Senate Committee Approves FY17 Ag Appropriations Bill
The Senate Appropriations Committee on May 19 approved a fiscal year 2017 agriculture spending bill, including some provisions that differ from its House counterpart. The Senate bill requires citrus disease inspections in Argentina, allocates $7.5 million more for import-related Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) implementation and $3.4 million more for food safety, and directs an interagency shrimp import pilot program. Senate appropriators cleared and released hard copies of the legislation immediately following full committee markup. The committee adopted two amendments proposed by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, outlining new protocols for seafood labeling (see 1605190040). The Senate and House bills now await floor consideration.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The committee report accompanying the $147.7 billion bill directs the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to visit and examine citrus fruits in Argentina for disease and pests, noting the discovery of citrus canker and black spot (see 1603160074), and APHIS’ May 10 proposal to allow lemon imports from northwestern Argentina (see 1605100018).
Senate appropriators indicated in their report that they added to the Agriculture Department’s $1.03 billion discretionary request for the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) by $3.4 million, unlike House appropriators, because USDA’s schedule for revised FSIS inspections was “unrealistically rapid,” and requires more funding so inspection processes can evolve in “a more feasible manner.” In addition to existing poultry and beef inspections, FSIS will start testing imported pork products for Salmonella this calendar year, according to USDA’s GY 2017 budget request (here). Senators also want FDA to work with CBP to conduct a two-year pilot project to better track shrimp imports and port-of-entry inspections, and to encourage better FDA-CBP coordination on boosting the safety of shrimp imports, according to the bill report.
Notably, the agriculture appropriations bill criticizes FDA traceability pilots finished three years ago. The report says that after the Food and Drug Administration and industry completed two pilot programs to improve food product tracing and recordkeeping for high-risk foods, the public and private sectors have explored traceability goals “on separate tracks and with little collaboration” since FDA released the reports in 2013 (see 130304418). “The Committee directs FDA to collaborate with science-based international and industry-led food traceability initiatives of the type recommended by the pilot projects,” the report says. “In addition, the Committee directs the [FDA] Commissioner to make publicly available information on FDA’s efforts to encourage the work of science-based international and industry-led food traceability initiatives.” Essentially matching the House recommendation, the Senate bill also proposes $8 million for FDA’s Office of Global Regulatory Operations and Policy, $3 million more than the Obama Administration’s request.
Other provisions that lawmakers will apparently have to reconcile is Senate appropriators’ markup of $57.5 million allowed to be appropriated for Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) inspection and weighing services, $2.5 million more than the cap included in the House markup. Both versions of the fiscal 2017 spending legislation would allow the respective ceilings to be raised 10 percent with appropriate notification to both Congressional appropriations committees. Under both the Senate and House bills, the FDA would not be allowed to use un-finalized projections of reduced user fee revenue as a justification for fiscal 2018 discretionary salary or personnel expense funding, unless the agency indicates what funding reductions would accompany the lower expected revenues.
Written by Brian Bradley