[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 95 (Thursday, July 20, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7303-S7308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume consideration of H.R.
4461, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and other purposes.
Pending:
Reid (for Harkin) amendment No. 3938, to prohibit the use
of appropriated funds to label, mark, stamp, or tag as
``inspected and passed'' meat, meat products, poultry, or
poultry products that do not meet microbiological performance
standards established by the Secretary of Agriculture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Amendment No. 3938
Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: Before I start and the clock
starts ticking on me, where are we and what time are we operating under
right now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Harkin amendment
No. 3938. There is no time limitation.
Mr. HARKIN. There is no time limit?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am sorry; I was under the mistaken
impression that there was a time limit. I stand corrected. I want to
talk for a few minutes about the pending amendment.
In some conversations I had last night and earlier this morning
previous to coming to the floor, I found that there may be some
misconceptions about my amendment and what it seeks to do. So I would
like to take the time to try to clarify it.
I did not think there would be opposition to it. It was merely to
clarify a situation that has arisen in a court case in Texas. So in the
next few minutes I will try, as best I can, to try to outline it and
clarify exactly what this amendment is and what it intends to do.
Everyone in the food chain, from the farm on through to the table,
has a vital stake in the USDA food safety and inspection system for
meat and poultry products. This goes back many years. As the years have
evolved, and
[[Page S7304]]
as our processes for growing, slaughtering, processing, packaging,
transporting, and the selling of meat and meat products and poultry
products has changed, we have changed the way we do things.
As Secretary Glickman once I think so adroitly explained, the days of
poke and sniff have to be over. We need new inspection standards
because of the rapidity of the lines, the tremendous increase in the
production of meat and meat products, which are good sources of protein
for our people and for export. We need the change. So that is what we
have done.
But the linchpin in all of this is consumer confidence. Our food
safety system must adequately protect consumers. It must assure
consumers that their food is safe. If consumers lack confidence in the
safety of meat and poultry products, they will not be good customers.
That means less demand and lower prices and income for livestock and
poultry producers, as well as for our packers and processors.
On May 25, a huge cloud of uncertainty was cast over USDA's meat and
poultry inspection system when the Federal district court for the
Northern District of Texas held that USDA does not have the statutory
authority to enforce its pathogen reduction standards for salmonella in
ground beef.
The pathogen reduction standards are a critical part of the new food
safety system which was adopted by the USDA in 1996 in the hazard
analysis critical control point and pathogen reduction rule. It is
otherwise known by its acronym HACCP, something that many of us in the
Senate and the House have worked on for many years to bring about.
That system was designed to protect human health by reducing the
levels of bacteria contamination in meat and poultry products. I might
add that the HACCP rule was broadly supported by consumer groups, by
packers, by processors, by the meat and poultry industry, as being a
step in the right direction from the kind of inspection procedures that
we had before.
The HACCP and the pathogen reduction rule established a modern
inspection system based on two fundamental principles.
First, the meat and poultry industry has the primary responsibility
and the flexibility to design plans for producing safe products and
then to follow those food safety plans. So the industry has the primary
responsibility. And they should have the flexibility to design plans
for producing safe products and then to follow those plans. That is the
first principle.
The second principle is that the public health is best served by
reducing the level of pathogens on meat and poultry products
nationwide--a very commonsense principle. To accomplish this, USDA
developed pathogen reduction standards using salmonella as the
indicator bacteria. These standards set targets that plants have to
meet for reducing microbial pathogen levels. If a plant repeatedly
fails to meet salmonella targets, USDA may refuse to inspect the
plant's products, thereby effectively shutting the plant down until the
plant implements a corrective action plan to meet the pathogen
reduction standard.
What happened was the district court in Texas held that USDA does not
have the statutory authority to enforce its food safety standards
designed to reduce pathogen levels in ground beef.
