[Pages S13752-S13770]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 9:30
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1976,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 1976) making appropriations for Agriculture,
rural development, Food and Drug Administration, and related
agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1996, and for other purposes.

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

Pending:
(1) Brown modified amendment No. 2688 (to committee
amendment beginning on page 83, line 4, through page 84, line
2), to prohibit the use of funds for salaries and expenses of
Department of Agriculture employees who carry out a price
support or production adjustment program for peanuts.
(2) Bryan-Bumpers amendment No. 2691, to eliminate funding
to carry out the Market Promotion Program.

Amendment No. 2691

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 15
minutes for debate under the Bryan amendment No. 2691 equally divided.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. It is my intent to speak a few minutes in opposition to the
Bryan amendment, to put in context the decision we will make at 9:45.
This is an amendment that does not seek to modify or simply reduce
the funding for the Market Promotion Program. It is designed to kill
the program, eliminate all funding under this legislation for this
program in the next fiscal year. I think that would be a big mistake,
Mr. President, and here is why.
The Foreign Agriculture Service undertook a study of this program in
response to requests from the Congress and determined that for every $1
that we invest in this Market Promotion Program promoting U.S.
agriculture commodities and foodstuffs that are exported in the
international marketplace, $16 is generated in additional agriculture
imports.
At a time when we are trying to compete more aggressively in the
international market because of the opening up of new markets under the
GATT Uruguay Round Agreement, we are trying to do a better job and use
all the resources that we can muster to help ensure that we maintain a
competitive edge and that we work with our farmers and ranchers and
food processors to try to enlarge our share of markets. This is going
to have just the opposite effect.
So I am hopeful that the Senate will vote against this amendment. I
urge all Senators to carefully consider this. This is a proven, tested,
workable, and effective program, and we have the facts to prove it. We
debated this issue for an hour last night and laid all the facts out on
both sides. I hope the Senators this morning will reject this amendment
soundly.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if there is no one seeking to address the
Senate in support of the amendment, I am going to suggest that the time
during the quorum, which I am going to call, be charged to the
proponents of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the time be
so charged.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S13753]]

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much. I listened last night
to a debate we have had here many times, and my friend and colleague
from Nevada, Richard Bryan, my distinguished friend who I respect,
lists all the companies that get this, shall we say, assistance for
export promotion and points out they all make a profit, they make large
profits and says that this is a program that we should not have.
But every year, and it seems like twice a year, I take to the floor
to point out to my friend and to the rest of our colleagues on both
sides of the aisle that the future of this country, the economic future
of this country really lies in exports. That is where we are going to
have the job creation, that is where we are going to have an economic
future that is worth something.
We know scientifically, because we have the studies, that every
dollar that is invested in market promotion yields far, far many more
dollars in return. It is a multiplier effect because the companies
match the moneys and we wind up selling more of our products overseas.
The other point I want to make is that every other country in the
world with whom we compete have similar programs, as a matter of fact,
have much broader and wider and deeper programs where they push the
exports of their country. If we are to walk away from this, we will
fall behind.
So, Mr. President, I know that the companies that are listed by my
friend are successful companies, and I know that they do put some of
their capital into this, but I think it is very appropriate for this
country to have an export promotion program, just as I think it
appropriate for our trading partners.
I stand with the chairman, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields
time?
Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
I point out to my colleagues that the MPP and its immediate
predecessor, the Targeted Export Assistance Program, has cost the
American taxpayers $1 billion--$1 billion. It is currently proposed for
funding at $110 million. It is a program which has been soundly
denounced by think tanks and organizations that are representing a
broad spectrum of interest groups from the Cato Institute to the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Taxpayers Union, the
Citizens Against Government Waste, the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, the Progressive Policy Institute.
The General Accounting Office has reviewed this program and has
concluded that there is no tangible, ascertainable basis upon which to
conclude that, in fact, has assisted in the Market Promotion Program.
There are no criteria in terms of large company, small company, who
receives, no period of time in which one is supposed to graduate out of
the program.
We are currently spending to assist our overall export promotion
programs in this country about $3.5 billion annually. While
agricultural products account for 10 percent of total U.S. exports, the
Department of Agriculture spends $2.2 billion, or 63 percent of the
total.
The way this program works, Mr. President, is that the advertising
budgets of some of the largest corporations in the world receive a
handout from the American taxpayer to supplement their budgets. Time
restricts me from going into great detail, but here are some of the
companies, all fine companies, that received in fiscal year 1993-1994
substantial amounts of money: Ernest & Julio Gallo, $7.9 million;
Pillsbury, $1.75 million; Jim Beam Whiskey, $713,000, Campbell Soups,
$1.1 million, to cite a few.
I think the American taxpayer, if he or she understood, would be
shocked that, in effect, we are taking tax dollars collected from the
American people and, in effect, adding them to the advertising budgets
of some of the largest companies in the world.
Mr. President, the time to end this program has come. We have cut
Medicare by $270 billion. We are cutting all kinds of programs
involving educational assistance and a whole raft of programs. Yet, we
seem to be unable to divorce ourselves from this form of corporate
welfare.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. COCHRAN. How much time remains on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 3 minutes 33
seconds. The Senator from Nevada has 2 minutes 50 seconds.
Mr. COCHRAN. Let me simply say that in response to the suggestion
that large corporations are getting all this money, 80 percent of this
money goes to trade associations, farmer cooperative groups, the
association of exporters of poultry and eggs, cotton promotion groups,
and others who are trying to take up for the interests of America's
farmers, ranchers, and those in the food businesses that sell in the
international market.
We are trying to save American jobs and promote American economic
interests, American agriculture interests. These are companies that are
involved in those businesses. But the majority of the money goes to
small businesses, farmer cooperatives, and organizations like that, who
sometimes use those companies to help promote what the ingredients are
in their products that are sold in the international market.
So we hope Senators will keep that in mind. This is not corporate
welfare--the catchy phrase some are using to discredit programs, this
one included. It is not well-placed criticism. It is not accurate to
judge the worth of this program on the basis of that kind of argument.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to the amendment offered by my colleagues from Nevada and
Arkansas--the amendment to eliminate the funding for the Market
Promotion Program. I think this effort is a misguided attack on a
program which is successful in its accomplishments. In fact I believe
funding for this program should be increased, not eliminated.
Mr. President, American agriculture is an example of successful
export growth. This year our exports will be in the neighborhood of $50
billion. And our trade surplus in agricultural goods is around $20
billion. And one big reason is the MPP.
This program promotes American agricultural commodities in foreign
markets. This program allows foreign businesses to advertise American
products in their operations. The MPP helps put American beef in
Chinese Big Macs--rather than less expensive, locally produced foods.
And the benefits of such a program are well-recognized by our
competitors in the global marketplace. The European Union, our largest
and most tenacious agricultural export adversary, outspends us nearly 3
to 1 in programs of this type. They spend as much to export wine as we
do for all our commodities through the MPP. I think that speaks volumes
about these programs.
This year we have seen significant advances in our ability to enter
foreign markets. We've moved apples and broccoli in Japan, and
negotiated an agreement to ship more meat into Korea. These exports
mean jobs and revenue in America. And I am confident this trend will
continue. But it makes no sense to eliminate the tools which have
facilitated this progress. The MPP is one such tool.
Mr. President, I strongly endorse the Market Promotion Program and I
urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment to end the
funding for this valuable program.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I oppose the Bryan amendment to
eliminate funding for the Market Promotion Program.
The Market Promotion Program helps promote U.S. agricultural
commodities abroad and build foreign markets for American agricultural
products. I support the Market Promotion Program. And here is why:
First, the Market Promotion Program has been a very successful
program. It has significantly benefited agriculture and expanded
markets. There have been scores of success stories. For California
agriculture, MPP moneys have boosted exports of almonds, asparagus,
prunes, citrus, avocados, kiwi-

