Agriculture, Rural Development, Food And Drug Administration, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady for her attention to this matter, both gentleladies for their attention to this matter and for…
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio.
Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady for her attention to this matter, both gentleladies for their attention to this matter and for standing up with and for the best interests of agriculture.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Chair, I submit the following:
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 2112--Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012
(rep. rogers, r-ky)
The Administration has serious concerns about the content
of H.R. 2112, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2012, and for other purposes. The Administration is committed
to ensuring the Nation lives within its means and reducing
the deficit so that the Nation can compete in the global
economy and win the future. That is why the President put
forth a comprehensive fiscal framework that reduces the
deficit by $4 trillion,
supports economic growth and long-term job creation, protects
critical investments, and meets the commitments made to
provide dignity and security to Americans no matter their
circumstances.
While overall funding limits and subsequent allocations
remain unclear pending the outcome of ongoing bipartisan,
bicameral discussions between the Administration and
congressional leadership on the Nation's long-term fiscal
picture, the bill provides insufficient funding for a number
of programs in a way that undermines core government
functions and investments key to economic growth and job
creation. Programs adversely affected by the bill include:
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The Administration
strongly objects to the level of funding provided for
nutrition programs that are critical to the health of
nutritionally at-risk women, infants, children, and elderly
adults. The proposed funding levels would lead to hundreds of
thousands of participants being cut from the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC) and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program,
and reduce Federal support for food banks. These cuts would
undermine efforts to prevent hunger and support sound
nutrition for some of the most vulnerable members of our
society.
Food Safety. The Administration is concerned with the
funding provided in the bill for the Department of
Agriculture's (USDA's) Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) which will significantly hamper USDA's ability to
inspect food processing plants and prevent food borne
illnesses and disease such as E. coli and Salmonella from
contaminating America's food supply. The Committee's
recommendation may require the agency to furlough employees
including frontline inspectors which make up over 80 percent
of FSIS staff. By reducing FSIS inspections, food processing
plants may be forced to reduce line speeds, which could lead
to decreasing product output and profits, as well as plant
closures.
Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI). The
Administration is concerned that the bill does not support
HFFI, which is a key initiative to combat childhood obesity.
HFFI will expand USDA's activities to bring healthy foods to
low-income Americans and increase the availability of
affordable, healthy foods in underserved urban and rural
communities by bringing grocery stores and other fresh food
retailers to ``food desert'' communities where there is
little or no access to healthy food.
Research. The bill provides insufficient funds for USDA
research programs, which are needed to help solve food
production, safety, quality, energy and environmental
problems. By reducing funding for the Agricultural Research
Service to its lowest level since 2004 as well as
inadequately funding the Nation's competitive grant program,
the bill will hinder the Department's ability to develop
solutions to address current as well as impending critical
national and international challenges.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Administration is
concerned that the funding level in the bill and resulting
staff reductions will severely limit the FDA's ability to
protect the public's health, assure the American consumer
that food and medical products are safe, and improve
Americans' access to safe and less costly generic drugs and
biologics.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The
Administration strongly objects to the funding level for
CFTC, as it would cause a cut in staffing levels and
seriously undermine CFTC's ability to protect investors and
consumers by effectively policing the futures and swaps
marketplace through its current market oversight and
enforcement functions. Moreover, the funding level would
significantly curtail the timely, effective implementation of
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, including new CFTC responsibilities to regulate the $300
trillion swaps derivatives market.
International Food Aid. The Administration opposes the
level of funding provided for the Food for Peace Title II
international food aid program as it would severely limit the
United States' ability to provide food assistance in response
to emergencies and disasters around the world. Given a
statutory floor on non-emergency development food aid, a
reduction would be borne entirely by the emergency component
of the program, and would prevent distribution of emergency
food aid to over 1.1 million beneficiaries.
In addition, the bill includes the following problematic
policy and language issues:
Restrictions on Finalizing USDA Regulations. The
Administration opposes the inclusion of section 721 of the
bill, which effectively prevents USDA's Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration from finalizing a rule
on conduct that would violate the Packers and Stockyards Act
of 1921. The final rule has not yet been published and any
concerns about the rule are better addressed through the
standard rulemaking process than through an appropriations
rider.
Restrictions on FDA Regulations and Guidance. The
Administration strongly opposes section 740 of the bill,
which would undermine or nullify FDA statutory standards that
have been in place for decades and that are essential to
protect the health of Americans. The provision would unduly
limit the factors that FDA considers in determining the best
ways to protect the public from unsafe foods; protect the
safety of the blood supply from HIV, West Nile Virus, and
other infections; ensure the safety of infant formula;
protect patients from drugs and medical devices that have not
been shown to be safe and effective; assure that food
labeling and health claims on foods are accurate; and reduce
youth use of tobacco products and otherwise reduce illness
and death caused by tobacco use.