The court stated, in its June 13 final judgment, that the salmonella
reduction standard ``is hereby declared to be outside the statutory
authority of the United States Secretary of Agriculture and the United
States Department of Agriculture to the extent that it allows the
Secretary and/or USDA to withdraw or suspend inspection services or
withhold the mark of inspection on the basis of an alleged failure to
comply with the Salmonella performance standard for ground beef. . .
.''
That is the quote from the finding of the district court.
Keep in mind, if USDA cannot withdraw or suspend inspection, it is
powerless to enforce the pathogen reduction standards. Refusing
inspection is USDA's only enforcement tool. Again, the Texas decision
was based on an interpretation of USDA's statutory authority to enforce
the salmonella reduction standard.
I am aware there has been a lot of discussion about the legitimacy of
the salmonella standard. Is it science based? Does it rationally relate
to food safety? Those are legitimate questions to raise. But the court
did not even get to those questions. It just ruled that the USDA did
not have the statutory authority to enforce its standard designed to
reduce pathogenic bacteria.
I believe the American public would be shocked to be told that the
U.S. Department of Agriculture does not have the authority, under our
meat and poultry inspection laws, to require reductions in microbial
contamination of meat and poultry.
If USDA lacks the authority to enforce pathogen reduction standards,
then, surely, we stand at the edge of a food safety debacle, a chasm. I
am going to repeat that. The American public would be shocked to find
the USDA does not have the authority, under our existing meat and
poultry inspection laws, to require reductions in microbial
contamination of meat and poultry. Think about that.
Frankly, I have my doubts about the reasoning of the court in the
Texas case. But the court has held that the USDA lacks this authority
to enforce the pathogen reduction standards.
That decision has created an intolerable degree of uncertainty about
USDA's authority to ensure the safety of meat and poultry products, not
only in Texas but anywhere in the entire United States.
Plainly and simply, all my pending amendment does is to clarify that
the USDA has the legal statutory authority to require reductions in
pathogenic bacteria in meat and poultry products.
Let me explain why it is so critically important that we clarify this
and that USDA has that authority. I have some charts to show that. This
chart has some very sobering statistics.
In the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, foodborne pathogens are responsible for 76 million
illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths every year.
That is an estimate by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
The economic impact of foodborne illness for the United States is
estimated to be $6.6 to $37.1 billion per year. Just to clarify, these
statistics include all foods--not just meat and poultry but all foods.
Meat and poultry are certainly a substantial portion of the cases; I
don't want to mislead anyone. This covers lettuce, tomatoes, fruits,
vegetables, and everything else. Again, these are not just illnesses,
hospitalizations, and deaths that result simply from the failure to
reduce pathogens in the processing and packaging stream. This could
come about from mishandling of food at the consumer level, at the
purchasing level, storage, miscooking, and inapplicable storage of
partially cooked food.
I want to illustrate the dimensions of foodborne pathogens in our
country. Again, I am not condemning the meat and poultry industry. I am
not trying to frighten consumers. Yet there is no denying that we have
much more foodborne illness than we should. Consumers are paying
attention. Consumers are concerned about the safety of their food.
Again, I come back to the matter of consumer confidence. What industry
can build markets if it fails to build confidence in its customers? If
you support the meat and poultry industries, as I do, then you also
have to support a food safety and inspection system that effectively
assures the safety and quality of meat and poultry products.
The second chart shows some of the progress we have made since we
established the new pathogen reduction standards which the USDA has
been implementing. Salmonella levels on meat and poultry products have
fallen. Salmonella rates in ground beef have dropped 43 percent for
some of our small plants, 23 percent for large plants. In fact, in the
entire United States, only three plants have failed to meet the
standard. I think this is strong evidence that the standard works and
that it is reasonable. Yet the court in Texas says USDA does not have
the legal authority to do what it has been doing to reach these
dropping rates in salmonella levels. It says USDA does not have the
authority to continue to do that.