[[Page S13754]]
fruit, canned peaches, canned pears, canned fruit cocktail, pistachios,
strawberries, table grapes, tomatoes, walnuts, wine, raisins, cotton
and cotton products, and more.
The California avocado industry, for example, used MPP moneys to
increase Japanese consumers' awareness of the higher quality of
California avocados as opposed to lower priced, lower quality foreign
sources. In 3 years, using MPP funds California avocado growers were
able to increase exports to Japan by 200 percent.
Similarly, the U.S. cotton industry effectively used to promote the
higher quality of products made with U.S. cotton. In the 5 years
preceding the Market Promotion Program, exports of American cotton
averaged only 5.3 million bales of raw cotton. This year, U.S. cotton
exports will exceed 10 million bales. U.S. cotton exports have averaged
$437 million more per year since the Market Promotion Program began.
Second, the Market Promotion Program is a cost-shared program.
Recipients of MPP funds must contribute funds of their own as well. But
the Federal funds serve as seed money that attract the private funding
and bring diverse segments of an industry together on export promotion
that would not otherwise be possible.
Third, the Market Promotion Program helps American agriculture
compete in a global market. It is a GATT legal program. Agricultural
exports now account for nearly one-third of total U.S. agricultural
production and over $40 million in sales. But our competitors in world
markets are aggressively supporting export and promotion of their
agricultural products. We need to ensure that our growers are given the
same support that their foreign competitors receive.
Mr. President, the Market Promotion Program works. We should not
eliminate it.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my message today is simple: If you are pro
trade, pro growth, and pro jobs--you are pro MPP.
The Market Promotion Program is a proven success. For example, in my
home State of Washington we have seen a dramatic increase in apple
exports from 4.3 million cartons to 25.1 million, an increase of over
500 percent. Export sales now total over $300 million. This success is
due to the Market Promotion Program.
My State alone exports over 1.1 billion dollars' worth of agriculture
products. Such exports generate nearly $3 billion in economic activity
and provide over 33,000 export-related jobs in my State of Washington.
Programs like MPP are absolutely essential if U.S. agriculture--the
most competitive industry in the world--is to remain viable and
competitive in the international marketplace. MPP gives U.S.
agriculture the tool it needs to develop, maintain, and expand
commercial export markets for U.S. agriculture commodities in the new
post-GATT environment.
In summary, Mr. President, without MPP we give our competitors an
advantage and the opportunity to capture and maintain a significant
share of the world market. U.S. agriculture is the most competitive
industry in the world. We should provide the tools necessary so that
U.S. agriculture can develop, maintain, and expand its share of the
world market.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?
Mr. COCHRAN. If I have 30 seconds, I will yield that to the Senator
from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I strongly support the Market Promotion
Program. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by my
colleague Senator Bumpers to eliminate funding the Market Promotion
Program. I would like to point out to the Senate why this program is so
important for agriculture in my State of California, and many other
States as well.
The MPP is an important tool in expanding markets for U.S.
agricultural products. Continued funding for this program is an
important step in redirecting farm spending away from price supports
and toward expanding markets.
A 1995 Foreign Agricultural Service study, Evaluating the
Effectiveness of the Market Promotion Program on High-Value
Agricultural Exports, concluded that for every dollar invested in the
MPP and its predecessor, the Targeted Export Assistance Program, since
1986, the United States has exported $16 dollars worth of agricultural
products.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that each dollar of MPP
money results in an increase in agricultural product exports of between
$2 and $7. The program has provided much needed assistance to commodity
groups comprised of small farmers who would be unable to break into
these markets on their own.
While the program has been the subject of criticism, some of it
justified, I believe it would be a mistake to cut the program because
of a few cases of poor judgment. Overall, the program has greatly
benefited the small growers for whom it was intended. New regulations
went into effect in February 1995 to, among other things, give priority
assistance to small businesses. In 1995 small businesses will receive
over 50 percent of the funding provided for brand-name products up from
41 percent in 1994.
Last year, a task force of the U.S. Agriculture Export Development
Council met for 2 days in Leesburg, VA, to review the role of the MPP,
and other agriculture programs as part of our overall trade policy.
This task force affirmed that the purpose of the MPP is to ``increase
U.S. agricultural project exports.'' It concluded that the increase in
such exports helps to ``create and protect U.S. jobs, combat unfair
trade practices, improve the U.S. trade balance, and improve farm
income.''
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. agricultural
exports reached $43.5 billion supporting almost 800,000 jobs. For
fiscal year 1995, agricultural exports are expected to reach a record
$51.5 billion. Individual export records have been set in 1994 for red
meats, poultry, fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, tree nuts, wine and beer
and other high value products. This has been achieved with the help of
MPP and other USDA export programs.
Mr. President, the Market Promotion Program has been an unqualified
success for California farmers. For many Californian crops, the MPP has
provided the crucial boost to help them overcome unfair foreign
subsidies. I would like to share two of the successes of this program
in California.
California produces about 85 percent of the U.S. avocado crop on over
6,000 farms that average less than 8 acres per farm. Between 1985 and
1993, California avocado growers utilized $2.5 million of their own
money, combined with $3.4 million of MPP funds to achieve over $58
million in avocado sales in Europe and the Pacific rim. This is better
than a 17 to 1 return on our MPP investment that means jobs for
California.
The growth of California walnuts exports also illustrates the success
of this program. Since 1985, the year before the MPP began helping
walnuts, 90 percent of the growth in California walnut sales has come
from exports. And 90 percent of this export growth has been to markets
where California walnuts have had MPP support. The total value of these
exports in 1985 totaled $36 million. By last year, that total export
value grew to $119 million.
This growth in MPP driven walnut exports has been the greatest in the
heavily protected Japanese market. There, California walnut exports
grew from about $3 million in 1985 to $28 million last year. The $19
million devoted by the MPP between 1986 and 1994 to promoting
California walnuts in Japan has helped generate nearly $140 million in
sales. This is a rate of return on the taxpayer's investment that
approaches 700 percent.
The California walnut industry is not a monolithic corporation. It is
made up of over 5,300 growers who farm orchards that average only 44
acres. And its these California family farmers, not big corporations,
who benefit from the MPP support of walnut exports. Without the MPP,
these farmers could not muster the resources they need to break into
the Japanese and other protected markets.
Lastly, I would like to make a few comments on a possible initiative
by my colleagues to means-test the Market Promotion Program. In
California, nonprofit agricultural marketing cooperatives such as
Sunkist, Blue Diamond, and Calvaro are owned by their