WTO Trade Dispute. The Administration is concerned by a
provision in section 743 that would eliminate payments that
are being made as part of the mutually agreed settlement of a
World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute regarding U.S.
domestic cotton supports and the export credit guarantee
program. The framework serves as a basis to avoid trade-
related countermeasures by Brazil that are authorized by the
WTO until the enactment of successor legislation to the
current Farm Bill. Under the agreement, the United States is
committed to fund technical assistance and capacity-building
support for Brazil's cotton sector. The bill's provision
preempts the resolution process and would open the door to
retaliation negatively affecting U.S. exports and interests.
The Administration strongly opposes inclusion of
ideological and political provisions that are beyond the
scope of funding legislation.
The Administration looks forward to working with the
Congress as the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process moves
forward to ensure the Administration can support enactment of
the legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment emanates from claims that were filed subsequent to a press conference held by then-Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman in 1995, who said that the USDA was discriminating against black farmers. I believe that happened. Their estimate at the USDA at that time was that there were approximately 3,000 black farmers who would file claims under what resulted in a consent decree in the late nineties.
The 3,000 estimate became 22,551 claims of discrimination. But according to the census, there are 18,000 black farmers. According to the testimony of the president of the Black Farmers Association before the Judiciary Committee, there are 18,000 black farmers. Well, the 18,000 black farmers estimating 3,000 claims of discrimination became 22,551 claims. That was Pigford I. And $1.05 billion was paid out then to settle all of the claims that were there. There was an argument made that others didn't get filed. But it always was a number greater than the actual number of black farmers. And you can't have more black farmers discriminated against than there actually are.
They tried to open up Pigford II. This Congress didn't act on it in an affirmative way between the House and the Senate until late last fall in a lame duck session. President Barack Obama introduced legislation as a junior Senator from Illinois in 1989 and 2007, and was instrumental in pushing this through in a lame duck session that appropriated $1.15 billion to pay out claims.
Now we have not 3,000 claims. We still have 18,000 black farmers. Now we have 94,000 claims and report after report of fraudulent claims and marketing this as perpetuation of a fraud across this country. And my amendment shuts off the funding that would be used to administer or to fund the balance of these Pigford II claims, which this Congress must investigate the fraud that's here.
By the way, Shirley Sherrod, who was fired by the Secretary of Agriculture, was the largest recipient and the largest civil rights claim in the history of America, with $13 million for her claim. Three days later, Tom Vilsack hired her to work for the USDA. Later, he fired her. Later, he hired her back. Then she sued Andrew Breitbart. All of these things are information that we need to find out. This Congress cannot be paying out another $1.15 billion in good money going after bad claims. We have reports and videotape. One is a class counsel who had his own videotape and says that he has 3,000 clients who have filed discrimination claims, and least 10 percent of them are fraudulent claims. A class counsel, who was included in this second agreement, which by the way, the court has not finally approved.
So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment shuts off the funding that would be used to pay these claims, the funding that would be used to administer these claims, and it gives this Congress an opportunity to look into what has been done to the taxpayer here in America. And so I urge adoption of my amendment. I believe that I have explained what it amounts to, although it has been very intensively in the news over the last year or so.
I would urge its adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is an amendment that comes and there's an Iowa focus on this that affects the whole country. We have had a practice that began experimentally in Iowa by Planned Parenthood of issuing telemed abortions by distributing RU-486, the abortion pill, what is also known as mifepristone, distributing it through a means of setting up a television monitor and it circumventing the requirement in Iowa that they be seen by a doctor. A doctor sits remotely on the other side of the Skype screen, so to speak, and interviews the potential mother, who if once she answers the questions that the doctor asks and they record it under film that they've protected themselves perhaps from liability, he clicks the mouse on the one end and it opens a drawer underneath the screen on the other end and out rolls the abortion pill, RU-486.
I am very concerned about the robo distribution of abortion pills in Iowa or anywhere else. Some of us signed a letter, 70 of us, to Kathleen Sebelius and asked if they had distributed grants for telemedicine to any of the abortion
providers, including Planned Parenthood. Their response came back in the affirmative, that they had issued several grants to Planned Parenthood; and these funds, as near as we can determine, are being used to provide telemedicine for the robo abortions, robo Skype abortions as I've described.
This amendment provides that none of the funds made available in this $15 million telemedicine line item that's in this appropriations bill shall be used for the purpose of purchasing, prescribing, dispensing, procuring, or otherwise administering mifepristone, commonly known as
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Reclaiming my time, I believe I did, but I would restate that there's a line item in the bill that provides $15 million to go to grants for telemedicine.
The amendment that I have put out here says: ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for mifepristone, commonly known as RU-486, for any purpose.''
And so I've specified why I'm concerned and why I address this language to the broader bill, but because there are grant funds available for telemedicine in the bill, that's why I'm concerned that this application that I've used could well go, and has gone according to Kathleen Sebelius, to those grants.
If the gentleman doesn't agree, I would think he neither would disagree with the amendment because, therefore, it wouldn't have an effect by the gentleman's interpretation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.