The next chart indicates the success of the USDA new food safety
system for meat and poultry. This chart shows the rate of foodborne
illnesses has fallen from 51.2 per 100,000 people in 1996,
[[Page S7305]]
when the HACCP rule was implemented, to 40.7 per 100,000 people in
1999. That is a 20.5-percent decrease in total foodborne illnesses in
the last 4 to 5 years. That is a major success story in food safety.
But now the Texas court's decision has rejected USDA's authority to
reduce pathogens on meat and poultry products which led us to this
tremendous reduction.
The salmonella standard is not perfect, from what I am told by
scientists and others. That is why I have carefully crafted my
amendment so it does not codify or lock into place the existing
salmonella standard. My amendment would do nothing to prevent changing,
improving, or even challenging a pathogen reduction standard. I want to
continue to work with producers, the meat and poultry industries,
consumers, and the USDA to see that we have science-based, workable
performance standards that protect the public health. Again, what my
amendment does, and all it does, is to make certain that USDA has the
legal, statutory authority to enforce pathogen reduction standards that
are critically important to assuring food safety.
I am willing to engage in any colloquies about this amendment. Keep
in mind, this court decision was only 2 months ago. Quite frankly, if
we don't act soon, I think there is going to be great concern among
consumers, customers in the export markets, about our commitment to
reducing pathogens, reducing bacteria in our meat, livestock, and
poultry products.
We are not trying to lock in a standard. As I said in my opening
statement, times change, conditions change. We have to be able to do
that. But the authority to do that, as it has been going back probably
almost 70 years--80 years almost--the authority for meat and poultry
inspection has been with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. To be
sure, during most of that time, they were not involved in the reduction
of pathogens and bacteria. But with the new changes in how we do
inspections, with HACCP, we decided, and the processors and the
consumers decided, that we needed to do everything possible to reduce
bacteria contamination on our meat and poultry products.
As I said, we have done a great job in that. We have reduced it. We
are on our way. Most of the plants in America have met these
requirements. They have used HACCP. They have been responsible. Only
three plants in the entire United States failed to meet the standard. I
think if the court had gotten beyond the statutory problem and gotten
to the essence, the substance of it, the court, on the weight of the
evidence, would have had to decide that the reduction standard is
reasonable. Obviously, if all the plants in the country are doing it
and only three have not met it, a reasonable person--and I believe the
court is reasonable--would say, obviously, it has to be a pretty decent
standard. But the court didn't even get there. They just said, sorry,
you don't have the authority, which really has opened up a chasm.
That is why it is so critically important for us to address this
issue this year. The only vehicle we have that I can see right now is
to do it on the Agriculture appropriations bill, which is a good bill
and which I hope will make its way through and be signed by the
President. I think it is critically important to give them that
authority. That is all my amendment does right now.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment, on its face, looks as
though the Senate is being asked to vote in favor of supporting the
Department of Agriculture's standards for meat inspection that include
the power to shut down a plant if it is found that the product being
produced contains a contaminant. In the case in Dallas, TX, the Senator
cites, it was salmonella.
The plant operated by Supreme Beef in that area was shut down by the
Department of Agriculture and, according to testimony in the case in
Texas, it was shut down solely on the basis of the fact that the
product being produced contained a prohibitive level of salmonella, or
some salmonella.
What the court said was that the Department of Agriculture wasn't
given that kind of power by the Congress to impose regulations of that
kind, and that to shut down a plant there had to be some connection
between the operation of the plant and the presence of the salmonella
in the product. In other words, if the plant was totally sanitary,
obeyed every rule of law or regulation of the Department of Agriculture
for safe and sanitary operation, just because of the test, the
Department was without the power under the law to shut down the plant.
This amendment--if we adopt it--as suggested by the Senator from
Iowa, would impose a new legal authority that is not now present, which
would give the Department of Agriculture more power than it has, more
power than it has asked for, and, I suggest, more power than we ought
to give on an appropriations bill, without more careful review; that
is, the power to arbitrarily shut down a plant, whether it is being
operated correctly and in a sanitary manner, with all due regard for
the product that is being produced, the safety of that product for
human consumption.
Because of this court case that puts in question the Department's
authority that it exercised in this one case, we are being asked now to
say that these standards, which are regulations in effect, ought to be
codified; they ought to be put in the form of a law.
Now, that is a step that we, in my view, ought not to take--not on
this bill, not as an amendment to an appropriations bill, not on the
basis of one district's court's finding in the State of Texas, which
doesn't have application and is not being honored by the Department's
regulators anywhere else in the United States except in that Federal
court jurisdiction.
The Department of Agriculture has not asked for this amendment. I am
advised that the Department of Agriculture doesn't support this
amendment. The Department of Agriculture has not yet decided whether to
appeal this decision of the district court. It may decide to modify its
regulations because of this district court decision. So we would be
acting prematurely and, in response to the suggestion in this
amendment, we would be exceeding even the decision being made now in
the Department of Agriculture, or the Department of Justice, which has
to prosecute the appeal. So the Department of Justice hasn't decided, I
am told, whether to appeal this decision to the court of appeals. The
Department hasn't decided that yet. Yet we are being asked to reverse,
in effect, by legislation, the decision of that district court.
We are not an appellate court. I suggest that the Senate should not
act today favorably on this amendment as if we are reviewing the legal
intricacies involved in this case and are making some careful,
thoughtful determination about whether or not that case ought to stand
or whether it ought to be reversed. I am going to suggest to the Senate
that what we ought to do is look at the implications through hearings
in the Agriculture Committee or in the committee that has jurisdiction
over other food safety concerns. Our Appropriations Subcommittee could
conduct hearings--and that might be the appropriate thing to do--and
hear from the Department of Agriculture and hear from others who have
views on this subject. And then we could make a recommendation to the
Senate.
But this is a brand new decision, as the Senator said; it was made, I
think, in May. It is a recent decision. We ought to let the legal
process work its way to a conclusion with the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of Justice, and the packing company
involved in this case. They must have had some persuasive evidence to
present to the court as to why the Department of Agriculture acted
arbitrarily and improperly, or without the sanction of law, to shut
down this plant as they did. And here we are going to substitute our
judgment collectively for the judgment of the district court judge who
heard all the evidence, who saw the witnesses, including Department of
Agriculture officials who described what they did and why they did it.
The Senate needs to know that there is a committee that is available
to the Department of Agriculture that is called the Advisory Committee
on Microbiological Criteria. The Department of Agriculture and the
Secretary look to this committee normally for advice and consult on
issues of this kind. No consultation, as I understand
[[Page S7306]]
it, has taken place with this special committee of experts who are
brought together for the purpose of providing scientifically based
opinions to the Secretary of Agriculture on the question of
adulteration and sanitation issues of meat and poultry packing and
processing plants.
So let's not pretend that we know as much as this advisory committee.
Let's not pretend that we have a better reason for making a decision in
this case than the district court did, which found just the opposite of
what the Senator is asking this Senate to find. So I am suggesting that
this is premature. It is inappropriate for us to legislate in this
fashion on an appropriations bill, without the benefit of facts and
expert opinions and views on the subject.
So it is my intention, without cutting off anyone's right to speak,
to move to table the Senator's amendment and to ask for the yeas and
nays on that vote. But I do not want to make that motion right now
without notice to my friend and colleague from Iowa or any other
Senator who wants to be heard. We had told all Senators they could
expect a vote on an amendment on this bill at or about 10:30. I hope we
can keep that commitment to the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman not moving to
table right now. I listened as closely as I could, while conversing
with my staff, to the comments made by my friend. I hope we can engage
in a colloquy on this. We are talking past each other.