[[Page S13755]]
farmer members and distribute all income to the individual farmers less
operating expenses. Cooperatives such as these are associations of
farmers who accomplish collectively what that cannot accomplish
individually. The average farmer in these three cooperatives farms
between 20 and 40 acres and the overwhelming majority of them are full-
time farmers. I believe it would be unfair to penalize individual small
farmers because they have joined together to form an effective
cooperative. It defeats the purpose of a market development program. It
is clear that these farmers could not individually be effective
exporters to the world market.
In closing Mr. President, the MPP is a wise investment in American
agriculture and I urge my colleagues to support it in its current form,
at the highest possible level.
I ask unanimous consent that a list of export-related jobs in each
State be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Market Promotion Program

Agriculture export related jobs by State

State: Jobs
Alabama......................................................11,000
Alaska.......................................................20,000
Arizona......................................................10,000
Arkansas.....................................................33,000
California..................................................137,000
Colorado.....................................................25,000
Connecticut...................................................1,500
Delaware......................................................2,000
Florida......................................................22,000
Georgia......................................................15,000
Hawaii........................................................1,700
Idaho........................................................22,000
Illinois.....................................................68,000
Indiana......................................................36,000
Iowa.........................................................96,000
Kansas.......................................................69,000
Kentucky.....................................................25,000
Louisiana....................................................17,000
Maine...........................................................400
Maryland......................................................5,500
Massachusetts.................................................1,100
Michigan.....................................................27,500
Minnesota....................................................50,000
Mississippi..................................................24,000
Missouri.....................................................24,000
Montana.......................................................6,000
Nebraska.....................................................74,000
New Jersey....................................................2,000
New Mexico....................................................3,000
New York......................................................8,300
North Carolina...............................................27,500
North Dakota.................................................23,000
Ohio.........................................................33,000
Oklahoma.....................................................10,000
Oregon.......................................................15,000
Pennsylvania.................................................11,000
South Carolina................................................7,000
South Dakota.................................................25,000
Tennessee.....................................................9,000
Texas........................................................77,000
Utah..........................................................2,800
Virginia.....................................................10,000
Washington...................................................30,000
Wisconsin....................................................27,500
Wyoming.......................................................1,400

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I just received, from the farmer
cooperatives a table that I have placed in the Record, which shows the
number of jobs that are related to the export of agricultural products.
They are shown by State. It is really an extraordinary list: Kansas,
69,000; Kentucky, 25,000; Texas, 77,000; California, 137,000. Virtually
every State in the Union, thousands of jobs. I stand in strong support
of this program.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, might I inquire about the time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 2 minutes 50
seconds. The Senator from Mississippi has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BRYAN. I yield myself a minute and a half.
Mr. President, I simply make a point that this presumably is a time
in America in which we are calling for shared sacrifice. We are saying
that we cannot do business the way we have always done it. With all due
respect to my distinguished colleague and friend from California, in
terms of weighing the priorities, it seems to me it is pretty hard to
contend when we are savaging the kinds of programs that affect the poor
and those who are least able to defend themselves to support these
kinds of dollars.
McDonald's, the hamburger folks, I think, reported a net profit of in
excess of $1 billion. They continue to receive money to supplement
their advertising account. Their advertising budget is in the range of
$600 to $700 million. I would think that these outfits would be
embarrassed, at a time when they are encouraging us to balance the
budget, as we should, to simply say, look, it is time for us to kind of
participate in this shared sacrifice and say, look, we will handle our
own promotion and not depend upon the American taxpayer for a handout.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume. Let me remind the Senate that we voted on this same issue when
we had the supplemental reconciliation bill before the Senate on April
6 of this year. I moved to table this same amendment that was offered
by the Senators from Nevada and Arkansas. And on a vote of 61 yeas to
37 nays, this amendment was tabled. We fully debated the issue then. We
have fully debated the issue now. Nothing has changed, Mr. President.
So I hope Senators will notice that I am going to put on the desk
here how everybody voted on that previous occasion. I hope we will
repeat the success of that favorable motion on the motion to table this
same amendment. It is my intention to move to table when time has
expired and we ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BRYAN. May I inquire as to how much time I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 44 seconds. The
Senator from Mississippi has 30 seconds.
Mr. BRYAN. I will yield time to the Senator from Arkansas.
First, the point I seek to make, as I have over the past several
years with my friend from Arkansas, is that this is really a question
of a subsidy that in light of what I consider the new economic reality,
where we are literally going to have to reexamine the way in which we
do things in Government, and those programs that have long existed that
are near and dear to many of my colleagues. Some of these programs
simply cannot pass what I would call the ``smell test.'' This is one of
them.
I offer no criticism of these large agribusinesses, who have been
extraordinarily successful. I compliment them. But I think the
fundamental question is: Should the American taxpayer be paying for
their advertising and promotion?
I reserve the remainder of my time.
I yield the Senator from Arkansas my remaining time.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to proceed for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I just came from downstairs where the
House just receded to the Senate position on mine law reform. The
effect of that is to take 233 patent applications that have been
excluded from being grandfathered in last year and say you can have
that, too. The biggest mining companies in America. Those 233 patent
applications, which we just voted to allow to go forward contain $15.5
billion worth of gold, platinum, palladium, silver, and so on,
underneath them. They will be given out to the biggest mining companies
in the United States for zip--not $1 to the taxpayers of this country.
Here we are debating continuing a practice of giving $110 million to
the biggest corporations in America, not just the 10 listed on that
chart--dozens more. Some of them are almost as big. To the biggest
corporations in the world, we are giving $110 million to help them sell
McNuggets and Big Macs around the world. I found out last night that we
have already spent $86 million on this program for alcoholic beverages.
Who thinks that is a great idea?
We are doing that, while we are cutting welfare, kicking 50 percent
of the people off of the rolls by the year 2000, cutting earned-income
tax credit to keep people off the rolls, $270 billion in Medicare cuts
for our elderly citizens, $240 billion in Medicaid cuts for the poorest
of the poor for health care in this country, and on and on it goes. And
this day, in one fell swoop, we have just voted to give $15 billion
worth of minerals away and $110 million in the grossest kind of
corporate welfare. Is that what the revolution of 1994 was about?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time
on this side.

[[Page S13756]]

Mr. President, this is a red herring. The fact is that the funds
allocated under this program are to promote U.S. agriculture products.
We are seeing the U.S. Poultry and Egg Export Council promoting the
purchase of U.S. poultry products and eggs by foreign-owned and
operated franchises of McDonald's. That does not mean that goes to
corporate headquarters in Chicago, or wherever. This means that we are
producing a promotional campaign using these funds to try to help sell
more of what we produce in America.
It is a good program. It has worked and I hope the Senate will vote
``yes'' on this motion to table.
Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 440 Leg.]

YEAS--59

Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Craig
Daschle
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lott
McConnell
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Rockefeller
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond

NAYS--41

Abraham
Bingaman
Bradley
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Coats
Coverdell
D'Amato
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Faircloth
Feingold
Glenn
Grams
Gregg
Hollings
Inhofe
Kennedy
Kerry
Kyl
Lautenberg
Lieberman
Lugar
Mack
McCain
Mikulski
Moynihan
Nickles
Reid
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Smith
Thompson
Warner
Wellstone
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2691) was agreed
to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was tabled.
Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have about 10 minutes before we are to
proceed with debate on the amendment dealing with poultry regulation.
One hour on each side is available under that agreement for debate of
that issue. We had hoped to take up another amendment and discuss it
between now and then. I know Senator Kerrey had considered bringing up
his amendment, which is a Market Promotion Program amendment. I know of
no other business that Senators have requested be transacted during
this 10-minute period, so I will suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I further ask I may be permitted to proceed
as if in morning business for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 83, Line 4 through Line 2 on Page
84

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the excepted committee amendment regarding
poultry regulations, on which there will be 2 hours of debate. The
Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I understand the allocation of time,
there is 1 hour on each side. If I am not mistaken, I think under the
order, I am to control the time in opposition to the amendment of the
Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, what is at issue here in this amendment
that will be offered by the Senator from California is a provision of
the Senate bill as approved by the Appropriations Committee, which I
will read. It is section 729 and found on page 83 of the bill:

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
by this Act may be used to develop compliance guidelines,
implement or enforce a regulation promulgated by the Food
Safety and Inspection Service on August 25, 1995 (60 Fed.
Reg. 44396): Provided, That this regulation shall take effect
only if legislation is enacted into law which directs the
Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate such regulation, or
the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry receive and approve a
proposed revised regulation submitted by the Secretary of
Agriculture.

This regulation, which has been promulgated after a great deal of
discussion, public comment on the proposed regulation has the effect of
prohibiting and actually preventing poultry producers and processors in
the Southeast and Southwest from exporting their products into the
California market. That is the practical consequence of the regulation
as drawn and promulgated by this administration.
The origin of the initiative came from California to restate the
regulations and rules regarding the labeling of poultry products with
respect to whether they were frozen, chilled or not and what should be
disclosed in that connection and how you measure the temperature with
respect to which regulation or label would be appropriate.
This was all driven by the poultry industry in California which is a
high-cost producer and processor of poultry products. High cost: High
labor costs, regulations that are imposed locally and in the State of
California, that elevate the price at which poultry products can be
sold in California.
Different regulations with regard to the way these imported products
are sent from the Southeast and the Southwest into that market, are
packaged and labeled, could be drawn so as to increase the costs of and
maybe even make it impossible to ship deeply chilled poultry products
into that market.
So this issue was developed as a way for the California poultry
industry to keep competition out of their market, to keep lower cost
poultry processing firms in the Southeast, like in my State of
Mississippi, from competing and undercutting the price being sold by
California poultry producers in their own market.
To let the Senate know that this is not an issue that has been just
hastily or capriciously injected into this appropriations bill, back in
April, we were trying to convince the administration of the seriousness
of this situation that would be caused throughout many parts of this
country if this regulation were to be approved.
I am looking at a letter, which I will have printed in the Record,
dated April 4, 1995. It is written on the letterhead of Senator John
Warner of Virginia, but it is signed by 19 Senators: Senators David
Pryor, John Warner, Mitch McConnell, Jesse Helms, Howell Heflin, Paul
Coverdell, Thad Cochran, Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, Richard Shelby,
Bennett Johnston, John Breaux, Jim Inhofe, Sam Nunn, Christopher Bond,
Lauch Faircloth, Rod Grams, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Don Nickles.
What we said in this letter addressed to the acting Under Secretary
of Agriculture for Food Safety, is that we believe it is appropriate
for the Food Safety and Inspection Service to consider changes in the
existing Federal standards, but we have major reservations about the
standards that the Food Safety and Inspection Service are proposing. We
talk about the consequences of the proposed regulations

[[Page S13757]]
at that time, illogical from the point of view of measuring the
temperature of chilled poultry and then having it labeled ``previously
frozen'' or ``frozen'' and the consequences of that in terms of the
businesses that deeply chill the poultry to protect it from
contamination as it is transported across the country to other markets
in the United States.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that a copy of this letter be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

April 4, 1995.
Hon. Michael Taylor,
Under Secretary for Food Safety (Acting), U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Taylor: We believe it is appropriate for the Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to consider changes in
the existing federal standards for labeling ``fresh'' and
``frozen'' poultry. However, we have major reservations about
the standards FSIS are proposing.
FSIS on January 18, 1995 proposed regulations that would
allow a ``fresh'' label to appear only on those poultry
products that have not been chilled below 26 degrees
Fahrenheit. Poultry that had been chilled to 0 degrees or
below would be labeled ``frozen.'' Poultry chilled to a
temperature of between 0 degrees and 26 degrees would be
labeled ``previously frozen.''
The following are our most serious concerns about this
proposal:
FSIS arbitrarily chose 26 degrees as the dividing line
between ``fresh'' and other designations. There are other
temperatures below 26 degrees that preserve the ``fresh''
characteristics consumers are seeking while giving poultry
products the longer safe shelf life necessary for
transportation across long distances.
The proposed regulation requires ``fresh'' poultry products
to remain at no less than 26 degrees throughout processing,
storage and transportation. The original processor does not
control some of these operations and could lose a ``fresh''
designation through no fault of their own. The strict
adherence to 26 degrees also does not take into account
important differences in equipment calibration.
The designation of ``previously frozen'' poultry is
completely illogical. Poultry chilled to between 0 degrees
and 26 degrees never has met the proposed regulations
definition of ``frozen.'' How, then, can it accurately be
labeled ``previously frozen''?
As Members of Congress deeply concerned about food safety,
accurate labeling for consumers and fairness for all segments
of the poultry industry, we urge you in the strongest
possible terms to make several changes to the proposed rule.
First, we urge FSIS to select a temperature lower than 26
degrees but higher than the current 0 degrees as the minimum
temperature at which poultry can receive a ``fresh''
designation.
Second, we urge FSIS to consider a temperature variance
from that minimum to accommodate temperature shifts during
shipping and storage and to accommodate the important
differences in the calibration of temperature measuring
devices and refrigeration equipment. We would point out that
USDA's Agricultural Research Service, working in laboratory
settings, is able to control holding-chamber temperatures
only to within three degrees of the target temperature.
Finally, we urge you not to require a label designation for
poultry chilled to between 0 degrees and the minimum
temperature as necessary for ``fresh'' labeling.
These common sense changes will result in a regulation that
assures full labelling disclosure for consumers and the
safest possible shipment of fresh poultry products across the
nation.
Thank you for your attention to these recommendations;
please do not hesitate to contact us if you have additional
questions.
Sincerely,
David Pryor; Mitch McConnell; Howell Heflin; Thad
Cochran; Strom Thurmond; J. Bennett Johnston; James
Inhofe; Christopher S. Bond; Rod Grams; Don Nickles;
John Warner; Jesse Helms; Paul Coverdell; Trent Lott;
Richard C. Shelby; John B. Breaux; Sam Nunn; Lauch
Faircloth; Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, before yielding time for others to
discuss their views on this, let me just say the temperature threshold
and the negative labeling that the California poultry industry has been
promoting has only one objective, and that is keeping competitive
products out of the California market, to make those products appear
less appealing to California consumers. I do not believe the Federal
Government should take actions which, like it would in this instance,
influence improperly interstate trade and commerce in this matter.
This issue has absolutely nothing to do with improving product
quality, nothing to do with enhancing food safety. The regulations will
not improve consumer information or enhance consumer protection. This
is an intraindustry trade dispute between California and the rest of
the country where poultry products are produced and sold in that
market, and I hope that the Senate will reject the amendment to be
offered by the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I might
consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was wondering how this debate would
shape up because, to me, it is very straightforward. It is not about
California; it is about common sense. The Agriculture Department, after
8 long years, finally issues a rule that says if your chicken or your
turkey is frozen, then you cannot put a ``fresh'' label on it.
Let me repeat that. If the chicken or turkey is frozen when you send
it out of your State, you cannot mislead consumers and put a ``fresh''
label on it. Hurray, a victory for common sense, a victory for the
right to know what we are purchasing.
I have shopped for my family for many years, and these things are
important. So what happens in the Appropriations Committee? A sneak
attack on a fair rule. They are not going to allow this rule to go into
effect. I say to consumers all over the country, listen to this debate
because you are going to hear words that have no meaning. You are going
to hear words such as exporting and fairness and barriers. But those
are not the issues. This is about truth in labeling.

Now, to prove my point that this is not just a California issue, I
might say on the Record to my friend, my chicken producers are for this
rule, and my turkey producers are against this rule. I have business on
either side. I line up with consumers. I hope you will, too, after
listening to some of the points that I will make.
Perdue Chicken, which is produced in New York, and has headquarters
in the State of Maryland and offices in Alabama, Delaware, Florida,
Indiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia,
says, ``We are opposed to companies selling products as fresh when they
have been previously frozen or thawed.''
Perdue is not a California company. This is simple corporate
responsibility. What are we going to do in the U.S. Senate? I am glad
it is not in the dead of night. At least it is in the day time and
everybody can watch us. We are going to say that fresh is frozen and
frozen is fresh. This makes no sense at all, for anybody who has ever
gone into a supermarket. I think most Americans have, and they
understand this.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may show you this
chicken.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I object. I make a point of order that
the display of any such product would violate rule 17 of the Senate
rules.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is correct.
Objection is heard.
Mrs. BOXER. I have put away my frozen chicken. I will not bring it
out in violation of the rules. I respect my friend's right to object to
my request. But what I was going to do was take that little chicken,
which is frozen as hard as a rock and marked fresh, and put it on this
table, and it would have sounded like this. And everyone could see the
lunacy of this debate.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I would be happy to.
Mr. BUMPERS. I could not agree with the Senator more. If you take a
chicken frozen solid like that, one at zero degrees, and use it for a
bowling ball, as a House Member did, or as a prop here, as you were
proposing to do, I agree that is the sound it would make. But that is
not what this debate is about.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I may reclaim my time, because I have
limited time, that is exactly what this debate is about. When my friend
speaks, he can say what he thinks it is about. It is about taking a
product that is frozen to one degree--what human being can say that one
degree is not frozen--

[[Page S13758]]
and enabling producers to mark it ``fresh.'' Why? Because they want to
get more money for a frozen product. That is what this is all about.
They want to get more money by marking it ``fresh.''
So I would have shown you this chicken, hard as a rock, marked
``fresh.''
My friends objected, and I respect their right to object. So I will
show you a picture instead. I know they cannot object to that. As you
can see, there is a frozen chicken being used as a bowling ball headed
for these pins and, as a result, I think some of them were knocked
down. Now, do we believe for a minute that a chicken that is frozen
like this should be marked ``fresh'' if it can knock down bowling pins?
Now, if I told you this desk was a chair, you would think I was
kidding. And if I told you summer was winter, and ice was hot, warm was
freezing, ovens were freezers, and freezers were toasters, you would
send me to the nearest psychiatrist. And you would be right.
I do not know what came over the committee, but let me read you the
definition of fresh. This is out of Webster's Dictionary: ``Fresh:
Recently made, produced, or harvested, not preserved as by canning,
smoking, or freezing.''
Yet, my friends on the committee say that if a chicken or a turkey is
frozen to one degree, it can be marked fresh. Let me remind you what
Webster said: ``. . . not preserved as by freezing.''
``Frozen: Made into, or covered with, or surrounded by ice; preserved
by freezing.''
That is frozen. ``Immobile.'' I will add one: It knocks down bowling
pins. Chickens that are that hard are not fresh, they are frozen. And
everyone with a pulse, I think, understands that.
We have tried to straighten this mess out for 8 long years, and
special interests come in every time and kill it. This time, the
Clinton administration had the guts to issue this rule, and the
Appropriations Committee--by the way, whose chairman said--and he is my
friend, and I work with him and I admire him, and we just worked
together on an issue--that we really should not do these things on
appropriations bills, in relation to an article that appeared today. He
said he does not believe in making policy on spending bills in relation
to the mink program.
Mr. COCHRAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes, on his own time.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am not quoted in that article. My
office said something to the effect that I did not think policy should
be established on appropriations bills. I am not sure my staff said
that. My staff told me they told this reporter that I did not favor
legislation on an appropriations bill. That was one reason why I was
opposing that amendment. I am not advocating legislation on this bill.
I am saying no funds shall be used to carry out this regulation.
Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend and colleague, he is a very smart
Member of this Senate. He is terrific. He gets his way a lot around
here. A lot of the time he is right, and he should get his way. But if
this is not legislating on an appropriations bill, I do not know what
is. This is a rule that is going to go into effect so that when
consumers go to the supermarket, they will know whether the chicken
they buy is fresh or frozen. We are stopping it dead here in the
Appropriations Committee, simply saying no funds shall be spent to
enforce it. Well, if it cannot be enforced, then there is no rule. So
we know what we are talking about here.
This rule is a victory for common sense. That is why the Consumer
Federation supports the rule. That is why Citizen Action supports the
rule, and Public Voice supports the rule, and Public Citizen supports
the rule. Look at all the people who are for the rule. My friends say
it is a California issue. Why do we have the National Association of
Meat Producers and Meat Purveyors and all kinds of national unions, and
the Oregon Broiler Growers Association and Pacific Egg and Poultry
Association? As I told you, there are all these consumer groups and
veterinary groups, et cetera.
Studies show consumers are willing to pay more for products that are
fresh. These are their hard-earned dollars. They should be getting what
they are paying for: a fresh product. And, by the way, there is nothing
wrong with buying frozen produce, nothing at all. Some people prefer to
do that.
Let me give you another serious problem with this. You go to the
supermarket and buy a frozen product, it is defrosted, marked
``fresh,'' so you think it is fresh. You go home and put it in your
freezer. Then you defrost it again before you cook it. That could be
dangerous to your health.
I have to say that this rule is very gentle on the people that my
friends represent in Arkansas and in the Southern States. Why do I say
that? Because it does not say they have to label it ``frozen'' until it
gets down to zero. They can use the term, quote, ``hard chilled.'' So
the Department of Agriculture bent over backward. In my mind, if it is
10 degrees, it is frozen. They are allowed to say ``hard chilled.''
That is a commonsense rule that looks out for those producers that my
friends represent.
How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 49 minutes, 23 seconds remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. How much time remains on the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 51 minutes and 42 seconds.
Mrs. BOXER. I see my friend, the senior Senator from California has
joined me. I will yield the Senator 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for
15 minutes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from California and I thank the
President.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the committee amendment. I
urge my colleagues to strike the committee language to ensure truthful
labeling of poultry and poultry products.
Let me say first that the committee language in the fiscal year 1996
agriculture appropriations bill flies in the face of the consumer. It
prevents the Department of Agriculture from implementing a new and
commonsense regulation on what poultry products can be labeled as
``fresh.''
I might parenthetically say I never thought when I came to the U.S.
Senate we would be debating this on the floor.
Be that as it is, I must say, Mr. President, I find it astonishing
that any business engaged in the processing of food products can call
something ``fresh'' when it has been frozen as hard as a rock. The
whole thrust of Federal food labeling over the past several decades has
been to provide consumers with accurate information about the quality
and contents of the food they buy.
Existing departmental guidelines regarding poultry are really wrong.
They allow consumers to be deceived into thinking they are choosing
between two equally attractive pieces of poultry, when in fact one has
been frozen to zero degrees and then thawed, while the other has never
been frozen at all.
The consumer has a right to know if a chicken has been previously
frozen. If it has, then it is not fresh.
The new Department of Agriculture Food and Safety Inspection Service
rule, which is scheduled to take effect next year, ensures that the
labeling corresponds with reality.
The new rule sets three labeling categories: First, poultry products
which have never been chilled below poultry's freezing level of 26
degrees may be labeled as fresh. Second, hard chilled: Poultry products
which have been chilled below 26 degrees but above zero degrees must be
labeled as hard chilled. Third, frozen: Poultry products which have
been chilled at zero degrees or below must be labeled as frozen or
previously frozen.
It makes sense. However, until this new rule goes into effect, the
poultry industry can use the term ``fresh'' on poultry that has been
chilled down to zero degrees. In practice, this means that chicken and
turkeys are being labeled and sold as fresh when, in fact, they have
been frozen rock solid.
For example, in California, Foster Farms and Zacky Foods, among
others, sell fresh chicken, while previously frozen chicken shipped in
from Southern producers can also bear the ``fresh'' label.
In the Washington, DC, market, Perdue Farms sells fresh chicken, but

