Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for permission to send a modification to the desk.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I will be very brief, and following the few remarks I have will move to table the amendment. So we will have a vote here very shortly. First of all, I want to say that I understand some of the frustrations my Western Senator friends experience. Let me also say that while I am not a Western Senator, I have experienced a lot of the same frustrations but in other areas. I got terribly agitated at one time about the National Forest Service not allowing what I thought was an adequate timber cut in the Ouachitas and Ozarks that was having an adverse effect on the industry. But let me just say--and I do not want to argue about these specific things. I know that Judge Hogan handed the Northwest a big victory this week in Federal court. That is exactly where these issues ought to be resolved. I labored 12 years under Presidents Reagan and Bush disagreeing with a vast majority of their policies and their interpretations of the law. When I was Governor--and this is not unusual at the State level-- occasionally some legislator would establish some little cabal with other members of the legislature because they had it in for somebody because they did not get what they wanted, and I would invariably have to deal with them or use a line-item veto. Now, Mr. President, bear in mind we have serious disagreements on policy around here. We have serious disagreements on the interpretation of the law. Some people hate the Endangered Species Act and they do not want it enforced under any conditions, and so any excuse they can find to lambaste whoever is charged with the responsibility of enforcing it becomes the focal point. But the Senate cannot be judge, jury and executioner under our Constitution. The genius of the Constitution is we have three branches of the Federal Government, Mr. President. And there is not a single Member of Congress that would change one jot and tittle. Sometimes there are so many changes proposed around here on the Constitution you would think it was just a rough draft, and that we were charged with the responsibility of finishing it. Whether you like Bill Clinton or not, he is the President. Whether you like the people he hired or not, that is his prerogative. Whether you like the policy or not, they are charged under the last election with the responsibility of setting policy. And if you do not like the way they enforce the law, take them to court, as the Northwest did. Judge Hogan just gave, as I say, I think 1,700,000,000 feet. And that is a real victory for Oregon and Washington. I might also say that it was Bill Clinton who went to the Northwest and crafted a plan, which somebody said tonight Secretary Lyons was the focal point of this debate, Secretary Lyons crafted the agreement, and got it out from the court. Let me remind you of something. The Northwest had been stopped dead in its tracks for timber cutting, long before Bill Clinton was elected President, by the courts. And because of the Constitution, there is not anything much anybody can do about that except appeal it or elect somebody who will change the law. So I just want to say, I might agree with the Senator from Alaska about a particular personality, I might even agree with the Senators from Alaska, Montana and Colorado and Idaho on a policy that I think the administration is wrong on. But I have never, nor will I ever, come to the floor of the U.S. Senate and try to cut somebody's salary off or say, ``You may not, Mr. Secretary, delegate this responsibility and that responsibility to this person or this office.'' This amendment does not categorically say that we are cutting the salary of Secretary Lyons. What it says is we are giving the money from his office to the Secretary, and the Secretary is charged with the responsibility of taking away from Secretary Lyons any responsibility in the area he now administers relating to forest management issues. It is a dangerous precedent. Finally, Mr. President, I want to remind my good friends over on the Republican side of the aisle, things always change. There is just a possibility, just a possibility, that one day in the not too distant future there will be more seats on this side of the aisle than there are on that side, there will be a Republican in the White House. You set a precedent like this, those things that are bad policy for the U.S. Senate have a tendency to come home to haunt you. It is a very bad, in my opinion, flailing of the Constitution to say, ``Mr. Executive Branch, we will decide who you can hire. We will decide who you can keep.'' We are the legislative branch. We should recognize it and we ought to honor the Constitution and the legislative branch. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I do not know how many more people want to speak around here. Everybody has been parading to my desk to say, ``Let us vote. Let us vote.'' I thought everybody on this side that spoke--even the Senator from Idaho had forsaken his chance for 5 minutes. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if we could have a time agreement with the Senator from Wisconsin, a 20-minute time agreement with 15 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin and 5 minutes for the managers.

Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from North Dakota has an amendment for which he has not yet found a suitable offset. It needs to be understood by everybody, if he offers the amendment tonight he will be offering it without an offset. That is, I assume, the modification that he wants to make, as soon as he hears from CBO. What we need to clarify for sure is, if the Senator from Mississippi moves to table his amendment tonight, the agreement should be that even though a motion to table had been made, that he would have a right before the vote tomorrow to modify, to set out what the offset is. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senate is still not in order. It is very difficult to hear the Senator from Alaska. That really means we are not in order.

Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I want people who have not spoken to have the opportunity to do so. If the Senator from Idaho wants to speak for 5 minutes; the Senator from Montana wants to speak for 5 minutes, I am not going to disagree with them. Let me propound this unanimous consent request: That the Senator from Idaho be given 5 minutes and the Senator from Montana 5 minutes, after which I will be recognized to table the amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, I would like to yield to my colleague from Arkansas.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is an amendment that requires the Department of Agriculture to use essentially a 3-year base for energy uses and requires them to cut their energy use by 5 percent.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senator from California has generously yielded me 30 seconds, which may be kinder than I would be to her under the circumstances.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is another one of those issues which, on its face, would appear to give the California Senators the high ground. But it does not. It is the phoniest issue I think I have ever seen come before the Senate. The Senator from Arkansas, my colleague, Senator Pryor, has just asked a very relevant question. Red meat products are routinely shipped at below 26 degrees and sold as fresh. Listen to this. Whole hog sausage is packed warm into tubs, then exposed to glyco or brine to chill below 26 degrees. I can tell my colleagues that any time you buy sausage in the fancy meat section of the grocery store, the chances are about 90 percent of the time you are getting sausage that has been previously frozen. It is thawed for display purposes. Pork and beef loins and other products of beef and pork are routinely brought below 26 degrees. Why? So it is easier to slice. You get a better consistency in the slice if the temperature of the bacon is much lower than freezing. Trim products. When you trim steaks and roast, pork chucks and pork roasts, they take the trimmings and freeze them--not to 26 degrees, but to zero. And then they are later thawed and put with whole hog, and you buy whole hog sausage, some of which is fresh and some of which has been frozen. Frozen beef: Frozen beef is mixed with fresh beef. Do you know why? To give it a better consistency, because it forms a patty better if half of it has been frozen. When you buy beef patties and pork patties, you are getting formerly frozen product. Frozen lamb is routinely thawed at retail and sold fresh. Why are those things not included here? Because the California Poultry Federation does not care about lamb, they do not care anything about beef or pork, and they do not care anything about fish. What they care about is the fact that they only have 25 percent, or less, of the poultry business in California. California, right now, has the highest poultry prices in the United States. And if the Senators from California prevail, it will go a lot higher, under the name of consumerism. Do you know what this regulation of the Department of Agriculture says? It says exactly what the California Legislature said in 1993-- that the California Poultry Federation went to the California Legislature and said, ``Look, we cannot compete with the Southern and Southwestern States, so here is the way we have conjured up to deal with the issue.'' So the California legislature says, ``Any poultry product coming into the State of California may not be below 26 degrees.'' What does this regulation say, after the court, incidentally, had ruled that one illegal? The very same thing. Dan Glickman did not think this up. The Department of Agriculture did not think this up. They never thought of it until the California Legislature told them to think of it. And when the Federal court declared that the Federal Government had preemption rights over the safety of food, they came to the California Senators. I am not complaining about the California Senators going to bat for their State, and I hope nobody will blame me or Senator Cochran for going to bat for our States. So here we are on the floor of the Senate protecting the California poultry industry. Unhappily, this rule applies to the entire Nation. Mr. President, I have watched this Congressman--I forget his name-- over in the House. He got a lot of publicity. You have to do crazy things to get on the evening news around here. So he takes a chicken, frozen at zero degrees, and uses it for a bowling ball. The ordinary citizen looks at that and says, ``You mean I have been buying chicken like that?'' The Senator from California came in here with a frozen chicken this morning. You can use that for a bowling ball, too. That is not what the debate is about. You take a chicken frozen to 26 or 27 degrees and use it for a bowling ball, and you will get splattered. This chicken, when it leaves the plant to go to California or any other State, is usually at 27 or 28 degrees. When it arrives at its destination, there is a distinct possibility that over the course of that 2-day trip, that some chickens--they are in boxes; they are in what they call a ``chill pack''; they are in a tray and the trays are in boxes--some of the boxes in the middle of the load may conceivably be below 26 degrees, maybe 25 degrees when it gets there. Now, how are you going to handle that, Mr. President? Are you going to make them unload the whole load and relabel every chicken? Obviously, that is not doable. Economically, that is not doable. So, what do you do? Nobody can tell you what the Department of Agriculture Inspection Service is going to ask for. I can tell you one thing: The $25 million that we put in for the Food Safety Inspection Service in the bill before the House is not going to be nearly enough to hire all the inspectors to check every temperature. Is this just me? Listen to this. The Agriculture Research Service, which does all of the research on these things in their laboratories-- in the laboratories--the Agriculture Research Service allows a plus or minus 3 degrees because that is the best they can do. Yet, the California Senators say it has to be 26 degrees, not 1 degree below. As high above as you want to go, but if you go 1 degree below 26 degrees, no plus or minus allowances. Even the Agriculture Marketing Service has a minus or plus 2 degrees. No mistakes for mechanical failures, no allowance for anything. Mr. President, while, as I say, this looks good on its face, I want to remind my friends from the red beef and the pork States and the fish States, you are next. Whoever you may be competing with, you can depend on them going to their legislature, the Department of Agriculture, and saying, ``We want the same treatment.'' The poultry industry has been attacked as long as I have been in this Senate. It is, as Gilda Radner said, it is always something, is it not, Senator? It was always inspection. Now the poultry industry has agreed to what we hope will be the best and final inspection of a product in the history of man: a macro-organism inspection system that will pick up anything on the carcass of a chicken. Do you know who is squawking now even though it will cost a lot of money to put it in place? The labor unions, because ultimately it will be labor saving. As I say, it is always something. Who do you think, Mr. President, finally, has the most to lose by shipping a bad product? It is the industry, is it not? If they send a bad product, if somebody gets sick, they are the ones would pay the price. Listen to this. Billions and billions and billions of chickens have been shipped to the State of California and all over this country, that left the packing plants at 27 or 26 degrees and when it gets there, maybe some of the chicken was at 25 degrees, some of it was at 26 and some of it was at 27. Do you know something else? Not one complaint out of billions shipped all over the United States, not one single complaint from anybody but the California Poultry Federation. Does that tell you what this amendment is about? I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining for the Senator from Mississippi?

