PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 19, 1999
New Markets for State-Inspected Meat Act of 1999 - Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to review each State's meat and poultry inspection program, which shall include: (1) determination of plan effectiveness; and (2) identification of changes necessary for future transition to a State program as provided for by this Act. Authorizes appropriations.Title I: Meat Inspection - Amends the Federal Meat Inspection Act to authorize the Secretary to approve a qualifying State meat inspection program and allow the shipment in commerce of carcasses, parts of carcasses, meat, and meat food products so inspected. Requires the Secretary to review such approved plans to: (1) determine effectiveness; and (2) identify changes necessary to ensure enforcement of Federal requirements. Authorizes the Secretary to enter into a cooperative agreement with a State to establish the relationship between the State program and the Secretary. Sets forth provisions with respect to: (1) product marking; (2) labeling requirements; (3) authority of the Secretary; (4) State reimbursement; (5) sampling, including salmonella testing; (6) noncompliance; (7) establishment inspections, including exemptions for restaurants and retail stores; (8) acceptance of interstate shipments of meat and meat food products; and (9) advisory committees.Directs the Secretary to temporarily suspend or take over a noncomplying State program (or an establishment). Provides for program reinstatement.Title II: Poultry Inspection - Amends the Poultry Products Inspection Act to make similar amendments to those in title I.Title III: General Provisions - Terminates the Secretary's authority to establish interstate meat and poultry inspection programs under this Act if approval and cooperative agreements have not been concluded by a specified date.
People & committees
Sen. Daschle, Thomas A. [D-SD] · D–SD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Hearings held.
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-784.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1988 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1988 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1988 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1988 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.