Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 35 (Thursday, March 14, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 35 (Thursday, March 14, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2078-S2080]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BALANCED BUDGET DOWNPAYMENT ACT, II

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

Amendment No. 3524

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the
Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes.
Mr. BUMPERS. I was curious about two things. No. 1, has the Senator
offered his amendment that would require the Federal Government to buy
back from the Alaskan salmon industry $23 million worth of Alaskan
salmon?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have no idea where the Senator from Arkansas came up
with that interpretation. The answer is, absolutely no.
What the Senator from Alaska has proposed is an amendment that would
eliminate a mandatory inspection by the Department of Agriculture on
salmon sold into the Department of Agriculture's food give-away
program, as opposed to the inspections that exist for all other salmon
that is canned in salmon canneries throughout the United States. All
other salmon is canned, is inspected under State and Federal
regulations, and ends up on the shelves of Giant or Safeway where it is
available to all consumers. There is absolutely no reference to a
mandate to buy any Alaska salmon in this amendment.
Mr. BUMPERS. It does not require the Federal Government to spend
anything for Alaskan salmon?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. It requires the Federal Government to stop insisting
on a dual inspection process mandated only by USDA for salmon that is
purchased under their program. It does not require purchase of one can
of salmon.
Mr. BUMPERS. All the amendment says is, if any salmon is purchased,
it would eliminate the dual inspection?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. No, it says if salmon is purchased by the USDA for its
Federal programs, that it does not require a special inspection, which
is the current requirement.
Mr. BUMPERS. Let me ask a couple questions, if I may.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Happy to respond.
Mr. BUMPERS. The Food and Drug Administration's inspection, for
example, of canned salmon is for the purposes of determining its
safety, that is, that it is clean and edible; is that correct?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think, as a matter of fact, that the process
recognized by the FDA--but is actually performed by the State, does
assure wholesomeness. However, in doing so it also assures the level of
quality that you and I might find in our favorite store. It is my
understanding that the safety standard is uniform under the State as
well as Federal requirements for the inspection before the salmon can
ends up on a Safeway shelf or a Giant Food shelf, or available to any
retail or wholesale purchase. The USDA cannot explain when we get into
a discussion why it should use a completely different standard than the
one considered good enough for everyone else.
I hope my friend from Arkansas can perhaps enlighten me as to why a
dual inspection would be necessary above and beyond the existing
inspection that is required for domestic retail and wholesale sales and
to put product on store shelves in the United States for the homemaker.
Mr. BUMPERS. Let me ask the Senator from Alaska who, in his opinion,
would inspect this salmon for quality--not for safety, but for quality?
Some of it is graded, I guess No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4. Who does that
inspection?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Traditionally, as the Senator may know, we have five
types of Pacific salmon. Obviously, there is a quality differential.
The buyers would inspect the salmon by lot inspections. In other words,
each can of salmon carries on the lid a special code. That code says
where it was packed. It identifies a date, a type, and a quality.
A buyer will go into the warehouse--they do not buy from the
canneries in Alaska or Washington or Oregon. They go to a warehouse in
Seattle and make a determination of what quality they want. Do they
want pink salmon? Do they want skin or bone? Do they want red or
sockeye or silver or chum? So the buyer makes that choice.
The inconsistency here is if the USDA will buy your salmon, they
demand you have an inspector in your cannery even before they say they
are willing to buy. It is just the USDA. The question is, why?
Mr. BUMPERS. If the amendment of the Senator only eliminates the
necessity for what he has described as a double inspection of salmon--
--
Mr. MURKOWSKI. In effect, that is correct.
Mr. BUMPERS. Does it apply to anything else except salmon?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am concerned with canned salmon.
Mr. BUMPERS. It would not apply to anything except salmon?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Well, it would apply to other canned seafood, but it
is directed primarily at salmon. There may be a requirement for tuna.
Tuna is not one of the fisheries in the northern part of the west
coast, so I am not as familiar with it. I do not really think it makes
a difference.
There is an inspection process--both State and Federal, a mandatory
requirement, in order for the product to be placed on the shelf of the
grocery stores. That applies to other types of fish in a can, as well--
mackerel, tuna, perhaps.
Mr. BUMPERS. Can the Senator assure the Senate that his amendment
would eliminate the necessity for two inspections? Specifically, an
inspection by the Department of Agriculture that would apply to all
commodities bought by the Department of Agriculture, for example, for
the School Lunch Program, it would apply to all canned seafoods?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Certainly, it is the intention of the Senator from
Alaska not to exclude any. My interest just happens to be in salmon.
The rationale behind that is, we have a considerable amount of salmon
that is canned in our State and in the State of Washington, and we look
to find relief in selling a portion of that to the USDA in their food
program. Much to our chagrin, we find out unless that particular pack
has an additional inspection, we cannot break into that market. It is
pretty hard to explain why there should have to be an additional
inspector in a cannery above and beyond the inspections that are
required to put it on the consumer shelf.
Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, what is the purpose of the amendment? Why do
you want to eliminate the Department of Agriculture's right to
determine the quality of the fish?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is not an issue in this regard. They can make a
determination of what quality they want. They do that as a buyer. This
involves a specific inspection. No other industry has to pay extra for
a dual inspection to sell into the USDA program, to my knowledge,
except the fish products industry. I do not believe it is required in
the chicken producing areas.
I know my friend from Arkansas well enough to know that he is
concerned about ensuring that there is nothing more in the amendment
from the Senator from Alaska than trying to get rid of something that
no one has been able to give a satisfactory explanation for. That is,
why the USDA should demand an inspection for only the purchases they
make as opposed to the inspections that are good enough for the
consumer and buyers that represent the consumer. If Safeway or Giant
come in and buy a carload of salmon, they pick it out by quality. They
pick

