Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 -- (House of Representatives - July 08, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I'm delighted to present the 2010 Agriculture-FDA appropriations bill. I want to thank the ranking member, Congressman Kingston, for his collaboration and his input over the last few months. I thank both the minority and majority staff as well for their tireless work. Lastly, and especially not least, a special thank you to Chairman Obey for his counsel and for the resources he provided to make this bill possible and for his leadership and vision to ensure that we can continue to get things done and achieve our goals.
We stand today at a turning point. Today, we're talking about people's lives--struck hard by an economy in chaos, facing shrinking services and struggling with rising prices and unemployment.
I believe the administration's budget demonstrates that it is interested, after years of underinvestment in the Federal Government's capabilities, in protecting public health, supporting American agriculture, strengthening rural communities, and conserving the environment.
This bill proposes new investments in these priorities and the agencies that can help us meet them, while making specific and sensible budget cuts where feasible.
As in recent years, the bill focuses on several key areas, such as: Protecting public health; bolstering food nutrition programs; investing in rural communities; supporting agriculture research; strengthening animal health and marketing programs; and conserving our natural resources.
The fiscal year 2010 Agriculture-FDA appropriations bill provides for almost $23 billion in funding. It is an 11 percent increase over 2009 levels, the vast majority of which went toward three program areas: The WIC program, the FDA, and International Food Aid. Additionally, in order to make these important investments, to use the resources available to it wisely, the bill proposes a number of cuts totaling more than $735 million.
To protect the public health, the bill provides a substantial increase for the Food and Drug Administration to support a total discretionary funding level of almost $3 billion, or a 15 percent increase--almost $373 million. That is to hire additional inspectors, conduct more inspections of domestic and foreign food and medical products. And, as many of us know, the FDA has been underfunded for far too long. This is not only a matter of public health and consumer safety, it is a matter of national and economic security.
Not all of the dangers that threaten the health and safety of American families can be found in airports, border checkpoints, or harbor containers. Sometimes they lurk in our refrigerators and on our kitchen table. From E. coli in cookie dough to salmonella in peanut butter, we have seen very real threats posed by food contamination in recent years. And we just cannot afford to neglect our food safety system any longer.
The FDA's primary responsibility is to the American people to ensure the safety of the food they eat, the drugs they take, and the medical devices they rely on. With this increased funding, they will have the resources and manpower they need to keep us safe.
In addition, the bill fully funds the administration's request for the Food Safety and Inspection Service at the USDA, the Department of Agriculture. It puts in over $1 billion dollars for FSIS for the first time in history.
In terms of conservation, the committee makes a significant investment in USDA's natural resource conservation programs. The bill appropriates a total of $980 million for this purpose--a $73 million increase over the administration's request.
The bill rejects the administration's cuts to the Natural Resources Conservation Service's farm bill conservation programs, which include the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, and the Wildlife Incentives Program.
It restores funding for other valuable programs, including the Resource Conservation and Development Program and the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program.
In the area of nutrition, the bill works to improve nutrition and help those hit the hardest by the current economic crisis. Food costs and participation in WIC continue to increase at dramatic rates. And the bill provides $7.5 billion for WIC to serve our Nation's vulnerable populations--10 percent above last year--to support participation of 10.1 million people.
WIC is a program that we simply cannot afford to underfund any longer, particularly given the gravity of the current economic climate. Our fundamental responsibility as legislators and as leaders, to say nothing of basic morality and fairness, demand that we do everything we can to help Americans suffering right now from poverty and malnutrition.
In the area of international food aid, the bill expands America's traditional commitment to international food aid by providing an increase of $464 million to the P.L. 480 Title II Grants Program. We also provide an additional $99.5 million to the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.
In the area of rural development, the bill creates new opportunities for growth and development in the Nation's small town economies by increasing funding for water and wastewater infrastructure grants by $73 million; provides $8.7 billion for housing; $541 million for community facilities; and $9.3 billion for the rural utility programs.
In research, the bill makes significant investments in agricultural research: $1.2 billion for the Agricultural Research Service; nearly $1.2 billion for the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. That money is allocated to such programs as the Hatch Act, Evans-Allen, the new competitive Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, Smith Lever, the 1890 programs, and the Veterinary of Medical Services Act.
With continuing volatility in the futures market, the bill provides the administration's request for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC, $160.6 million--$14.6 million and 10 percent above 2009--in order to better secure the markets from improper speculation. Just yesterday the CFTC moved to stem heavy speculative trading in the oil, natural gas and energy markets. With this increased funding, the Commission will be better poised to ensure market integrity for all honest brokers.
In closing, I look forward to working with all of you today as we work to craft responsible agriculture legislation that alleviates short-term suffering, encourages long-term growth, invests in our future and reflects our priorities as a Nation.
