like dry packaged products with no history of 
causing problems, would be inspected every 18 months to 3 years.''
  As others have noted, the legislation is supported by a range of 
organizations including Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of 
America, American Public Health Association, Association of Schools of 
Public Health, Center for Science and the Public Interest, The Pew 
Charitable Trusts, Trust for America's Health, and the Grocery 
Manufacturers Association.
  I was disappointed yesterday that some farm organizations seem 
unwilling to support the legislation even after the committee 
negotiated in good faith to address their concerns. That lack of 
support cost us the two-thirds support needed for passage.
  I want to address a few other concerns, including one complaint that 
every farm has to pay an annual $500 fee. I would like to point out 
that that requirement does not apply to farms that sell directly to 
consumers, meaning most if not all small family organic farms would not 
be covered.
  Another concern centered on what this bill would mean to small 
organic farmers and whether the larger FDA power would interfere with 
their operations. The bill specifically says the FDA can only issue 
standards for the riskiest products, and the FDA is also directed to 
take into consideration the impact on small-scale and diversified farms 
and on wildlife habitat, conservation practices, watershed protection 
efforts, and organic production methods.
  Yet another issue centered on whether confidential farm records might 
be disclosed by the FDA to others. In fact, the only new records that 
the FDA can have access to relate only to fresh produce for which the 
FDA has issued a safety standard or that is the subject of an active 
investigation of a food-borne illness outbreak.
  It is my hope that the small farmers in my district in upstate New 
York and elsewhere see this bill as a positive step forward in 
improving safety. Ultimately, we should feel confident about the 
quality of our food regardless of whether it comes from a big farm or a 
small family-run organic farm.
  Let me touch on one other issue as well. The legislation does not 
include strong new language to restrict the current overuse, I would 
say abuse, of antibiotics by farmers who raise livestock for human 
consumption. We have legislation that has a strong and growing number 
of supporters who, like me, worry that the use of nontherapeutic 
antibiotics in our food supply poses an enormous and growing health 
risk for all Americans. It is my plan to make a strong push on this 
legislation later in the year, and I hope all my colleagues who are 
ready to vote for this food safety bill will be with us when we take up 
the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act.
  Let's approve this food safety bill right now and start taking steps 
to make sure that our food supply is as safe as it can be.

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

                          Vote for Safer Food

       Far too many Americans are falling ill after eating foods 
     tainted with salmonella, E. coli and other pathogens. The 
     Food and Drug Administration, which is charged with 
     protecting much of the nation's food supply, doesn't have the 
     authority or the tools to do its job. The House of 
     Representatives can start to fix that problem if it votes 
     this week to approve the Food Safety Enhancement Act.
       Under the current system, the F.D.A. can only try to coax a 
     food production facility to voluntarily recall its product 
     after people have grown sick or even died. The legislation, 
     the best in years, would give the agency a great deal more 
     power and responsibility to prevent such outbreaks.
       The F.D.A. would finally have the authority to set strong 
     science-based safety standards for the growing, harvesting 
     and transporting of both domestic and imported food. The 
     agency would then require each food production facility to 
     come up with the best safety plan showing how it would meet 
     those standards.
       To investigate possible food problems, the F.D.A. would be 
     able to demand far more information during inspections, and 
     it would be required to set up a process for tagging food to 
     make it easier to trace the source of a food-borne illness. 
     The tomato business was devastated last year when tomatoes 
     were blamed for an outbreak of salmonella that was really 
     caused by tainted jalapeno and other peppers.
       Right now, several years or more can elapse before the 
     F.D.A. does a full on-site inspection of a food facility. 
     Most inspections are done by states, and many plants are not 
     visited at all. Under this bill, so-called high-risk 
     facilities--ones where there have been problems in the past 
     or ones that handle easily spoiled items like raw seafood--
     would have to be inspected by the F.D.A. every 6 to 12 
     months. Lower-risk facilities, which deal with items like dry 
     packaged products with no history of causing problems, would 
     be inspected every 18 months to three years. For that reason, 
     the F.D.A. will need more inspectors, but it is unclear 
     whether new license fees of $500 a year per food facility 
     will be enough to pay for them.
       The bill does not solve all of the problems of food safety, 
     of course. There will still be a patchwork of federal 
     inspection programs done by a variety of different agencies. 
     In the future, one food agency that works for consumers and 
     food producers makes more sense. Right now, the F.D.A. has 
     the responsibility for 80 percent of the nation's food 
     supply, and this bill would give it a lot more of the muscle 
     it needs to do that job.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  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 is 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