[[Page S13759]]
labeling does not tell consumers that Tyson and Wampler chickens have
been frozen.
Similarly, while Farmers Pride in Pennsylvania, Plainsville Farms in
New York, and Sunset Acres Farm in Maine sell fresh poultry, their
competitors who sell previously frozen poultry can also use the
``fresh'' label.
This situation makes a mockery of the label and misinforms consumers
about the actual freshness of the product.
This most certainly is not reasonable, and it does not meet the
expectations of today's consumers.
According to a telephone survey conducted by ICR Survey Research
Group in June 1994, the vast majority--75 percent--of the public does
not think chicken which has been shipped or stored below 26 degrees
should be called ``fresh.''
The vast majority of the public questioned, 86 percent, said it was
inappropriate to label as ``fresh'' chicken which has been stored below
26 degrees and then thawed out.
Four out of five consumers, 81 percent, said yes there is a
difference between chicken which has never been frozen and chicken
which has been frozen and thawed out.
By a margin of five to one, those questioned rated ``never frozen''
chicken as superior to chicken which had been ``previously frozen.''
That is the rub. Clearly, the consumer, if possible, would prefer to
buy fresh chicken.
According to the Department of Agriculture, once food is thawed, when
it is refrozen there may be a loss of quality due to high loss of
moisture. Consumers certainly think so.
Consumers have a preference for fresh poultry and--this is the rub,
as well--they are willing to pay a higher price for it. They should be
getting, we think, what they are paying for.
As in many issues of national importance, California has taken the
lead on truthful labeling of poultry products. In 1993, California
enacted a law restricting the use of the term ``fresh'' on labels of
poultry that have been chilled at or below 25 degrees and to allow the
use of the term ``fresh'' only on poultry that has been kept above 25
degrees. However, the court subsequently ruled that California law was
preempted by Federal law, which prohibits States from imposing labeling
requirements that are different from, or in addition to, the Federal
requirements.
California is preempted, even though California says what is fresh is
fresh, and what is frozen is frozen, and never the twain will meet, and
we will show you with our law. Bingo--they are preempted by the Federal
Government.
In response to the consumers' continued demand for truthful labeling,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture accepted its responsibility, and
after a 15-month rulemaking process, the Department is prepared to
implement truthful labeling.
The Department of Agriculture's new poultry labeling rule, we
believe, is reasonable and fair to both consumers and the poultry
industry. Not only does it ensure truthful labeling of fresh poultry
and protect the consumers' right to know, it provides a new category of
``hard chilled'' and gives the industry 1 year to comply, allowing
ample time to use up inventories of existing labels and make the
necessary changes.
Accurate and truthful labeling is strongly supported by national
consumer groups--the National Consumer League, the Public Voice for
Food and Health Policy, and the Consumer Federation of America.
The committee language, on the other hand, will prohibit the
Department from proceeding with its own order.
Unless the Department of Agriculture is permitted to implement its
new poultry labeling rule, frozen poultry products will continue to be
falsely labeled.
We do not allow fish which has been frozen to be labeled as fresh. We
should not allow poultry to be mislabeled, either.
Let us, Mr. President, make the Federal Government be honest about
what is fresh and what is frozen. Otherwise, we face the prospect of
allowing the American public to be conned into going to Antarctica to
lie on the beach.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me simply say in response to the
distinguished Senator from California who has just spoken, on this
issue of frozen and fresh, I happened to receive a letter from someone
in California telling me her views on this issue, back when we were all
corresponding with the Food Safety Inspection Service about this
proposed regulation. I am going to read this letter and ask unanimous
consent a copy of it be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. COCHRAN. It is from Dr. Ann R. Stasch, who lives, according to
the return address, in Northridge, CA. She writes it to me, Senator
Thad Cochran, ``Chair,'' she says, ``of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.''

Dear Senator Cochran: I am interested in the frozen/fresh
chicken controversy.

This is a handwritten letter. This is a handwritten letter.

