[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 127 (Monday, September 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10580-S10583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1997
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3662) making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, if the managers would agree, I ask
unanimous consent to set aside the committee amendment to offer an
amendment at this point. And perhaps it could be dealt with later, if
the managers of the bill would agree. It is an amendment that addresses
concerns confronting cattle producers in the United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Amendment No. 5351
(Purpose: To promote the livestock industry)
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] proposes an
amendment numbered 5351.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President this amendment attempts to address many
of the concerns confronting cattle producers in the United States
today. The issues of packer concentration, lack of price discovery,
retail price spreads and low prices have been foremost on the minds of
cattle producers and consumers throughout South Dakota and the Nation.
To say these are concerns of my fellow South Dakotans is a gross
understatement. Thousands of South Dakotans have written, called, or
visited with me on this issue. This is an issue that strikes at the
heart of their ability to run their farms and businesses and provide
for their families. The time has come for Congress to take action.
For the past 2 years, I have been pressing the Clinton administration
to address meatpacker concentration and utilize existing antitrust laws
to make sure that cattle are sold in an open and competitive market.
Though the administration has taken some steps over the past several
months, I believe these measures are marginal at best. Stronger action
is needed.
What is of great concern to producers is the fact that while cattle
prices have been at or near record lows, retail prices have not shown
any significant drop. In fact, just the opposite is happening.
In 1995, at Eich's Meat Market, in Salem, SD, the price of a choice
yield grade 2 hind quarter was $1.65 per pound--that is the highest
price paid at this locker since it was opened. This past summer it was
$1.60 per pound. The same hind quarter was selling for $1.57 per pound
in 1993. In contrast, in 1993 live cattle prices were $80 or higher.
Yet, in 1995, live prices have been as low as $51.50.
This represents a combination punch to South Dakota ranchers--as
producers, they are getting fewer dollars for their livestock; yet, as
consumers, ranchers--armed with fewer dollars--are forced to pay more
both in terms of real dollars and as a portion of their budget to put
their own product on the dinner table.
The influence of packer concentration on the market cannot be
overlooked or dismissed. Fifteen years ago, the top four packers held
about 40 percent of the market. Today market share is over 85 percent.
Economic studies have shown that this kind of market concentration
provides these firms with the kind of power needed to control prices.
At a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing that I chaired on this
subject, it was made abundantly clear that all too often cattle
producers do not have free, open, or competitive markets in which to
sell their cattle. The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration, [GIPSA] is charged with insuring a free and open
marketplace. GIPSA must be more vigilant in assuring this.
Only through enforcement of existing antitrust will we be able to
ensure the long-term economic viability of the U.S. cattle industry.
South Dakota ranchers agree.
I have held two Senate hearings on this subject over the past year. I
also have introduced several bills to address concerns that cattle
producers have told me must be addressed. Other Senators have offered
their own proposals. Some are controversial. What I have done with this
amendment is incorporate those measures that I believe we can pass this
year. Our cattlemen need relief now, not a promise of future action at
some point next year.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my amendment
be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. PRESSLER. I do not believe this is a partisan issue. Nor should
this amendment be treated as one. Both Republicans and Democrats from
cattle-producing States I expect will embrace this amendment. Some may
say tougher action is needed. They're right. The goal here is to do
what we can now. This amendment I believe is a strong step in the right
direct.
Again, while my amendment does not include everything I think is
needed I believe it is a measure that can pass
[[Page S10581]]
and provide real teeth to bring real results to the problems that our
cattle producers face.
We need to keep in mind that old saying ``If it ain't broke, don't
fix it.'' Well the U.S. cattle industry is broke and it needs fixing,
now.
I would like to commend the South Dakota secretary of agriculture,
Dean Anderson, for being a national leader on this issue. Secretary
Anderson was responsible for bringing this matter before the National
Association of State Departments of Agriculture. South Dakota livestock
producers are proud of Secretary Anderson's efforts, as I am. As all
South Dakotans know Secretary Anderson recently announced his
retirement. He will be missed. His efforts to raise this issue to the
national level will be a legacy that South Dakota cattle producers will
long remember and be proud of. Passing the amendment I have offered
would demonstrate that Congress has listened to Secretary Anderson.
The Senate needs to carefully review this amendment and other
possible amendments that address issues confronting the U.S. cattle
industry. Packer concentration, price manipulation, possible price
fixing, and captive supply all must be looked at and a definite course
of action implemented. I will withhold a detailed discussion of this
amendment at this time. I offered the amendment to give my colleagues a
chance to review it. I expect others may want to seek amendments to
this proposal. I welcome any suggestions from all my colleagues. The
goal, again, is to do the right thing for our cattlemen, and to do it
as soon as possible.
So, Mr. President, in conclusion, let me ask my colleagues to take a
look at this amendment, to make their suggestions. Our agricultural
industry in the United States is in pretty good shape at this moment
except for our cattlemen. We need to take a number of steps. We need to
work on packer concentration. We need to get more of our beef into
Japan, and some of those countries, and China. We need to get some of
the tariffs lowered in some of the Asian countries on beef. We also
need to take some steps domestically to be sure that we do not overlook
the plight of our cattlemen at this time.
Mr. President, I offer this amendment and I ask that my colleagues
consider it and that we take what action we can to help our cattlemen
in the closing days of this Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
pressler livestock amendment
Section 1. Captive Supply:
This section (from S. 1939) addresses producers' concern of
captive supplies. A better definition of captive supply and
more information regarding captive supplies will bring
greater price discovery to producers.
The Packers and Stockyards Act would be amended by defining
``captive supply'' as livestock acquired by packers delivered
7 or more days before slaughter under a standing purchase
agreement, forward contract, or packer ownership, feeding or
financing.
This section also requires and annual report from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture on the number and volume of U.S.
livestock marketed or slaughtered. This report must include
information on transactions involving livestock in regional
and local markets. The confidentiality of individual
livestock transactions would be maintained.
Finally, this section would require the Secretary of
Agriculture to make available within 24 hours information
received concerning captive supply transactions.
Section 2. Livestock Dealer Trust:
This section (S. 1707, revised) would establish a Livestock
Dealer Trust. This provision was part of the Senate-passed
version of the new Farm Bill, but was dropped in conference.
The section amends the Packers and Stockyards Act and
establishes a statutory trust for the benefit of livestock
sellers who sell to livestock dealers and market agencies
that buy on commission. To ensure prompt payment of livestock
sellers, all livestock purchased in cash sales by a dealer or
market agency buying livestock on commission shall have all
related property (i.e. livestock, receivables or proceeds)
held in a ``floating `` trust until the unpaid seller
receives full payment.
Section 3. Cooperative Bargaining:
This section (from S. 1939) ensures that producer
cooperatives are fairly treated by handlers of agricultural
products. The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 would
be amendment to make it unlawful for handlers of agricultural
products to fail to engage in good-faith negotiations with
producer cooperatives. It would also make it unlawful to
unfairly discriminate among producer cooperatives with
respect to the purchase, acquisition, or other handling of
agricultural products.
Section 4. Labeling of Meat and Meat Food Products:
This section (from S. 1939) would require country of origin
labels on graded meats. Producers and consumers alike have
made it abundantly clear that meat needs to be labeled to
show country of origin. Under this section, the Federal Meat
Inspection Act would be amended to require graded meat that
was either imported, or produced from an animal that was
located outside the United States for at least 120 days, be
labeled showing the country of origin.
Section 5. Interstate Shipment of Meat and Poultry
Products:
This section (S. 1862) would permit the interstate shipment
of state-inspected meat and poultry products. The section
would amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry
Products Inspection Act to allow states to apply to the
Secretary of Agriculture for the interstate shipment of meat
and poultry products. The Secretary of Agriculture first must
verify that the state's mandatory inspection requirements are
equal to or greater than the Federal inspection, reinspection
and sanitation requirements.
Upon verification by the Secretary, the prohibition on
interstate shipment of meat and poultry products inspected
soley by the state shall be waived. Once a waiver has been
granted, the Secretary of Agriculture may perform random
inspections of state-inspected plants to ensure that
mandatory state inspection requirements are equal to or
greater than Federal requirements. If a state does not
maintain its inspection requirements to Federal levels, the
Secretary shall reimpose the restriction against the
interstate distribution of meat and poultry products.
This section was recommended by members of USDA's packer
concentration commission and is strongly supported in the
agricultural community. Lifting the market restrictions
imposed on state-inspected meat and poultry processors would
slow the concentration in meat packing by enabling small-and
mid-size processors to expand their operations and create
more jobs. 400 state-inspected plants have gone out of
business since 1993 because of the prohibition. This section
would provide the same opportunity for small business owners
and operators that exists for large corporations and foreign
competitors.
Section 6. Review of Federal Agriculture Credit Policies:
This section (from S. 1949) establishes an interagency
working group to study the extent that Federal lending
practices have contributed to concentration in the livestock
and dairy markets. This interagency working group would be
established by the Secretary of Agriculture after
consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman
of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and
the Chairman of the Board of the Farm Credit Administration.
Section 7. International Barriers to Trade:
This section (from S. Res. 277) expresses the Sense of the
Senate that certain actions be take to address international
barriers to trade. Those actions are as follows:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture should continue to
identify and seek to eliminate unfair trade barriers and
subsidies that affect U.S. beef markets;
(2) the U.S. and Canada should expeditiously negotiate the
elimination of animal health barriers that are not based on
sound science. Many U.S. cattle producers are concerned that
Canada requires more stringent veterinary and inspection
requirements on U.S. cattle entering their market than what
the U.S. requires on Canadian cattle entering our market;
(3) the import ban on beef from cattle treated with
approved growth hormones imposed by the European Union should
be terminated. The European Union's ban on U.S. cattle and
beef is not scientifically based, represents an unreasonable
barrier to U.S. trade, and has cost U.S. beef producers more
than $1 billion in export sales since 1989; and
(4) the Secretary of Agriculture should use the Export
Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) and the Intermediate
Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103) to promote the
export of U.S. agricultural commodities to countries of
Africa.
Section 8. Animal Drug Availability Act:
This section (S. 773, revised) contains the Animal Drug
Availability Act of 1996. The Act contains recommended
changes to new animal drug application approvals to provide
the Food and Drug Administration with greater flexibility to
determine when animal drugs are effective for their intended
uses. The Act would establish streamlined approval
requirements for new individual animal drugs or active
ingredients sought to be used in combination. Currently
separate tests are required for approval of these drugs.
This section also would require the Food and Drug
Administration to consider legislative and regulatory options
for facilitating approvals of animal drugs for minor species
and minor uses, and to announce its proposals for legislative
or regulatory changes within 18 months of the date of
enactment. Currently, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
does not address animal drug approvals for minor species or
uses.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we, of course, will take a careful look at
this
[[Page S10582]]
amendment. It is on a subject of which this Senator is well aware, as a
member of the Commerce Committee, of which the Senator from South
Dakota is chairman. It does address a very real need. On the other
hand, Mr. President, it obviously has nothing to do with an
appropriations bill for the Department of Interior and related
agencies.
The distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia and I have, as a
policy, determined that we will not be friendly toward amendments which
are entirely nongermane or entirely nonrelevant to issues before this
bill. If we do, if amendments like this begin to pass, it is almost
certain that the bill itself will be taken down. The sponsors of the
amendments likely will not be successful in reaching their policy
goals, and we will have frustrated the appropriations process.
So I express the hope, and subject to what I hear from the
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, that the Senator from South
Dakota will be able to make a very important point, as he has, and as
he has done eloquently, without opening up this bill in a way that has
frustrated and perhaps destroyed some other appropriations bills,
including the one that preceded this as a matter of debate. With that,
as we do not have any votes to take place today, I suggest that we set
the amendment aside and move forward to another subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment has just been laid
aside.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending committee amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
Amendment No. 5352
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into
cooperative agreements for the restoration and enhancement of biotic
resources on watershed land)
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk involving a
voluntary watershed restoration effort on private lands. I ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment
numbered 5352.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:
SEC. 1 . WATERSHED RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--For fiscal year 1997 and each fiscal year
thereafter, appropriations made for the Bureau of Land
Management may be used by the Secretary of the Interior for
the purpose of entering into cooperative agreements with
willing private landowners for restoration and enhancement of
fish, wildlife, and other biotic resources on public or
private land or both that benefit these resources on public
lands within the watershed.
(b) Direct and Indirect Watershed Agreements.--The
Secretary of the Interior may enter into a watershed
restoration and enhancement agreement--
(1) direct with a willing private landowner; or
(2) indirectly through an agreement with a State, local, or
tribal government or other public entity, educational
institution, or private nonprofit organization.
(c) Terms and Conditions.--In order for the Secretary to
enter into a watershed restoration and enhancement
agreement--
(1) the agreement shall--
(A) include such terms and conditions mutually agreed to by
the Secretary and the landowner;
(B) improve the viability of and otherwise benefit the
fish, wildlife, and other biotic resources on public land in
the watershed;
(C) authorize the provision of technical assistance by the
Secretary in the planning of management activities that will
further the purposes of the agreement;
(D) provide for the sharing of costs of implementing the
agreement among the Federal Government, the landowner, and
other entities, as mutually agreed on by the affected
interests; and
(E) ensure that any expenditure by the Secretary pursuant
to the agreement is determined by the Secretary to be in the
public interest; and
(2) the Secretary may require such other terms and
conditions as are necessary to protect the public investment
on private lands, provided such terms and conditions are
mutually agreed to by the Secretary and the landowner.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, at the beginning, I want to thank my friend
from Washington, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Gorton. He has
been very helpful, both the chairman and his staff, in our preparation
of this effort. I want him to know that I very much appreciate all his
help. Senator Byrd is not here, but he, as well, has been very helpful
to me. I want to thank both Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd at this
time for their assistance.
As Senator Gorton knows, in particular, the natural resources
questions in the West are especially polarized. They are ones where so
often there are very heated and controversial fights between groups,
particularly industry groups and environmental groups.
I and others, and I know the Senator from Washington is interested in
this, are continually making efforts to look at new models, in effect,
new paradigms, for resolving some of these natural resources questions
and trying to bring people together. It is for this reason that I offer
this amendment, Mr. President.
My sense is some of the most exciting work being done in our country,
particularly in our Pacific Northwest, involves voluntary, purely
private efforts, where people look to try to get beyond some of the old
controversies, some of the old battles, and come together to resolve
natural resources questions in a balanced way.
What our history in the Northwest has always been about is protecting
our treasures, protecting our natural resources, while at the same time
being sensitive to economics. It is my sense that some of the voluntary
watershed restoration projects on private lands give us the chance to
accelerate the effort, to find these new models for resolving natural
resources questions. It is for that reason that I offer this amendment
today.
This amendment would make it possible, Mr. President and colleagues,
for willing private landowners to work on cooperative efforts with the
Bureau of Land Management to restore damaged watersheds so they can
provide habitat to salmon and other species. It is going to make more
effective the Bureau of Land Management's watershed restoration efforts
in a fashion that involves no extra costs to our taxpayers while at the
same time protecting the private property rights of citizens in our
country.
I got particularly interested in this issue, Mr. President, when I
met with a watershed restoration group in Coos Bay on our south coast.
They had been working with a number of the natural resources agencies,
getting some funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to work on
projects that involve private landowners. The group was also interested
in working in a cooperative effort with the Bureau of Land Management
but had been unable to do so.
This watershed restoration group, which involved environmental
leaders, industry leaders, fishermen, a cross section of people,
approached the Bureau of Land Management and were told by the Secretary
that the Bureau of Land Management interprets its authority to work on
projects involving private landowners as limited to what they describe
as planning activities. The Bureau of Land Management said at that time
to this group on the south coast in Oregon that they did not think they
had the authority to actually go out and fund improvements on private
lands.
It is my view that the Bureau of Land Management ought to have the
clear authority to work with willing private landowners on cooperative
watershed restoration efforts. In many cases, the only way to solve a
watershed problem or restore species habitat is to target both public
and private lands in the watershed. You cannot solve the problem if you
focus just on the public lands.
This is the most biologically responsible approach to species
management. It recognizes that many species frequently cross property
lines, moving
[[Page S10583]]
from public to private property and back the other way. As a result,
restoring habitat on private lands may in certain cases be the most
effective investment for survival of species also found on Bureau of
Land Management and other public lands.
For a moment, let me take an example where 90 percent of the land in
the watershed is owned by the Bureau of Land Management but the source
of the watershed problem is the 10 percent that is privately owned. In
this case, the problem is most likely not going to be solved if the
Bureau of Land Management can only spend money for improvements on the
BLM land. The result will be that the watershed problem is either not
going to be solved, or else the Bureau of Land Management is going to
end up wasting money funding improvements only on the Bureau of Land
Management lands.
There is a simple and straightforward solution: Give the Bureau of
Land Management clear authority to work with willing private landowners
on cooperative watershed restoration projects in cases where this will
do the most good for the whole watershed. This way, the public's and
the watershed's concerns--taxpayers', industries', and environmental
concerns--all get addressed.
To be eligible for funding under this legislation, the project site
on private land must be in the same watershed as the Bureau of Land
Management lands. But the private land does not have to border directly
with the Bureau of Land Management lands. The key consideration ought
to be the biological and ecological connections between the private
lands and the Bureau of Land Management lands.
Taking for a second what happens if salmon use both forks of a river
in a single watershed, but only one of the forks contains public land,
this legislation would allow the Bureau of Land Management to spend
money on private land in the other fork where this would benefit the
survival or recovery of the species as a whole in the watershed. The
Bureau of Land Management would also be authorized to spend money on
private lands where this would provide for immediate protection to the
threatened or endangered species found on the public land or where
spending the money on private land is more beneficial to the overall
recovery of the species.
Now, at the same time, we do not want the Bureau of Land Management
spending taxpayer money on projects that benefit only the private
landowners. To ensure that this does not happen, the amendment requires
there be a benefit to fish, wildlife, or other resources on public
lands. The Secretary must also determine that the project is in the
public interest in order for the Bureau of Land Management to purchase
them.
Finally, Mr. President, my amendment provides important protections
for private property owners participating in cooperative watershed
restoration efforts. From start to finish, the process is completely
voluntary. Under the amendment, the Bureau of Land Management can only
enter into watershed restoration agreements that are mutually agreed to
by the Secretary, as well as by the private landowner. If there is any
part of the agreement that the private landowner objects to, that
landowner can simply say no to the agreement.
What we have, Mr. President, is an amendment that, in my view, will
be good for watershed restoration efforts. It will be good in terms of
maximizing taxpayer funds during these tough times, and it fully
protects the rights of private landowners. I hope this will be adopted.
I thank the Senator from Washington. Both he and his staff have been
very helpful, as well as the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment proposed by the Senator
from Oregon is, indeed, relevant to the subject matter of this bill. It
is one, as he has already eloquently pointed out, that attempts to
bring people together, people who have differing views often, and not
only individuals with differing views but Government agencies,
especially the Bureau of Land Management, and private landowners, in a
way that benefits fish and wildlife, in a way that benefits the
environment, and in a way which is entirely voluntary.
He has worked with me and my office on all of the details of this
proposal. I am delighted to say from the point of view of this Senator
and the managers of the bill, the proposal is not only acceptable, but
one for which I have an enthusiastic response and full support.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am informed that this amendment has been
cleared by the manager on the other side of the aisle. Under those
circumstances, from my perspective, it is ripe for a vote and for
acceptance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5352) was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WYDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is obvious that the Interior
appropriations bill is open for amendment. We are open for business. We
have now heard an amendment proposed by the Senator from South Dakota.
We have accepted one by the Senator from Oregon.
For the information of Members, under the previous order, at 3
o'clock, the Chair is to recognize the Senator from Arkansas to
introduce an amendment on grazing fees, which, obviously, will be a
very controversial amendment. I hope there will be a full and complete
debate on that amendment this afternoon so that it is ready for a vote
tomorrow. It will not, under the unanimous-consent agreement, come to a
vote today, but we can move this bill forward and make progress on this
bill by having a thorough debate on that issue, one that, while it is
controversial, is certainly relevant to this appropriations bill.
In the meantime, the floor is open for any other Member who wishes to
introduce an amendment to begin discussion, and perhaps conclude it if
the amendment is not a controversial one. I invite other Members of the
Senate who are within the sound of this debate to bring those
amendments to the floor and we will deal with them as expeditiously and
fairly as we possibly can.
With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be
allowed to speak for 4 or 5 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and thank the floor manager, my good
friend, the senior Senator from the State of Washington.
____________________