Full-Year Continuing Appropriations, 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, H.R. 3082, the continuing resolution. Among many other issues, I object to the inclusion of Senate language from S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act.

Let me be clear: I believe our nation has the safest food supply in the world. I also believe we must continually examine our food production and regulatory system and move forward with changes that improve food safety.

This legislation is the product of a flawed process. It will lead to huge regulatory burdens on our nation's farmers and ranchers. It will raise the cost of food for our consumers, and it contains very little that will actually contribute to the goal of safer food. It gives the Food and Drug Administration lots of additional authorities with no accountability. In fact, with the inclusion of the so-called Tester amendment, some argue that it is a step backwards.

My concerns about the legislation are not limited to the unforgivable process. There are serious public policy concerns as well. The Tester amendment is an illustrative example. Intended to shield small and local producers from the burdens of the new food safety law, it is opposed by virtually all of the major organizations representing farmers and ranchers.

Normally, these groups would be expected to support a provision that sought to protect their farmers and ranchers. But they oppose the Tester amendment--and any legislation that contains it--because it adds to the layers of food safety regulation, creating yet another tier of regulatory standards that will only confuse our consumers. Further, by exempting small domestic companies from Federal standards, I fear we will be required to exempt similarly sized companies in developing countries from our standards. This approach does not make food safer--it eliminates important consumer protections and puts our citizens at increased risk.

With respect to the Tester amendment, I question the value of any law that is so onerous to an industry that Senators believe segments of that industry should be excluded from it. It would be wise to reconsider the entire legislative approach.

There are other problems in the bill as well. New registration authorities for food processing facilities will create what amounts to a federal license to be in the food business. Registration of food processing facilities was originally envisioned as a commonsense way of helping the FDA identify facilities under the bioterrorism act in 2002. This bill turns it into a license to operate, making it unlawful to sell food without a registration license and allowing the FDA to suspend a company's registration. This is the type of government intrusion into commerce that Americans rejected in early November.

Another provision of particular concern would mandate the Food and Drug Administration to set on-farm production performance standards. For the first time, we would have the Federal government prescribing how our farmers grow crops. Farming, the growing of crops and raising of livestock, is the first organized activity pursued by man. We've been doing it for a long time. And we've been doing it without the FDA.

The vast majority of these provisions, along with recordkeeping requirements, traceability, and mandatory recall authority, will do absolutely nothing to prevent food-borne disease outbreaks from occurring, but will do plenty to keep federal bureaucrats busy. And these are all of the sorts of things that can be worked out through the normal legislative process. But only if there's a process.

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 production system faces ongoing food safety challenges and I stand ready to work with my colleagues to address those challenges.

Our nation's farmers, ranchers, packers, processors, retailers, and consumers deserve better.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source