Harkin's 1999 produce safety bill

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, is widely expected to introduce a produce safety bill in the next few weeks, lobbyists say. One Farm Bureau lobbyist said the bill will be much like Harkin's bill from 1999. "The Fruit and Vegetable Safety Act." I've found the Congressional Record link to that bill here. From the CR:

S. 823 To establish a program to assure the safety of processed produce intended for human consumption, and for other purposes. April 15, 1999 Mr. Harkin (for himself and Mr. Durbin) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Key points..

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary (of HHS) shall by regulation issue standards for good manufacturing practices for the processing of produce.
The regulations issued under subsection (a) shall be the same as the provisions of the good manufacturing practice regulations that apply to the processing of food notwithstanding any exclusions in Federal law relating to establishments engaged solely in the harvesting, storage, or distribution of raw agricultural commodities), except as provided in paragraph (2).
`(2) Exceptions.--In issuing regulations under subsection
(a), the Secretary may modify the provisions described in paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines, for good cause shown and stated together with the regulations, that-- ``(A) a modification of such provisions would be more effective to prevent the contamination of, or promote the sanitation of, processed produce; or (B) the application of a portion of such provisions would not result in the prevention of contamination of, or promotion of sanitation of, processed produce.
`(c) Effective Date.--The regulations described in subsection (a) take effect 2 years after the date of enactment of this section.

The Secretary shall provide for unannounced inspections of processing facilities to determine if produce processed in the facilities is in compliance with the requirements of this Act that relate to produce.

Good Agricultural Practice Regulations.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall by regulation issue standards for good agricultural practices for the production of raw agricultural commodities, in order to minimize the adulteration and maximize the safety of those commodities. (b) Implementation Plan.--Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall issue and carry out an implementation plan for the implementation of the standards.

On imports...

In determining whether a system, conditions, or measures meet the requirements of this Act or otherwise achieve the level of protection required, the Secretary may consider whether an officer or employee duly designated by the Secretary has requested, and has been refused, access to the establishment or location where such food was prepared, packed, or held for the purpose of inspection (including sample collection), including inspection under subsection (a)(1), (b), or (d) of section 704A or section 704B, testing, or other relevant procedures, at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, and may deny the importation of such food from such establishment or location on the basis of such refusal and other relevant factors.''.


TK: This bill didn't get anywhere in 1999, with Democrats Dick Durbin of Illinois and John Kerry of Massachusetts as co-sponsors. It's a different era now, but this probably isn't the solution the industry wants, notwithstanding the general call for strong federal oversight.

Waiting for tomorrow

Citing the fluidity of the situation, Tom Stenzel, president of United Fresh, wrote me an e-mail this afternoon that said neither United Fresh nor anyone in the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Coalition plans to comment officially about the hort committee draft discussion mark until after their markup session tomorrow.

None of us should be surprised that there is no mandatory funding for the specialty crop block grants - the anorexic farm bill budget is well known - but I think some may wonder why if the program didn't merit a bigger slice of the illusory "reserve" funds - that $20 billion (over 10 years) that can't be used unless the committee finds unexpected cash or offsets.

I did talk to someone close to the hort subcommittee who said there are expected to be amendments offered tomorrow that will likely try to bring the contingency funding for the specialty crop block grants closer to the level of the EAT Healthy America Act. That bill asked for $500 million per year in block grants, and the hort subcommittee draft only provides $20 million per year starting out.

The subcommittee will welcome the amendments - particularly policy related - but House Ag Committee chairman Peterson will want to delay any actions on matters of funding until the full committee can consider it.

The commodity title and nutrition programs of the farm bill will be considered next week. Perhaps a clearer picture - a more accurate sense of outrage or satisfaction - will emerge after all the subcommittees put forward their draft marks.

TK: "Mad as hell" or "an important first step." The Specialty Crop Farm Bill Coalition must decide on its talking points. So far, MAH seems to fit the bill.

CRS explanation

I have a call in to the USDA asking about the level of fruits and vegetables purchased by Section 32 funds. Meanwhile, here is an excerpt from a Congressional Research Service report last year that takes on the complex issue.
From the report:

Specialty Crop Requirement. The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171, §10603) requires that not less than $200 million annually in Section 32 funds be used to buy fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops, $50 million of it for fruits and vegetables for schools through the Defense Department Fresh Program. There has been some debate over whether the $200 million is “new” money. USDA had maintained that it already was spending more than this level each year, particularly when both mandatory and contingency (bonus) purchases were counted. Some lawmakers have countered that language in the farm bill conference report directs that the $200 million should be in addition to such past purchases. The Senate reports accompanying the annual USDA appropriations have reminded USDA of these farm bill instructions, but the different interpretations have not been resolved.

