[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15825-15826]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 GIPSA

  Mr. MORAN. I am here today, as we debate H.R. 2112, the Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, to address a particular provision that, in my view, 
needs to be addressed. I also hope to have the opportunity later today 
to offer an amendment regarding the Watershed Rehabilitation Program 
and to allocate some additional funds for that program, and I hope to 
have the chance to speak during the debate on this bill on the proposed 
school lunch regulations the Senator from Maine has so appropriately 
addressed previously.
  At this time, I would like to turn my attention to a problem with the 
pending legislation; that is, its failure to address the proposed rule 
titled ``Implementation of Regulations Required Under Title XI of the 
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; Conduct in Violation of the 
Act,'' commonly known as the GIPSA rule. This proposed rule has the 
potential to adversely affect livestock producers in my State and 
around the country, as well as consumers of meat products.
  The House included a funding limitation on implementation of this 
rule in

[[Page 15826]]

its appropriations bill. That is not included in the Senate version of 
the bill. I am a member of the agricultural appropriations subcommittee 
and believe that, in this case, the House is correct.
  Initially, this rule that the Department of Agriculture is proposing 
grew out of the 2008 farm bill. As a Member of the House of 
Representatives back then, I was a member of the conference committee 
that developed that farm bill. It directed the Department of 
Agriculture to issue regulations in five very discrete areas.
  In June 2010, the Department of Agriculture responded with the 
issuance of its proposed GIPSA regulations that clearly went way beyond 
the mandate of that 2008 farm bill and way beyond the Department of 
Agriculture's authority under the Packers and Stockyards Act. The GIPSA 
rule as written is exactly the type of burdensome regulation that was 
the focus of our President's January 18 Executive order.
  In addition to the Executive order, the President promised to have a 
very transparent and open administration in regard to the development 
of rules. Unfortunately, the process surrounding the GIPSA rule has 
been far from transparent. This rule was proposed with zero economic 
analysis from the Department despite the major impacts it could have on 
the agricultural economy.
  For months, USDA denied that this would be an economically 
significant rule, until multiple private sector studies and 
overwhelming comments from agricultural producers and others, such as 
those in my home State of Kansas, finally convinced the USDA this rule 
would indeed have a significant economic impact. Private analysis at 
that time indicated that these GIPSA regulations, if finalized as 
proposed, would cost the U.S. meat and poultry industry nearly $1 
billion.
  Under this pressure, the Department of Agriculture is now conducting 
an economic analysis. While I certainly welcome that economic analysis, 
I am very concerned about whether this analysis will be made public 
before a final rule is announced and whether the public will be able to 
analyze and comment on the data and methodology used by USDA to 
complete the study.
  In fact, I asked the Secretary of Agriculture, during an agriculture 
appropriations subcommittee hearing, if he would release that economic 
analysis before the comment period concluded or open a comment period 
after the analysis is complete so people can make comments based upon 
what the economic analysis demonstrates. Certainly, in my view, the 
Secretary failed on a number of occasions to answer my question and 
give me that commitment that the process would be open and transparent 
and that a comment period would occur.
  I sincerely believe it is incumbent upon this Congress to exercise 
its oversight discretion and direct the necessary transparency and 
thoughtful analysis that USDA to date has not publicly provided. We 
need time to study and comment on the methodology, and we need to make 
sure we get these rules right if they are going to be implemented. It 
would be irresponsible to not adjust the rules to mitigate a negative 
economic impact determined by the Department's own economic analysis.
  As I mentioned, the House included a provision barring funding for 
the current proposed GIPSA regulations, and USDA should be delayed from 
going forward until it can limit itself to the five areas set forth in 
the farm bill--its congressional authority--and until public comments 
can occur regarding that economic analysis. We ought not have a final 
rule without the benefit of the economic analysis. The Department of 
Agriculture should not just be going through the motions because there 
was insistence that an economic analysis occur. We need to be able to 
mitigate any negative impacts that we learn from that economic 
analysis.
  Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity at this point in the 
day to address an issue that is appropriate as we discuss the 
agricultural appropriations bill throughout today. I look forward to 
being back on the floor later today to offer an amendment to that bill 
regarding watershed rehabilitation and also at that time to speak in 
regard to what I view as some crazy ideas that are proposed School 
Lunch Program regulations.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.

                          ____________________