Senate rejects bid to give USDA greater power

On July 20, by a vote of 48 to 49, the Senate rejected an amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill (HR 4461) designed, in the words of the sponsor Sen. Tom Harkin (R.-Iowa), to "clarify that the USDA has the legal statutory authority to require reductions in pathogenic bacteria in meat and poultry products." Pathogens are any bacteria or micro-organisms that cause illness.

A federal district court has ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) lacks authority to enforce its pathogen reduction standards for chicken and beef.

Harkin criticized that decision. "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."

Sen. Thad Cochran (R.-Miss.) opposed the amendment. "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."

An earlier attempt to table (kill) the amendment failed 49 to 49. The rollcall vote below was on the passing the amendment.

A "yes" vote was, in effect, a vote to declare-contrary to a federal court deck sion-that the USDA had the right to enforce pathogen reduction standards. A "no" vote was a vote against the amendment and a vote against making such a declaration.

FOR THE AMENDMENT: 48

REPUBLICANS FOR (6): Abraham, Burns, Fitzgerald, Grassley, Lugar and Specter.

DEMOCRATS FOR (42): Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Breaux, Bryan, Byrd, Cleland, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Edwards, Feingold, Feinstein, Graham (Fla.), Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerry (Mass.), Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Moynihan, Reed (R.I.), Reid (Nev.), Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer, Torricelli, Wellstone and Wyden.

AGAINST THE AMENDMENT: 49

REPUBLICANS AGAINST (47): Allard, Ashcroft, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Campbell, Chafee, Cochran, Collins, Craig, Crapo, DeWine, Domenici, Enz, Frist, Gorton, Gramm (Tex.), Grams (Minn.), Gregg, Hagel, Hatch, Helms, Hutchinson (Ark.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe, Jeffords, Kyl, Loft, Mack, McCain, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Roberts, Roth, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith (N.H.), Smith (Ore.), Snowe, Stevens, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Voinovich and Warner.

DEMOCRATS AGAINST (2): Kerrey (Neb.) and Lin.

NOT VOTING (2): Bunning and Murray.

Copyright Human Events Publishing, Inc. Sep 15, 2000
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved