Dan Benishek

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I rise today in support of H.R. 3080, as well as a bipartisan amendment that we will have on the floor later today. This bill works to address our Nation's competitiveness and increasing economic growth by maintaining our infrastructure in a sensible manner. Our amendment that we will offer today will work to address the challenges that invasive species present to our country today. As the cochair of the Invasive Species Caucus and the only Member who has the privilege to represent three of the five Great Lakes, I am honored to speak on the floor today about the threat that these species bring to our natural environment. They also represent a huge economic cost to each of our districts. It costs over $100 million a year in the Great Lakes alone to have these invasive species fought and controlled. Mr. Speaker, our amendment is simple. It does not authorize any new funds or create new programs. Simply put, it helps address the invasive species issue by requiring the GAO to complete a comprehensive report on Federal spending for the operations and cost of invasive species. Why is this important? A report that takes into account all species nationwide will allow Congress to identify both gaps and duplicative efforts in the future. By beginning with a comprehensive report, we can effectively target areas for improvement in the future. Mr. Speaker, I urge your support and all Members' support for this bill and our amendment.

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. I thank my colleague from Illinois for allowing me to speak here today, and I want to thank you for hosting this Special Order hour in general. Mr. Speaker, although we speak today at a time when Members are very busy working to resolve the government shutdown, it is critical to remember that, while the government may have stopped, the work of our farmers certainly has not. Farmers in each of our districts, whether they are busy picking apples or harvesting fields of corn, are busy at this time of the year; there is no doubt about it. Autumn is the time that farmers in our districts normally look forward to. That is when they have the chance to reap the bounty of the great work that they have done this past year planting and tending to the land. Our farmers, producers, and agribusiness owners deserve better. They have put in the hard work. They are feeding not only Michigan's families, but America's families and much of the world. We owe them certainty. We owe them a farm bill. As the only Member from Michigan on the Agriculture Committee, I regularly speak with farmers, not only from my district, but from around the State. Over the last year, they have continually expressed the need for certainty. While they have different ideas on some specific provisions of the overall farm bill, they all agree that we need to get this done. Mr. Speaker, I have worked hard with my colleagues to move the farm bill forward. I have worked with many local stakeholders in Michigan to ensure that their concerns are addressed in the bill. Now is the time to move forward to a conference. This afternoon, I come to the floor to say, simply, let's get this done. Let's go to conference, work out our differences, and get a farm bill done. We owe it to our farmers. We owe it to the hardworking families around the country that rely on the food that our farmers produce. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the farmers of northern Michigan for the outstanding work that they have done this season. Now let's get this farm bill done.

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today in support of H.J. Res. 90, the Flight Safety Act. This commonsense bill will restore critical funding to the FAA and help protect airports in northern Michigan and throughout our Nation. Like so many people in our country, I am deeply frustrated by this government shutdown. I don't want to see air travelers in northern Michigan hurt because the Senate and the President refuse to negotiate on a spending plan. All that needs to be done is for both sides to come to the negotiating table, but the Senate refuses to talk to us. It's ridiculous. We've already seen this mess in Washington impact airports in my district, like the Cherry Capital Airport in Traverse City. Just this past weekend, dozens of flights were canceled because of this government shutdown. Families shouldn't be stranded at the airport for hours just because Washington can't get its act together. But it doesn't have to be this way. We could fix this problem at our airports right now with this simple piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Flight Safety Act today. I also urge our colleagues in the Senate to take action and pass this measure as soon as possible.

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, why are we here today in the middle of the government shutdown? The answer, frankly, is that the Senate refuses to come to the table to negotiate. The House has passed four different measures that would have kept the government open. The Senate has ignored them all. Before the government shut down, the House passed a bill which would keep the government open and defund the President's health care law. Well, it is probable that the Senate wasn't going to support that, but I was thinking at least we would be able to get documentation as to whether there would be some Democrat support for that. That having failed, we passed a second measure to keep the government open and simply delay the President's health care law by 1 year. After all, the President himself had delayed portions of the law. Obviously, that didn't play with the Senate. So then we passed another piece of legislation which would have funded the government and would have funded the President's health care law, but simply would have made the law fairer for all Americans. The President changed the law by executive order--a procedure of questionable legality--but he changed the law, giving large employers a 1-year delay in the employer mandate. In other words, employers were required to offer insurance or face a fine. The President, by executive order, changed the law to delay that for 1 year. We asked simply to give the individual the same prerogative that the President gave large employers: delay the requirement to buy insurance for 1 year without having to pay a fine. We also asked that Congress, the President, and the Vice President be treated the same as all other Americans. The President changed the law by executive order--a procedure of questionable legality--saying that Congress would get a different deal in the exchanges than the average individual. When I went home to my district in August and did 12 town hall meetings, there was universal disgust for that rule. So in our proposal to the Senate, we said, We'll fund the government, but simply change the rule concerning Congress so that Congress is treated the same as every American. Let's change the law so that the individual is treated the same as a large employer. I don't see how that's holding a gun to anyone's head. That is simply fairness for the American people. And that was rejected by the Senate. Then we simply asked the Senate to come to the table. Well, if this proposal, which just makes the law equitable for every American, is unacceptable to you, would you please come to the table and let's talk about what is acceptable to you. Let's sit down and negotiate. Mr. Reagan presided over his terms in office with a Democrat- controlled House, and yet he worked with Mr. O'Neill and got significant legislation done. Mr. Clinton worked with a Republican House and got significant legislation done and made real progress with welfare reform and many other issues in the Clinton Presidency, but they worked across the aisle. They worked with a House of different parties and got things done. Now we have a President who says, I'm not going to negotiate. We have a leader in the Senate who says, I'm not going to negotiate. Each part of our government has a role to play--the executive, the Senate, the House. Frankly, in the whole history of the Republic, we've never had a situation where the President says, I'm not going to negotiate, or where one House says to the other House, We're not going to negotiate. This is, frankly, unbelievable. It's a step in our government which I don't think the American people want. This is not about the President's health care law. This is about the function of our government and how each section of the government deals with each other. I think the American people want it to go in the traditional fashion, where the House, the Senate and the President work together to find a solution. When the Senate refuses to pass legislation and won't even consider talking to us, that's not right. We in the House have passed legislation to fund FEMA, to fund our national parks, to fund WIC, to fund our veterans, to fund the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, and the National Guard. By the end of tomorrow, we'll have funded more than half the government in this House, and yet the Senate won't take any of that up and won't even negotiate with us. We even made sure that furloughed employees will be paid. The Obama administration has given exceptions to their allies, Big Business, and some unions. Why shouldn't the American people be given the same kind of treatment? The administration and the Senate should come to the bargaining table today and end this shutdown.

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, how have we ended up here in a government shutdown nobody wanted? The answer is simple: it's because the Senate has refused to even come to the negotiating table on a spending agreement. The House has passed four measures that would have kept the government open and operating, but they were all ignored by the Senate. First, we voted to keep the government open and to fund the President's health care bill, but they ignored that. Second, we voted to keep the government open and only delay the health care bill for 1 year. They ignored that. Then we voted to keep the government open and simply make the rules for the health care exchanges the same for all Americans. They ignored that. Lastly, we just asked the Senate to talk to us. They ignored that. The Obama administration has given exceptions to their allies: big businesses and some unions. Why shouldn't the American people be given the same kind of treatment? The Senate should come to the bargaining table today and end this shutdown today.

