Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Reciprocal Market Access Act. In the wake of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, our country faces a difficult road towards recovery. As part of this effort, it is critical that we ensure that our trade policy is working as it should: to generate new opportunities for our businesses, strengthen American manufacturing capabilities, and reduce the unemployment rate that has risen to the highest level in decades. American manufacturers of products ranging from optical fiber to autos and agriculture face continual problems with access to overseas markets. Our own trade negotiators do little to prevent this from happening, as it is often standard for trade agreements to open our markets fully to foreign competitors, yet we gain little market access in return. We must provide our negotiators with unequivocal guidelines so that they do not relinquish our domestic trade protections without gaining meaningful market access for American manufacturers in exchange. Unless other governments play by the rules and remove barriers to our exports, the U.S. should not acquiesce to their demands by further opening our market--which is already the most open market in the global economy. Unilateral disarmament in the face of foreign protectionist practices is unacceptable, and we must ensure that our trade negotiators do not undermine our industries and our workers. The Reciprocal Market Access Act would instruct our trade negotiators to eliminate foreign market barriers before reducing U.S. tariffs. This bill would also provide enforcement authority to reinstate the tariff if the foreign government does not honor its commitment to remove its barriers. This legislation also addresses a serious problem in the current trade negotiating process. Tariff and non-tariff sectoral barriers are compartmentalized, meaning that a tariff item can be reduced or eliminated by our negotiators without securing elimination of the non- tariff barriers that deny U.S. industry access to a foreign market. This legislation would give our government the right to revoke concessions to cut tariffs if our trading partners fail to implement negotiated commitments to eliminate barriers that had initially been identified by U.S. domestic producers for our negotiators. The principle of reciprocity--the principle on which this legislation is built--is not new. In fact it is a principle that should be essential to any effective trade relationship. Cordell Hull, Democrat from Tennessee and Roosevelt's Secretary of State in 1933, was responsible for bringing this concept into the U.S. and global trade systems with the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934. It was this act which formed the basis for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Mr. Hull developed the Act to move away from the negative consequences of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised U.S. tariffs on thousands of imports to record levels. Smoot-Hawley established the United States as protectionist, and provoked a rash of retaliatory measures from our trading partners. It is no longer the United States that is shutting its markets to foreign competitors. We have the most open market in the world, and continue to find ways to lower tariffs and eliminate market barriers. Yet this policy is often not reciprocated, as American manufacturers find significant barriers to foreign markets while they watch their own domestic market share dwindle. The result is quality American companies are forced to downsize or close their doors for good, and American workers are left jobless. That is not free trade. Free trade involves a system where American companies are able to compete in markets uninhibited by barriers. It involves a level playing field for American companies and our trading partners. And I have no doubt that if given a level playing field, American companies and American workers can compete in any market. The Reciprocal Market Access Act will mandate that at the very least any trade agreement does not put American companies and workers at a competitive disadvantage. It establishes what should be the standard for all trade agreements: a mutually beneficial trade relationship in which goods can be freely exchanged and that promotes economic growth.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 808 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 769, 770, and 771. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 769, ``aye'' on 770 and ``yea'' on 771.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Before I close, I want to speak a bit about an article that appeared on the front page of the New York Times this past Sunday. It told about a young woman named Stephanie Smith, 22 years old, who was paralyzed from eating hamburger, frozen hamburger bought at a market. And they traced the genesis of this hamburger, and let me tell you what they found: Meat companies and grocers have been barred from selling ground beef tainted by a virulent strain of E. coli after an outbreak at Jack in the Box left four children dead. Tens of thousands of people are sickened annually by this pathogen, and Federal health officials estimate that hamburger is the biggest culprit. This summer, contamination led to the recall of beef from nearly 3,000 grocers in 41 States. Now we talk about the cuts of beef that are used in this hamburger. Most of them are trimmings that they get from God knows where. We found in the hamburger that paralyzed Ms. Smith that some of it came from Uruguay. They are low-grade ingredients cut from areas of the cow likely to have had contact with feces which carries E. coli. So the filthy cattle is brought in. And one of the most telling things is there are unwritten agreements between some companies standing in the way of ingredient testing. Many big slaughterhouses will only sell to grinders who agree not to test their shipments for E. coli according to officials at two large grinding companies. Slaughterhouses fear that one grinder's discovery of E. coli will set off a recall that they sold to others. Food scientists have expressed increasing concern about the virulence of this pathogen since only a few stray cells can make you sick and there are no safety issues that we require about washing up, scrubbing everything. None of them are at all sufficient against this bug which has become more virulent. And I avow that that is because they are fed the antibiotic to kill E. coli almost daily.