[[Page S2079]]

it out by looking through the lots to determine the various quality,
doing samples and so forth. It has to meet a Federal and State
inspection process to ensure that it is suitable to go to the
commercial ventures.
That is fine, but the USDA says, ``We will not buy it and put it out
in our programs unless it has been through yet another process--and a
very expensive one for the producers. And it seems that the bureaucracy
of the USDA want to keep government inspectors on the job and active.
But if other systems are good enough for every one else, why should
this particular program have to have special exception? That is the
justification for the amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. The Department of Agriculture is strenuously opposed to
the Senator's amendment. Do you know what their opposition is?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I assume their opposition is that there will be less
inspectors around. They will have to find something else to do, with
perhaps retraining. It would certainly save the Government some money.
I am certainly sensitive to the inquisitiveness of my friend from
Arkansas. The question is if we have adequate inspections of the
product, why is it necessary that a Federal agency deems that it must
have its own special requirements? I have met with them, I add to my
friend from Arkansas, and they have no explanation. They say they have
always done it. We said, ``Well, it defies logic. The product meets all
Federal and State standards of cleanliness, of quality; otherwise, it
could not go on the shelves.'' Do we need more? Obviously, no.
Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, let me tell you what my concern is. I do not
want to belabor this. I know that Alaska had a very bountiful salmon
harvest, and we are all grateful that you did have such a bountiful
harvest. But a bountiful harvest in salmon, as it does with rice,
soybeans, and everything else, sometimes has a down side, where the
market is glutted, the price is low, and the number of customers
decline, because they have more than they want.
Now, the Department of Agriculture tells me that they have a lot of
salmon on hand from 1991 and 1993. I think the way the Senator's
amendment has been represented to me was that the Senator steadfastly
denies that, and I certainly accept his explanation. It is his
amendment. I have immense respect for him, and I applaud him for trying
to do something for his constituents. We all try to take care of the
economic interests of our States.
But I am concerned about two things. No. 1, I do not understand why
the Senator wants to eliminate an inspection procedure which has been
as traditional as the Sun coming up in the morning, and No. 2, why the
Senator would want to eliminate that inspection which, it is my
understanding, goes to the heart of the quality of the product. We all
know you have sockeye, you have silver, chum, you have a lot of
different kinds of salmon. I assume that when that salmon is being
canned, it is also graded for safety to make sure it is safe to eat,
and second, for quality.
My guess is that if Giant Food were going to buy a shipload of silver
or sockeye salmon, they would want to have some idea about the quality
of it. Unless the Department of Agriculture is permitted to make that
determination, nobody knows what the quality is.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Well, the Senator is incorrect in that assumption.
First of all, the Senator from Alaska does not know anything about the
chicken business, but I do know something about the salmon business. I
assume the Senator from Arkansas knows an awful lot about the chicken
business. We are both concerned with quality control, because you are
not going to sell your chicken, and I am not going to sell my salmon,
unless we have quality control and the assurance that the purchaser
receives the highest quality product. Now, that is the case that exists
currently in the canned salmon industry, and as far as I know, in the
canned fish industry as a whole. The fish must pass inspections that
are set out by the State and Federal Government. That seems to be good
enough for the consumers of the product, except the USDA, which
requires--only on their purchases--not the purchases of the Safeway or
Giant--an extra inspection process. They want a person in the cannery--
and the canneries are not located in Juneau; they are located out in
the hinterland where the fish actually come in.
Now, a Federal inspector works 8 hours a day. It is not good enough
to have just one in a plant because your plant may be working 14 hours
a day. If there are no fish, you still have to pay for that inspector,
because he has to be there.