I have recently retired as a University Professor of Food
and Nutrition. As a consumer, I find little difference in the
frozen and unfrozen chicken with regard to the state of
thawing. The only chickens which are completely thawed,
regardless of state of origin, are, for the most part, those
on periodic price reduction sales. It has been my experience
that wholly thawed at purchase chickens are often those which
have been in storage the longest. These frequently have less
flavor.
I prefer partially frozen (that is, not totally thawed)
chicken when I purchase chicken, as chicken fat develops
rancidity rather quickly. There are local differences in
color of fat preferences by consumers and California chickens
have a generally more yellow colored fat than southern
chickens. If a chicken is going to sit 3 or 4 days between
harvest and sale, it would probably be preferable that it be
frozen, no matter the point of origin. It would be
unfortunate if partially frozen chicken could not be sold at
a regular price.
Sincerely,
Ann R. Stasch.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield some time on my time to respond?
Mr. COCHRAN. I will be happy to yield for a question. I have other
Senators I want to yield to for purposes of----
Mrs. BOXER. I was asking if the Senator will yield for a moment?
Mr. COCHRAN. I have the right to the floor now, but I do intend to
yield to a Senator, as the Senator from California has yielded to a
Senator on her side. It was my intention to yield to a Senator on our
side, but I will be glad to yield to my colleague for a question.
Mrs. BOXER. I will put it in the form of a question. Is the Senator
aware there are 32 million people in the State of California?
Mr. COCHRAN. I know it is a big State.
Mrs. BOXER. It is a big State, and this is one person's opinion. Is
the Senator aware that clearly we are going to enable this woman to buy
frozen products? We just want to make sure they will be marked
``frozen'' or ``previously chilled'' or ``hard chilled.'' This would
not stop this woman from buying frozen. It would just make her choice
even clearer.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thought the Senate would benefit, Mr. President--I
will reclaim my time--from a point of view which apparently is a
thoughtful point of view by someone who is a recently retired
university professor in the subject of food and nutrition.
Mr. President, I want to yield to my distinguished colleague from
Mississippi such time as he may require.

Exhibit 1

Northridge, CA,

April 21, 1995.
Senator Thad Cochran,
Chairman, Appropriations Committee, USDA, Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cochran: I am interested in the frozen/fresh
chicken controversy. I have recently retired as a University
Professor of Food and Nutrition. As a consumer, I find little
difference in the frozen and unfrozen chicken with regard to
the state of thawing. The only chickens which are completely
thawed, regardless of state of origin, are, for the most
part, those on periodic price reduction sales. It has been my
experience that wholly thawed at purchase chickens are often
those which have been in storage the longest. These
frequently have less flavor.
I prefer partially frozen (that is, not totally thawed)
chicken when I purchase chicken, as chicken fat develops
rancidity rather quickly. There are local differences in
color of fat preferences by consumers and

[[Page S13760]]
California chickens have a generally more yellow colored fat than
southern chickens. If a chicken is going to sit 3 or 4 days
between harvest and sale, it would probably be preferable
that it be frozen, no matter the point of origin. It would be
unfortunate if partially frozen chicken could not be sold at
a regular price.
Sincerely,
Ann R. Stasch.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
agriculture appropriations subcommittee for yielding me this time. I
would like to go back and reiterate, for a moment, the process that is
involved here.
On August 25 of this year, the Secretary of Agriculture revised
regulations that imposed what I consider to be misleading restrictions
on labeling of raw poultry products as ``fresh.'' This regulation was
designed, as I understand it, by the California poultry industry, to
make it difficult for competing poultry products from other sections of
the country to be marketed in California without jeopardizing product
quality.
Here is an important point. This new regulation is to take effect
August 1996.
Senator Cochran's language in the bill would prohibit implementation
of this regulation. That is very strongly supported by the ranking
member. That will give us time to consider this matter further, to make
sure the regulation is properly drafted and to make sure it is fair.
That is all that Senator Cochran does, in this language in the bill.
The Agriculture Committee, the authorization committee, has not even
had hearings on this matter. It is very important to all of the
different parties involved. I believe the poultry industry would be
very happy to work with the agriculture authorization committee and
with all those interested and involved, both on the Appropriations
Committee and from the State of California and all the other States
affected, to come up with a regulation that is fair and that we can all
live with.
So I wanted to emphasize this. This regulation is not even scheduled
to go into effect until August 1996. We have the time to look at this
matter very carefully. Funds should not be used to implement, start
implementing this regulation until we have had hearings and really
thought it through carefully.
The purpose of the provision is to require that the Secretary of
Agriculture develop and implement a more reasonable regulation. Pleas
were made to the Secretary of Agriculture to do that. It does not
prevent the Secretary from eventually imposing a final rule.
The fresh poultry regulation that we are dealing with right now is
going to cause major problems. For instance, in my own State of
Mississippi, if a poultry firm ships a load of poultry from our State
to California at 28 degrees, but it is unloaded and put in a freezer
set at 26 or 24 degrees, it will be labeled ``hard chilled.'' The
sender of this poultry, Sanderson Farms, in this case, followed all the
procedures but its poultry would have to have a stamp which the
consumer would mistake for it being frozen. When you ship something at
28 degrees, it is not hard frozen. It is not a bowling ball. And it is
generally considered to still be in a very fresh state. Yet, once it
gets to the State of California how it is handled could determine how
it is labeled and could very much impact the sales in that State.
USDA's final rule also ignored the fact, in my opinion, that 23,000
of the 26,000 comments received objected to all or portions of the
proposal. Ironically, the rule even ignores USDA's own study, done by
the Agricultural Research Service, demonstrating that consumers cannot
detect any quality differences, as pointed out by the letter from the
lady in California, between poultry chilled to 26 degrees and products
chilled to lower temperatures.
The same USDA study showed that, under ideal laboratory conditions,
temperatures can only be controlled within plus or minus 2 degrees.
Nevertheless, some reason, something caused USDA to go ahead and
implement this regulation without providing any temperature variations
or tolerances in the final rule, and that is critical. There must be
some tolerance, some allowance for variation.
Also, I might note for those who represent pork and beef producing
areas--and we have both of those in my own State--I think we need to be
careful if we start down this road toward what can be considered, I
believe, mislabeling. In the case of pork and beef, already, in order
to be able to handle them better, products are brought below 26
degrees. Trim products from beef and pork boning operations are frozen.
They are later thawed and used in ground beef and pork sausage sold as
fresh. Frozen beef is mixed with fresh to get a mixture that forms well
in patty equipment. Frozen lamb is routinely thawed at retail and sold
fresh. Bacon is routinely chilled to below 26 degrees Fahrenheit to aid
in slicing.
So, I just think what the Senator is trying to do here with the
support of the senior Senator from Arkansas is say let us stop now,
before we implement a rule that is misleading and unfair. Let us think
about it. Let us talk about it. Let us have hearings on it. Then we can
come up with a rule that we think everybody can live with.
So I urge my colleagues to support the action of the committee and
oppose the amendment by the Senator from California.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the
amendment offered by the Senator from California.
Recently, USDA issued a final rule prohibiting poultry that has ever
been chilled below 26 degrees from being called fresh. Under the new
rule, poultry chilled below zero degrees would be labeled frozen,
poultry chilled between zero and 26 degrees would be labeled hard
chilled, and poultry held above 26 degrees would be labeled fresh.
All we are asking for is a little common sense.
The language in the committee's bill is simply designed to ensure
that before implementing any new regulations on this matter, USDA
address three issues: First, the temperature variance; second, the
language on the label; and third, to ensure consumer health and safety
is fully protected.
The USDA's new poultry labeling rule does not allow for a temperature
variance. As it stands, a poultry product could drop one-tenth of a
degree below the cutoff assigned by USDA, and it would have to be
relabeled. Yet USDA's own studies show it is impossible to maintain a
refrigerated product's temperature to within 2 degrees of the target
temperature. Imagine transporting a refrigerated truck long distances,
through a variety of climates, and many stops and handlers. There needs
to be some degree of flexibility in this rule to permit for those types
of variations.
But I think the key words here are long distances. I hope no one is
fooled by this debate. The issue here is competition--competition from
out-of-State producers. Certain producers just do not want to compete
with products from out of State. Maybe their production costs are too
high, maybe they are not as efficient, or maybe they just do not want
the competition. But the consumer does. The consumers I hear from want
the greatest possible selection of safe foods at the lowest price. They
do not care if their chicken comes from California or Arkansas or
Virginia. They just want the highest quality product at the lowest
price.
In case there is any doubt about what is a stake here, let me tell a
story. A few months ago, I opened a Richmond, VA, paper and saw an add
urging Virginians to call me and express their displeasure with my
position on this issue. Obviously someone was very concerned for
Virginia consumers. But down at the bottom of the add, in small print,
were eight very telling words: ``Paid for by the California Poultry
Industry Federation.''
Second, USDA has resorted to some unique terminology. Before USDA got
into this there were two kinds of chicken: fresh and frozen. Simple
enough. You went to the store, read the label, bought your chicken, and
you were finished. Common sense.
Now, according to USDA, there are three kinds of chicken: fresh,
frozen, and hard chilled. Some might call that an improvement. I call
it confusing. As the junior Senator from California said earlier: ``You
will hear words that have no meaning.'' Well there are two.
Linda Golodner, president of the National Consumers League said
``Consumers generally are familiar with the