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. On August 16, 2007, the day Ms. Smith's hamburger was made, the No. 3 grinder at the Cargill plant in Butler, Wisconsin, started up at 6:50 a.m. The largest ingredient was beef trimmings, which they call 50/50--half meat, half whatever--costing 60 cents a pound. Potential for this contamination is present every step of the way, according to both the workers and the Federal inspectors. The cattle arrive with smears of feces all over them. They are poorly kept. I would also like to put this article in the Record. I hope people will read this. I think that we are really heading for a trade disaster as well as, most importantly, not making 90,000 Americans sick every year. National Food Institute, Danish Technical University, Copenhagen, September 19, 2009. Re meeting with a Congress delegation on the Danish experience with stop for non-therapeutic use of antimicrobials. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, United States of America. Dear Speaker Pelosi: We have just had the pleasure of meeting with a delegation consisting of four members of the House of Representatives, where we presented our data on the effects of the stop for non-therapeutic use of antimicrobials for food animals in Denmark. We know that various rumours and sometimes ``creative'' interpretations of what has taken place in Denmark have been circulated to members of the U.S. Congress, and we are grateful for having been given this opportunity to correct some of these stories. We are very pleased that you have approved the visit by this delegation, and would hereby like to send you a complimentary copy of the data we presented to the delegation. If any further information is required, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, Frank M. Aarestrup, Professor.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, before I start, let me say that although I represent New York State, I want to make sure everybody understands that agriculture is the largest business in New York State, most of that obviously taking place up in eastern-western New York along the border. And we do know our cows. A lot of debate on this bill is about food safety and the need to ensure that the products we consume are as safe as they can be. I want to pause a minute here to respond to some of the comments that were made in the Senate just this last week, to which I take very strong exception. As many of you know, or may not--I'd like you to know--I've introduced legislation that would phase out seven classes of antibiotics that are currently approved for nontherapeutic use in animal agriculture. We held a hearing on the preservation of antibiotics for medical treatment last spring, which, for the first time, the new administration acknowledged that the issue of overuse of antibiotics in farm animals is serious and they are seeking a solution. The Rules Committee held a hearing on this on July 13 to gather testimony from the administration, the private sector, and the scientific community. Now why is this bill necessary? Well, an estimated 90,000 Americans die every year from infections that are increasingly resilient against the most powerful antibiotics in the world. Seventy percent of those infections are associated with bacterial pathogens displaying resistance to at least one antimicrobial drug. And as much as 70 percent of all the antibiotics--I can't stress this enough--70 percent of all antibiotics and related drugs used in this country go to healthy food animals, not people, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. Our legislation would in no way infringe upon the use of these drugs to treat a sick animal. It simply bans the nontherapeutic use--the constant, daily use by farmers who mix the medicine they buy in 50- pound bags to mix it in the food of the livestock in the hope that doing so will prevent the animals from getting sick. Think about that for a moment. If anyone suggested that you mixed antibiotics every day in your children's cereal, you would think that's crazy. Not only that, you would understand that it's very dangerous and, more importantly, likely only to lead to a new class of drug- resistant ``super bugs'' that eventually stop feeling the effects of our best antibiotics. A Senator claimed on the floor this week that Denmark, which has instituted the same restriction that we call for in this bill on the overuse of antibiotics, the result was an increase in animal mortality. While criticizing a Time magazine article on this issue, he said, ``We only have to turn to our neighbor across the Atlantic to see how a ban on antibiotics has played out. The European Union made a decision to phase out the use of antibiotics as growth promoters over 15 years ago and in 1998 Denmark instituted a full voluntary ban, which in 2000 became mandatory. After the ban was implemented in 1999, pork producers saw an immediate increase in piglet mortality and post-weaning diarrhea.'' In fact, just the opposite is true. In a recent letter to Speaker Pelosi and to me, the National Food Institute of Denmark, concerned about the wrongful debate taking place in the United States, has written us that production has actually increased by 47 percent from 1992 to 2008. He also said that mortality of livestock was largely ``unaffected'' by the ban--but I will assume that they cleaned up, that they didn't stack up the animals who lived in their feces and rarely set foot outside the confined bin--but has improved again more recently. I would like to put a copy of that letter and report into the Record today. In fact, it is my guess that several of my colleagues would agree with me and disagree with our colleague in the Senate. Finally, I want to touch on one other issue relating to the legislation which we are speaking of, and it's the economy. This is a looming trade issue. Denmark and other European countries already are using strict food safety regulations against American products as we know. We all know exactly what has happened to our industries with each domestic food poisoning or health scare: Other countries respond by telling us they do not want to import our products, and the losers are our farmers and industries. As this trend continues, I see nothing but downside for American farmers who may soon be told by more and more countries that their pork or beef or poultry or other products are potentially hazardous and cannot be imported.