Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator from Utah for his cooperation and the accommodation he has shown us in accommodating the interests of all concerned here. I call up an amendment that is at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the amendment that we have just offered has one specific purpose, and that is to protect the ability of the Department of Agriculture to issue its proposed rule requiring science- based hazard analysis and critical control point, or HACCP, systems in meat and poultry inspections. The rule is critical, for it will improve the quality of our Nation's food supply and help prevent a repeat of the E. coli bacterial contamination. But it is not just E. coli; it is salmonella, it is listeria, it is a number of other foodborne illnesses that as a result of recent experience has clearly demonstrated the need for a new system. Last year, 2-year-old Cullen Mack, of my home State of South Dakota, fell ill from eating beef contaminated with E. coli bacteria. As a result of experiences like Cullen's, I held a number of hearings in the Agriculture Committee on the tragic 1993 outbreak of E. coli. I held numerous follow-up hearings in which industry, producers and consumers all repeatedly called for improving and modernizing the meat and poultry inspection systems. Later, the Department of Agriculture developed regulations to address recurrences of this problem. The rules would modernize the meat inspection process using sensitive scientific techniques to detect contamination and prevent spoiled [[Page S 9742]] meat from making its way into our food supply. Not only would the public benefit from tough new meat inspection rules, but so would farmers and ranchers who raise the livestock and rely on the assurances that their products will reach the market in the best condition possible. Consumers and agricultural producers should not be asked to delay these essential reforms--reforms the entire agricultural and consumer community have been calling for for several years. Unfortunately, this bill, even with the Dole amendment adopted yesterday, could lead to unacceptable delays in the issuance and implementation of this rule. The problem is really very simple, Mr. President. In an attempt to reform the regulatory process, the bill overreaches and provides numerous opportunities to those who would seek to delay the rule, prevent it from being issued, or attempt its repeal. Such a result is, frankly, unacceptable and, I believe, would lead to the long-term detriment to the American people and American agriculture. Yesterday, we debated the Dole amendment, which purported to address the problem. Unfortunately, it did little in that regard. It simply establishes a 180-day grace period for the regulation, at which point the agency must still comply with all of the provisions of the bill. It says for 180 days the effects of this legislation will not be addressed as it relates to the regulations. But after that, everything the bill calls for is every bit as much in effect as it would have been had the 180-day period not been in existence at all. It delays it for 6 months. It does not exempt the rule from the many requirements of the bill. And, as a result, that delay is really no fix at all. So merely delaying compliance of the burdensome processes of the bill, which ultimately must be met anyway, is no solution. Moreover, once the rule is promulgated, the petition and judicial review processes would still apply. Therefore, the rule will be susceptible to the extensive challenges available through the petition processes and through litigation. All of this for a rule that has already gone through the lengthy rulemaking process, and for a rule that is so essential to protecting public health. In short, Mr. President, a 180-day delay does not solve the problem. In addition to these concerns are those that Secretary Glickman outlined in his letter of July 11. In that letter, Secretary Glickman voiced strong opposition to S. 343 because it would unnecessarily delay USDA's food safety reform, among many other things. The letter explains the Secretary's view that the peer review requirement in S. 343 will delay USDA's food safety reform by at least 6 months. As I read Secretary Glickman's letter, he is concerned that the bill, as amended by the Dole amendment, requires that risk assessments underlying both proposed and final regulations be peer reviewed prior to becoming final. In other words, before USDA can issue a final regulation reforming our meat and poultry inspection systems--a regulation that has been in the works now for more than 2 years and is based on more than 10 years of science-based reform efforts--the bill would require that the rule go through a lengthy review by scientists before it could be issued in its final form. According to the Secretary, this peer review requirement would result, as I said, in a 6-month delay in this essential food safety reform. My good friend and colleague, Senator Johnston, has stated that he believes there are exemptions in the bill to deal with the peer review issue. It is my understanding from reviewing the bill and from discussing the matter with others that it is unclear whether USDA's E. coli rule, the HACCP rule, would fit the exemption and whether it would, therefore, avoid the delays associated with the peer review process. Like any legal ambiguity, this provision invites litigation and should be corrected here on the floor before the bill becomes law. If it is the intent of the authors of this legislation to exempt the E. coli regulation from delay caused by the peer review process--and from the other onerous processes in the bill--then they should simply vote for my amendment. My amendment would solve all of these problems by simply stating that the E. coli recall, the HACCP rule, cannot be considered a major rule for the purposes of this bill. It ensures that the bill cannot be used to delay this important rule. The Department of Agriculture has already gone through a great deal to develop this regulation. USDA published the proposed rule in February of this year with a 120-day comment period. USDA also extended the comment period at the request of a large number of commenters. Given this extensive comment period, if USDA suddenly declared an emergency exemption to avoid the peer review delay, it would simply be opening itself up to certain litigation, and even greater delay. I also note that USDA attempted to publish emergency food safety regulations a couple of years ago. To provide consumers with information on how to avoid food-borne illness from pathogens like E. coli and salmonella, USDA issued emergency regulations requiring safe handling labels on meat and poultry products. These safe handling regulations were issued without notice or comment. USDA was sued and lost and had to go through the rulemaking process before the labels could even be required. The result, then, of that ``emergency'' provision was delay. Mr. President, all we are seeking here is some common sense, some balance, some way in which to ensure that we can accomplish the goals set out in the bill, but to do so with a recognition that there is a sensitivity to many of the rules that are currently about to go into effect, rules that directly affect the public health and safety of millions of Americans, that ought not to be encumbered, that ought not to be thwarted in any way, as we go through what we consider to be reform in rulemaking overall. The Secretary felt so strongly about this issue, Mr. President, that he has issued yet a second letter that I would like to read into the Record. It was submitted by James Gilliland, general counsel at the Department of Agriculture, and was addressed to me. It simply states: Dear Senator Daschle: I am writing relative to the amendment Majority Leader Dole offered to S. 343 on the floor of the Senate yesterday. The amendment, which was adopted by a unanimous vote of the Senate, added ``food safety threat'' to the emergency exemption in the cost-benefit analysis subchapter of S. 343. I appreciate the Majority Leader's efforts to ensure that the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) efforts to reform the federal meat and poultry inspection system are not delayed by S. 343. However, the amendment does not provide an emergency exemption for the Department's food safety reform proposal and will not alleviate the delay that S. 343, in its current form, would have on the Department's efforts. So, Mr. President, here again, we have it from the Secretary of Agriculture, from the Department of Agriculture, simply asking us to consider the consequences of what this bill could do to a process for meat inspection that has been under way, under consideration, proposed now for over 24 months. It would stop in its tracks the efforts made by two administrations, really, to put all of the science and the new knowledge and the processes that we have to make food inspection more meaningful and more effective into place. We do not want to do that. I do not believe anybody in the Senate wants to encumber the Secretary's efforts to ensure that meat safety can be provided to an even greater extent than it has been in the past. My amendment will ensure that the Secretary has the latitude to provide for the culmination of this long effort and in a successful way, in a way that we all want. I urge its adoption. I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have had a good debate now over the last several hours on this issue. I think there are probably four points that need to be made. First of all, we all recognize that the legislation we passed yesterday--the Dole amendment--really does not go far enough in addressing the concern that many of us have raised, that simply delaying the implementation of the language for 180 days does not cut it. The Secretary has stated that. I think by and large most of our colleagues now have come to that conclusion. Point No. 2: The passive process is one that has moved to a point where implementation is necessary. We do not want to encumber the Secretary of Agriculture in attempting to address a very serious concern having to do with meat inspection. We want the freest hand to enable him to do all that he [[Page S 9765]] ought to be able to do, given all of the time that has already been invested in this issue, to do so in a way that is meaningful, in a way that ought to be accomplished as a result of the tremendous work done by the Department of Agriculture now in two administrations to reach the point that we are today. Point No. 3: There is a realization that the current language will encumber the Secretary's effort unless something happens, unless we address through an amendment his ability to deal with all of the complexities of the passive system and to recognize that progress has been made, and that, indeed, we ought to give him the opportunity to do so regardless of what happens on this bill. No. 4: In my view, the only way to do it, the only way to do it cleanly and without any equivocation, the only way to ensure that we can do it without legal misinterpretation, without the regulation being subjected to a good deal of litigation at some point in the future, is to pass the Daschle amendment, simply to exempt passive completely from the bill. Were we to do that, the Secretary would have the ability to move ahead to do all that he needs to do to ensure that this rule can be promulgated now in a reasonable period of time. We can do so without any fear of litigation or bureaucratic complexity. We can do so with the knowledge that the work that they have invested, all of the effort put forth now over at least the last 24 months, will not be for naught, that we will actually accomplish what we all know we must do--protect food safety, give the Department of Agriculture the tools that they need to get the job done, ensure that this particular rule which has come as far as it has can be promulgated without the fear at some point in the future of a new challenge, a new complexity that would encumber the Secretary's opportunity to ensure that this rule is promulgated at some point in the future. So, Mr. President, for all of those reasons, it just seems to me that as well intended as the effort of the distinguished Senator from Louisiana is, I am very concerned that at some point in the future the Department of Agriculture could be intimidated once again, could be encumbered in a number of different ways that were certainly not intended by the Senator from Louisiana or anybody else who indeed wants to resolve this problem. The best way to do it is to defeat the Johnston amendment, pass the Daschle amendment, and then move on to a number of other amendments that have been pending. There are a number of other Senators that have expressed to the Senator from Ohio an interest in coming to the floor and offering their amendments. We want to expedite consideration of this legislation. I think the best way to ensure that we get on to some of these other amendments is to finally dispose of the Johnston amendment, pass the Daschle amendment, and move on to these other proposals. We are ready to go. We do not want to prolong this debate any longer than it has to be, and certainly the best way to ensure that we do not prolong it is to dispose of it and to move on. There has been some talk I know of yet another second-degree on the Daschle amendment. I hope that we can avoid that. I think after the good debate that we have had we deserve an up-or-down vote. We have acted in good faith. We have not in any way attempted to obfuscate the issue or prolong the debate any longer than necessary. I think it has been an enlightened and educational effort. So I think now having done all that we have in the last 5 hours, it is imperative that we simply finish this and move on to other issues. Let us do that. Let us have a vote on Johnston. Let us have a vote on Daschle. Let us get on with the other amendments that are ready to go. That is the way I think we can ultimately finish this bill. The sooner we get on with it, the better. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the Johnston amendment were not to pass, it would seem to me then the pending issue would be the Daschle amendment. And if that circumstance were to present itself, it would be helpful I think if we could then have an agreement that that would be the next vote followed without any intervening debate, we would go right to that vote and resolve this issue. If we could do that, I think we would be prepared to go to the vote on the Johnston amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I will not object, but let me just indicate we are working here in good faith. We have not seen these amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I call up the amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. It is my understanding that the Senator from Wisconsin will be recognized to offer his amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we would certainly want to accommodate some time agreement, but I think in order to accommodate any specific time agreement, we would want to see the second-degree amendment. If we could do that, just as soon as we see it and have a chance to look at it, I think we could lock into a time certain. But I would be reluctant to lock into any time until we had a chance to look at it.

Mr. DASCHLE. That will be all right.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Well, I think that is subject to some dispute. I understand that we have attempted to clarify the language and have found a way to address the concerns raised by the Secretary.

Mr. DASCHLE. If I could just respond to the Senator. If the Secretary would find that the Glenn amendment is not as acceptable as he would like it to be, I am sure we could accommodate the Secretary's concerns here, just as we are doing with the pending bill.

Mr. DASCHLE. The pending bill obviously is the bill before us. We have to clarify that prior to the time we even have an opportunity to get to other amendments and the substitute. So, clearly that is what I think most of us would like to do. And to address the Secretary's concerns, let us address them. We may not have to address the language in the Glenn amendment or anything else. I think that is the issue. Can we clarify the Dole amendment adequately enough to ensure that his concerns are addressed and that we do not further encumber those efforts by the Department of Agriculture to promulgate these regulations in a timely manner?

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me respond to the distinguished Senator, my friend from Louisiana, in this manner. The Secretary has examined the language to which you refer. And it is the Secretary's view that it falls far short of his standards and the expectations that he would apply to his own ability to address food safety. It is his view that this provision and many of the other provisions that the Senator has addressed in the language of the legislation is deficient. What the Secretary is simply saying is that unless we correct these deficiencies, his efforts to assure adequate standards and adequate confidence in our food safety system will be severely undermined. They are not my words. Those are the words of the Secretary himself. But the Secretary is saying that if we----

Mr. DASCHLE. If I could again reconfirm that unless we address a number of these issues, the Secretary himself has indicated that it presents some serious problems for him, and he would advise we either amend the legislation or support an alternative. So I am hopeful that whether it is through an amendment, as I will be proposing later on, or through an alternative draft, as the Senator from Ohio is proposing, we will be able to address it in a meaningful way. Again, I would like to address it through amendments that we will be offering, but whether it is through amendments or in some manner, I think the deficiencies outlined by the Secretary ought to be of concern to everybody. It is in our interest and I think in the country's interest to try to do a better job of addressing the concerns than we have right now.

Mr. DASCHLE. I think the Senator would be wise to do so. I think, again, it confirms that there is a lack of clarification, there is uncertainty, enough so that the Secretary has seen fit to send a letter to express his concerns. I hope that we can clarify this issue and alter the provisions of the bill in whatever ways may be necessary. I do not think we ought to minimize those concerns or the problems of the Secretary with regard to the issue before us right now. Food safety is one of our greatest concerns, and we have to ensure that we do not undermine the confidence of the American people in our food supply as we address the need for regulatory reform. That is all we are trying to do--ensure that we accomplish regulatory reform in a meaningful way, a comprehensive way, but do it in a way that does not encumber the Secretary's efforts to provide a better system of ensuring food safety than we have right now. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the debate that has been taking place all day today on the impact of this bill on food safety and specifically its impact on the Department of Agriculture's proposed rule to require science-based hazard analysis and critical control point or HACCP systems in meat and poultry plants is really very important. Secretary Glickman sent a letter this morning to the majority leader and to [[Page S 9692]] me expressing his strong opposition to S. 343 because it would unnecessarily delay USDA's food safety reform, among other things. I believe Senator Glenn has submitted the letter for the record. The letter explains that the peer review requirement in S. 343 will delay USDA's food safety reform by at least 6 months. As I read this bill and Secretary Glickman's letter, the bill requires that risk assessments underlying both proposed and final regulations be peer reviewed prior to becoming final. And there has been a good discussion about the applications of peer review this afternoon. In other words, before USDA can issue a final regulation reforming our meat and poultry inspection systems--a regulation that has been in the works for more than 2 years and is based on more than 10 years' of reform efforts--S. 343 would require that the final rule be peer reviewed. According to Secretary Glickman, this peer review requirement would result in a 6- month delay in this essential food safety reform. The Dole amendment does not address this unnecessary delay. As an initial matter, the amendment applies only to the cost-benefit subchapter of S. 343. As I explained earlier, the delay that S. 343 would impose is the result of the peer review requirements. So the amendment really does nothing in this regard. Even if the amendment were changed to apply to the risk assessment and peer review requirements, the amendment still would not address the unnecessary delay that S. 343 would impose. Consumers and agricultural producers should not be asked to delay these essential reforms--reforms the entire agriculture and consumer communities have been calling for now for several years. First, the Dole amendment simply adds food safety to the list of reasons an agency could declare an emergency and bypass the cost- benefit requirements of the bill. But the bill already contains an emergency exemption to