What has occurred here is that a giant bureaucracy has developed. I
support the position of the Senator from Arkansas for quality control,
maintenance, and so forth. But what we have under the program is an
industry check, a State check, a Federal check, and then in the
warehouse, a spot check of the entire pack that is going out for sale,
where they randomly open certain cases and look at the quality, look at
the wholesomeness of it, actually do a test on a portion of the lot,
because no one can afford to put a product on the market that does not
meet the Food and Drug Administration's safety standard of
wholesomeness--just like the chicken industry in the Senator's State
simply cannot afford this.
If you were in a situation where everybody was buying Arkansas
chicken and it met whatever your State requirements were, and your
Federal requirements, and suddenly the USDA said, ``Well, for the
chicken we are going to buy, that is not good enough. We have to have
another inspector in all of your plants, or we are not going to buy any
of your product.'' That is the situation we are in today.
Mr. BUMPERS. Does the Senator assure me and the other Senators here
that there is nothing in this amendment that would require USDA, or any
other Government agency, to buy any salmon in any amount?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have the amendment in front of me. I would be happy
to read it to the Senator.
Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator is familiar with his amendment.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am familiar with it. It does not mandate a purchase
of any specific amount of salmon.
Mr. BUMPERS. The answer to that question is yes or no?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. The answer is no.

Amendment No. 3525

Mr. BUMPERS. Second, that is all I wanted to know. We took a long
time to do that. With the second amendment the Senator is offering, is
that the Greens Creek land exchange?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Alaska has filed a Greens Creek land
exchange amendment. It is my understanding, since we both share a
committee assignment relative to some 40 bills that are being held up,
that there is also an intent to clear tonight some seven or eight bills
that are currently being held in the House, and we hope that they could
come over tonight and be accepted. I think Senator Bradley has been
involved in directing as to whether or not that process will be
cleared. I might add to the Senator from Arkansas that the Greens Creek
amendment is also in that package. I might also add that the
administration happens to support the Greens Creek amendment. I know of
no opposition.
Mr. BUMPERS. I supported it. Has it been reported out of our
committee?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes.
Mr. BUMPERS. Is it on the calendar?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Hopefully, it will be. Hopefully, it could go through
tonight. It depends on the clearance.
Mr. BUMPERS. I support it and will support it here.
I am curious. I had a bill. I wanted to put a land exchange in
Arkansas on your Greens Creek exchange. I was told that the Senator
from Alaska, as chairman of the committee, did not want to do that
because it had not been reported out of committee. My question was, has
the Greens Creek exchange been reported out of committee?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes, it has. It is at the desk now. It could go
through tonight.
I find myself picking up the habit of my friend from Arkansas. I was
reminded by my staff that I am wandering around to the extent of my
cord. So I had better crawl back.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. BUMPERS. That habit will never get the Senator from Alaska in
trouble.
I thank the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.

[[Page S2080]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

____________________