Obviously, the chairman had to leave the floor, but I hope we can
engage in a colloquy on this because this is a very serious matter. I
don't want there to be misperceptions out there.
The Senator from Mississippi just got through saying, more than once,
that what we are being asked to do is codify a regulation. I would like
the Senator from Mississippi to show where in my amendment it codifies
a regulation. It is not there. I challenge my friend from Mississippi
to show that. It is not there. I said explicitly in my statement that
my amendment does not codify any regulation. It is not there. So if the
Senator from Mississippi says that my amendment codifies a regulation,
I challenge him to show where and how. I think that is a misperception.
Secondly, again, let's be clear on what we are talking about here. Is
it reasonable, I ask, for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has
the statutory power to inspect meat and poultry products, which it has
for many years, is it reasonable for the USDA to also inspect and set
some standards for the reductions of packaging bacteria that is on our
meat and poultry products?
If the answer to that is no, it is not reasonable, then I guess you
could vote to table my amendment because that is where we will be. We
will be at a point where what we would be saying is that the U.S.
Department of Agriculture should not have any authority to establish
pathogen reduction standards nor any authority to enforce them. I
suppose they could test them. But they could never enforce them. I
think that is what we have to ask ourselves: Is it reasonable for the
U.S. Department of Agriculture to set pathogen reduction standards and
then to be able to enforce them?
I said in my opening statement, and I say again to my friend from
Mississippi, my amendment does not codify any regulation. Yet, if I am
not mistaken, I heard my friend from Mississippi state in his comments
that we are being asked to codify a regulation. I carefully drafted the
amendment not to do that.
If the Senator from Mississippi can show how we codify our
regulation, we would be glad to change the amendment. It is not there.
That is a misperception. All this amendment says is that the USDA has
the statutory authority to both set a pathogen reduction standard and
then to enforce it. That does not mean a packer or a processor couldn't
challenge those standards as being unreasonable or not applicable. That
still can be challenged. Any rule or regulation can be challenged in
court.
Let's take the Supreme Beef case, I say to my friend from
Mississippi, where the Supreme Beef packing plant had failed the
salmonella standard reduction three times. They had failed it three
times before the USDA stepped in and withdrew its inspection, thereby
basically shutting the plant down.
Again, keep in mind that the plant did not go to court to challenge
the standard. They went to court and said USDA doesn't have the
statutory authority to set the standard or to enforce it. The court
found that USDA did not have that statutory authority. Here is a plant
that failed three times to meet the salmonella reduction standard. They
had been warned. They knew it.
Keep in mind that a lot of this ground beef from Supreme Beef goes
into our School Lunch Program. Go out and tell the parents of America
they can send their kids to school and they can eat ground beef in
school but we are not going to enforce any bacteria reduction standards
such as salmonella in our packing plants. Supreme Beef failed it three
times. Now they can fail it four or five times. They will have no
standards whatsoever--none, zero, zip--because the USDA will not be
able to enforce its salmonella reduction standards.
I think what Supreme Beef should have done was challenge, if they
wanted to, the reasonableness of that standard. They could go to court
and get a stay to keep operating and then show the court that the
standard that was imposed on them by USDA and by which USDA is shutting
down their plant by refusing inspection is unreasonable, unwarranted,
and inapplicable. Fair enough; let them do that. But they cannot even
get there because they said USDA doesn't have the authority to do it.
That is where we are. If we take no action, that is where we are.
Supreme Beef can go ahead and keep right on operating. They don't have
to worry about any salmonella reduction. They can keep pumping that
food right into the School Lunch Program.
The chairman indicated that there is a USDA scientific advisory
committee that may review this standard this fall. I welcome that.
Nothing in my amendment would prevent changes based on those
recommendations. Nothing in this amendment would do that.
Again, one has to ask oneself, should the USDA have the authority
under the HACCP program to issue pathogen reduction standards and then
to be able to enforce those?
