Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the Agriculture Sub- committee Chairwoman, Ms. DeLauro, and the ranking Republican, Mr. Kingston. They have done a commendable job in putting this measure together in this first year in their respective…
Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the Agriculture Sub- committee Chairwoman, Ms. DeLauro, and the ranking Republican, Mr. Kingston. They have done a commendable job in putting this measure together in this first year in their respective positions.
All along the way, Ms. DeLauro reached across the aisle to sound out the concern of the members on this side of the aisle--and the work product shows her bi-partisan efforts.
While I do not agree with everything in the bill, I think it is a good product, all things considered. I especially want to thank the Chairwoman for her efforts to increase funding in the bill for the cooperative State research, education and extension service. The CSREES funding level was below the level where it should have been coming out of the subcommittee.
After hearing the concerns of many members, Ms. DeLauro and Mr. Kingston closed ranks and fixed the problem. That funding gap was a particular issue to many members, especially those from rural, farming areas.
I am pleased to note that the bill contains much in the way of agriculture research funding in a number of areas. This is important to many areas, particularly renewable fuels and food production science, to name two areas. The more we can make substantive progress in both of these areas, the better for the consumer and the farm community.
I do want to point out a couple of areas where I think we can and should improve on the bill. First, there is a provision, section 746, which currently reads, ``no funds in this act may be used to authorize qualified health claims for conventional foods''.
I understand that there will be an amendment later on that stipulates no funds for FDA will be used for this purpose. However, this amendment does not address the problem.
If this provision, or a similar one, is intended to help FDA avoid wasted time and resources on frivolous petitions, it misses the mark. Nothing in the language removes FDA's responsibility to review these petitions, as required by law. The provision only denies final approval, or ``authorization'' of the use of valid claims.
This is bad health policy, and it is bad fiscal policy, and I urge the chairwoman to relook at the provision in conference, lest its impact come back to haunt us.
On another issue, the horse slaughter language, the provision, as written, is opposed by animal experts across the country--real experts, including veterinarians and others. The way the language is written, it precludes health inspections and certifications for the legal transport of horses, for example.
Finally, I think, like some others on both sides of the aisle, that we have short-changed some necessary program areas, on occasion, in the past.
But I also think that, as with some other bills, we are going a little far in adding extra spending. Too much spending can do as much damage as too little spending.
It is important to remember that when we give agencies too much money, they spend more than they need to spend simply to hold their annual baseline intact. this is not a heal thy way to manage the Nation's resources.
We have some discretion here, and we should use that discretion since, apparently, we have turned a blind eye to the serious and growing problem of out-of-control entitlements.
In summary, let me, again, commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut. I think you have done a fine job, and I look forward to continuing to work with you to improve this bill as we go forward.