[[Page 20171]]

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 ``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, ``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 the best product.''
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  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 Democrat leadership has decided to run this 
bill through the House under a closed rule with no debate and no 
amendments.
  I would ask: 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 bill's problems 
regarding production agriculture and other rural businesses?
  All of us want to support a food safety bill. I will 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 has taken its my-way-or-the-
highway approach that leaves those of us from rural America unable to 
support this legislation.
  Yesterday when H.R. 2749 was on suspension, I raised issues that 
concern 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 more needs to be done.
  Another problem I would like to raise 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 inspections. Many are also 
subject to State and Federal warehouse licensing fees.
  However, this bill gives duplication authority to the FDA to do its 
inspections. It also imposes a one-size-fits-all registration fee for 
grain-handling facilities large and small. What's the point of the fee? 
Grain elevators are already subject to licensing fees; so it must be to 
impose another revenue-raising tax.
  A country-of-origin labeling is 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 steak, giving identity to tiny individual kernels of grain, 
which are blended with billions of other tiny kernels of grain, is next 
to impossible.
  I would like to point out that of the many food safety concerns 
Members and their constituents have raised, I have yet to hear a 
complaint about the grain industry. This is because we already have a 
system that works. Instead of strengthening that system, this bill 
overlays another system of unnecessary bureaucracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and I oppose the 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.''
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  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 FDA to spend any additional funds on the 
inspection of food.
  Beyond that there are other provisions that are troublesome. One in 
particular would mandate FDA to set on-farm production performance 
standards. I'm stunned that 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'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?

                              {time}  1500

  Furthermore, the bill's quarantine authority allows FDA to quarantine 
the entire Nation if there is evidence or just simply justification or 
information that a food commodity poses a health risk. No consideration 
is given to economic losses suffered by food

[[Page 20172]]

