Food Safety Act “Blue-Slipped”


After yesterday’s passage of S510, it appeared that all that remained before it went into effect was the relatively simple process of reconciling the bill with the House version that passed months ago.

As proponents of the bill cheered its passage, a “slight” detail was uncovered. It turns out that there are provisions of the bill – specifically Section 107 – which raise revenue. Under Article 1 of the Constitution, all revenue measures must originate in the House.

This morning, word on the street is that the House has blue-slipped the Food Safety Act. Blue-slipping means that if the Senate initiates appropriations legislation, the House can literally attach a blue piece of paper to the bill and return it, citing a constitutional infringement.

From C-SPAN we have this: “Without House action, Senate-initiated spending legislation cannot make it into law. So in practice, the Senate rarely attempts to initiate such bills anymore, and if it does, the House is diligent about returning them. Regardless of one’s opinion of the correct interpretation of the Constitutional provision, the House refusal to consider such Senate legislation settles the matter in practice.”

Writing in “Roll Call“, author John Stanton says:

House Democrats are expected to use a procedure known as “blue slipping” to block the bill, according to House and Senate GOP aides.

The debacle could prove to be a major embarrassment for Senate Democrats, who sought Tuesday to make the relatively unknown bill a major political issue by sending out numerous news releases trumpeting its passage.

Right now, it’s looking like S510 is dead.


Tags: , ,

12 Responses to “Food Safety Act “Blue-Slipped””

  1. reffaree Says:

    “If Natural Law is left to itself, it will right all wrongs.” In this case, our laws helped Natural Law. Working together – Natural Law & Reason, GOD WILL BLESS OUR COUNTRY. We The People need to have HOPE and FAITH to get us thru the next couple years until we remove the Cancer that has invaded DC.

  2. rmwarnick Says:

    So maybe there’s hope after all, to save us from the scourge of safe food.

  3. Monsanto Says:

    So close. Sooo cloooose! I would’ve gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those meddling kids.

  4. Safe food scourge Says:

    Hail Government, saviour of mankind!

    The proper role of government is protect its citizens from every possible risk, regardless of the cost, regardless of the size of the risk. You can’t put a price tag on someone’s life, you know.

    It’s a miracle mankind survived long enough for the nanny state to come into existence, which, of course, has guaranteed man’s continued survival in perpetuity (except for those legions destined to die because this bill did not pass).

    If safety comes at the cost of destroying personal freedoms and destroying small business but strengthening multinational mega-corporations (Monsanto) and large scale food-producers, well, that’s just a cost we have to bear.

  5. JBT Says:

    Taking the right wing’s philosophy to the illogical extreme we would do away with:

    -Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (what’s a few epidemics?)
    -Food and Drug Administration (what I put in my mouth is my business)
    -Federal Aviation Agency (safe flying is for sissies and liberals)
    -Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (if my bank fails, its only money)
    -Environmental Protection Agency (it is my God given right to pollute!)
    -Consumer Product Safety Commission (I can always make another kid)
    -Transportation Safety Administration (I can always make another kid)
    -Occupational Safety and Health Admin. (worker safety cuts profits)
    -US Department of Agriculture (what’s a little botulism now and then?)

    I for one am grateful for the millions of dedicated public servants working behind the scenes to help to protect me and my family from potential harm and to provide assistance when disasters happen. Those who criticize the federal government at every turn are those who cry the loudest when those protections fail and something happens to them. Conservatives need to quit whining and be thankful for the governmental protections we have that millions of less fortunate people living in other countries go without.

  6. Pops Says:

    The reason there are billions of less-fortunate people is because they lack freedom and because their governments and law enforcement agencies and personnel are corrupt – which is the direction that bills like S510 are pushing us. No thanks, I’ll pass.

  7. Cynthia Says:

    I’m glad to hear it. With the rise of Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA’s), Community Gardens and the new emphasis on ‘Urban Farming’- using land that is government owned and marked for a future purpose (such as a public park) to be used to grow food by private sector companies on a temporary basis, I wondered if this bill would kill those practices. Since the ‘eat local’ movement has lots of environmental folks pushing it (and Conservatives too) you’d think they wouldn’t try and get in the way. I really hope it’s a goner!

  8. Safe food scourge Says:

    I feel so bad I ever doubted “The Government”. Will 14 “Hail Obamas” be penance enough?

  9. JBT Says:

    Stupid exaggeration is not an argument, it is stupid exaggeration. Neither is stupid sarcasm. : )

    I would like Mr. Scourge to detail exactly how his “personal freedoms” are being destroyed by this legislation and to list those “small businesses” that this legislation is “destroying”.

    Let’s hear some facts and data to back up your wild assertions for a change instead of the cheap, one-liner, teabagger sign slogans you are so fond of spouting to make your point.

  10. Pops Says:

    Now, now, calling people names isn’t nice.

    Legislation, in and of itself, doesn’t destroy businesses. It’s the implementation of the legislations that does. When a bureaucracy is given broad, sweeping powers, they tend to exercise those broad, sweeping powers in ways that preserve their bureaucracy in spite of whatever effects it might have on others. That’s when businesses and freedoms suffer.

  11. JBT Says:

    How about some specifics Poops instead of your “broad sweeping” general statements that really don’t say anything at all. You couldn’t be more vague if you tried. Besides who asked you in the first place? My questions were directed at Mr. Scourge.

  12. Pops Says:

    Okay, here’s a specific. The Obamacare bill will require most businesses to hire additional personnel to process 1099s. When the bill was passed, businesses didn’t become less productive. But they will become less productive when enforcement begins and they have to actually hire additional nonproductive people to avoid penalties.

    Here’s another specific. The EPA was given broad, sweeping powers to impose regulations on people and on businesses. They are currently considering imposing regulations on farmers to mitigate “farm dust”. The additional costs to be imposed on farmers didn’t occur when the EPA was created. They will occur (if and) when the EPA actually imposes the regulations on the farmers.

    [You posted a question in a public forum. Deal with it. And try to be civil – it reflects badly on you when you aren’t.]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: