HR 4368 Introduced
FY 2024 ARD Spending
Last week, Rep Harris (R,MD) introduced HR 4368, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024. The House Appropriations Committee published their report on the bill. There is only one cybersecurity mention in the bill (not unexpected), but there are three related discussions in the report. Three chemical safety issues are also discussed in the report.
Cybersecurity
As we saw in the Senate version of this bill (S 2131), the only cybersecurity mention in the bill is the funding for the USDA Chief Information Officer (pg 6). This data does, however, provide a clear opportunity to compare the spending levels between the two bills in an area where there are no major policy differences. The table below shows the spending levels in the two bills.
The first line shows the overall funding for the USDA CIO including monies for cybersecurity activities throughout the Department. The second line shows the amount of that funding that is allocated to Department activities. The last line is the difference between the two, which is the discretionary funding for the CIO.
There are three cybersecurity discussions in the Committee Report:
Overall cybersecurity comments (pg 2),
USDA Office of Homeland Security (pg 9), and
Digital Infrastructure Service Centers (DISC) (pg 10)
Given the reduced funding for USDA cybersecurity described above, the Committee’s comments in the Report (pg 2) are disconcerting:
“The Committee remains concerned about continued cybersecurity threats and attacks on the nation’s food and agriculture sector. The Committee recognizes the importance of strong cybersecurity in critical sectors like agriculture and urges the Department to improve its cybersecurity posture, including through collaboration with appropriate Federal agencies to mitigate potential cybersecurity threats.”
Chemical Safety
In addition to the comments on the National Agricultural Statistics Service Information (NASS) collection of Fruit Chemical Use and Vegetable Chemical Use information similar to those I discussed in the post on the Senate bill, there are two other discussions about chemical safety issues in the USDA portion of the Report:
Fumigant Alternatives Research (pg 19), and
PFAS chemicals (pg 45)
The PFAS discussion looks at USDA programs to compensate dairy farmers who have milk contaminated with PFAS, especially the Dairy Indemnity Payment Program (DIPP).
There is are two mentions in the FDA portion of the report dealing with chemical safety issues:
Citizen Petitions (pg 76), and
Skin Lightening Products (pgs 87-8)
Commentary: The hazards discussed about skin lightening products addresses real safety concerns, but the discussion starts off with one of the worst examples of inept attempts at political correctness that I have seen come out of Washington. It says:
“The Committee continues to be concerned about the dangers of mercury and hydroquinone in skin lightening products, particularly those that are disproportionately targeted [emphasis added] toward and used by men, women, and girls of color.”
I do not think that it would be unfair to say that skin lightening products are specifically targeted at ‘people of color’ with no ‘disproportionality’ about it, thus making the whole phrase after the first coma superfluous.
Moving Forward
See my post: “Coming FY 2024 Spending Bill Logjams”.