Conference Report on H.R. 2744, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
Floor Speech
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2744, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - October 28, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his statement. I am pleased to join with him today as we complete the work on this year's Agriculture appropriations bill, the first in my capacity as ranking member of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee.
It has been a pleasure to work with Chairman BONILLA and his staff to put together this bill, as well as with Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Obey in an effort to get here today.
I want to say thank you to the subcommittee staffs for their hard work. It truly is yeoman's work. I know that the staffs met for several weeks to iron out the differences between the House and Senate bills. We certainly appreciate all of their hard work.
This has been a privilege. When I chose to sit on this subcommittee 9 years ago, I did so because I have always believed that the issues overseen by this subcommittee speak to the core responsibilities of the Federal Government. This is the only subcommittee where farm policy, rural development, conservation, nutrition programs, food safety, drug regulation and public health all come together.
As such, it is my belief that the bill that we discuss today is more than a list of programs and funding levels. It is a statement of values, principles and priorities. So when we discuss this bill, I believe we think of it in those terms. We should remember that farm programs, international trade promotion and advocacy that help our farmers across the country sell our products may have profound implications on our Nation's overall economy and quality of life. The research programs at USDA are critical to our efforts to protect our agriculture products, our national herd and our public health.
Indeed, there are many aspects of the bill that I am very proud of, particularly in the area of rural development. Whether it is affordable housing, clean drinking water or sewage systems, access to remote educational and medical resources, we know that rural America faces serious economic development challenges. And I believe the President's budget failed to address those challenges, decimating many rural development programs.
And despite our hard work, the overall figure remains below the level of last year's House bill, well below the 2004 level, and I am afraid that the funding shortfall in this bill will lead to long-term problems with rural infrastructure.
But together we made real headway in reversing those cuts. Indeed, I am proud of the work we were able to accomplish with respect to affordable housing in rural America. We were able to keep the House level on section 502 single family direct loans, which help low- and very low-income households obtain homeownership; and 515 loans for multifamily housing projects to provide living units for people with low and moderate incomes in rural areas. The agreement provides $141 million and $10 million over the respective Senate levels.
We also agreed to a new $9 million demonstration program under section 515 to preserve affordable rural multifamily housing. We created a new $16 million rental housing voucher program to protect tenants residing in section 515 multifamily housing from being threatened by their landlords, as well as preserving a nearly $3 million low-income multifamily housing preservation revolving fund in the Senate bill.
We made sure to secure language regarding Farm Service Agency office closings. FSA provides that critical link between the farmer and the Federal Government's critical services, delivering assistance to specialty crop producers, disbursal of payments for programs such as the peanut buyout, and the handling of disaster assistance payments. Our language ensures that if FSA closes any field offices, it would require public hearings in the affected areas so that the voices of the community will be heard by USDA before any action is taken, and giving Congress 120 days advance notice.
Of course, this bill's impact on the public health is significant as well, from FDA's responsibilities to feeding programs, which urban areas like my hometown of New Haven rely on for women, infants and children, for schools, and for seniors and the disabled living on the edge of poverty. Ensuring that these programs are both funded and operated efficiently is, in my opinion, among the very serious obligations of government, obligations we are charged in the subcommittee with overseeing.
I am pleased that we agreed to the funding levels in the House and Senate bills for the Women, Infants and Children Program in the conference agreement. We also protected the program's reserve fund in the unlikely case the current estimates in funding prove too low.
I was particularly pleased we were able to secure strong report language directing the Secretary of USDA to tell all agencies to take all necessary steps to keep avian flu out of the U.S., providing a report to us by March of next year on the progress of those efforts. We need to do whatever it takes to aggressively tackle this urgent public health matter, including engaging USDA in that effort. We also added strong report language calling on FDA to develop a response plan on human-to-human transmission of avian influenza.
I thank the chairman for working with me to double the annual funding for review of direct-to-consumer ads by FDA, as well as another $5 million for the highest-priority drug safety needs at the FDA. In 2001, the drug industry spent $2.7 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising, but the FDA office charged with ensuring that those ads are accurate was funded at only $884,000. Doubling that amount is a small start toward remedying the inequitable advantage, and the $5 million will be devoted to the most critical aspects of drug safety.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased by many aspects of this bill. I was particularly pleased that after several years we had an opportunity to participate in a conference meeting to resolve several outstanding issues, and to do so in a public capacity. But I was disappointed that same openness and transparency did not carry all the way through to the resolution of all outstanding issues.
And there is much to be done, from food stamps and drug reimportation to reform at FDA and meat labeling. As the agency entrusted with ensuring the safety of our food and drug supply and to protect the public health, we all understand how important it is that we maintain FDA's integrity. But the past year has been particularly difficult, from the flu vaccine shortages caused by inept manufacturing oversight to delayed withdrawal of medicines such as Vioxx that have resulted in thousands of unreported deaths to ongoing safety concerns regarding medical devices.