Discussion draft - F&V purchases

Here is another section of the House Agriculture Committee's horticulture subcommittee's draft. As I understand it, the fruit and vegetable snack program at schools would be accounted for in the nutrition subcommittee, so don't look for it here in the hort subcommittee language.

SEC. 13. ADDITIONAL SECTION 32 FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF FRUITS, VEGETABLES, AND NUTS TO SUPPORT DOMESTIC NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. (a ) FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL PURCHASES OF FRUITS, VEGETABLES, AND NUTS.—In addition to the purchases of fruits, vegetables, and nuts required by section 10603 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 612c–4), the Secretary of Agriculture shall purchase fruits, vegetables, and nuts for the purpose of providing nutritious foods for use in domestic nutrition assistance programs, using, of the funds made available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), the following amounts: (1) $190,000,000 in fiscal year 2008. (2) $193,000,000 in fiscal year 2009. (3) $199,000,000 in fiscal year 2010. (4) $203,000,000 in fiscal year 2011. (5) $206,000,000 in fiscal year 2012 and each fiscal year thereafter.
(b) FORM OF PURCHASES.—Fruits, vegetables, and nuts may be purchased under this section in the form of frozen, canned, dried, or fresh fruits, vegetables, and nuts.
(c) VALUE ADDED PRODUCTS.—The Secretary may consider offering value-added products containing fruits,vegetables or nuts under this section, taking into account— (1) whether demand exists for the value-added product; and (2) the interests of entities that receive fruits, vegetables, and nuts under this section.


TK: Section 32 funding is one of the more arcane aspects of the budget. One lobbyist with limited familiarity with Section 32 said this language may add to mandated levels of f/v spending in the farm bill. However, in reality, the funds represented in the language are already being spent on fruit and vegetable purchases for nutrition program (annual purchases of f/v by USDA for feeding programs are close to $400 million, one lobbyist told me; I'm trying to find agency numbers). So this does not apparently represent "new" money, but it would represent an increase in mandated spending.

The 2002 farm bill allocates $200 million of Section 32 money to purchases fruits and vegetables for feeding programs, and the USDA's farm bill proposal this year provided $200 million in additional funds for fiscal 2008, escalating to $300 million by FY 2012. The House language falls short of the USDA's proposal.

No official on the record response yet from United or any other organization on the overall document. But suffice it to say the industry is not doing handstands over this offering from the horticulture subcommittee. Evidently subcommittee chair Rep. Dennis Cardoza was getting his marching orders from Ag Committee chairman Peterson.

Discussion draft published

The House Agriculture subcommittee with jurisdiction on horticulture and organic agriculture published a discussion draft on the House Ag Web site here. The long awaited 32-page document will be the basis for tomorrow's markup hearing by the subcommittee.

Here ares the numbers on specialty crop block grants.

FUNDING.—Of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make grants under this section, using—
‘‘(1) $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2008;
‘‘(2) $25,000,000 in fiscal year 2009;
‘‘(3) $30,000,000 in fiscal year 2010;
‘‘(4) $35,000,000 in fiscal year 2011; and
‘‘(5) $55,000,000 in fiscal year 2012.’’.

TK: But wait, those funds are contingent on the following language.
Here is the text:

(b) CONTINGENT FUNDING AMENDMENT.—In title XI of this Act— (1) if a change in law or laws not pertaining to section 101 of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness 12 Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–465; 7 U.S.C. 1621 note) reduces outlays and/or increases revenue by an amount sufficient to offset the increased outlays that would occur over the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 and the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2017 if total funding for the program were increased as provided in the amendment made by paragraph (3) for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 (as estimated by the House Committee on the Budget at the time of enactment of this Act); and (2) if such reductions in outlays or increases in revenue in paragraph (1) are specifically and exclusively dedicated to providing funding for section 101 of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 in each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012; then (3) subsection (i) of section 101 of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 is amended to read as follows:

TK: We'll get an opinion from one of the industry lobbyists about what the legislative language means, but I think the industry did not get the mandatory money that they covet. Developing..