Let me take a moment to say thank you to our staff who have worked diligently to help put this bill together. The subcommittee majority staff: Martha Foley, our clerk; Leslie Barrack; Matthew Smith; and Kerstin Millius have worked closely with David Gibbons on the minority staff. In addition, Brian Ronholm and Letty Mederos on my staff and Merritt Myers from Mr. Kingston's staff all have worked very, very hard to bring this bill to the floor this evening. I hope the Congress will seize this opportunity to help American farmers and families in these tough times and get us moving again on the path to recovery. I urge you to support this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. I would just say to the gentleman that there is a need to improve inspections of seafood imports. As you know, less than 1 percent gets inspected each year. And there was a lot of discussion about this provision during the farm bill last year.
I, frankly, have some concerns that it would further complicate the organizational structure of food safety, instead of simplifying matters in moving that jurisdiction from the FDA to the USDA. Also, if USDA diverted resources to inspecting catfish, would it take away resources from meat and poultry inspection. And I would just say that we did plus-up funding to the USDA to be able to accommodate this new responsibility.
Another concern I had about this provision is that moving seafood inspection, or even catfish inspection, is more complicated than it seems. There is a substantial difference between preventing outbreaks in meat and poultry and preventing outbreaks in seafood. And the FSIS, the Food Safety and Inspection Service, has no experience with identifying seafood pathogens.
So I look forward to discussing this issue further with the gentleman in answering some of the questions that you have with regard to this.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. Well, certainly, we have had a discussion about it over time. And I think the gentleman knows my position on this issue, and my position has not changed in a number of years.
And it's my view that the decisions about the importation of food products from China are a public health issue that must not be entangled in trade discussions. And I understand that Chinese officials are suggesting a quid pro quo, if you will, and they are trying to link the exportation of poultry products with reopening U.S. beef exports to the People's Republic of China.
Those talks, in my view, should be separate and distinct. My position in this area has to do with the public health of this Nation. It is clear that the 2006 FSIS declaration that China's safety and inspection system was, quote, equivalent to the U.S. system for processed poultry products, was based on trade goals. From a public health and a safety perspective, the equivalency determination was deeply flawed and cannot be relied on to protect U.S. consumers' safety.
Equivalency was granted in the face of overwhelming evidence of contamination in Chinese processing plants and in Chinese slaughterhouses.
Therefore, in my view, the ban on poultry products from China must be maintained. And while USDA does have a process, as you pointed out, in place, that process, in making a determination of equivalency for processing U.S. chicken in China, was flawed and was broken and has not worked.
The committee, by the way, and you understand this, intends to undertake a thorough review of, convene hearings on the equivalency process in general. And what we will examine are audits of inspection, on-site reviews of processing facilities, laboratories, other control operations, increased level of port entry reinspection and information-sharing programs with other countries.
So I look forward to continuing this discussion and working with you as the committee moves forward with its examination. But in the meantime, the limitation in carrying out this rule needs to be maintained.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. I would just say to the gentleman that we have a responsibility that whatever the food product is coming, and that food product from anywhere, that the country that is producing this product or processing this product must have the same set of equivalent standards that we have domestically to ensure the public health of people in the United States. We have witnessed over and over again in the last several months that we will put the public health at risk when children die, when people are ill from either a product that's domestically produced or internationally produced. We, as a Nation, and those of us who serve in this body, I believe, have a moral responsibility to do something about it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, and it contains several provisions.
First, it appropriates the tobacco fees authorized in the recent tobacco bill to start up the new Tobacco Control Program as authorized under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
The amendment also provides increases of $2 million for the Agriculture Research Service and $3 million for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. It increases funding for the Office of the Inspector General. It raises the funding level for the Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program to $1.5 million; provides $2 million for the Methamphetamine Inhibitor Grant Program authorized in the farm bill; and prohibits first-class travel by employees funded in the bill if it violates existing rules.
The increases are fully offset by small reductions to administrative programs. It is a noncontroversial amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. I want to first say to the gentleman from Texas, to be clear and have real clarity about this amendment, this would transfer $50,000 from the Office of the Chief Economist to the Economic Research Service.
The gentleman's amendment does not address trade or trade agreements. It is a simple transfer of funds from the Office of the Chief Economist to the ERS, without any designation of what the disposition of those funds are. I want to be absolutely clear about that.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Yes, Madam Chairman, we were very respectful of the House rules on those issues. Clearly an intent of this discussion tonight is to have this study conducted, but we were very respectful of the House rules.
Ms. DeLAURO. As I said, I plan to support the amendment, but the amendment as I say makes that transfer. I did not choose the offset that is included, and we may need to revisit that in conference. But I would be happy to accept the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. This amendment does transfer $10.038 million from the Office of Chief Information Officer to the Rural Water and Waste Disposal program. I support more funding for water and waste programs. I did not again here in this instance choose the offset that is included, and we may need to revisit that in the conference. I urge adoption of the amendment. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. This amendment, as has been stated, increases funding for the Rural Energy for America Program by $2 million, taking that funding from the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
The 2008 farm bill provided significant amounts of mandatory funding for this program, and this bill before us today increases that investment towards energy independence. I did not choose the offset that's included, and we may need to revisit that in conference, but I am a strong supporter of these efforts.
I urge the adoption of the amendment and would ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source