[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 94 (Monday, July 9, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7304-S7310]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Under the previous order, the Senate 
will now proceed to the consideration of S. 1077, which the clerk will 
report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1077) making supplemental appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other 
     purposes.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today, the Senate is debating S. 1077, the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
  On June 1, 2001, President Bush asked Congress to consider a 
supplemental request for $6.5 billion, primarily for the Department of 
Defense. The draft supplemental bill that is before us totals $6.5 
billion, not one dime above the President's request--not one thin dime 
above the President's request. It contains no emergency funding. The 
President has said that he will not support such emergency spending, so 
the Committee has not included any emergency designations in this bill. 
Unrequested items in the bill are offset.
  S. 1077 funds the President's request for additional defense spending 
for health care, for military pay and benefits, for the high costs of 
natural gas and other utilities, for increased military flying hours, 
and for other purposes. The bill includes a net increase of $5.54 
billion for the Department of Defense and $291 million for defense-
related programs of the Department of Energy.
  While the Appropriations Committee has approved most of the 
President's request for the Department of Defense, I stress the 
importance of accountability for these and future funds. Financial 
accountability remains one of the weakest links in the Defense 
Department's budget process. Just last month, the General Accounting 
Office reported that, of $1.1 billion earmarked for military spare 
parts in the fiscal year 1999 supplemental, only about $88 million 
could be tracked to the purchase of spare parts. The remaining $1 
billion, or 92 percent of the appropriation, was transferred to 
operations and maintenance accounts, where the tracking process broke 
down.
  Perhaps a substantial portion of the money appropriated for spare 
parts was spent on spare parts; perhaps it was not. But, given the way 
the money was managed, nobody knows for sure and that, it seems to me, 
is an unacceptable circumstance, because one thing we do know for sure 
is that an adequate inventory of spare parts is a key component of 
readiness and the Defense Department apparently does not have an 
adequate inventory of spare parts. So we must do better in making sure 
these dollars for spare parts go for spare parts.
  The supplemental funding bill before us today includes another $30 
million for spare parts, this time specifically for the Army. As former 
President Reagan would have said, here we go again. To forestall a 
repeat of the problems that arose in accounting for spare parts 
expenditures provided in the fiscal year 1999 supplemental, the 
committee, at my request, approved report language requiring the 
Secretary of Defense to follow the money and to provide Congress with a 
complete accounting of all supplemental funds appropriated for spare 
parts. The intent of this provision is to ensure that money 
appropriated by Congress for the purchase of spare parts does not get 
shifted into any other program.
  The supplemental appropriations bill, as reported by the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, provides $300 million for the Low Income 
Energy Assistance Program, an increase of $150 million above the 
President's request, to help our citizens cope with high energy costs. 
The bill also includes $161 million that was not requested for grants 
to local education agencies under the Education for the Disadvantaged 
Program in response to the most recent poverty and expenditure data. 
Also provided is $100 million as an initial United States contribution 
to a global trust fund to combat AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. In 
addition, $92 million requested by the President for the Coast Guard is 
included, as is $115.8 million requested for the Treasury Department 
for the cost of processing and mailing out the tax rebate checks.
  In addition, the bill includes $84 million for the Radiation Exposure 
Trust Fund to provide compensation to the victims of radiation 
exposure. We thank Senators Domenici and Bingaman for their leadership 
in assisting those who were involved in the mining of uranium ore and 
those who were downwind from nuclear weapons tests during the Cold War.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee's bill includes a number of 
offsets to pay for these additional items. Members should be on notice 
that, with passage of this bill, we are at the statutory cap for budget 
authority in Fiscal Year 2001. I say to colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle that any amendments that are offered will need to be offset. 
Exceeding the statutory cap could result in an across-the-board cut in 
all discretionary spending, both for defense programs and for non-
defense programs. I urge Members to avoid the spectacle of a 
government-wide sequester by finding appropriate offsets for 
amendments.
  There is another reason to insist on offsets for any additional 
spending. During debate on the recent tax-cut bill, I argued that the 
tax cuts contained in that bill could return the Federal budget to the 
deficit ditch. I stressed that the tax cuts were based on highly 
suspect ten-year surplus estimates and that if those estimates proved 
illusory, the tax-cut bill would result in spending the Medicare 
surplus. Now, before the ink is even dry on the President's signature 
on that tax bill, we may find ourselves headed back into the deficit 
ditch and headed in the direction of cutting into the Medicare surplus.
  Our distinguished Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent 
Conrad, has prepared an analysis of the budget picture for Fiscal Year 
2001, the current fiscal year, based on recent economic projections 
from the President's own Director of the National Economic Council, 
Lawrence Lindsey. The tax-cut bill reduced the surplus by $74 billion 
in Fiscal Year 2001 alone. As a result, Chairman Conrad is projecting a 
raid on the Medicare Trust Fund in Fiscal Year 2001 of $17 billion.
  Any efforts to increase spending in this bill without offsets will 
only make this problem worse.
  The President asserted in his Budget Blueprint that the authority of 
the Congress and the President to designate funding as an emergency has 
been abused. The Administration has indicated in its Statement of 
Administration Policy of June 19, 2001, that the President does not 
intend to designate the $473 million of emergency funding contained in 
the House-passed bill as emergency spending.
  The administration further states that, ``emergency supplemental 
appropriations should be limited to extremely rare events.'' The Senate 
supplemental bill contains no emergency designations. Nonetheless, I do 
believe that it is appropriate for Congress and the President to use 
the emergency authority from time to time in response to natural 
disasters and other truly unforseen events in the nature of disasters.

[[Page S7305]]

  As I mentioned earlier, this supplemental appropriations bill 
provides immediate relief through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program, LIHEAP, for American families being hit hard by this energy 
crisis. Moreover, it includes funding to help educate our most needy 
students through the Education for the Disadvantaged Program. To help 
offset the cost of these two supplementals, a rescission of unallocated 
dislocated worker funds under the Workforce Investment Act was also 
included in the committee bill.
  The States have accumulated a large, unexpended balance of dislocated 
worker funds due to start-up delays with the Workforce Investment Act 
of 1998. These funds are estimated to exceed $600 million for the 
program year that ended on June 30, 2001. Although the rescission of 
dislocated worker funds will reduce the Fiscal Year 2001 appropriation 
from $1.59 billion to $1.37 billion, the Labor Department projects that 
the carryover funds from the previous program year will more than 
offset the rescission. Federal funding, including carryover balances, 
will actually increase by $423 million in program year 2001, or 25 
percent above the level for program year 2000.
  Furthermore, report language was included in the supplemental 
appropriations bill expressing the Senate Appropriations Committee's 
support for the Workforce Investment Act, the dislocated worker 
program, and the committee's intent to carefully monitor the need for 
enhanced job-training services. Should it be determined that additional 
funds are needed, the Appropriations Committee will do all it can to 
ensure that sufficient funds are included in the Fiscal Year 2002 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
  Pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, Senator Stevens and I 
will be offering a managers' amendment that contains a number of 
amendments that have been agreed to by both sides. One of the items in 
the managers' amendment is an amendment of mine to provide $3 million 
to hire additional USDA inspectors to promote the proper treatment of 
livestock. Another item would provide $20 million to help farmers in 
the Klamath Basin in Oregon and California. The cost of these and other 
provisions contained in the managers' amendment is fully offset.
  I have noted in the press recently some stories that greatly concern 
me. I believe the American people are concerned and are becoming 
increasingly sensitive to the treatment of animals. Reports of cruelty 
to animals through improper livestock production and slaughter 
practices have hit a nerve with the American people. The recent 
announcements by major food outlets, such as McDonalds, that they would 
only buy products from suppliers that could assure certain levels of 
humane animal treatment speak volumes to changes in public 
expectations.
  The managers' amendment will provide an additional $3 million through 
the USDA Office of the Secretary for activities across three department 
mission areas to protect and promote humane treatment of animals. Of 
the $3 million provided, no less than $1 million is directed to 
enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, under which standards for 
livestock production, laboratory animals, and so-called puppy mills are 
established. In addition, no less than $1 million is directed for 
activities under the Federal Meat Inspections Act, which will enhance 
humane treatment in the slaughter of animals in facilities under the 
jurisdiction of Federal inspection. Finally, an amount up to $500,000 
is directed for the development and demonstration of technologies that 
can be used by producers, processors, and others to provide better care 
of animals at all stages of their lives.
  Mr. President, I shall, in conclusion, ask unanimous consent--but not 
right at this point--that certain newspaper articles which have been 
written with respect to the slaughter of animals, and the inhumane 
slaughter of animals, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  This bill responds to the President's supplemental request for 
necessary defense spending, and it also provides funding for important 
domestic priorities. It is not one dime--not one thinly, much-worn 
dime--over the President's request. It is within the statutory spending 
limits. It is a responsible bill, and I urge Members to support it.
  Before yielding the floor, let me express my thanks to the 
distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, who is the 
ranking member on the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. He is the 
former chairman of the committee with whom I had the great pleasure of 
serving for several years in that position. And I believe it is a 
blessing, indeed, for me, as I stand on this floor today to present 
this bill, to also be able to say that Senator Stevens and I stood 
shoulder to shoulder, and we shall continue to work shoulder to 
shoulder, as we moved forward with this bill.
  I cannot adequately express my appreciation to him and to his staff 
and to my own staff for the great work and the excellent cooperation 
that have been shown in connection with the preparation and 
presentation of this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator make his unanimous consent 
request at this time?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I do make that unanimous consent request.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 10, 2001]

                        They Die Piece by Piece


 In Overtaxed Plants, Humane Treatment of Cattle Is Often a Battle Lost

                           (By Joby Warrick)

       Pasco, Wash.--It takes 25 minutes to turn a live steer into 
     steak at the modern slaughterhouse where Ramon Moreno works. 
     For 20 years, his post was ``second-legger,'' a job that 
     entails cutting hocks off carcasses as they whirl past at a 
     rate of 309 an hour.
       The cattle were supposed to be dead before they got to 
     Moreno. But too often they weren't.
       ``They blink. They make noises,'' he said softly. ``The 
     head moves, the eyes are wide and looking around.''
       Still Moreno would cut. On bad days, he says, dozens of 
     animals reached his station clearly alive and conscious. Some 
     would survive as far as the tail cutter, the belly ripper, 
     the hide puller. ``They die,'' said Moreno, ``piece by 
     piece.''
       Under a 23-year-old federal law, slaughtered cattle and 
     hogs first must be ``stunned''--rendered insensible to pain--
     with a blow to the head or an electric shock. But at 
     overtaxed plants, the law is sometimes broken, with cruel 
     consequences for animals as well as workers. Enforcement 
     records, interviews, videos and worker affidavits describe 
     repeated violations of the Humane Slaughter Act at dozens of 
     slaughterhouses, ranging from the smallest, custom butcheries 
     to modern, automated establishments such as the sprawling IBP 
     Inc. plant here where Moreno works.
       ``In plants all over the United States, this happens on a 
     daily basis,'' said Lester Friedlander, a veterinarian and 
     formerly chief government inspector at a Pennsylvania 
     hamburger plant. ``I've seen it happen. And I've talked to 
     other veterinarians. They feel it's out of control.''
       The U.S. Department of Agriculture oversees the treatment 
     of animals in meat plants, but enforcement of the law varies 
     dramatically. While a few plants have been forced to halt 
     production for a few hours because of alleged animal cruelty, 
     such sanctions are rare.
       For example, the government took no action against a Texas 
     beef company that was cited 22 times in 1998 for violations 
     that included chopping hooves off live cattle. In another 
     case, agency supervisors failed to take action on multiple 
     complaints of animal cruelty at a Florida beef plant and 
     fired an animal health technician for reporting the problems 
     to the Humane Society. The dismissal letter sent to the 
     technician, Tim Walker, said his disclosure had ``irreparably 
     damaged'' the agency's relations with the packing plant.
       ``I complained to everyone--I said, `Lookit, they're 
     skinning live cows in there,' '' Walker said. ``Always it was 
     the same answer: `We know it's true. But there's nothing we 
     can do about it.' ''
       In the past three years, a new meat inspection system that 
     shifted responsibility to industry has made it harder to 
     catch and report cruelty problems, some federal inspectors 
     say. Under the new system, implemented in 1998, the agency no 
     longer tracks the number of humane-slaughter violations its 
     inspectors find each year.
       Some inspectors are so frustrated they're asking outsiders 
     for help: The inspectors' union last spring urged Washington 
     state authorities to crack down on alleged animal abuse at 
     the IBP plant in Pasco. In a statement, IBP said problems 
     described by workers in its Washington state plant ``do not 
     accurately represent the way we operate our plants. We take 
     the issue of proper livestock handling very seriously.''

[[Page S7306]]

       But the union complained that new government policies and 
     faster production speeds at the plant had ``significantly 
     hampered our ability to ensure compliance.'' Several 
     animal welfare groups joined in the petition.
       ``Privatization of meat inspection has meant a quiet death 
     to the already meager enforcement of the Humane Slaughter 
     Act,'' said Gail Eisnitz of the Humane Farming Association, a 
     group that advocates better treatment of farm animals. ``USDA 
     isn't simply relinquishing its humane-slaughter oversight to 
     the meat industry, but is--without the knowledge and consent 
     of Congress--abandoning this function altogether.''
       The USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service, which is 
     responsible for meat inspection, says it has not relaxed its 
     oversight, In January, the agency ordered a review of 100 
     slaughterhouses. An FSIS memo reminded its 7,600 inspectors 
     they had an ``obligation to ensure compliance'' with humane-
     handling laws.
       The review comes as pressure grows on both industry and 
     regulators to improve conditions for the 155 million cattle, 
     hogs, horses and sheep slaughtered each year. McDonald's and 
     Burger King have been subject to boycotts by animal rights 
     groups protesting mistreatment of livestock.
       As a result, two years ago McDonald's began requiring 
     suppliers to abide by the American Meat Institute's Good 
     Management Practices for Animal Handling and Stunning. The 
     company also began conducting annual audits of meat plants. 
     Last week, Burger King announced it would require suppliers 
     to follow the meat institute's standards.
       ``Burger King Corp. takes the issues of food safety and 
     animal welfare very seriously, and we expect our suppliers to 
     comply,'' the company said in a statement.
       Industry groups acknowledge that sloppy killing has 
     tangible consequences for consumers as well as company 
     profits. Fear and pain cause animals to produce hormones that 
     damage meat and cost companies tens of millions of dollars a 
     year in discarded product, according to industry estimates.
       Industry officials say they also recognize an ethical 
     imperative to treat animals with compassion. Science is 
     blurring the distinction between the mental processes of 
     humans and lower animals--discovering, for example, that even 
     the lowly rat may dream. Americans thus are becoming more 
     sensitive to the suffering of food animals, even as they 
     consume increasing numbers of them.
       ``Handling animals humanely,'' said American Meat Institute 
     president J. Patrick Boyle, ``is just the right thing to 
     do.''
       Clearly, not all plants have gotten the message.
       A Post computer analysis of government enforcement records 
     found 527 violations of humane-handling regulations from 1996 
     to 1997, the last years for which complete records were 
     available. The offenses range from overcrowded stockyards to 
     incidents in which live animals were cut, skinned or scalded.
       Through the Freedom of Information Act, The Post obtained 
     enforcement documents from 28 plants that had high numbers of 
     offenses or had drawn penalties for violating humane-handling 
     laws. The Post also interviewed dozens of current and former 
     federal meat inspectors and slaughterhouse workers. A 
     reporter reviewed affidavits and secret video recordings made 
     inside two plants.
       Among the findings:
       One Texas plant, Supreme Beef Packers in Ladonia, had 22 
     violations in six months. During one inspection, federal 
     officials found nine live cattle dangling from an overhead 
     chain. But managers at the plant, which announced last fall 
     it was ceasing operations, resisted USDA warnings, saying its 
     practices were no different than others in the industry. 
     ``Other plants are not subject to such extensive scrutiny of 
     their stunning activities,'' the plant complained in a 1997 
     letter to the USDA.
       Government inspectors halted production for a day at the 
     Calhoun Packing Co. beef plant in Palestine, Tex., after 
     inspectors saw cattle being improperly stunned. ``They were 
     still conscious and had good reflexes,'' B.V. Swamy, a 
     veterinarian and senior USDA official at the plant, wrote. 
     The shift supervisor ``allowed the cattle to be hung 
     anyway.'' IBP, which owned the plant at the time, contested 
     the findings but ``took steps to resolve the situation,'' 
     including installing video equipment and increasing training, 
     a spokesman said. IBP has since sold the plant.
       At the Farmers Livestock Cooperative processing plant in 
     Hawaii, inspectors documented 14 humane-slaughter violations 
     in as many months. Records from 1997 and 1998 describe hogs 
     that were walking and squealing after being stunned as many 
     as four times. In a memo to USDA, the company said it fired 
     the stunner and increased monitoring of the slaughter 
     process.
       At an Excel Corp. beef plant in Fort Morgan, Colo., 
     production was halted for a day in 1998 after workers 
     allegedly cut off the leg of a live cow whose limbs had 
     become wedged in a piece of machinery. In imposing the 
     sanction, U.S. inspectors cited a string of violations in the 
     previous two years, including the cutting and skinning of 
     live cattle. The company, responding to one such charge, 
     contended that it was normal for animals to blink and arch 
     their backs after being stunned, and such ``muscular 
     reaction'' can occur up to six hours after death. ``None of 
     these reactions indicate the animal is still alive,'' 
     the company wrote to USDA.
       Hogs, unlike cattle, are dunked in tanks of hot water after 
     they are stunned to soften the hides for skinning. As a 
     result, a botched slaughter condemns some hogs to being 
     scalded and drowned. Secret videotape from an Iowa pork plant 
     shows hogs squealing and kicking as they are being lowered 
     into the water.
       USDA documents and interviews with inspectors and plant 
     workers attributed many of the problems to poor training, 
     faulty or poorly maintained equipment or excessive production 
     speeds. Those problems were identified five years ago in an 
     industry-wide audit by Temple Grandin, an assistant professor 
     with Colorado State University's animal sciences department 
     and one of the nation's leading experts on slaughter 
     practices.
       In the early 1990s, Grandin developed the first objective 
     standards for treatment of animals in slaughterhouses, which 
     were adopted by the American Meat Institute, the industry's 
     largest trade group. Her initial, USDA-funded survey in 1996 
     was one of the first attempts to grade slaughter plants.
       One finding was a high failure rate among beef plants that 
     use stunning devices known as ``captive-bolt'' guns. Of the 
     plants surveyed, only 36 percent earned a rating of 
     ``acceptable'' or better, meaning cattle were knocked 
     unconscious with a single blow at least 95 percent of the 
     time.
       Grandin now conducts annual surveys as a consultant for the 
     American Meat Institute and McDonald's Corp. She maintains 
     that the past four years have brought dramatic improvements--
     mostly because of pressure from McDonald's, which sends a 
     team of meat industry auditors into dozens of plants each 
     year to observe slaughter practices.
       Based on the data collected by McDonald's auditors, the 
     portion of beef plants scoring ``acceptable'' or better 
     climbed to 90 percent in 1999. Some workers and inspectors 
     are skeptical of the McDonald's numbers, and Grandin said the 
     industry's performance dropped slightly last year after 
     auditors stopped giving notice of some inspections.
       Grandin said high production speeds can trigger problems 
     when people and equipment are pushed beyond their capacity. 
     From a typical kill rate of 50 cattle an hour in the early 
     1900s, production speeds rose dramatically in the 1980s. They 
     now approach 400 per hour in the newest plants.
       ``It's like the `I Love Lucy' episode in the chocolate 
     factory,'' she said. ``You can speed up a job and speed up a 
     job, and after a while you get to a point where performance 
     doesn't simply decline--it crashes.''
       When that happens, it's not only animals that suffer. 
     Industry trade groups acknowledge that improperly stunned 
     animals contribute to worker injuries in an industry that 
     already has the nation's highest rate of job-related injuries 
     and illnesses--about 27 percent a year. At some plants, 
     ``dead'' animals have inflicted so many broken limbs and 
     teeth that workers wear chest pads and hockey masks.
       ``The live cows cause a lot of injuries,'' said Martin 
     Fuentes, an IBP worker whose arm was kicked and shattered by 
     a dying cow. ``The line is never stopped simply because an 
     animal is alive.''


                          a ``brutal'' harvest

       At IBP's Pasco complex, the making of the American 
     hamburger starts in a noisy, blood-spattered chamber shielded 
     from view by a stainless steel wall. Here, live cattle emerge 
     from a narrow chute to be dispatched in a process known as 
     ``knocking'' or ``stunning.'' On most days the chamber is 
     manned by a pair of Mexican immigrants who speak little 
     English and earn about $9 an hour for killing up to 2,050 
     head per shift.
       The tool of choice is a captive-bolt gun, which fires a 
     retractable metal rod into the steer's forehead. An effective 
     stunning requires a precision shot, which workers must 
     deliver hundreds of times daily to balky, frightened animals 
     that frequently weigh 1,000 pounds or more. Within 12 seconds 
     of entering the chamber, the fallen steer is shackled to a 
     moving chain to be bled and butchered by other workers in 
     a fast-moving production line.
       The hitch, IBP workers say, is that some ``stunned'' cattle 
     wake up.
       ``If you put a knife into the cow, it's going to make a 
     noise: It says, `Moo!' '' said Moreno, the former second-
     legger, who began working in the stockyard last year. ``They 
     move the head and the eyes and the leg like the cow wants to 
     walk.''
       After a blow to the head, an unconscious animal may kick or 
     twitch by reflex. But a videotape, made secretly by IBP 
     workers and reviewed by veterinarians for The Post, depicts 
     cattle that clearly are alive and conscious after being 
     stunned.
       Some cattle, dangling by a leg from the plant's overhead 
     chain, twist and arch their backs as though trying to right 
     themselves. Close-ups show blinking reflexes, an unmistakable 
     sign of a conscious brain, according to guidelines approved 
     by the American Meat Institute.
       The video, parts of which were aired by Seattle television 
     station KING last spring, shows injured cattle being 
     trampled. In one graphic scene, workers give a steer electric 
     shocks by jamming a battery-powered prod into its mouth.
       More than 20 workers signed affidavits alleging that the 
     violations shown on tape are commonplace and that supervisors 
     are aware of them. The sworn statements and videos were 
     prepared with help from the Humane Farming Association. Some 
     workers had taken part in a 1999 strike over what they said 
     were excessive plant production speeds.

[[Page S7307]]

       ``I've seen thousands and thousands of cows go through the 
     slaughter process alive,'' IBP veteran Fuentes, the worker 
     who was injured while working on live cattle, said in an 
     affidavit. ``The cows can get seven minutes down the line and 
     still be alive. I've been in the side-puller where they're 
     still alive. All the hide is stripped out down the neck 
     there.''
       IBP, the nation's top beef processor, denounced as an 
     ``appalling aberration'' the problems captured on the tape. 
     It suggested the events may have been staged by ``activists 
     trying to raise money and promote their agenda. . . .
       ``Like many other people, we were very upset over the 
     hidden camera video,'' the company said. ``We do not in any 
     way condone some of the livestock handling that was shown.''
       After the video surfaced, IBP increased worker training and 
     installed cameras in the slaughter area. The company also 
     questioned workers and offered a reward for information 
     leading to identification of those responsible for the video. 
     One worker said IBP pressured him to sign a statement denying 
     that he had seen live cattle on the line.
       ``I knew that what I wrote wasn't true,'' said the worker, 
     who did not want to be identified for fear of losing his job. 
     ``Cows still go alive every day. When cows go alive, it's 
     because they don't give me time to kill them.''
       Independent assessments of the workers' claims have been 
     inconclusive. Washington State officials launched a probe in 
     May that included an unannounced plant inspection. The 
     investigators say they were detained outside the facility for 
     an hour while their identities were checked. They saw no acts 
     of animal cruelty once permitted inside.
       Grandin, the Colorado State professor, also inspected IBP's 
     plant, at the company's request; that inspection was 
     announced. Although she observed no live cattle being 
     butchered, she concluded that the plant's older-style 
     equipment was ``overloaded.'' Grandin reviewed parts of the 
     workers' videotape and said there was no mistaking what she 
     saw.
       ``There were fully alive beef on that rail,'' Grandin said.


                        inconsistent enforcement

       Preventing this kind of suffering is officially a top 
     priority for the USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service. By 
     law, a humane-slaughter violation is among a handful of 
     offenses that can result in an immediate halt in production--
     and cost a meatpacker hundreds or even thousands of dollars 
     per idle minute.
       In reality, many inspectors describe humane slaughter as a 
     blind spot: Inspectors' regular duties rarely take them to 
     the chambers where stunning occurs. Inconsistencies in 
     enforcement, training and record-keeping hamper the agency's 
     ability to identify problems.
       The meat inspectors' union, in its petition last spring to 
     Washington state's attorney general, contended that federal 
     agents are ``often prevented from carrying out'' the mandate 
     against animal cruelty. Among the obstacles inspectors face 
     are ``dramatic increases in production speeds, lack of 
     support from supervisors in plants and district offices . . . 
     new inspection policies which significantly reduce our 
     enforcement authority, and little to no access to the areas 
     of the plants where animals are killed,'' stated the petition 
     by the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals.
       Barbara Masters, the agency's director of slaughter 
     operations, told meat industry executives in February she 
     didn't know if the number of violations was up or down, 
     thought she believed most plants were complying with the law. 
     ``We encourage the district offices to monitor trends,'' she 
     said. ``The fact that we haven't heard anything suggests 
     there are no trends.''
       But some inspectors see little evidence the agency is 
     interested in hearing about problems. Under the new 
     inspection system, the USDA stopped tracking the number of 
     violations and dropped all mentions of humane slaughter from 
     its list of rotating tasks for inspectors.
       The agency says it expects its watchdogs to enforce the law 
     anyway. Many inspectors still do, though some occasionally 
     wonder if it's worth the trouble.
       ``It always ends up in argument: Instead of re-stunning the 
     animal, you spend 20 minutes just talking about it,'' said 
     Colorado meat inspector Gary Dahl, sharing his private views. 
     ``Yes, the animal will be dead in a few minutes anyway. But 
     why not let him die with dignity?''
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 10, 2001]

                   Big Mac's Big Voice in Meat Plants

                           (By Joby Warrick)

       Kansas City, Mo.--Never mind the bad old days, when 
     slaughterhouses were dark places filled with blood and 
     terror. As far as the world's No. 1 hamburger vendor is 
     concerned, Happy Meals start with happy cows.
       That was the message delivered in February by a coterie of 
     McDonald's consultants to a group of 140 managers who oversee 
     the slaughter of most of the cattle and pigs Americans will 
     consume this year. From now on, McDonald's says, its 
     suppliers will be judged not only on how cleanly they 
     slaughter animals, but also on how well they manage the small 
     details in the final minutes.
       Starting with cheerful indoor lighting.
       ``Cows like indirect lighting,'' explained Temple Grandin, 
     an animal science assistant professor at Colorado State 
     University and McDonald's lead consultant on animal welfare. 
     ``Bright lights are a distraction.''
       And only indoor voices, please.
       ``We've got to get rid of the yelling and screaming coming 
     out of people's mouths,'' Grandin scolded.
       So much attention on atmosphere may seem misplaced, given 
     that the beneficiaries are seconds away from death. But 
     McDonald's, like much of the meat industry, is serious when 
     it comes to convincing the public of its compassion for the 
     cows, chickens and pigs that account for the bulk of its 
     menu.
       Bloodied in past scrapes with animal rights groups, 
     McDonald's has been positioning itself in recent years as an 
     ardent defender of farm animals. It announced last year it 
     would no longer buy eggs from companies that permit the 
     controversial practice of withholding food and water from 
     hens to speed up egg production.
       Now the company's headfirst plunge into slaughter policing 
     is revolutionizing the way slaughterhouses do business, 
     according to a wide range of industry experts and observers.
       ``In this business, you have a pre-McDonald's era and a 
     post-McDonald's era,'' said Grandin, who has studied animal-
     handling practices for more than 20 years. ``The difference 
     is measured in light-years.''
       Others also have contributed to the improvement, including 
     the American Meat Institute, which is drawing ever-larger 
     crowds to its annual ``humane-handling'' seminars, such as 
     the one in Kansas City. The AMI, working with Grandin, issued 
     industry-wide guidelines in 1997 that spell out proper 
     treatment of cows and pigs, from a calm and orderly delivery 
     to the stockyards to a quick and painless end on the killing 
     floor.
       But the driving force for change is McDonald's, which 
     decided in 1998 to conduct annual inspections at every plant 
     that puts the beef into Big Macs. The chain's auditors 
     observe how animals are treated at each stage of the process, 
     keeping track of even minor problems such as excessive 
     squealing or the overuse of cattle prods.
       The members of McDonald's audit team say their job is made 
     easier by scientific evidence that shows tangible economic 
     benefits when animals are treated well. Meat from abused or 
     frightened animals is often discolored and soft, and it 
     spoils more quickly due to hormonal secretions in the final 
     moments of life, industry experts say.
       ``Humane handling results in better finished products,'' 
     AMI President J. Patrick Boyle said. ``It also creates a 
     safer workplace, because there's a potential for worker 
     injuries when animals are mishandled.''
       Not everyone is convinced that slaughter practices have 
     improved as much as McDonald's surveys suggest. Gail Eisnitz, 
     investigator for the Humane Farming Association, notes that 
     until the past few months, all McDonald's inspections were 
     announced in advance.
       ``The industry's self-inspections are meaningless,'' 
     Eisnitz said. ``They're designed to lull Americans into a 
     false sense of security about what goes on inside 
     slaughterhouses.''
       But Jeff Rau, an animal scientist who attended the Kansas 
     City seminar on behalf of the Humane Society of the United 
     States, saw the increased attention to animal welfare as a 
     hopeful step.
       ``The industry has recognized it has some work to do,'' Rau 
     said. ``The next step is to convince consumers to be aware of 
     what is happening to their food before it gets to the table. 
     People should understand that their food dollars can carry 
     some weight in persuading companies to improve.''
                                  ____


                           Eulogy of the Dog

                          (By George G. Vest)

       Warrensburg, MO, Sept. 23, 1870.--Gentlemen of the jury. 
     The best friend a man has in the world may turn against him 
     and become his enemy. His son or daughter whom he has reared 
     with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest 
     and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and 
     our good name, may become traitors to their faith. The money 
     that a man has he may lose. It flies away from him perhaps 
     when he needs it most. A man's reputation may be sacrificed 
     in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are 
     prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is 
     with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when 
     failure settles its cloud upon our heads. The one absolutely 
     unselfish friend that a man can have in this selfish world, 
     the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves 
     ungrateful or treacherous, is the dog.
       Gentlemen of the jury, a man's dog stands by him in 
     prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will 
     sleep on the cold ground when the wintry winds blow and the 
     snow drives fiercely, if only he can be near his master's 
     side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer, he 
     will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounter with 
     the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper 
     master as if he were a prince.
       When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take 
     wings and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in 
     his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens. If 
     fortune drives the master forth an outcast into the world, 
     friendless sand homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher 
     privilege than that of accompanying him, to guard him against 
     danger, to fight against his enemies. And when the last scene 
     of all comes, and death takes his master in its embrace and

[[Page S7308]]

     his body is laid in the cold ground, no matter if all other 
     friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the 
     noble dog be found, his head between his paws and his eyes 
     sad but open, in alert watchfulness, faithful and true, even 
     unto death.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, after Senator Stevens presents his 
statement, if he has no objection, I will present the managers' 
amendment. And at that time I will also ask unanimous consent that if 
that managers' amendment may be agreed to, that a second managers' 
amendment may be in order if necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee in presenting this bill, S. 1077, to the Senate today. It 
provides necessary supplemental funds for the remainder of fiscal year 
2001.
  Let me start off by thanking Senator Byrd for his kind comments. It 
is a pleasure, once more, to present a supplemental bill to the Senate 
together with my great friend from West Virginia. He is chairman now. I 
was chairman last year. I can tell the Senate, it makes no difference 
as far as we are concerned. We work together. We may have slight 
disagreements from time to time, but we work those out before coming to 
this Chamber. I commend him for the way he is now proceeding--as 
rapidly as possible--to catch up on the schedule of the appropriations 
bills so we may do our best to complete them all by the end of this 
fiscal year.
  As stated by Senator Byrd, this bill, as reported by our committee, 
conforms to the budget resources available for this year in both budget 
authority and outlays. The bill also matches the total request 
submitted by President Bush of $6.5 billion.
  The bill does not present any emergency appropriations. All spending 
is within the budget caps set by Congress and within the President's 
request.
  I commend the chairman for reporting this bill out of the committee 
just 1 day after the House passed the companion measure, H.R. 2216. Our 
committee had only 2 weeks to consider the President's request and 
House adjustments, and sent this bill forward with a unanimous vote in 
the committee. That is a great compliment to Senator Byrd as the 
chairman of the committee.
  I am pleased to join him in recommending the bill to the Senate. I 
urge all Members to support the bill and to adhere to the tight 
spending limits that have been adhered to by the committee itself. 
Nearly 90 percent of the funding provided in this bill meets the 
ongoing needs of the Department of Defense.
  I join also in commending the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, 
the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, for his determination to meet 
the readiness, quality of life, and health care needs of the men and 
women who serve in our Nation's Armed Forces.
  In addition to the amounts requested by the President, funds are 
provided in the bill for the direct care system for military medicine. 
Additional funds are also proposed for Army real property maintenance 
and spare parts advocated by General Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff. 
Funds are also provided for Navy ship depot maintenance and engagement 
initiatives for the commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Command.
  Based on extensive hearings by the Defense Subcommittee and numerous 
discussions with the Secretary of Defense, these amounts are adequate 
to meet the military's needs through the end of this fiscal year.
  This bill is no substitute for the significant increase in defense 
funds that have been sought by the President in his budget amendment. 
He has sought an additional $18.4 billion over the original request for 
fiscal year 2002. We are looking here only at amounts needed through 
September 30 of this year, 2001. Just 83 days from now, we will see the 
end of this fiscal year.
  Amendments may be offered that would provide additional funds for 
this year--for 2001. I urge my colleagues to withhold such amendments. 
We have adequately discussed the needs with the Department, and we 
believe there are no additional funds that could be spent within this 
fiscal year of 2001.

  We will have an opportunity to assess the needs of the Department 
through the Defense authorization and appropriations bills for 2002, 
the fiscal year that we will address starting on October 1 of this 
year. We cannot address all those needs here. We do not need to deal 
with the 2002 requests in a 2001 supplemental appropriations bill.
  I join my colleagues in their belief that we need additional 
resources for our national defense. I shall do my best to support the 
request of the President, and all other funding that we might be able 
to achieve, to really deal with the Department of Defense needs.
  The underfunding of the past cannot be corrected in one supplemental 
bill. The new Secretary and the President of the United States have 
asked for our patience while they set new priorities and determine the 
most vital needs for our Armed Forces. We have had significant changes 
in our military strategy, and we should accord the President of the 
United States and the Secretary of Defense the courtesy they have 
requested and wait for their report.
  We need to move this bill out of the Senate today. I join Senator 
Byrd in committing to hold this bill to the level set by the committee 
and by the President for this fiscal year.
  We need to get the military the money they need by getting this bill 
to conference and out of conference this week so that they will have 
these funds available for the remainder of this year. I also commit to 
working with my colleagues to secure the funding later this month, and 
in September, for fiscal year 2002 and future years.
  In addition to the military requirements, there are several pressing 
disaster relief challenges that face our National Government. Through 
several conversations with the Director of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, Joe Allbaugh, I am anxious about the level of FEMA 
disaster relief funding available for the rest of this calendar year.
  So far, no further supplemental request has been received from the 
Office of Management and Budget for this fiscal year. It is my hope 
that additional information will be available to the conferees on this 
bill later this week.
  Challenges from tropical storm Allison, ice storms in the Southeast, 
and other disasters continue to stress our response capability. 
Especially damaging was the loss to the medical research programs in 
Houston, TX, during the storm Allison.
  The Senator from Texas, a member of our committee, has worked 
tirelessly to find means to address that crisis, and I look forward to 
working with her on that effort to the maximum extent possible.
  With no budget constraints, I could support additional funding for 
the Department of Defense, for FEMA, for LIHEAP, and several other 
priorities sought by many of our colleagues.
  We were asked by the President to limit funding in this bill to such 
amounts as could be spent during the remainder of this fiscal year. 
That is a reasonable request. We were also asked to live within the 
moneys available under the funding caps set by the Congress. We have 
already voted on that this year, and we feel constrained by those 
limits.
  We were asked to break the cycle of ``emergency'' appropriations as 
simply a tool to get around budget limits. We do not support those 
actions, and the executive branch in the past has required emergency 
appropriations each year. We hope we will not have to pursue that 
policy in the future.
  This bill meets the demands of the Congress and the President of the 
United States for budget constraints.
  We hope we can go to conference this week with the House. If the 
Senate passes this bill, as we hope, early tomorrow morning, that will 
take place.
  I implore all Senators to work with us today to complete this bill so 
the funds can get to the Armed Forces by the end of this week.
  We have been in sort of a vicious cycle in recent years whereby the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Chiefs themselves have had to 
determine how much they could spend in the early parts of the fiscal 
year because of constraints placed on them due to the deviation of 
funds for peacekeeping and other activities. That has led every year to 
a supplemental. This is one of those supplementals for funds necessary 
to carry out the basic needs of our military during the summertime. The 
steaming hours of our Navy, the flying hours of our Air Force and our

[[Page S7309]]

Marines and Navy, the ground exercises by our Army, and the activities 
that take place throughout the world by our men and women in the armed 
services demand additional money.
  This is the bill to fund those for the remainder of July and August 
and September. Those activities will depend upon the passage of this 
bill.
  The sooner we can pass this bill, the better off we will be in terms 
of the training and the activities of our men and women in the armed 
services to assure their capabilities to defend this country.
  I urgently support this bill. I urgently urge the Senate to pass it 
as soon as possible.
  I request the cooperation of every Member of the Senate in trying to 
help us accomplish that objective no later than tomorrow morning.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of 
S. 1077, the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
  The Senate bill provides $8.477 billion in new discretionary budget 
authority, offset by the rescission of $1.933 billion of budget 
authority provided in previous years, for a net increase of $6.544 
billion. As a result of this additional budget authority, outlays will 
increase by $1.291 billion in 2001. The Senate bill meets its revised 
section 302(a) and 302(b) allocations for budget authority and is well 
under--by more than $1 billion--those allocations for outlays.
  I commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens for their bipartisan 
effort under unusual circumstances in bringing this important measure 
to the floor within its allocation and without resorting to unnecessary 
emergency designations. This bill provides important resources to our 
uniformed personnel, including funding statutory increases in pay and 
health care. In addition, it provides assistance to low-income families 
for heating and education.
  I urge adoption of the bill.
  I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget 
Committee scoring of this bill printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

             S. 1077, SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
  [Spending comparsions--Senate-reported bill (in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Discretionary  Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget Authority.................       6,544           936     7,480
  Outlays..........................       1,291           936     2,227
Amounts available within Senate
 302(a) allocation:
  Budget Authority.................       6,545           936     7,481
  Outlays..........................       2,487           936     3,423
House-passed bill:
  Budget Authority.................       6,545           936     7,481
  Outlays..........................       1,341           936     2,277
President's request:
  Budget Authority.................       6,543           936     7,479
  Outlays..........................       1,232           936     2,168
 
  SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO
 
Amounts available within Senate
 302(a) allocation:
  Budget Authority.................          (1)            0        (1)
  Outlays..........................      (1,196)            0    (1,196)
House-passed bill:
  Budget Authority.................          (1)            0        (1)
  Outlays..........................         (50)            0       (50)
President's request:
  Budget Authority.................           1             0         1
  Outlays..........................          59             0        59
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Prepared by SBC
  Majority Staff, June 26, 2001.

  Mr. CONRAD. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cochran). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 861

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall send to the desk a managers' 
amendment supported by Senator Stevens and myself. It consists of a 
package of amendments. These amendments have been cleared on both 
sides, and I know of no controversy concerning them.
  The first is an amendment by Senators Hutchison and Inhofe for storm 
damage repair at military facilities in Texas and Oklahoma.
  The next amendment is offered by Senators Torricelli and Corzine to 
convey surplus firefighting equipment in New Jersey.
  The next is an amendment by myself to make technical corrections in 
the energy and water chapter in title I.
  Next is an amendment for storm damage repair at military facilities 
in Texas and Oklahoma offered by Senators Hutchison and Inhofe.
  Next is an amendment by Senator Stevens to increase the authorization 
for the Bassett Army Hospital.
  Next is an amendment to provide $3 million for the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture for humane treatment of animals. That is my amendment. It 
is fully offset by a later amendment.
  Next is an amendment offered by Senators Grassley, Roberts, and 
Stevens to expedite rulemaking for crop insurance.
  Next is an amendment by Senators Feinstein and Boxer and Smith of 
Oregon and Wyden to provide $20 million for the Klamath Basin. Funding 
is offset in a later amendment.
  This will be followed by an amendment by myself in the agriculture 
chapter to provide an offset for the $3 million for humane treatment of 
animals.
  Next is an amendment to increase a rescission in the committee bill 
for the oil and gas guarantee program by $4.8 million.
  Next is an amendment to strike section 2101 of the committee bill 
dealing with the Oceans Commission.
  Next is an amendment to clarify the use of D.C. local funds to 
prevent the demolition by neglect of historic properties, followed by 
an amendment to redirect the expenditure of $250,000 within the Western 
Area Power Administration, followed by an amendment by Senator Burns to 
provide a transfer of $3 million for the Bureau of Land Management 
energy permitting activities.
  Next is an amendment by Senator Harkin to clarify the timing of the 
dislocated worker rescission in the committee bill.
  This will be followed by a technical change to a heading in the bill.
  Next is an amendment offered by Senator Domenici to make a technical 
date correction in the Perkins Vocational Education Act.
  Next is an amendment by myself and Senator Stevens to authorize the 
expenditure of $20 million previously appropriated, subject to 
authorization, to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for digital 
conversion by local stations.
  Next is an amendment to allow the Architect of the Capitol to make 
payments to Treasury for water and sewer services provided by the 
District of Columbia.
  These will be followed by amendments by Senators Murray and Stevens 
to, one, appropriate $16,800,000 to repair damage caused in Seattle by 
the Nisqually earthquake; two, appropriate $2 million for a joint U.S.-
Canada commission dealing with connection of the Alaska Railroad to the 
North American system; and, three, make certain technical corrections. 
The funding is offset by rescissions.

  Next is an amendment by Senator Inouye to transfer $1 million from 
the Morris K. Udall Foundation to the Native Nations Institute.
  And finally an amendment to name a building in the State of Virginia 
for a late House colleague, Norm Sisisky, on behalf of Senator Warner.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered en bloc and 
that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers' 
amendment be agreed to and that it be considered as original text for 
the purpose of further amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, it is my 
understanding that the chairman of the committee will offer another 
unanimous consent request for a second managers' amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. I make that request in conjunction with the request 
pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S7310]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number 
for the information of the Senate.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself and 
     Mr. Stevens, proposes an amendment numbered 861.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 861) was agreed to:
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator's unanimous consent request included the 
request for a second managers' amendment; am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That request has been granted.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this would be a very good time for all of 
our colleagues to offer their amendments if they have amendments. 
Senator Stevens and I are prepared to listen to Senators propose their 
amendments, and we are prepared to respond to their proposals. Much 
time could be saved if Senators will come to the floor and offer those 
amendments at the very earliest. Of course, if Senators don't have 
amendments, that will suit the two of us just as well.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, seeing no other Senator who seeks 
recognition at this time, I shall speak on another matter 
notwithstanding the fact that the Pastore rule has not run its course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________