Food Safety legislation

From what I know (4.00 / 2)

the Senate might have to re-pass S.510 with a fix in it and then re-send it to the house (or perhaps send it for the first time?) I've heard estimates that there's a 50/50 chance it'll pass by the end of the year.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 01:15:04 AM UTC

much simpler (4.00 / 1)

The simpler procedure would be for the Senate to pass the Continuing Resolution (H.R. 3082) without amendment. I can't come up with a reason they would revisit S. 510.

---

by: count @ Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 01:58:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Senate might do that. (4.00 / 1)

It's a bad idea and it is not necessary, but the Senate is a dysfunctional mess and at this point it's all about turf and testosterone.

None of us plebeians ever will know why Big Dick Durbin insisted that Harkin report S. 510 instead of an amended version of H.R. 2749, which sat in the same committee for six months before a substitute version of S. 510 came out without a report. It's a disgusting charade.

---

by: count @ Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 02:14:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

clarification (4.00 / 1)

I do not know whether Majority Whip Durbin's dick is big or small.

---

by: count @ Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 02:23:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Face The Nation (4.00 / 1)

Durbin was on Face The Nation last Sunday. Several topics came up, but the sorry misbegotten mishandling of the food safety legislation (S. 510 was Durbin's bill) was not discussed.

---

by: count @ Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 02:41:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think this is the epitome of what they mean (4.00 / 2)

when they say law making is like sausage making.

Charade is right. If I had an employee in my business that behaved the way these people in congress are behaving I'd fire his or her ass.

As it is, we have these idiots who we hired in congress and not only can't we fire them, but most of them will probably get rehired when their contract up for renewall.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 02:56:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

H.R. 3082 (4.00 / 1)

H.R. 3082 was received in the Senate yesterday and is "at the desk", whatever that means.

---

by: count @ Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 23:48:02 PM UTC

at the desk (4.00 / 1)

One thing "at the desk" means is, it isn't yet on the Senate calendar.

---

by: count @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 00:30:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

At the desk... (4.00 / 1)

Has the teacher called it up for misbehaving?  Is it facing the class, holding both of its arms out with a heavy book in each?

Heh, okay sorry...

---

by: JayinPhiladelphia @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 00:33:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd think more likely (4.00 / 2)

it would be at the desk, sitting on a stool wearing a dunce cap.

;-)

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 12:10:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

no 2011 earmarks? (4.00 / 1)

H.R. 3082 was introduced in the House in June, 2009, "making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes." The bill has bounced back and forth between the House and Senate since then. On December 8, 2010, the House passed H.R. 1755, which changed the title of H.R. 3082, which now is ''Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011'', and substituted new text.

House report 111-675, which accompanied H.R. 1755 to the floor, is now available from the GPO. The report includes the new H.R. 3082 text, which includes the FDA food safety legislation.

Uh oh. H.R. 3082 now includes something I had not picked up on, something about Congressional earmarks.

From page 3 of 164 in the pdf:

The House amendment freezes FY 2011 discretionary appropriations at the FY 2010 level; providing $45.9 billion less than the President requested for the year. Within that ceiling, the resolution adjusts funding between programs and accounts to deal with current demands and workloads and avoid furloughs. Overall, the resolution includes $513 billion for the Department of Defense, $4.9 billion above 2010; $75.2 billion for military construction and veterans, $1.4 billion below 2010; and $501.4 billion for all other appropriations, $3.5 billion below 2010. It also includes $159 billion for the war, as the President requested; prohibits funding for Congressional earmarks; freezes non-military Federal pay for two years, as requested by the President; and allows feefunded programs to continue to be financed from fees.

In the context of the discussion about FY 2010 and FY 2011, the part about earmarks seems pretty clear, right? Congressional earmarks prohibited in 2011? But from page 6 of 164:

SEC. 1112. Any language specifying an earmark in an appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010, or in a committee report or joint explanatory statement accompanying such an Act, shall have no legal effect with respect to funds appropriated by this Act. For purposes of this section, the term ''earmark'' means a congressional earmark or congressionally directed spending item, as defined in clause 9(e) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and paragraph 5(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

What's the deal? Did the House think it was prohibiting earmarks for FY 2011? is that 2010 just a typo? Darned if I know.

This continuing resolution must be passed by the Senate without amendment by December 18, or it must be amended by the Senate with subsequent agreement by the House or a conference committee, by December 18. If not, the government shuts down. I can see Senate passage without amendment if the 2010 language stands, so there is in fact no prohibition on funding earmarks in FY 2011. If earmarks somehow would be prohibited in FY 2011, I say all bets are off.

Joanne mentioned legislative sausage. I like sausage, but this is ludicrous.

---

by: count @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 20:45:34 PM UTC

LOL, sausage making indeed! (4.00 / 1)

Looks like they've decided to prohibit earmarks for this year, now that the year is almost done.

Impressive! I'm in awe of our stupendous legislators back in DC.

Not....

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 02:05:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

worse than that (0.00 / 0)

FY 2010 ended Sept. 31 2010. We're already in FY 2011, which has 9 months to go.

If the intention was to prohibit earmark funding for the remainder of FY 2011, I think the legislation misfired, don't you?

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. I wonder if anyone besides us knows about this.

---

by: count @ Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 03:28:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

oopsie (0.00 / 0)

"30 days hath September..."

---

by: count @ Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 03:29:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right, I keep forgetting the differences between fiscal year and calendar year. (4.00 / 1)

But that makes it even worse. So they want to prohibit earmark spending for a year that ended months ago.

Now I'm even more impressed.

I wonder what they were drinking and how much????

My big question is - is this an honest mistake or typo as you wondered, or  somthing sinister?

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 04:06:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

S. Amdt. 4805 (4.00 / 1)

The legislative daily digest is out of date, as is the Senate calendar. We don't know if H.R. 3082 is on the calendar. The clock ticks.

We do know that, yesterday, Senate Amendment 4805 to H.R. 3082 was "ordered to be printed".

SA 4805 (Inouye)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.

So much for H.R. 3082 being accepted without amendment.

---

by: count @ Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 14:16:08 PM UTC

SA 4805 is printed (4.00 / 2)

SA 4805 as printed in the Congressional Record is available now. SA 4805 replaces and expands HR 3082. SA 4805 is Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2011, an omnibus bill which, I assume, improves HR 3082 by multiplying the graft and corruption.

The food safety legislation has become Section M of SA 4805. Far as I can tell, the text of S 510 was incorporated intact into HR 3082, and now has been inserted intact into SA 4805. Section M is found on pages S9221-S9245.

Mr. Inouye's amendment removes the blanket prohibition on earmarks, whether for FY2010 or FY2011. The only reference to earmarks in his bill is that earmarks benefiting for-profit entities are prohibited if the earmarks originate in the House of Representatives. Petty retributive legislating, anyone?

Mr. McCain's amendment is very limited and simple. Its only purpose is to restore the earmark prohibition. SA 4807 is on S9262.

Congressional Record, pages S9024-S9278 pdf.  

---

by: count @ Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 21:08:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

earmarks (4.00 / 1)

Just for fun, let's note for the record:

H.R. 3082 didn't contain any earmarks when the House passed it.  Now, S. Amdt. 4805 contains hundreds of earmarks.

---

by: count @ Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 07:49:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

S. Amdt. 4807 (4.00 / 1)

Also yesterday, Senator McCain submitted SA 4807 amending H.R. 3082. Submitted but not ordered to be printed, I don't know what significance the "ordered to be printed" step has. Same deal as SA 4805, purpose and text not available yet.

---

by: count @ Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 16:39:16 PM UTC

earmark search (4.00 / 1)

Does anyone know how to find the list of earmarks contained in a bill? I'm specifically trying to find the earmarks in S. Amdt. 4805.

Earmarks are called Congressionally Directed Spending.

---

by: count @ Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 15:50:14 PM UTC

No idea... (4.00 / 1)

...how to do any of that at the moment, I'm still getting used to finally having a computer that doesn't shut down immediately upon encountering a pdf file.

It's been fascinating watching Republicans oppose earmarks, though.  Isn't this against their whole professed belief system*?  I mean, it's not like Congress will stop spending if they're eliminated.  It's just that instead of specific locally directed projects, the federal government (boo!) would then have more say over where money goes and how it's spent locally, right?

*Yes, I know they're lying hacks with zero actual principles but bear with me here...

---

by: JayinPhiladelphia @ Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 00:26:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was wrong. (4.00 / 1)

I was wrong when I wrote that the food safety legislation would pass because it was in a bill that funded the government for the rest of FY2011.

Senate Dem leader drops nearly $1.3T spending bill

The Senate is fucked up beyond the belief capabilities of modern mankind. All they needed to do with food safety in the first pass was amend the House legislation, which they decided to ignore. More recently, with regard to FY2011, all they needed to do was pass the House continuing resolution, which they also ignored.

Now I have no idea what happens to food legislation. I suppose it would be too much to expect that the Senate would decide to agree with H.R. 3082. Those dolts. Those imbeciles. Those criminals.

---

by: count @ Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 04:34:10 AM UTC

H.R. 3082 (4.00 / 1)

How about this? All the Senate needs do is concur in H.R. 3082. If the Senate does anything else and sends the House some cockamamie amended version, the House should reject it. Shut down that sinkhole of misery.

---

by: count @ Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 04:45:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

All the House... (4.00 / 1)

...will soon be doing is rejecting things, anyway.

Answering another question from last week, on their new Republican-set two-weeks-on, one-week-off "work" schedule.

---

by: JayinPhiladelphia @ Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 06:45:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And it's hilarious to me... (4.00 / 1)

...that certified lunatic Allen West is actually in the right here!

---

by: JayinPhiladelphia @ Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 06:47:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Allen West, (4.00 / 1)

the guy whose security clearance is higher than Barack Obama's?

Boehner's announced 5% reduction in the operating budget of the Speaker's office rings hollow, doesn't it? The budget should be reduced by at least 33.333%.

---

by: count @ Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 07:10:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kleenex expenses will rise, though... (4.00 / 1)

Somebody has to pick up The Weeper's tab on that, it's a work-related expense.  Politics makes John cry a lot.

---

by: JayinPhiladelphia @ Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 07:16:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm really starting to wonder if they actually ever wanted to pass any kind of (4.00 / 1)

food safety bill in the first place.

First we had everyone dragging their feet like crazy for over a year(?) with first one bill and then another. Then we had the big hoo ha over the funding providions in S510 (I refuse to believe that was an honest mistake), and now we have this.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but this looks fishy as all get out to me.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 19:07:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Food safety passes Senate? (4.00 / 1)

Sure looks like it?

In an unexpected move, the Senate today passed a sweeping food safety bill by unanimous consent, sending the bill back for a vote in the House before it will move on to President Obama's desk. [...]

"Very very important for our country," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said this evening on the Senate floor. "Perfect legislation? No. But a broad broad step in the right direction. We haven't done anything in this regard for more than a hundred years for our country. With all the changes in processing food, it's so very important. I've spoken to the Speaker tonight and this will pass the House when they come back Monday night or Tuesday."

The surprising development is only the latest bizarre twist for the measure. Just a few days ago the food safety bill was seen as dead on Capitol Hill, but the Senate this weekend modified it to resolve a revenue technicality and managed to pass it.

---

by: JayinPhiladelphia @ Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 01:41:16 AM UTC

Do you have any idea what they did to modify the bill and resolve the revenue technicality? (4.00 / 2)

I read the article, but it doesn't say what they did, just that they did something.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 13:55:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Everybody says" (4.00 / 1)

I keep reading articles that say or indicate that the text of the legislation was changed somehow to effect the fix. I don't think this is true. I think the text is exactly the same as in S. 510. The House Clerk was never notified by the Secretary of the Senate that S. 510 had been passed, the bill was never transmitted to the House, and the House never officially considered S. 510. Obviously, however, the text of S. 510 was readily available, and I think the text was inserted intact into H.R. 3082. The fix was to insert the text into a bill originated by the House. This carried through into S. Amdt. 4805 because it was an amendment to H.R. 3082 in the nature of a substitute.

As to what happened Sunday, I don't know exactly because all the Congressional sources were lagging when I checked a few hours ago, but I suspect that the text (still unchanged), was presented as a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute to a bill that originated in the House, which is what should have been done in the first place. In typical brain damaged fashion, the bill was a cash for clunkers bill instead of Representative Dingell's H.R. 2749 (food safety), which the House passed in July 2009. No harm no foul because the substitute bill passed, but it ticks me off. Why not give Dingell his due?

