Senate moves forward on food safety bill

The Senate voted Wednesday to move forward on a far-reaching food safety bill that would give the Food and Drug Administration more power to prevent foodborne illnesses.

The Senate voted 74-25 to proceed with the bill. Supporters needed 60 votes because Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., had objected, saying the legislation's $1.4 billion cost isn't paid for.

The bill would give the FDA more authority to recall tainted products, increase inspections of food processors and require producers to follow stricter standards for keeping food safe in the wake of outbreaks of contaminated peanuts, eggs and produce that have sickened hundreds.

Also on Wednesday, the Senate blocked a measure designed to reduce wage disparities between men and women. The 58-41 vote to take up the Paycheck Fairness Act fell short of the 60 needed to overcome GOP opposition.

Civil rights groups, labor leaders and the Obama administration all supported the bill, which would make employers prove that any disparities in wages are job-related and not sex-based. Republicans and business groups said the bill would expose employers to more litigation by removing limits on punitive and compensatory damage awards.

President Barack Obama said he was "deeply disappointed" at the pay equity vote and blamed "a partisan minority of senators" for blocking the measure. A similar bill passed in the House last year.

"As we emerge from one of the worst recessions in history, this bill would ensure that American women and their families aren't bringing home smaller paychecks because of discrimination," Obama said in a written statement.

Whether the food safety bill could make it to the president's desk during the brief lame-duck congressional session is unclear since the House passed a different version of the legislation in 2009. Even if the Senate passes the bill, the two pieces of legislation would have to be quickly reconciled before the end of this session sometime after Thanksgiving.

Several amendments could complicate the Senate bill.

Coburn has again threatened to hold up the bill unless the Senate votes on an amendment to place a moratorium on earmarks, or federal spending for pet projects in lawmakers' states and districts. In a statement, his office said Coburn "will use all procedural tools available to him to force the Senate to vote on an earmark moratorium. Dr. Coburn is confident a vote will occur."

Supporters are also negotiating with Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., who is concerned the food safety legislation will be a burden on small farms. Tester's amendment, which would exempt some smaller farms from the bill's requirements, has gained support among grassroots advocates for buying food produced locally.

While the bill is designed to give the Food and Drug Administration greater authority over the nation's food supply, supporters of the Tester amendment say it could bankrupt some small farms that don't have the means to comply with new standards the bill would impose.

Those standards could include registering food safety plans with the FDA and documenting efforts to show food is not contaminated as it is produced.

Food safety advocates have objected to some of the exemptions, saying Tester's concerns are overblown and the size of the farm is not as important as the safety of the food.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has said she will not offer an amendment to ban plastics chemical bisphenol-A from baby bottles and sippy cups. She issued a statement Wednesday saying the chemical industry had blocked her efforts.

Obama issued a statement in support of the Senate food safety bill Tuesday, saying the legislation would address "long-standing challenges" of the FDA by helping producers prevent foodborne outbreaks and giving the government more tools to keep food safe.

Recent outbreaks have exposed a lack of resources and authority at the FDA as the embattled agency has struggled to contain and trace contaminated products.

Currently, the FDA does not have the authority to order a recall and must negotiate recalls with the affected producers. The agency rarely inspects many food facilities and farms, visiting some every decade or so and others not at all.

---

Associated Press writer Sam Hananel contributed to this report.