Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Neither do we. With that, my comment is I think that we will just proceed to the amendments, and I hope that with that process we can make the bill better. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Can I ask the gentleman from Texas if he has any additional speakers.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, can you tell us, please, how much time remains on the bill.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank you and Mr. Obey, as well as Chairman Lewis, all of whom I have been pleased to work with on this bill. In particular it is a pleasure to join the chairman again as we bring to the floor our second and final agriculture appropriations bill together. As before, this has been a good process, one in which we have made substantial progress on many issues. As I have said before, I want to take a moment to recognize that this is not only the last time this bill will be considered on the House floor under Mr. Bonilla's management, but also his last year of service on our subcommittee. He has served as chairman with distinction and carried out his responsibilities to this subcommittee with a real sense of determination and focus. So I thank you, and it has been a pleasure to work with you. This is always an important bill, from public health and the FDA, to rural development and food safety, to environmental conservation and nutrition assistance, to investing in renewable sources of energy. The mission of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee is, at its core, about improving people's lives; and I think the subcommittee has produced a bill overall that we can be proud of. There are several areas in particular that have been improved from the President's request. For one, the bill includes increased funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the Specialty Crops Program on which so many of our farmers rely. The bill restores the section 515 Housing Program and included $25 million for a National Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. In addition, we have turned aside several misguided proposals by the administration not included in this bill, including proposals that would have changed funding for the Agriculture Research Institutions and capped WIC administrative funds. We also made some progress during the markup. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to increase funding for the Office of Generic Drugs, bringing that up to $5 million. This will help to reduce the backlog of generic drug applications and in turn contribute to reducing the price of prescription drugs. I was pleased that the committee accepted an amendment that I offered to give the FDA the authority to mandate post-market drug studies when needed. With 65 percent of the post-market studies pending, it is clear that the system FDA has in place is broken and must be fixed. As such, giving FDA the authority to mandate post-market drug studies and authorizing the agency to begin proceedings that would move a drug from the market, should the drug company refuse to carry out its responsibility, is a critical part of the drug safety process. I was also pleased that this subcommittee accepted language preventing the implementation of a final rule by USDA to allow processed chicken products from China to enter the United States. We all know China has massive problems with avian influenza in its chicken population. Only hours after the Food Safety and Inspection Service announced it would allow the imports from China, claiming these products would be safe because they will be fully processed and cooked, a Tennessee firm announced the recall of more than 20,000 pounds of breaded chicken due to possible undercooking. Stopping that process from going forward was a good decision. I do think that there are some areas where the bill falls short. While I know we cannot do everything we want to in this bill, I believe that many Members will be disappointed to see that, for instance, we could not fund a pilot program to look at the impact of eliminating the Reduced Price Meal Program that requires children from low-income working families to pay 40 cents per lunch and 30 cents per breakfast. If a family qualifies for free WIC benefits, they should qualify for free school meals as well. I wish we had found the money to make that pilot program happen, even if only as a pilot program. I am also disappointed that we failed to substantially increase the funding for the McGovern-Dole International Food Program which is funded in this bill at $100 million, an increase of a mere $1 million over last year's bill and the budget request. This program fights child hunger in the world's poorest countries, while expanding educational opportunities for children; and it has a proven track record. It should have been a priority in this bill. Lastly, we missed a golden opportunity with this bill to jump-start the country's energy independence efforts by seriously and aggressively funding the many programs in this bill that deal with renewable energy. I offered an amendment that was defeated on a roll call vote of 24-36 to our commitment to renewable energy and rural development by $500 million. It is time to be bold about energy independence; and this bill is an appropriate place to start doing that, which is why I intend to offer this amendment again before the full House. I look forward to debating this bill today, Mr. Chairman, and I want to say thank you to you and your staff as well as staff on our side of the aisle for working so hard to put together the bill before us. As I have said throughout the process, barring any unexpected developments, it is my intention to support this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, no one is accusing FDA of willful negligence. There can be innocent reasons why this study is not done, but the fact is the FDA needs to have authority in order to assure that we are not putting lives at risk with unsafe drugs that are not fully tested. This language would ensure that they have the authority. Prescription drugs are the foundation of modern medical treatment. The public's interest is being preserved by having the FDA have this authority.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I regret that my friend has moved to strike this language, particularly given the GAO's recent findings. The FDA needs the authority to mandate post-marketing drug studies when needed, and indeed, the General Accountability Office has issued a very harsh report of the post-market studies saying, and I quote, FDA lacks clear and effective processes for making decisions about and providing management oversight of post-market safety issues. They further say that, to improve the decision-making process for post- market drug safety, Congress should consider expanding FDA's authority to require drug sponsors to conduct post-market studies, such as clinical trials or observational studies, as needed, to collect additional data on drug safety issues. The FDA is under increasing pressure to approve new drugs quickly. Some of us have been concerned by the implication of the approval process. Since 2000, ten drugs have been withdrawn for safety reasons by their manufacturers, all voluntarily. As far back as 1996, when the inspector general at HHS looked into the matter, it found that the FDA lacked an appropriate system for monitoring or tracking the status of the post-market----

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment because I, too, am very, very concerned that the USDA is deciding or may decide to lower the number of BSE tests that are performed annually. I spent some time in this area. Since the enhanced testing program began, the Inspector General of the USDA has raised series concerns about the current enhanced surveillance program. We have raised concerns with the USDA agencies in hearings and in private conversations. Let me just give you just a little bit of information. For example, 2004, the IG reported serious problems with the testing program, including sampling was not random, and APHIS had not exercised the authority it had to collect the samples. Geographic representation in the testing was not assured. Cattle with central nervous system symptoms were not always tested. Because of interagency confusion, a process for getting samples of animals that die on the farm, those who are at the highest risk, was not in place. More recently, the IG found that senior APHIS officials blocked the recommendations of scientists at the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, for additional BSE testing on a sample that had tested positive initially several times. Faced with the conflicting results, the scientists recommended additional testing to resolve the discrepancy. APHIS headquarter officials concluded no further testing was necessary, because testing protocols were followed. In the end, it was the IG who decided the additional testing should take place. It was done by AIS and the British lab at Weybridge who both found that the sample tested positively for BSE. The IG also made shocking findings about the quality assurance and the BSE testing program at the NVSL, the National Veterinary Service Laboratory, such as the lack of adequate controls and procedures to ensure the quality or capability of the BSE testing program, the failure to implement an adequate quality assurance program for its own laboratory testing procedures, or to obtain internationally recognized accreditation for its BSE testing program. Those are our concerns. That is what I was trying to lay out here, and flaws in the program, the existing program. It does not make sense to return to a lower level of BSE testing. I support the amendment. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to address energy and rural development needs. We have become all too aware in recent years of the growing divide between rural Americans and other parts of our nation. Rural America has 90 percent of the country's poorest counties, a poverty rate of over 14 percent, and the number of farms in the United States has declined by two-thirds over the past 7 decades. Crop prices are low. Subsidies are eroding deepening digital divide. The opportunities for opportunity in rural America are slim. In offering the amendment, I believe we could begin to meet a variety of rural development needs. From waste and water grants and community facility grants to funding for broadband expansion and renewable energy infrastructure, the amendment would raise the total water and waste grant program in the bill to $689 million, an increase of 44 percent over the bill, higher than any of the years since at least fiscal year 1996. These are the kinds of community facilities which help communities, that provide direct loans to them to build libraries, medical facilities, daycare centers. The funds help small rural communities meet EPA Clean Water Act requirements, lower water costs for homeowners and businesses, helping lower-income smaller communities get funds they need. USDA has left grant applications with $497 million from 536 communities unfunded at the end of fiscal year 2005 because it had used up the funds appropriated for the program. This happens year after year. We have got to start doing better. I believe this amendment helps us to do that. Let me focus on energy for a moment. The single most significant action this committee could take to improve the prospects for rural and national economies would be to make a strong commitment to renewable energy. There are several programs in the 2002 farm bill, last year's energy bill, funded through the agricultural appropriations bill that offer us this opening to look at meaningful incentives for renewal energy, production, consumption and infrastructure. We ought to seize this opportunity to re-energize a farm economy and at the same time jump-start the country's energy independence by looking at these new technologies. Unfortunately, I believe our investment in these programs continues to be tentative. Let's take a look at the programs. Bioenergy makes available reduced-price feedstocks for expansion of ethanol and biodiesel facilities. That receives no funding at all under this bill. This program alone could help our farmers take those first steps towards creating a market for renewable energy. The Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants could build more integrated ethanol biorefineries and spur development of new uses for agricultural products that does not even receive its authorized level in this bill with only $28 million. Despite its popularity, the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiencies Improvement Program that provides resources to farmers and rural small businesses for energy efficiency is only funded at $23 million. That is half its authorized level. Let me just be clear. These are all USDA programs funded under this bill, so we have a serious role to play in this committee. The amendment proposes to seriously fund these programs. It would increase biorefinery development grants by $50 million, restore $120 million to the bioenergy program, and fund the Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grant Program at an authorized level of $40 million. In addition, it doubles the funding for the Renewable Energy Systems and the Energy Efficiency Improvements Program and the Biomass Research and Development Program, while providing increased funding to finance renewable fuel filling stations in rural areas. It also increases funding for the land grant universities by $25 million to look at their portion of the research, which will be critical in order for us to move forward. The amendment is fully paid for by asking those making more than $1 million per year to forego less than $1,500 of their $90,000-plus tax cuts. American families are sacrificing enough. It is time this Congress ask the most well-off to do their part to meet the challenge as well. So, Mr. Chairman, with biofuels on the cusp of revolutionizing the American economy in the very near future, the technologies are here, they are here now. Brazil did this in only a few years' time. We can make a statement here, a statement that the Congress is ready to face this challenge head-on. As I said before, Americans are ready to declare their energy independence. We can make this possible with this bill. We can tap the promise of our farms that they hold to reduce our dependence on oil. We can provide a more secure economic future for our farmers. We can make it happen with this amendment. Renewable energy has the incredible potential to revive the American farm economy and our own agricultural base. We ought to pass this amendment. Point of Order

Ms. DeLAURO. (During the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it has been a privilege to serve on this subcommittee and to work on issues of such importance, such as rural development, nutrition, drug safety and so many others, and I have enjoyed working with Chairman Bonilla in my time as ranking member. We have produced a good bill I think, but I am disappointed that this rule does not allow for consideration of an amendment I planned to offer that would have increased funding for rural development and renewable energy programs by $500 million. Nor does this rule protect language giving the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, the much- needed authority to mandate post-market drug studies when needed. In offering this amendment, I believe we could have begun to meet a variety of rural development needs, from waste and water grants and community facility grants to funding for broadband expansion and renewable energy infrastructure. In particular, we could have made a strong commitment to renewable energy by providing meaningful incentives for renewable energy production, consumption and infrastructure through programs in the farm bill and in the energy bill, the Bioenergy Program, the Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants, the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Programs, just to name a few. But even though we have an extraordinary opportunity to reenergize our farm economy at the same time we jump start the country's energy independence efforts by getting these new technologies out of the labs, onto our roads and into our homes and businesses, our investment in these programs continues to be tentative. Mr. Speaker, with Americans ready to declare their energy independence, with biofuels on the cusp of revolutionizing the American economy in the very near future, just as they did for Brazil in only a few years' time, we can make a statement that the Congress is ready to face this challenge. We should be tapping the promise that our farms hold to reduce our dependence on oil and provide a more secure economic future for our farmers. I am also disappointed that the Rules Committee failed to protect language approved by the Appropriations Committee to give the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, the much-needed authority to mandate post-market drug studies when needed and allow the FDA to begin the process of removing the drugs in question from the market if there are instances of noncompliance. The amendment is simple. It would require anyone who has the approval of the FDA to sell a drug to conduct any study or studies on any significant safety issue on that product that the FDA requests. This language addresses one of the key issues identified in the recent GAO study on post-market studies which concluded that, ``the FDA lacks clear and effective processes for making decisions about and providing management oversight of post-market safety issues.'' The FDA needs this authority to ensure that we are not putting lives at risk with unsafe drugs that are not fully tested. Let me quote to you what the GAO study said: To improve the decision- making process for post-market drug safety, the Congress should consider expanding FDA's authority to require drug sponsors to conduct post-market studies, such as clinical trials and observation studies, as needed and to collect additional data on the drug safety concerns. This is an issue that could not have come up at a more appropriate time. Just yesterday, the New York Times reported that the data analysis that was completed on Vioxx was done in a way that actually minimized the risks of the drug. That tells us that even when post- market studies are conducted, they cannot be counted on to be completely reliable. The language stripped by this rule would have constituted one small step toward implementing a better post-market system at the FDA and to stop putting at risk the lives of the American public and make sure that the drugs are safe and that they are fully tested and that, when we have adverse reactions to these drugs, that there is a way in which the government can, in fact, make sure that these companies do what is required to ensure public health. So, Mr. Speaker, while I do believe we have produced a good bill, these are two areas in which I am very disappointed because I think we had an opportunity to produce an even better bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, let me just say to you, that is not the issue at hand here. We are discussing this program. You have concerns about it. I will just say I appreciate your asking questions. I tried to answer the questions, and I think that I have provided, and given a lot more time, I could provide further information about all that this center is doing and how in fact it meets its mission in terms of assisting consumers and farmers and the general public.

Ms. DeLAURO. I just laid out for you the specific incidents. I don't make them up. You can go back and you can check them. But I laid out for you several areas in which the research and the effort has been extremely important and helpful to farmers, to consumers, and to those of us here.

Ms. DeLAURO. Just over the last 3 years.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes, you may ask that question, and if you can give me a second, I will get that information.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment and want to say a few words about the work done at the University of Connecticut's Food Marketing Policy Center. It is hardly frivolous. The policy center has an established track record as a research resource for policymakers across the world. It conducts research on a variety of food and agricultural marketing, safety related policy matters, information that contributes to the work that we do to improve our food production, marketing, and safety systems. Let me give you a couple of examples how it has helped us here in the Congress and impacted consumers: In 2003, the Food Marketing Policy Center research on fluid milk pricing in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest uncovered gouging by supermarket chains. After the demise of the Northeast Dairy Compact, farm prices had plummeted, but retail prices in New England only had declined marginally. The center estimated that milk at $3 per gallon retail in New England supermarkets was $1 above its supply cost for nearly 2 years, hurting farmers as much as consumers. Their research is helping us determine new approaches to fluid milk channel pricing. Another example: other research done at the center just last year includes work done on food access for low-income consumers, the impact of foot and mouth disease and new approaches to animal health and biosecurity. On the latter point, the center has worked to outline the regulatory inconsistencies between the U.S. and other countries and the impact on the export markets for U.S. beef. Particularly as we in the subcommittee work to ensure our food supply is safe in the face of an increasing number of new threats and market realities, we understand the need for the best research possible. That is what we get from this center and what we get in return for a very small investment from the USDA via the CSREES program, an investment, I would remind my colleagues, that leverages additional support from academic and industry sources. It is, in fact, a public-private partnership. I believe we in the Congress have an obligation to hold up our end of the bargain and fund the center. Farmers rely on it, consumers rely on it, public agencies, State legislatures, and even us, even some here in the Congress. So let's support the center. Let's support getting the best agricultural research that is possible.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, on the immediately preceding amendment that was just withdrawn, this is an issue I have followed closely for a long time, and I have questioned USDA officials about this. I offered a motion to instruct conferees on the 2006 conference report on this issue. There is no question that this ill-considered plan must comply with all of our civil rights laws. I applaud the gentleman for his effort. I would also like to tell Members about what a mess the Texas effort to privatize not only the Food Stamp Program but other critical social services is in. Just last week, Texas announced that the work by the company awarded the $899 million privatization contract, Accenture, was so bad it was putting the privatization effort on, what was described in the press, and I quote, ``indefinite hold.'' Texas also announced it was going to give 1,000 State employees that it had planned to lay off bonuses of $1,800 so they would stay to help fix the mess created by Accenture. Accenture's mismanagement of the State's CHIP program was so bad that 28,000 children were scheduled to lose their coverage in May, on top of an already large drop in enrollment since privatization occurred. The State had to intervene to keep the children enrolled. As part of the 2006 conference report, USDA is required to send the committee quarterly reports on the Texas situation. The second and most recent report from the USDA, like the first, is very blunt in its assessment of the problems they see with what Texas has done with respect to the food stamp portion of this. The report says: ``The following concerns give pause to expansion without substantial improvements in system functionality to support a more ambitious implementation agenda.'' Among the concerns: Long wait times for calls; high abandonment rates by callers; vendor performance is questionable as evidenced by the high percentage of cases that are returned to the vendor because of missing information and errors; case file documentation needs to be substantially improved to support program access and integrity; vendor performance on handling calls shows problems with the staffing and training resulting in information to the extent that it is unclear whether applicants will know how to apply. The simple truth is that this effort is a disaster and it threatens the right of Texans to get the benefits to which they are entitled. Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. DeLAURO. That is something I would very much like to consider, Mr. Chairman. So let us wait the 5 minutes and see what we have. MR. BONILLA. We will wait 5 minutes, and if we don't see anyone, then perhaps we can work on a UC, again with a bipartisan shutdown of the bill and move forward. Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes a good point. I know we have called those on our side to come down, and I do not know the disposition on your side. It looks to me like we have on our side three amendments, and I was just trying to tally up on your side. There are about five or six; is that correct? MR. BONILLA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I know the gentlewoman would agree on her side that she is not a babysitter, nor am I. If I had an amendment to offer, I would be in a three-point stance ready to go on something that was of great importance to my constituents. So I would throw out for thought that perhaps after another 5 minutes passes, if nobody is here, we might look for a unanimous consent to shut it down and move to final passage.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the comments of Mr. Obey and Mr. Peterson. I think that there is not any question that on all sides of this issue there has been great frustration with the way in which the USDA has handled this issue. In exchange, in the budget hearing this year, we find on one day it is a mandatory program and the next day it is a voluntary program. What we are doing is, we continue to put at risk the industry and its ability to be able to protect the ranchers, and on the other hand, it does not deal with looking at, how do we protect the public health? The bill does address this issue, and it acknowledges what the problems are. And I think that we said very clearly that until there is a complete and a detailed plan for the program included, not limited to, pro-legislative changes, cost estimates, means of program evaluation, and that such a plan is published as an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that these are the kinds of requirements that have been put in by the committee. And I want to urge my colleagues, though I understand, again, what the frustration is about this issue, to oppose the amendment and move with what the committee has put forward.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.