Again, I go back to my chart. Since the pathogen reduction standard
for salmonella went into effect in 1996--it is so prevalent and makes
people pretty sick--rates in ground beef dropped 43 percent in our
smaller packing plants and 23 percent in our larger plants.
That is success. That is why plants all over America have not
challenged this in court. They seem to be doing quite well with it.
Only three plants in the entire United States have failed to meet this
standard--three--Supreme Beef, of course, being one of them.
As I said, since the HACCP rule was implemented in 1996, 51.2
foodborne illnesses per 100,000 people went down to 40.7. It is
working. Yet because of one plant in Texas that decided to thumb its
nose at the salmonella reduction standard--obviously, they had a good
attorney--they went to court and said USDA does not have the authority
either to set the standard or to enforce it. The court said: You are
right, they don't, because Congress never gave them that authority.
I want to clear up one other thing. I am told the USDA is not opposed
to this amendment. They are not taking a position because of pending
litigation because they are in the courts right now because of this
pending litigation.
The USDA has a charge to ensure lower bacteria counts. Again, it is
not the power to arbitrarily shut down a plant because of the
appropriateness of a specific USDA standard. The standard is still
subject to review by a court. I want to make that as clear as I can.
No. 1, I challenge my friend from Mississippi to show me how my
amendment codifies the regulation. I challenge my friend to show that.
He has said that. I have carefully drafted it so that it does not
codify any regulation. The regulations can change. The advisory
committee can meet. Maybe they want to change these standards--I am
speaking here regarding this amendment--but I don't know why they would
want to change a standard that has been so successful, by which every
[[Page S7307]]
packing plant in America today is abiding, except three, one of them
being Supreme Beef that brought this case.
It is not that technical. All we are doing is asking, through this
amendment, to give USDA the authority to set the standard and enforce
it--not what standard. This amendment does not give the USDA the
authority to set a standard that I specify and to enforce that
standard. It says to set pathogen reduction standards and to enforce
them. Obviously, if they set a standard that is unreasonable,
inappropriate, and inapplicable, that can be challenged in court. They
can be challenged in the rulemaking process. That is the way it is
done.
But if we continue as we are right now, there is no reason for any
plant in America to abide by these salmonella reduction standards
because USDA has no authority to enforce them. They could go into a
plant and say: Gee, you know, you are right above salmonella; that is
above our standard. The plant can say: So what. Get out of here. We
don't have. I don't think that is what the American people want or the
American consumers want. I don't believe it is what the vast majority
of packers and processors in America want. They want the public to have
the highest level of confidence that their meat and poultry and meat
products and poultry products are wholesome and without bacterial
contamination.
It is too bad because of one bad actor--one plant in Texas that
failed three times to meet the standard, and on the fourth time, after
having clear warnings, the USDA came in and withdrew the inspection,
which effectively shuts down the plant--we have to throw the whole
system out and say the USDA does not have the authority. That can open
the floodgates for plants all over America.
I say to my friend from Mississippi, there is no codification of any
regulation, none whatever. It is only giving the USDA the authority
under which it has been operating for 4 years, which has been
successful. Only three plants in America have failed to meet standards.
I think that is a good success story. I don't think we ought to not
give the authority to the USDA to continue on this pathway simply
because of one bad actor in Texas and because of the fact that we
failed in our statutory deliberations and in our statutory approach to
give the USDA this authority. I am not pointing the finger at anybody.
We should have at some point statutorily given the USDA this
authority. We did not do so. That is what this amendment seeks to do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to table the Harkin amendment, and I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to a motion to table amendment No. 3938.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 218 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kerrey
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--49
Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Bunning
The motion was rejected.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment?
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Amendment No. 3995 To Amendment No. 3938
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the amendment to
the desk and ask it be reported.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an
amendment numbered 3955 to amendment No. 3938.
On page 2 of the amendment: Strike ``established by the
Secretary'' and insert in lieu thereof: ``promulgated with
the advice of the National Advisory Committee on
Microbiological Criteria for Foods and that are shown to be
adulterated''.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment states that the
microbiological standards imposed by the Secretary of Agriculture, in
situations involving those described by the amendment of the Senator
from Iowa, must be imposed pursuant to the Administrative Procedures
Act and be subject to notice and comment procedures under that act.
It additionally requires the Secretary, in instances involving
contamination of meat and poultry products that are subject to
inspection and plant inspection by the Secretary, to seek the advice of
the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods.
This is a panel of scientists, with members appointed by the Secretary
of Agriculture. The purpose of the panel is to provide advice and
counsel on matters of this kind from experts to the Secretary of
Agriculture.
We understand that this panel has not had an opportunity to make
recommendations or observations about the standards that are the
subject of these USDA regulations that were litigated in this court
case because the Department of Agriculture decides when they meet, and
it is my understanding that the next meeting is scheduled for the fall.
There has not been a special meeting called. And the issue has not been
placed on the agenda.
If my amendment is adopted, the Senate would suggest to the Secretary
that this issue ought to be presented to this panel of expert witnesses
and the advice of that panel sought in this situation.
The Department of Agriculture has indicated that it does not support
the Harkin amendment. The Senator said that it has decided to take no
position on the amendment because it involves a case that is subject to
judicial proceedings at this time.
To remind Senators, this is a court case the Senator is asking be
reversed by the Senate. The time for appeal has not yet expired. The
Department has not decided whether to appeal. The Department of Justice
has not made a recommendation, as I understand it, whether it thinks an
appeal should be prosecuted or not. They may decide this court was
right and then come to the Congress to ask for additional authority,
and the Congress may very well decide to give the Department additional
authority.
But the adoption of this amendment, without suggesting the Department
needs to consult first on modifying its standards with an expert panel,
that was created for the purpose of providing information, would be
premature also.
So we hope the Senate will adopt this modification to the Harkin
amendment. The vote on the motion to table was a tie vote, and
therefore the motion failed. We could let the Senate vote on the
amendment of the Senator from Iowa without any further amendment.
[[Page S7308]]
And if there is another tie vote, the amendment would fall.
But in order to try to resolve the issue, for the moment, my
suggestion is that the Senate should adopt this amendment, putting in
the extra provision of consultation with the National Advisory
Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, and suggest that, if
this standard is given the force and effect of law, there must be some
connection between the contaminated product and unsanitary conditions
or the way in which the processing plant was being operated in order to
justify the Department withdrawing its inspectors and therefore closing
the plant.
We want to continue to ensure--and this ought to be clear--that our
Nation's food supply is safe; that it is processed in the most sanitary
conditions possible; that it is inspected to ensure that the food is
safe for human consumption, all of that will continue to be reflected
in the adoption of this amendment.
What we add is that scientific advice and counsel be sought by the
Department of Agriculture on this subject with respect to this standard
that has been thrown out by a court. If it can be modified to ensure
that we continue to see the force and effect of the standards enforced
by the courts, then that is what we would like to see happen. We would
like it to be done in a process that gives respect for the power of a
court and the judicial process that is in place but also the
prerogatives of the Congress. The Congress has not empowered the
Department of Agriculture to issue a standard of the kind the court
said it could not enforce. That is a point to remember, too. The
adoption of the Harkin amendment would give that power legislatively,
give that power to the Secretary of Agriculture without a careful
review of the implications of that new power by the Congress.
I am hopeful that this will resolve the issue for the time being, for
today. The legislative committee has a right to look at it, to have
hearings, to propose changes in the authorities the Department has in
situations such as this. That would be the appropriate way to resolve
the issue for the long term. But for today, I am hopeful the Senate
will agree to this amendment, maybe on a voice vote, and then we can
adopt the amendment of the Senator on a voice vote and proceed to other
issues.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
____________________