protect health. I believe a food safety emergency is by definition a health emergency. People get sick from unsafe food. So an agency acting to prevent or address a food safety threat would be acting to protect health. Even if the amendment does expand the scope of emergency by including food safety, I do not believe that it will alleviate the unnecessary delay that the bill would impose on USDA food safety reform. USDA published the proposed rule in February of this year with a 120- day comment period. The USDA also extended the comment period at the request of a large number of commenters. Given this excessive comment period, if the USDA suddenly declared an exemption to avoid the peer review delay, it would be opening itself to litigation and, unfortunately, greater delay. I would also note that USDA attempted to publish food safety regulations a couple of years ago. To provide consumers with information on how to avoid foodborne illness from pathogens like E. coli and salmonella, the USDA issued emergency recommendations providing safe handling labels on meat and poultry products. These safe handling regulations were issued without notice and comment. The USDA was sued and lost and had to go through the rulemaking process before labels could be required. The result, then, of that emergency provision was delay. In addition to the opportunities that this bill would create for litigation--and which are not addressed by the Dole amendment--the bill also affords opportunities for those opposed to these rules to challenge them through the petition process. So even if we managed to get the rule released from USDA without delay--something that again would not be guaranteed by the Dole amendment--the rule could be challenged on the basis that it does not meet the decisional criteria in the bill and should therefore be weakened or could be subject to petitions calling for a repeal of the rule under the so-called lookback authority. In short, there are numerous hurdles that are created by this bill which effectively can be used to delay or prevent the issuance of these important rules or lead to their repeal. That is unacceptable. Food safety reform is essential not only to provide American consumers with safer food, but also to ensure that American agricultural producers have a strong market for their products. I understand the concerns that many in the agriculture community have with USDA's proposed reform. However, I was the chairman of the subcommittee that first conducted the hearings on the tragic outbreak in 1993 and have held numerous followup hearings in which the industry, producers, and consumers have all repeatedly called for reforming and modernizing the meat and poultry inspection system. We can ill afford to delay these long-needed reforms. Yet that is precisely the outcome that will result under this bill even if this body adopts the current language in the Dole amendment. So, as my colleagues consider this amendment, I want there to be no mistake about its effect. It is a harmless provision, one I support, but it will not fix the problem. It will do nothing to avoid the delay that the bill will require in the USDA's food safety proposal. Later in this debate, I will offer an amendment to fix the problem. My amendment--in no uncertain terms--will ensure that this bill cannot be used by those who would oppose efforts to improve food safety to prevent, delay the issuance of, or repeal the Department of Agriculture meat inspection regulations regarding the E. coli. That seems to me to be the right objective and one which I hope every Member of this body will support.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. I think the Secretary would find the language in the Glenn substitute much more to his liking than the Dole amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 40 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have been consulting with the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. He is prepared--I will let him speak for himself--but on our side we would be satisfied with a very short timeframe, perhaps a half-hour, 45 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to use this time to remark briefly on the pending measure, which will be the subject of a vigorous debate over the next several days, and the focus of our work today and in the days to follow. The primary subject of this debate is the bill that was reported by the Judiciary Committee in a very controversial markup which was later modified through negotiations with Senator Johnston and other colleagues. I am grateful for the attention that Members have given the bill since it was reported by the Judiciary Committee, for I believe, over time, real improvements have already been made. Nevertheless, throughout these negotiations, these clear differences have emerged among those who advocated changes in the way Federal agencies issue regulations. It has become apparent that a new, more reasonable and judicious approach is needed if we are to enact responsible, regulatory reform, without causing gridlock in the Federal agencies. There remain a number of problems with S. 343 which argue against adoption in its current form. First, its passage will likely result in a more convoluted, bureaucratic, and confusing system that practically invites manipulation and litigation by the best lawyers money can buy. It would allow, and even encourage, appeals and litigation throughout the regulatory development process. The multifaceted petition process will create massive burdens on Federal agencies at a time when we are attempting to cut budgets and limit the size of Government. The bill's $50 million threshold will drag hundreds of additional rules into this process, further burdening agencies. It also forces Federal agencies to choose the cheapest option, even if other alternatives are more cost effective and therefore more economical. In sum, it would impose costs on Federal agencies that cannot be met under current budget constraints. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that S. 343 would cost Federal agencies an additional $1.3 billion and 4,500 full time employees each year simply to implement all its provisions. The Federal Government simply does not have [[Page S 9637]] the resources to absorb those requirements. Nor should it. In addition to overburdening Federal agencies, S. 343, as currently written, would roll back some of the most important laws that protect our environment, our health, and our safety. For the first time in my lifetime, we are contemplating a comprehensive retreat from the progress achieved in reducing air pollution, in cleaning up our rivers and lakes, in taking steps to ensure that the food we eat and the water we drink is safe and clean. In the past, this effort has been embraced by leaders Republican and Democratic. Whether it was President Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, or President Clinton, this Nation has realized great benefits from an extraordinary bipartisan commitment on these matters. Mr. President, last year 2-year-old Cullen Mack of my home State of South Dakota fell ill from eating beef contaminated with the E. coli bacteria. As a result of experiences like Cullen's, I held a number of hearings in the Agriculture Committee and the Department of Agriculture developed regulations which would help prevent recurrences of this problem. The rules would modernize the meat inspection process, using sensitive scientific techniques to detect contamination and prevent spoiled meat from making its way into our food supply. This much-awaited rule will be held up by this bill. It will be delayed and perhaps even stopped. That is unacceptable and represents one of the problems with this bill in its current form. In its attempt to reform the regulatory process, the bill overreaches--I believe, to the long-term detriment to the American people, including businesses. In South Dakota as in many other States, not only will the public benefit from tough new meat inspection rules, but so will the farmers and ranchers who raise the livestock and who benefit from the assurance that their products will reach the market in the best condition possible. The Senate should not support a process that would compromise that objective. I want to make clear that I'm not suggesting that somehow the proponents of S. 343 are advocating the degradation of our environment, or have set out to contaminate our drinking water, or that they are unconcerned with a child's potential exposure to toxins. But passage of this bill will make those results more likely. And that is not a result that I can endorse. I know that some of my colleagues will be taking the floor to make that case in detail, and to offer amendments which will attempt to ameliorate the most harmful provisions of the bill. And I know that some of my democratic colleagues have signed onto S. 343. I also want to make it clear that there is a better alternative and that a number of amendments will be offered which will improve the bill and which I hope all Members will give their serious consideration. The comprehensive alternative will produce commonsense reform without wholesale harm. I am hopeful that after some healthy debate on this matter, and in light of the amendment process that will begin today, my colleagues can be persuaded to support our amendments and the alternative developed by Senators Glenn and Chafee, should it be offered. That is the best, most defensible path to regulatory reform, because it does not sacrifice the environmental, health, and safety standards that American families have a right to expect and demand from their Government. Mr. President, I can state with some confidence that no Member of this body will argue for a regulatory status quo. No Member of this body believes that every Federal rule is sacred. No Member will defend every law we've passed as perfect in its real-world application. There are too many regulations in general, and, in particular, too many that make no sense. It is my strong hope that during this debate, we can come to agreement on a bipartisan regulatory reform bill that achieves serious, meaningful change, but does so recognizing the budgetary realities facing the Federal Government, recognizing the desire to prevent unnecessary and expensive litigation, and recognizing the fundamental importance of ensuring that Federal agencies should be able to issue those commonsense regulations which protect public health and safety, the environment, and other matters that most of us agree should be the subject of responsible Federal oversight. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are prepared to proceed. While I know there are absent Senators on both sides, I think it is important we try to finish the business on this particular legislation. The ranking member has done an outstanding job of bringing the Senate to this point, and they deserve our support for the work they have done. We hope in the not-too-distant future today we can accomplish our task and pass this legislation. I yield the floor.