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. I want to thank my colleague from Texas. I feel a great affinity for my Texas colleagues, and I'm an avid fan of western swing, especially Bob Wills. I didn't know how we would end up in a shutdown. I never really wanted to have a shutdown in the government. I wanted to reach a compromise with the Senate and have business go on. The problem is that, in the House, we've passed four different pieces of legislation that would have prevented a shutdown. I mean, I can see, for example, the first thing that we sent to the Senate was a plan to fund the government and defund ObamaCare. Okay. I can understand that the Senate isn't going to maybe significantly budge on that, but maybe we would get out of the Senate some votes. Maybe some Democrat Senators would vote for it. We would see what kind of support we would have on the Democrat side in the Senate. So then we sent to the Senate a piece of legislation which simply delayed the President's health care law for a year. The President had already delayed components of his law for some people or for some time. So let's try this. Maybe we would get Democrat votes in the Senate to support that. Well, those two propositions, they weren't even voted on. They were tabled in the Senate. They voted to table them and not have any debate about the merits of those two proposals. So then we sent to the Senate a proposal not to defund the President's health care law but to continue to fund the President's health care law, but to change the law so that it affected all Americans the same. The President, by executive order, changed his own law. Contrary to the law, he wrote an executive order to change the nature of the law so that employers were exempted from their mandate. In other words, the law mandates that employers provide insurance for their employees or suffer a fine. The law also demands that individuals buy insurance or suffer a fine. Well, the President saw fit to change the law so that major employers don't have to pay a fine, delayed the enforcement of that part of the law for a year, despite the fact that the law doesn't go for that. And when is the President allowed to change a law by edict, by his signature? We change laws in this country by statute. Should we allow a President to change the law at his whim? Another aspect where the President changed the law is he changed the law to give special privileges to Members of Congress, that the Members of Congress who have to go to the exchange would be afforded a subsidy--unlike anyone else who has to go to the exchange. So how is the President changing the law to give special privileges to Congress something that the American people should be for? I think that the American people want the law to apply to everyone the same. The third thing that we asked for from the Senate was simply change the law so that the law applies to the Congress, to the President, and to the Vice President, the same as it does to every other American, and to afford individuals the same delay in the law that the President granted to his big manufacturers, some of his favorite unions--not all unions got it. Why not all Americans? So that is what we asked for in the Senate. Not even to defund the President's health care law, but simply to make the law abide with all Americans. How is it that we have become a country where the law applies only to certain people--that the President by a written statement can exempt certain people from the law? Is that what this country is becoming? Is that the United States of America that we grew up in? I don't think so. I think what we asked for, which funded ObamaCare and simply changed the law to apply to everyone, was certainly a reasonable compromise from our initial piece of legislation. And they tabled that. Our fourth effort to keep the government open was simply to ask the Senate to come talk to us. So if you won't agree to make the law the same for everyone, will you at least come to us and talk about what you will accept? That is why we are in this impasse we are today. We have taken steps to reopen the government. We have passed targeted pieces of legislation that will fund critical portions of our government--FEMA, national parks, WIC, Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, the National Guard. We even passed legislation that furloughed employees will be paid once the shutdown ends. The Senate and the administration have given exceptions to their allies, big businesses, and some unions. Why shouldn't the American people be given the same kind of treatment? We have heard a lot about a clean CR. I don't know, I don't see how it is so clean when it allows the President to change a law by edict. I don't see that as a clean piece of legislation. I think that is a piece of legislation that allows unfairness in the law to continue. To me, it is rather unclean. I am willing to talk to the Senate to come to some sort of agreement, but it just strikes me as really, really disingenuous to call what they are calling a clean CR ``clean'' when in reality it is allowing the President to change the law at his whim. I think that the administration and the Senate certainly should come to the bargaining table and talk to the House. The ``power of the purse.'' We have the power of the purse. Shouldn't our consideration be taken into account? Shouldn't we have conversations to make sure that the country stays open? I just wanted to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, and to those listening, how I feel and why we are here. I would ask your support in that.

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, today veterans in northern Michigan and across the country woke up to the news that the United States Government had shut down. The government that they served, risked their lives for, could possibly further delay the disability claims process. This simply isn't fair. As the House has offered four times, I might add, plans to keep the government open, the Senate continues to reject our offers and insists on shutting down the government. Last night they refused to even sit down and have a reasonable discussion with us. As we work toward a solution, it is vital that those who have risked it all be able to continue to receive the services that they need. Mr. Speaker, I've been a doctor for over 30 years. I've treated veterans at the VA hospital at Iron Mountain on a regular basis. I don't know how any Member in this body could think for even 1 minute that we should turn away our servicemembers. I urge my colleagues to support the Honoring Our Promise to Veterans Act. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. Secretary of State John Kerry signed this treaty on behalf of the Obama administration this past Wednesday. While I support keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of international terrorists and bad actors, I believe that this treaty represents a significant threat to our Second Amendment rights. The State Department itself has acknowledged that this treaty is ``ambiguous'' and that any potential obligations imposed by the treaty are difficult to predict. In addition, once ratified, it will be possible to amend this treaty with the support of just 75 percent of the signing members, potentially locking the United States into more restrictions down the road. Like many people from my district, I grew up around firearms, and I'm a life-long gun owner. The responsible use of guns for sport and hunting is a way of life in northern Michigan, and I do not want to see this way of life or our Second Amendment rights be threatened by a poorly thought out United Nations agreement. I urge my colleagues in the House to oppose this treaty and join me in standing up for the millions of law-abiding gun owners in America.