producers, processors or distributors. In particular, if the FDA 
ultimately lifts the quarantine because it was wrong, the agency has no 
obligation, no authority or means to indemnify producers for their 
losses.
  Mr. Speaker, let me revisit my original point. We have the safest 
food supply in the world. We need to 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 is 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 on 
both sides of the aisle, we rejected that process, and today we find 
ourselves 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 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 is wrong with that. Tell me 
what is wrong with that.
  Let's defeat the rule. Let's finish the process. Let's do better.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to ask a 
question: If everybody is doing things so well in the United States, 
why do 76 million Americans get sick every single year from 
contaminated food and 5,000 of them die?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise with mixed emotions but in support of the rule. I 
represent the Salinas Valley, which is one of the most productive 
agricultural regions of the world. We are the ``Salad Bowl Capital'' of 
the world. And when you produce 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--lettuce, 
broccoli, brussels sprouts and all of those things--so you don't have 
contamination coming from the field.
  We have had recalls, the E. coli recall, a very serious recall, and 
the difficulty we have had over the years is that essentially the 
Federal responsibility for food safety is in the Food and Drug 
Administration, the FDA. The responsibility for poultry inspection and 
meat inspection is in the Department of Agriculture. So you have a 
split responsibility in this country, and it has 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 are going 
to get these standards and get some national credibility and an equal 
playing field, then you are going to have to work on the food safety 
for agriculture and organic and all of those others in this 
legislation.
  We have been trying to do that, and the author of the bill, John 
Dingell, has been a tremendous help in trying to understand the nuances 
of small farmers, of organic farmers and others that are selling to 
farmers' markets.
  But I hear from all my ag folks that they may not want the FDA, who 
don't know much about growing practices, to be out there. They do agree 
we need to have these national standards, that this is the only way we 
are going to ensure that all food we serve in this country, which has 
the safest food 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 FDA.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, 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 in order to push the measure through with minimal 
debate. The bill failed to pass under a two-thirds vote, and that is 
why we are considering it again today.
  I have three main objections to the bill in its current form: the 
cost to our farmers, the jurisdictional overreach of FDA, and the 
process the majority has taken to bring this to the floor today.
  Let me begin by saying that food safety is among 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 it is equally imperative to our national 
security.
  Although America has the safest food supply in the world, there are 
clearly 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 will have a 
substantial impact upon the Nation's 2.2 million farms, many of which 
are family owned and operated.
  Specifically, I am concerned with the increased costs 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 and Drug 
Administration. The bill provides the FDA with more regulatory 
authority over farming activities, when currently such activities are 
already regulated by the agriculture experts at USDA.
  USDA is doing great outreach work on food safety and has a presence 
in every county across this country. In other words, USDA already is 
doing a great deal of work on improving food safety, and therefore food 
safety does not need to be additionally regulated by the FDA. I admit 
that some modest steps were taken to improve the bill, specifically 
regarding livestock and row crops, but the minor improvements did not 
go far enough to improve the overall bill.
  The United States Department of Agriculture has a strong record. They 
work hard to partner with industry, they work hard to provide 
mechanisms for consumer input, and they work hard on consumer education 
regarding food safety. Frankly, my confidence lies with the USDA rather 
than the FDA.
  I also have substantial concerns with the process taken to bring this 
measure to the floor. This legislation bypassed regular order and was 
not considered by the committee of jurisdiction. This legislation has 
the greatest impact on our farmers, but never received consideration by 
the committee tasked with agricultural oversight.
  I again strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), chairman emeritus of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee and dean of the House.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing much fiction and little 
fact. I want to say what I say with great respect and affection for the 
gentleman from Oklahoma, but giving an understanding of what it is we 
are doing and why is very important here.
  I represent farmers and I represent consumers. Almost all of us have 
some farmers, and all of us represent consumers. The safety of both is 
important.
  Understand that Food and Drug has been starved of authority and 
starved of money for a long time. The last meaningful reform in Food 
and Drug occurred in 1938. America's food is the safest in the world, 
but it is not as safe as it should be. It should be known that much of 
the lack of safety of American food comes because of foreign producers, 
whose production cannot be traced and checked.
  We are going to hear complaints about the tomato pepper problem that 
we had a few years ago. That occurred because there is no way of 
tracing or

[[Page 20173]]

