The President's budget, once again, proposes to slash spending for food aid, including a $116 million cut to the Food for Peace Program.

the importance of U.S. exports to the agriculture sector, and this is one of the few sectors of our economy that has a consistent trade surplus.

I commend you for that, and as a cancer survivor, I certainly appreciate the elimination or the proposed elimination of all of the silos that have slowed down the collaboration.

I think the concern is probably China. And do we have different standards in place for places like China than we do in the United States?

Both of those individuals, Acting Commissioner and the Secretary, clearly stated that the science behind these products supported the federal government's position that these products are safe for planting and safe for human consumption.

I was especially disappointed to see your proposal to cut the National Institutes of Health.

We take whatever laws Congress passes and directs us to do quite seriously, and we are certainly committed to working through the issues and the complexity of this in a pragmatic way and one that gives our employees certainty, but also…

Without objection, I have got a letter that I would like to submit for the record.

I am concerned, and I think many are concerned that some parts of the administration have not done enough to get in front of this debate.

I want to say thank you for your work. In your interim time at FDA, you have been certainly a pleasure to work with.

I think it is imperative that you conduct an independent study and review--and your review include all the development of the risk factors known to the industry.

Removing the American farmer and shipper from participation in this 60 year old tradition of the Food for Peace Program does not create intended efficiencies.