Committee markup is the first step in the legislative process. Bills get amended in committee, and then voted on. If they pass with at least a majority vote, they are reported to the floor as amended by the Committee.

In this case, most of the amending happened by way of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee presenting the Committee with a modified version of S. 510 at the outset of the markup. That new version of S. 510 included the provisions related to scale, diversity, conservation, organic, and coordination with USDA that we mentioned in this February 18 blog post.

Readers may view the new version of S. 510, as reported by the Committee, by going to http://thomas.loc.gov, typing in S. 510 in the search box, then, when the page opens, click on “text of legislation, and then click on the version of the bill that says “Reported in the Senate.”

Our longer posting from back in November, by the way, also detailed NSAC proposals that were not accepted at the Committee level, plus four amendments that were approved – two each from Senators Burr (R-NC) and Murkowski (R-AK). It also discusses the many amendments that were introduced but withdrawn. Many of those withdrawn amendments will likely be re-introduced and debated by the full Senate as amendments on the Senate floor.

As with Committee action, the majority of amendments that get made on the Senate floor will very likely be contained in what in Hill-speak they call the “Managers amendment” which generally contain all of the amendments from various Senators that get worked out and successfully negotiated before the bill is open for further amendment on the floor.
We hope that helps explain the sometimes mystifying legislative process.

1) The HELP Committee has reported the bill to floor. How can it have “made several improvements in the bill?”
2) And in the next sentence, what “newly revised version” of the bill?

I have just re-checked the Congressional websites and all they have are the 11-18-09 version of the bill which doesn’t contain any of this.

If you have something more, please post it.

Also, NSAC continues to overlook the devastating effect that the new Section 418 Hazard Analysis & Risk-basked Preventive Controls will have on our ability to get our product to market (distributors) and continue and expand our value-added processing (processing).

Finally, as well demonstrated by what has happened with the NOP and the NLGMA, the rulemaking required by the new Section 419 Standards for Produce Safety will overwhelm us. The rulemaking regime demanded by the Make Our Food Safe Coalition and FDA will stifle us. But unlike the NOP, in this case, we can’t opt out. If we don’t meet the “minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of…fruits and vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities” set by the Secretary of HHS–not by people with knowledge of agriculture–then we are out of business!

Compromising on these will ring the death knell of the local, healthy food movement into which my wife and I have invested 14+ years and over half of our wealth.

Please change your tactics before it is too late.

As always, I will happily defend everything I have written. Please write me at healthyfoodcoalition@gmail.com or call me at 828/669-4003, 8 AM – 8 PM Eastern Time, Monday – Saturday.

Our experience show that raw milk and grass-fed meats are items that a consumer will travel up to 150 miles to purchase, unlike vegetables and fruits. Raw milk is an important gateway to expanding direct farm sales into other items. Customers that buy raw milk, also buy a huge diversified grocery list when they are at the farm. Please see David Gumpert’s great blog on this aspect. http://bit.ly/8XoHZV

There is a HUGE influx of money leaving the standard food supply chain, and DIRECTLY infusing money into the local, sustainable farm economy. Please be careful, for what you ask for! Don’t give FDA the right to sweep away state regs allowing raw milk sales or distribution through private cow-share operations.