Restoring integrity to FDA starts with providing better guidelines in the makeup of its advisory committees. What is particularly troubling is the granting of waivers by FDA to scientists and other experts who have potential conflicts of interest. Permitting these experts to serve and vote regardless of conflict is wrong. This must stop. FDA ought to rely on the opinions of unconflicted, fully qualified professional advisers so that the agency can receive the
best unbiased advice possible.
The House adopted an amendment 218-210 that would have stopped the granting of such waivers for 1 year for voting members of FDA advisory committees. I believe this was the right approach. Surely we have enough doctors and scientists in this country that we can find unbiased solutions. The Senate adopted language that fails to address the issue by allowing the current practice at FDA to continue. In an effort to break the deadlock on the issue, I offered a compromise amendment at the conference, an amendment that the chairman graciously supported, but the Senate would not accept.
I am disappointed with the language that the majority put into the conference agreement. I think it will both deter people from serving on advisory committees, while failing to stop the FDA from granting conflict of interest waivers to scientists, allowing them to continue on these advisory committees. My hope is in the coming year we can resolve the problem.
Another serious shortcoming in the bill is in the area of country of origin labeling, giving people the information they need to make an informed choice to protect the safety of their families. Thirty-five other countries we trade with already have a country of origin food labeling system in place, this at a time when food imports are increasing, avian flu poses a serious risk, but the number of inspections of imported meat are decreasing.
And given the fact that we continue to have major recalls of meat products, this effort is also about being able to trace back contaminated product in the event of a recall. Knowing the source of an outbreak is critical to the process so we can quickly take action to prevent people from getting sick.
Unfortunately, this conference report pushes back any action to implement a labeling system until September 2008. It expands the moratorium to include fruits and vegetables, something that was not in the House bill. I regret to say this is a serious failing, a decision on which we had no input. I hope the Congress will revisit this soon.
Perhaps the biggest disappointment in this bill, one so antithetical to the subcommittee's mission that I believe it undermines much of the good work we have done in the past year, is our failure to protect the integrity of the food stamp program, one of the most effective, well-run Federal programs we have.
Twenty-five million citizens receive food stamp benefits, children, seniors, low-income families, many displaced by the recent hurricanes. Despite these immense responsibilities, this bill allows a plan to delegate certification and enrollment of recipients for food stamps to a private firm with no accountability or quality assurances.
But the Texas Food Stamp Privatization Plan would lay off at least 1,200 State workers, closing more than a quarter of State-run eligibility offices around the State, replacing staff at low hourly rates. Major responsibilities would fall to community organizations, which have admitted they do not have the capacity to handle. Clients would be forced to travel long distances or rely on the Internet for services, with serious implications for seniors, low-income families and those with disabilities.
In addition, the plan appears to flout the law, conflicting with Federal statutes governing the food stamp program which require States to obtain a waiver from USDA.
What makes this so unfortunate is that it is so unnecessary. The food stamp program right now is operating with the lowest error rate it has ever had. Texas itself has a very well-operated program. This is not simply about an isolated issue in Texas. Taxpayers all over the country pay half the cost of running the food stamp program. We have an obligation to ensure that the program is run effectively, efficiently and in compliance with the law. Quite simply, the conference report fails to fulfill that obligation, one of our most serious responsibilities for this subcommittee.
Just let me mention one or two areas of concern that I have. The House and Senate adopted identical language prohibiting the use of Federal funds for the inspection of horses for slaughter for human food. It was a wide margin on roll calls in both Houses. Still there were concerns that the provision would be dropped, and in the final agreement between House and Senate, I was pleased to see the prohibition maintained, even if it was delayed for 120 days.
I am confused by the notion as the bill was ready to be filed that there was included a completely new authorizing legislation on horse slaughter, making it parliamentarily impossible to offer this amendment ever again on the House floor. It seems to me that flies in the face of our democratic process.
Another provision that was not either in the House or Senate bill or discussed in conference which was inserted without debate before the conference report was filed has to do with a series of changes to the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Members may be dismayed to know that section 796 of the bill contains language permanently amending the Immigration and Nationality Act. It was adopted by the Senate as part of the bill. I do not know why the sponsor had to have it enacted now without careful consideration and hearing, and why it was included in the agriculture appropriations bill.
As I pointed out, I think we made tremendous progress, and we are going to move forward and adopt this piece of legislation. Despite my concerns, it has been a pleasure working with the chairman on this effort on this important bill. I believe we do have much to be proud of. We can feel a sense of accomplishment about the finished product. My hope is we can address the issues where there still appear to be differences and that we can move forward.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov
Source