[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 71 (Thursday, June 9, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   MEAT AND POULTRY INSPECTION REFORM

                                 ______


                        HON. CHARLES W. STENHOLM

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, June 9, 1994

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation to facilitate 
the development of a legislative and regulatory framework for improving 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's meat and poultry inspection 
program.
  I want to emphasize that this bill does not call for another 
scientific study, or a new commission, which might rightly be 
characterized as simply postponing needed action on inspection reform. 
Rather, the bill is intended to foster an environment where reforms can 
move forward more expeditiously.
  In 1985 and 1987 reports, the National Academy of Sciences spelled 
out the elements needed to remake the program into a health-focused, 
scientifically credible, and risk-based system. The key findings of 
those studies have been endorsed over and over again by industry, 
government, consumer, and scientific groups.
  The issue is that after nearly a decade, these elements are still not 
in place. There is widespread criticism of the slow pace and direction 
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's own efforts to implement the 
NAS scientific recommendations. In addition, some legislative and 
resource constraints may prevent USDA moving from a primarily visual, 
carcass-by-carcass, inspection system to one that focuses on documented 
public health risks, especially microbiological contamination, today's 
chief health hazard.
  What is needed is a more expeditious process for translating the NAS 
scientific recommendations into a concrete package of legislative and 
regulatory changes. Such a plan must be credible and acceptable to as 
wide a spectrum of interests as possible. We must have a plan that 
cannot be criticized as the product of any special interest.
  My legislation will require the Secretary of Agriculture to enter 
into an agreement with the National Academy within 60 days. The Academy 
would in turn be asked to present to Congress, within 6 months, a 
report that among other things:
  Provides recommendations on the USDA management structure and 
resources necessary for training the current inspection workforce to 
move from a visual inspection system to a risk-based one, and for 
implementing such a system;
  Describes the legislative and regulatory changes needed to implement 
the above recommendations.
  I envision that the NAS role would primarily be as a facilitator. It 
would be responsible for the development of an objective background 
paper laying out the issue in detail and proposing a range of 
legislative and regulatory options. It would then provide a venue where 
all interests would be invited to work, in a cooperative and 
constructive manner, to review, critique, and refine these options. An 
ensuing report to Congress, representing the best consensus that could 
be attained, would form the basis for changes to be approved and 
implemented as early as possible in 1995.

                          ____________________