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 743, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 730, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 723, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall 718, I inadvertently voted ``no.'' I intended to vote ``aye.'' I would like the Record to reflect that.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join our armed services in congratulating Harris RF Communications on producing its one hundred-thousandth Falcon III AN/PRC-152(C) radio. This is an extraordinarily auspicious milestone and a testament to the dedication and hard work of the company's Rochester, New York workforce. It is fitting to celebrate this achievement as this radio is used and sought after by every branch of the U.S. Department of Defense as well as several of our ally nations. It is a superior product and was recognized by the U.S. Army as one of 2007's greatest inventions. It has next-generation communications capabilities, but is still versatile enough to be compatible with existing communications systems. Plus it can be upgraded in the future to grow as new software and encryption technology advances. I commend all of Harris' local employees for the critical work they perform every day in support of our soldiers. Their care and dedication is helping to keep our men and women in uniform safe while they serve our nation on faraway battlefields. Moreover, their communications systems enable our military to execute its mission efficiently and effectively so that threats are defeated while innocent lives are safeguarded. It gives me great comfort to know that our soldiers are equipped with Harris radios because I know that Rochester's top-notch workforce makes products renowned for quality. Our service men and women depend on these radios working the first time and every time. Harris takes that responsibility seriously and I'm so proud to know that the company delivers. This cutting edge technology that was developed and produced in New York's 28th Congressional District is yet one more example of how our region is a leader in innovation and development. Congratulations to Harris RF Communications and its employees for attaining this significant achievement.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to introduce H. Res. 738 to recognize the accomplishments we have made in the fight to end violence against women in the United States in the fifteen years since President Clinton signed the Violence Against Women Act into law on September 13, 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This recognized the severity of the crimes associated with domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking, we have made great progress. In 1993, a woman was raped every six seconds in the United States and a female was beaten every 15 seconds. In July 1994, there were three times as many animal shelters in the United States as battered women shelters. No doubt about it--the Violence Against Women Act has vastly improved access to support and care to women and families who are victims of domestic violence and stalking. During a time, when women were still considered secondary to men, my colleagues of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues and I battled to explain the importance of protecting women form the horrors of violence and abuse. In the House, I worked with former Representatives Patricia Schroeder, Constance Morella and now Senators Olympia J. Snowe, and Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer to author the Violence Against Women Act. In the Senate, Vice President Biden, then the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, championed the Senate version of VAWA. The 1994 bill was a watershed, marking the first comprehensive legislative package designed to end violence against women. The protections and provisions afforded by the 1994 law were subsequently expanded and improved in the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 and they Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. VAWA has led to the reduction of domestic violence incidents reported. By reducing the need for emergency and medical responses, VAWA has averted more than $14 billion dollars in societal costs as VAWA-funded interventions have lowered domestic violence frequency and sexual assault rates. VAWA has succeeded in bringing communities together to address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Prior to VAWA, few helping systems in a community addressed these crimes. Now law enforcement, prosecution, the courts, victim services and community based programs work together on the grassroots and statewide levels to develop long-term plans for addressing the crimes. VAWA has brought innovative practices to the field by funding demonstration projects, trainings, and supporting the development of specialized courts and police teams. The Sexual Assault Services Program, created in VAWA 2005, enabled the country's 1300 rape crisis centers to reduce waiting lists, reach out to underserved communities, and provide more comprehensive services to survivors of sexual assault across the nation. Since 1997, VAWA has funded the Sexual Assault Coalition Resource Sharing Project (RSP) to develop and strengthen state and territorial sexual assault coalitions. In 1997, there were only 26 states with either no coalition or a coalition with no paid staff. Through VAWA and the efforts of the RSP in 2009 all 50 states and 5 territories have sexual assault or dual issue sexual assault/domestic violence coalitions in place. During the last fifteen years, the National Center for Victims of Crime has witnessed dramatic improvement in the way our nation responds to stalking cases, progress greatly owed to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). By including stalking in the original landmark bill, Congress elevated this crime in our nation's consciousness and highlighted it as a serious offense requiring heightened attention. With VAWA funding, the National Center for Victims of Crime created the Stalking Resource Center raise national awareness of stalking and to encourage the development and implementation of multidisciplinary responses to stalking in local communities across the country. VAWA has also provided crucial federal support for efforts by criminal justice officials and victim service providers to hold offenders accountable and to keep stalking victims safe. VAWA has supported the Stalking Resource Centers work to create a model stalking code that will serve as a guide for lawmakers' initiatives to update their states' stalking laws to keep pace with an ever-changing, and has enabled the SRC to train over 30,000 multidisciplinary professionals across the country who work with and respond to stalking victims, better equipping them to respond to the crime of stalking. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the fifteenth anniversary of the signing of VAWA which took place on September 13, 1994 while recognizing the accomplishments we have made and the continuing commitment in the fight to end violence against women.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes Nos. 690, 691, 692 and 693. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 690, 691, 692 and 693.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Waterfront Brownfields Revitalization Act. This bill will authorize a much needed grant program to assist communities that are overcoming the unique challenges of waterfront brownfields and foster innovative approaches to remediation. America's industrial heritage was established along the banks of its rivers, lakes and coasts. Our nation's vast and interconnected natural water system helped provide the power that fueled our rise to international prominence, and allowed us to move our manufactured goods efficiently to all corners of the country. However, that legacy also includes many decades of environmental contamination on the waterfront. Abandoned factories, dilapidated mills and underutilized ports can be found along the shores of many metropolitan areas. As localities seek to reconnect with their waterfronts and revitalize their downtowns, brownfield barriers threaten to derail community efforts to create jobs, promote recreational opportunities, restore the ecology, increase tourism, and grow their tax base. Waterfront brownfields present challenges beyond typical environmental assessment and cleanup projects. Hydrology, water quality, wetlands, endangered species, habitat, dredged materials, flooding, environmental infrastructure, navigation, and other considerations must be carefully addressed so as not to exacerbate existing site contamination. Typically, waterfront brownfields require the involvement of multiple governmental agencies. As such, waterfront brownfields require special attention and resources to overcome their larger hurdles. In my own district, the city of Rochester, NY is currently working to revitalize its beautiful waterfront, while attempting to cope with the unique challenges that waterfront brownfields present. The city is undertaking a major community revitalization strategy to redevelop its port and waterfront area into a mixed use development, which will include housing, commercial, retail, and educational uses, enhanced recreation, new parks and open space, and improved public access to Lake Ontario, the Genesee River and the surrounding ecosystem. However, because the Port of Rochester was used extensively for industrial purposes from the late 1800s into the first half of the 20th century, significant environmental remediation will be required prior to redevelopment. Initial investigations have found that more than ten acres of the site contain up to several feet of slag from a former iron works. Portions of the site are impacted from petroleum releases and unsuitable fill materials. Old Genesee River deposits on the site and bank sediments have been shown to contain high levels of heavy metals cadmium and silver as well as pesticides and furans. The marina must also be dredged. Before the waterfront reuse can proceed, the Port of Rochester must first address an estimated $500,000 in environmental assessment issues related to contaminated sediments, beneficial reuse of sediments, groundwater contamination, and waste characterization related to the construction of the marina--and an unknown level of remediation. Madam Speaker, Rochester is not alone in facing these types of complicated and expensive challenges to redevelopment. Cities all across the country are dealing with similar roadblocks as they try to engage incorporate waterfront real estate into their redevelopment plans, from Yuma, AZ and Portland, OR in the west, to Savannah, GA, and Philadelphia, PA in the east, and almost everywhere in between where lakes and rivers exist. My bill recognizes that the federal government can be an effective partner to communities interested in reconnecting with their waterfronts. Specifically, this legislation would authorize the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish a waterfront brownfields pilot demonstration program to provide localities and other eligible entities with up to $500,000 to assess and cleanup waterfront brownfields. The bill would also establish an interagency taskforce on waterfront brownfields restoration to identify barriers and potential solutions to waterfront brownfields revitalization, and seek methods for federal interagency collaboration on such projects. As cities across the country struggle to thrive in a changing global economy, and as our domestic manufacturing continues to diminish, it is imperative that Congress do all that it can to help these cities redevelop and succeed. Industrialization and manufacturing helped make this country the power that it is today, but as manufacturing has moved overseas it has not only taken jobs and changed the economic base of many industrial cities, it has also left behind decades of contamination. This legislation will give these cities the support they need to redevelop in an environmentally safe way, and utilize their waterfront as an incredible economic asset.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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. 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.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will reserve.

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

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 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. 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. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.