finding how these goods move through commerce. Similar situations have 
occurred with regard to seafood and shellfish, with regard to berries 
and grapes, with regard to all manner of leafy vegetables and foods. It 
occurs because Food and Drug cannot control what enters this country, 
and it occurs because Food and Drug does not have the authority to 
properly deal with it.
  In the instance of major failures, it has occurred because the Food 
and Drug Administration does not have sufficient authority to focus on 
the specific wrongdoers and wrongdoing. So every American producer is 
hurt. We have enabled Food and Drug and required them to address this 
by a focused effort.
  Now, with regard to the authorities given, first of all, we have 
assiduously avoided any intrusion into the authority of the Agriculture 
Committee. Extensive discussions were held between the Commerce 
Committee members and the Committee on Agriculture; respectful, open, 
friendly discussions.
  If there are troubles inside the Agriculture Committee, that is not a 
matter that the Commerce Committee can address. But we have achieved 
the approval of the chairman of the committee, who spoke yesterday, as 
my colleagues will remember, in favor of the legislation which we now 
discuss.
  What does the legislation do? First of all, it keeps the FDA off the 
farm. Second of all, it is aimed at seeing to it that we have a 
responsible program for control. It requires registration of producers 
and manufacturers. That is very important, because without that, Food 
and Drug doesn't know who is doing what and has no real control to 
assure that good manufacturing practices, a word of art, are applied by 
the industry at every phase.
  The Chinese are notoriously sloppy in their handling of food: 
melamine in milk products, unsafe seafood, unsafe shellfish, unsafe 
meats, mushrooms that are unsafe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has 
expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. DINGELL. So, if the manufacturer or the processor pays no fee and 
does not register, he can't bring the food in this country to poison 
Americans.
  Just recently, we had a major peanut scare. Eight people died, that 
we know of. Large numbers were sickened. We had a similar problem with 
other nut products, and the result has been that, again, people were 
sickened. I mentioned the other kinds of problems that we have 
confronted, including berries. Americans are dying because Food and 
Drug does not have the authority to protect them, and American 
producers and American agriculture is being hurt in enormous amounts 
because of this.
  We will shortly be seeing an attempt by my Republican colleagues to 
come forward with a motion to recommit that will raise money that 
American manufacturers and producers are contributing to assure that 
Food and Drug can protect the consuming public and can protect the 
farmers, manufacturers and producers against unfair competition.
  The bill makes it possible for us to track foods from the point where 
they are grown to the point where they reach the hands of the consumer. 
That is extremely important, because without that, a disaster impends 
with regard to the people who are sickened or killed, but it also is 
going to impact upon the farmers, the producers, and people in the 
industry.
  This is a balanced, honest, fair, and friendly attempt to see to it 
that everyone gets the protection that Food and Drug can give. The 
Department of Agriculture, its inspection and its operations, is not 
impaired by this. And if my good friends on the Agriculture Committee 
on the minority side have business that they want to do with regard to 
their concerns on agriculture, I would urge them to do so, but not to 
raid the funds, not to oppose good legislation, not to prevent the 
protection of American consumers. The country deserves better.

                              {time}  1515

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. I will use that minute wisely, Madam Chairman, first, to 
thank you for an excellent rule; second, to thank you for the 
leadership that you have shown, not only on this matter but many other 
difficult matters of concern, especially to the American consuming 
public. The bill is not a new piece of legislation. It has been around 
and has been the source of a number of investigations by the Commerce 
Committee, where we find that people are being killed by the inadequacy 
of authority of Food and Drug, by its inability to protect the American 
people.
  This is a good bill. As I have pointed out, it's old enough to vote. 
It has gone through many iterations. Now, I hear my friends on the 
Republican side complaining about the bill. But the harsh fact of the 
matter is that the changes about which they complain are changes that 
were made to meet the concerns of the Agriculture Committee as 
expressed by its chairman, and changes that were made to meet the 
concerns of producers, manufacturers and growers. I urge my colleagues 
to support the rule and to support the bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the former chairman 
of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank her 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 imposes significant regulatory burdens on small 
businesses without properly holding the regulatory agency accountable. 
The bill contains an expanded registration requirement that effectively 
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 in the private lives of Americans.
  On-farm performance standards: New language added to the bill would 
exclude row crop producers from FDA regulatory authority over growing 
and harvesting of crops. Language was also improved that would relieve 
livestock producers from some of the burdens of the law. Although these 
are needed changes, they do not go far enough to make the bill 
acceptable. This bill still leaves our Nation's fruit and vegetable 
producers subject to objectionable regulatory burdens. We can still 
expect to have an agency of the Federal Government telling our farmers 
how to do their jobs.
  Registration of food-processing facilities was originally envisioned 
as a commonsense way of helping the FDA identify facilities under the 
bioterrorism act in 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 FDA to suspend a company's registration.
  Traceability is another issue. It does not make food safer. 
Traceability simply adds enormous regulatory burden without even 
knowing if it can be done in the first place. There is no requirement 
that the system developed by the FDA be feasible or affordable.
  Recordkeeping: Broad recordkeeping authorities will impose 
significant regulatory burdens. Minimal consideration is given to risks 
associated with the product produced at the regulated facility when 
developing the recordkeeping requirements. The language lacks 
protections from disclosure of proprietary information.