It's after 11 a.m. here, the Congressional sources should have been updated by now. I'll check, and see how close my guess is.

---

by: count @ Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 16:14:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yesterday (4.00 / 1)

Looks like yesterday the Senate passed by unanimous consent S. Amdt. 4890, which was an amendment to H.R. 2751, a cash for clunkers bill introduced June 8 2009 by Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH13). House passed the bill June 9 2009. The bill was received in the Senate and placed on the Senate legislative calendar 6/10/09. The bill was read the second time and placed on the Senate legislative calendar as General Order 74 on 6/11/09. It has been gathering dust since then.

S. Amdt. 4890 replaced the text of the cash for clunkers bill with the text of the food safety legislation. S. Amdt. 4891 changed the title of the bill. It is now

A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the safety of the food supply.

and from S. Amdt. 4890

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

   (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``FDA Food Safety Modernization Act''.

Dingell's food safety bill, H.R. 2749, never was placed on the Senate calendar.

---

by: count @ Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 17:03:59 PM UTC

off to the races (4.00 / 1)

No votes were taken in the first hour of this meeting of the House of Representatives, but the agenda is moving with alacrity. A speaker said this is the last meeting of this legislative season. If that turns out to be true, I think the statement implies a long day.

The House has received S. Amdt. 4890, the food safety legislation.

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 15:57:07 PM UTC

votes (4.00 / 1)

Roll call votes won't happen for a while. This was agreed at the beginning of the meeting. Also, some Reps still haven't returned to D.C. from their districts.

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 16:06:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

end of season (4.00 / 1)

Today clearly is not to be the last day of the legislative season.

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 17:45:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Frank Lucas (4.00 / 1)

Lucas opposes the bill, hasn't had enough time to consider it. OMG.

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 18:20:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lucas is at it again (4.00 / 1)

Lucas opposes the bill because it will confuse consumers and, far from making us safer, it will expose us to greater risk.

He'll be one helluva chair for House Ag.

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 20:38:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Frank Lucas... (4.00 / 1)

Every time I think of Frank Lucas, I chuckle a little.  It's fun to imagine him as the 60s and 70s Harlem drug kingpin of the same name.  Or at least it is to me and my strange sense of humor...

---

by: JayinPhiladelphia @ Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 23:25:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Frank Lucas, cont... (4.00 / 1)

His new appointment to the House Ag Committee sounds like a real winner -

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Ryan McKee, a senior director focusing on derivatives regulation at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has been appointed as a professional staffer at the House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture under Frank Lucas (R., Okla.), the committee's incoming chairman.

The Chamber of Commerce is a business lobbying group. McKee was best known for defending corporations against harsh new financial regulations that could raise their costs of hedging.

Ah yes, "harsh" is exactly the word I'd use to describe US financial regulations.  Lol.  Dow Jones, so consider the source of course...

There's a joke in here somewhere combining this news with my thoughts on Frank Lucas the drug dealer just above.

---

by: JayinPhiladelphia @ Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 23:45:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

blatant bullshit (4.00 / 1)

With this appointment, Lucas proudly utters an in-your-face scream of "Fuck You America!"

Remember the dead-of-night Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000? The popular imagination might remember that as a Phil Gramm travesty, but House Ag and Senate Ag had a lot to do with it because the commodities markets are in their jurisdiction. This is the reason House Ag and Senate Ag committee members (especially the chairs) rake in huge amounts of Wall Street money.

I think no senior Chamber director would abandon that job for a House Ag staff position unless he saw potential for doing a lot of harm.

Great find, Jay. I didn't know about that. Depressing, though.

---

by: count @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:21:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here we go! (4.00 / 1)

I think a vote will be held on food safety within an hour.

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 21:07:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's done! (4.00 / 1)

Who'd a thunk it. Final vote on FDA food safety modernization act passed, goes to President.

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 21:51:27 PM UTC

What Jill said (4.00 / 1)

In the end, what happened was exactly what Jill said. The fix was to replace the text of a House-originated bill with the text of S. 510.

Dingell was funny during Tuesday's debate on the bill. He made sure to express the sentiment of many House members that Representatives are better legislators than are Senators. I agree with him, at least for the 111th Congress.

---

by: count @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:12:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]