[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.
____________________