Mr. BUMPERS. I could not agree with the Senator more. If you take a chicken frozen solid like that, one at zero degrees, and use it for a bowling ball, as a House Member did, or as a prop here, as you were proposing to do, I agree that is the sound it would make. But that is not what this debate is about.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 2 minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank her very much. Mr. President, I want to make the point the Senator from Delaware was making. If the Agriculture Research Service has to have a plus or minus 3 degrees in highly controlled labs and highly controlled labs have to have a plus or minus 2 degrees, to ask for a plus or minus 3 degrees in this situation without devastating an industry seems to make eminent good sense. It seems to me if we can transport chickens 2,000 miles and still beat the California Poultry Federation's price, there may be something wrong with the California Poultry Federation. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I just came from downstairs where the House just receded to the Senate position on mine law reform. The effect of that is to take 233 patent applications that have been excluded from being grandfathered in last year and say you can have that, too. The biggest mining companies in America. Those 233 patent applications, which we just voted to allow to go forward contain $15.5 billion worth of gold, platinum, palladium, silver, and so on, underneath them. They will be given out to the biggest mining companies in the United States for zip--not $1 to the taxpayers of this country. Here we are debating continuing a practice of giving $110 million to the biggest corporations in America, not just the 10 listed on that chart--dozens more. Some of them are almost as big. To the biggest corporations in the world, we are giving $110 million to help them sell McNuggets and Big Macs around the world. I found out last night that we have already spent $86 million on this program for alcoholic beverages. Who thinks that is a great idea? We are doing that, while we are cutting welfare, kicking 50 percent of the people off of the rolls by the year 2000, cutting earned-income tax credit to keep people off the rolls, $270 billion in Medicare cuts for our elderly citizens, $240 billion in Medicaid cuts for the poorest of the poor for health care in this country, and on and on it goes. And this day, in one fell swoop, we have just voted to give $15 billion worth of minerals away and $110 million in the grossest kind of corporate welfare. Is that what the revolution of 1994 was about?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, on that amendment, is that the Gorton- Murray amendment?

Mr. BUMPERS. No objection.

Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator is correct. ARS should transfer administration of the East Grand Forks facility to the ARS research center in Fargo, North Dakota.

Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator is correct. APHIS should continue using a portion of available funds to continue the cattail management program in North Dakota.