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Arizona for organizing this Special Order. This is an issue that is very close to me as well, and I want to join the rest of my colleagues here today in recognizing September as Veterans' Suicide Prevention Month. As my colleague mentioned, a veteran in this country commits suicide every 65 minutes. That's 22 lives extinguished every day. As a father of a veteran, as a doctor who has worked at the VA hospital in northern Michigan for over 20 years, and as the chairman of the Health Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs, I know that the challenges of military life do not end once our servicemembers retire from active duty. The mental wounds of war may be invisible, but no less real to the young men and women suffering from them. Facing high unemployment rates, the stigma of post-traumatic stress disorder and a loss of military fellowship, returning veterans often face a crisis of confidence at the very moment they should feel nothing but relief and rest. This year, we will bring 34,000 troops home from Afghanistan. The President has indicated he may withdraw all of the 63,000 member strong force by the end of 2014. The time to act to address this epidemic of veteran suicide is now. I am pleased that VA leadership has made veteran suicide a priority. New programs putting researchers to work on reviewing health records for suicide risk factors is one example of the important steps that are being taken, but more--much more--needs to be done. We cannot and we will not allow 22 suicides a day to become the ``new normal.'' As friends and families of our veterans and those serving our country, there are some things we all can do. We can work to recognize the symptoms that could indicate serious problems and identify where and how to get assistance when we need it. To all veterans who are struggling as to whether to take their own lives, know that there is no shame in asking for help. You are not broken, and God has not forgotten you. You volunteered to go to war for us, and we have failed to provide you adequate support when you returned home. That is changing, and I beg you to reach out to your local VA, veterans center, veterans service organization, or local Member of Congress for help. Together, we can begin to turn the tide on veteran suicide. Everyone can help fight this epidemic and be there for those who were there for us.

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to honor the life of Michigan State Police Trooper Paul Butterfield, who was tragically killed in the line of duty on September 9, 2013. Trooper Butterfield was an Army veteran who bravely served his community as a State police officer since 1999. He served at the Michigan State Police post in Manistee and in Hart. Like all of our law enforcement officers, Paul risked everything to ensure our communities and neighborhoods were safe. He gave his life to protect us. His service and sacrifice will never be forgotten. Sadly, northern Michigan has lost a true hero. To Trooper Butterfield's family, I am aware no words will ever match your deep sorrow. A loss this great can only be eased by the grace that is beyond all worldly powers. But I am hopeful that you will be embraced by the angels of Heaven and comforted by the knowledge that Paul is safely in the hands of God. On behalf of the citizens of Michigan's First District, I thank Trooper Butterfield for his service and tremendous sacrifice to Michigan and our Nation. I yield to my friend and colleague from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2009, the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act, and urge my colleagues to support this necessary legislation. The bill will keep the Internal Revenue Service from implementing any aspect of the President's health care law. With the recent revelations that employees of the IRS targeted U.S. citizens based on their political views, it's imperative that we keep the IRS from being further involved than it already is in the lives of the American people. This legislation would repeal both the individual mandate and the employer mandate, while at the same time helping to shrink the IRS. As a doctor, I've been taking care of patients for the last 30 years. I know that putting the Federal Government between patients and doctors will be disastrous. Many families in northern Michigan agree, and they want to see this law repealed. This legislation is a good step toward rolling back this massive expansion of Federal Government power. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of it.

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge support for amendment No. 9, which encourages States to include the number of students attaining career and technical education proficiencies that are enrolled in public secondary schools in its annual State report card. This information is already required to be collected by current law and would simply streamline access to information for the public. To preserve the American Dream, we must ensure that our children and grandchildren have the skills needed to land a good-paying job that provides for a family and pays the bills. These jobs require knowledge in science, technology, engineering, and math fields, along with industry-recognized credentials through career and technical education, or CTE. A 2012 Talent Shortage Survey indicated that one in three job providers finds it hard to fill vacancies because job applicants with the right skills are not easily attainable. Currently, U.S. employers are having difficulty filling positions such as skilled trade workers, IT staff, mechanics, machinists, and machine operators. Whether a student wants to pursue a college degree or plans to enter the workforce immediately after high school, we have to work to ensure that they have the necessary training, education, and skills to have a successful career in the path of their choosing. Just this weekend, I spoke with a manufacturing company in my district that told me about their need for job applicants with voc-ed skills. They told me there are jobs waiting to be filled; they just need to have the individuals with the right training. Moms and dads in northern Michigan have also told me that they weren't even aware of voc-ed programs being offered at local high schools. One of my goals is to be sure that parents and students are aware of these programs and the long-term benefit they can provide to young adults. Through the outstanding work of our teachers, school administration officials, and partnerships with universities and industry, numerous vocational ed initiatives are already under way in my district. For example, the Delta Tradecraft ISD in Escanaba has an outstanding partnership with Vanaire, a manufacturing company. Throughout high school, students can take career and technical education courses that are aligned with job requirements at Vanaire. From participating in voc-ed courses, numerous students have been offered jobs at Vanaire immediately upon graduation. My amendment would make career and technical education data more visible for parents and students who are choosing where to enroll and what programs to participate in, as well as for teachers and administrators to understand the impact career readiness has on student performance, graduation, and success in post-secondary ventures. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the passage of the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENISHEK. I thank the gentleman for his support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2642, the farm bill. Like many of my colleagues in this body, I am honored to represent a district with a deep agricultural heritage. Because I am a doctor by trade, not a farmer, it has been important for me to get to know the farmers in my district over the last 3 years. As I travel around the First District, nearly every producer I meet with stresses the importance of passing a long-term farm bill. The programs in the farm bill are important to keeping our farmers in business with some certainty. I know some will say this bill isn't perfect. Some want more reform. Some would like more spending, and some would like less. Yet, I urge all of you to strongly consider moving H.R. 2642 forward. We have one thing in common: we all need to eat. Our country is the breadbasket of the world. Let's keep that in mind and remember our farmers who produce our food here today. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, and I rise today in support of H.R. 1171, the FOR VETS Act of 2013. This bipartisan legislation will allow veterans service organizations access to Federal surplus property. In December, 2010, President Obama signed the original FOR VETS Act into law. This legislation added qualified VSOs to the list of organizations eligible to receive Federal surplus property under the Federal surplus property program. However, the wording of the statute requires all organizations to demonstrate that they are acquiring the property for purposes of public health or education. Unlike many of the other organizations on the list, most VSOs are not set up to administer a health or education program. A strict interpretation of the law by the General Services Administration has prevented these VSOs from accessing Federal surplus as Congress intended. Our bill would simply correct the error in current law and ensure that qualified VSOs will have the access to Federal surplus that our veterans have earned. This bill has been scored by the CBO as having no significant impact on spending. In this difficult economy, veterans service organizations can use valuable service items that are considered surplus property to better serve those who have given so much to our Nation. Some of these items could be a refrigerator for everyday use at a local post or even a vehicle to be used to take disabled veterans to appointments. Last year I spoke to a veteran in Elk Rapids, Michigan, who told me that the error in current law was preventing his AMVETS post from using Federal surplus computers for unique veteran service tasks. This bill will help him and so many others like him put Federal surplus property to work for our Nation's veterans. I am very proud to be part of this effort. I am grateful to Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings and the members of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee for the unanimous support this bill received during markup on June 25. I also want to thank the National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property, as well as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans, for their support and assistance in getting this legislation to this point. I urge the House to adopt this bipartisan legislation that will help veterans service organizations in every State better serve our Nation's veterans.

