[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 23271-23274]
[From the U.S. 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 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.
  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

[[Page 23272]]

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).
  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.

[[Page 23273]]

  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 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.

[[Page 23274]]

  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.

                          ____________________