[[Page 20174]]

  The issue of quarantine authority. The bill's quarantine authority 
allows the Food and Drug Administration to quarantine a geographic 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. It's my 
understanding that 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. In particular, if the FDA ultimately lifts the 
quarantine for lack of confirmatory evidence, the agency has no 
obligation, authority or means to indemnify producers for their losses. 
Conversely, under the authority of the Animal Health Protection Act and 
Plant Protection Act, the USDA, which has jurisdiction over other 
sectors of our food safety and has done an outstanding job, must 
indemnify producers who have incurred such losses.
  The language allows the FDA to act on suspicion to require a producer 
to cease distribution of food. Once again, no consideration is given in 
this legislation to indemnification for economic damages, particularly 
if the FDA was wrong.
  From a public health and safety point of view, end product testing 
offers little protection or assurance. HAACP was introduced as a system 
whereby the manufacturer evaluates their process and institutes site 
and process specific controls, rather than attempt to detect problems 
by testing the finished product. That is the better way to go.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, this 
closed rule, and this bad bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will reserve.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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 ``Committees must 
function thoroughly and inclusively, and cooperation must ensue between 
the parties and the houses to ensure that our legislative tactics 
enable rather than impede progress.'' This was written by, as I said, 
over 60 Democratic Members.
  They went on to say, ``In general, we must engender an atmosphere 
that allows partisan games to cease and collaboration to succeed. We 
look forward to working with you to restore this institution.'' So not 
only does the closed rule process hurt and exclude Republican Members, 
it hurts and excludes Democrat Members as well.
  By preferring to stifle debate, the Democrats in charge have denied 
their colleagues on both sides of the aisle the ability to do the job 
they've 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 yet are simultaneously 
being shut out of participating in a debate over how their hard-earned 
taxpayer dollars are being borrowed and spent by the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. Speaker, it's 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, the FDA is not being required to spend one 
extra dime on inspecting food. But it gives unprecedented authority to 
the Food and Drug Administration by imposing mandatory recall, 
quarantine authority, recording requirements, warrantless inspection 
authority and country-of-origin labeling requirements.
  By enacting user fees on inspections and licensing requirements on 
food facilities, this bill essentially places 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 FDA the authority to shut down or inspect 
businesses 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 FDA to regulate how crops are 
raised, dictating to farmers how they should farm. We've been farming 
since our earliest beginnings as a species, and we've done it without 
the regulatory guidance of the FDA. 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, 
manufactures, processes, packs, transports or holds such food would 
have to maintain the full pedigree of the origin and pre-use 
distribution history of the food. This bill does not explain how far 
foods will have to be traced back, or how it will be done for foods 
with multiple ingredients. Given these ambiguities, 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 a total of 
$100,000 for individuals.
  The bill would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any 
facility that holds, processes or manufactures food. Even though farms 
are technically exempt, FDA has defined ``farm'' very narrowly. People 
making foods such as lacto-fermented 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 the FDA 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 a committee with 
jurisdiction over this matter to offer their ideas and join in on the 
legislative process?
  This bill will cost taxpayers nearly $2.2 billion over 5 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. Instead, 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

[[Page 20175]]

have shown they do not care about the deficit by continuing to dig 
America into a bigger and bigger hole with more reckless spending. This 
borrowed money is all being spent by Speaker Pelosi and the Obama 
administration, and as a result, the unemployment rate will continue to 
rise and the deficit will continue to increase.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down the previous question and the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by reiterating what 
I have said before, that in the United States, every single year 76 
million Americans get ill from contaminated food, and 5,000 die.

                              {time}  1530

  As a scientist, I, for one, would like once more to feel pride and 
confidence in the FDA.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________