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BENISHEK. I would like to thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak on this amendment and to bring this issue to the floor. As many of my constituents and colleagues know, I'm a doctor, not a farmer. So what they taught me in medical school is, when you don't understand something or you need a second opinion, you ask the experts. Since becoming a Member of Congress in January 2011, I began talking to farmers in my district when I needed to learn more about agricultural issues. In fact, I realized how much farming and agribusiness contributed not only to my district, but to Michigan's economy. I asked to join the Agriculture Committee so I could better represent them in Congress. Earlier this spring, I began to hear about a regulation that some of the farmers in my district were really concerned about. Now, if you don't have farmers in your district, let me tell you something; they will make sure that you know there's an issue. Gradually, they began to talk to me more and more about a rule that had been proposed by the FDA that would make farming fruits and vegetables, better known as specialty crops, much more difficult in the near future. This rule, better known as Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption, was imposed by the FDA as a result of the 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act. Before I go any further, I want to make one thing crystal clear. I support access to clean, safe, and healthy food, but this proposed rulemaking will have widespread consequences for American family farmers. For example, farmers will have to comply with a new set of rules as determined by the FDA when cleaning and storing their equipment--meaning tractors, harvesters, knives, et cetera--so that domesticated animals may be prevented from contaminating them. In addition, the same rules suggest that farmers inspect each individual piece of fruit or vegetable for bird excreta and refuse to harvest it if they find any evidence. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you've ever seen a cherry harvester or picked an apple, but if you had to hand inspect each individual piece of fruit for bird feces and throw it out before sending it to a packer, well, let's just say that most of our growers would go to a pick-it- yourself system or simply stop growing. Let's move on to some other aspects of this rule. The FDA suggests continuous soil and water monitoring. While that might not sound like a bad idea, we've already heard that some growers will have to completely redesign their irrigation systems to meet the new set of standards. I spent the last few years visiting with farmers in my district. I know that they want to provide clean, safe foods for the American public. All specialty crop growers I have met eat the foods that they grow. So my point is that if the FDA estimates that this rule will cost at a minimum $460 million to the industry, why not make sure we're doing this right? My amendment simply asks that the Secretary of HHS delay implementation of any final regulations resulting from the Food Safety Modernization Act until a scientific and economic analysis of the rule can be completed. This analysis will focus on both the science behind and the economic impact of these regulations. In particular, the study will look at the regional differences in agriculture production to see how producers will be impacted by these rules. If we take the time to study the proposed rules, I think the FDA will be able to see that some changes may be in order. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENISHEK. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, and I am certainly willing to work with you in the future on this issue, but we are just concerned that we are not going to make food any safer, and it is not going to help the jobs and the cost of our food because some of the rules are very difficult to comply with at the local level. There is difficulty in keeping wildlife away from apple orchards, for example. It is very difficult and more costly than I think the gentlelady suspects. I encourage everyone to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENISHEK. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for allowing me to be here as well. I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and to urge my colleagues to support this important and long overdue piece of legislation. This bill will help to protect those in our society who are least able to defend themselves--the unborn. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will prohibit late-term abortions after the 20th week of a pregnancy for the simple reason that by 20 weeks of development, unborn children are able to feel and react to pain. This time period is based on extensive scientific research, and the majority of the American people are in favor of banning late-term abortions when they know that the unborn child is able to feel pain. As a doctor, I was horrified to hear the stories of gross misconduct and negligence that came to light in the trial of the Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell. The callous disregard for innocent human life that was displayed in the Gosnell clinic extended beyond unborn children to adult patients, and I believe that there is bipartisan agreement that this was terrible. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will help to prevent some of the worst abuses that were perpetrated by Kermit Gosnell and protect patients nationwide. As the overwhelming majority of my constituents in northern Michigan believe, life inside the womb is just as precious as life outside the womb, and it must be protected. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. I rise today in support of H.R. 1947, better known to everyone simply as the farm bill. Over the past 3 years, I've been talking to farmers all over northern Michigan. My district is home to a diverse group of farmers. These family-owned operations are a vital and growing part of northern Michigan's economy, and it has been a privilege getting to know them. Earlier this month, I visited with farmers in Leelanau County. I spoke to farmers at the Bardenhagen Farm in Suttons Bay, Michigan. Jim Bardenhagen and his family have been working their farm for over a century, so they know a thing or two about agriculture. Their story is like that of a lot of farmers across the First District and this whole country. These farmers have been telling me about the need for a strong farm bill, and I believe that's just what we have here. Look, I understand this farm bill is not an easy issue for everyone. I can fully understand. I'm a doctor, not a farmer, so I tend to talk and trust those who understand these complicated issues best--the farmers in my district. For those of you who don't have a lot of farmers, don't worry. You sure eat. I'd be happy to give you the numbers of lots of farmers in northern Michigan, and they'd be happy to talk to you. I look forward to a robust debate.

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I missed a vote on H.R. 258, ``To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to fraudulent representations about having received military declarations or medals'' due to a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' In addition, I also missed a vote on H.R. 1073, ``To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for protection of maritime navigation and prevention of nuclear terrorism, and for other purposes.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge support of H.R. 45, legislation that will repeal the President's massive and unaffordable health care law. As a doctor, I am extremely concerned with many different aspects of the bill, which is broad and overreaching. When this law was passed, I was in northern Michigan treating patients and wondering how this bill would change the relationship between a doctor and his patients. I can tell you that after my 30 years of experience and after continuing to speak with doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, and patients across northern Michigan, there are innumerable problems with this law, and it needs to be repealed. Thanks to ObamaCare, we will face severe problems with access to quality health care. We are looking at massive cuts to reimbursements to hospitals and other care providers, cuts that will end up limiting access to care. ObamaCare does not fulfill the most basic promises that were used to pass this law. Health care costs have not gone down. My constituents are not able to ``keep their plans.'' These are just some of the reasons why I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill so we can work together to provide patient-centered reform that will reduce costs and expand access.