[[Page S13761]]
terms fresh and frozen. Now we have to educate them about what it means
when something is `hard chilled.''' Once again, regulatory zeal
displaces common sense, and consumers need to be reeducated by those
who know better.
But why not just call it fresh, frozen, or ``from somewhere other
than California.'' I guess hard chilled is more concise.
Whatever term USDA selects to describe this new category of poultry,
it should be a neutral term, not one that denigrates the product,
confuses the consumer, or that benefits one market segment over
another.
Mr. President, the committee bill in no way hinders the regulatory
process. We ask simply for a level playing field. In the end, I am
convinced that sound science and common sense will prevail. I urge my
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. President, I, likewise, am very supportive of the action taken by
the committee on which I am privileged to serve, the Senate Agriculture
Committee, and, indeed, the position taken by the distinguished floor
managers.
I just wish to propound a question here. I think we should have a
little colloquy among us on this issue, because I think the only
concern that remains is not all the technical business about the
temperatures and everything, but did our committee--it is I my
understanding we did as a committee--take into consideration the fact
that our action as a committee would in no way jeopardize the health of
the consumers? That is the bottom line. I am satisfied it does not, but
I think it would be wise if we had the distinguished floor managers
address that issue, and perhaps other Senators who might likewise wish
to address it.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am happy to
respond. The Appropriations Committee has been questioning witnesses
from the administration on this issue for some time. I can remember 2
years ago, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] was chairman of this
subcommittee. At our regular hearing on the budget request this came
up. We have talked about it. It is not a new issue. The issue is not
whether we want to ensure that these food products are safe and healthy
and do not in any way jeopardize human health because there is no
question about that. This does not in any way put at risk any
consumers.
All we are saying, as the distinguished Senator from Mississippi so
eloquently put it--we are asking for time to review this in the
Committee on Agriculture, for example, on which the Senator has served.
We have not had hearings, as Senator Lott pointed out. And the
Agriculture Committee, that has jurisdiction over this legislation,
ought to look at it and ought to have an opportunity to be heard in
some official way, in my view, as controversial and as far-reaching and
as unfair as many say this is; that it is protectionist regulation and
that the administration has simply ignored some of the facts about how
this poultry industry does business and what is used, in terms of
chilling, to protect consumers, really.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is a very satisfactory response to my
question. As I said, I serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee. We
will have hearings.
But in this period of time that is embraced by the proposal, which I
support, of the Appropriations Committee, those hearings will take
place. But we also give assurance to the people that we have primarily
explored this question as to whether or not the current processing and
transportation will in any way affect health and safety, and the answer
is, flat out, ``No, it will not.'' That is very important.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of the Senator, I put
in the Record at the beginning of this discussion a copy of the letter
that actually was written on your letterhead, signed by 19 Senators,
fully discussed from the point of view that the proposed regulations
were unfair, and why, and that we have the interest of consumers at
heart as well as fairness in the poultry industry.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his leadership on
this issue. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi.
By coincidence, I was in the valley of Virginia yesterday on the
occasion of the anniversary of the date of the Third Battle of
Winchester, which was a very significant engagement during the Civil
War. And I had a chance to meet with some of my constituents because
our poultry industry in large part is in that historic valley of
Virginia of the Blue Ridge Mountains. I know these people so well. I
have grown up with them and have been with them all of my life. They
would not even think of asking the Federal Government or the Congress
or anyone else to do something that in any way jeopardized the health
of the American people.
We export millions of birds daily from that area of Virginia--all
over the United States; indeed, all over the world. It is a very
significant industry, but an industry operated in large measure by the
family farmers as we know them, co-ops and so forth. And these people
are gravely concerned that someone might raise the allegation, ``Well,
you are doing something that would jeopardize the health of the
American people.''
I am glad that we have put that issue to rest. I thank the chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you.
Mr. President, I would like to respond to two comments that were made
here, one by the Senator from Mississippi, which was echoed by the
Senator from Virginia. Sometimes I wonder where I am. Is this ``Alice
in Wonderland''? On October 13, 1994, in a unanimous vote by the U.S.
Senate on poultry labeling:

It is the sense of the Congress that the United States
Department of Agriculture should carry out the plans of the
department to hold public hearings for the purpose of
receiving public input on issues related to the condition
under which poultry sold in U.S. may be labeled fresh; and,
(b) finalize and publish a position on the issue as
expeditiously as possible after holding those hearings, and
no person serving on the expert advisory committee shall have
a conflict of interest.

That passed overwhelmingly. It is the law.
Now Senators stand up here and say ``not enough time, not enough
hearings.'' That is extraordinary. We asked them to do this. Public Law
103-354, October 13, 1994. We said, ``Do this expeditiously.'' And now,
``Not enough time. This is not fair. Not enough time.''
What a way to kill a commonsense rule. It is not even based on the
truth and the facts.
The other comment was that the Department of Agriculture did not
listen to the people who wrote in on this rule. The truth is they
discarded the form letters that came from employees of Tyson Poultry,
and other companies on both sides of the issue, because they had a
conflict of interest. Sure, they were consumers, but they worked for
these companies. They wanted to make sure that they were not making
this rule based on what people who have an economic conflict of
interest believe, but what is in the best interest of consumers.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Public Law 103-
354, October 13, 1994, asking the Department of Agriculture to pass a
rule that was fair.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 301. POULTRY LABELING.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the United States Department of Agriculture should--
(A) carry out the plans of the Department to hold public
hearings for the purpose of receiving public input on issues
related to the conditions under which poultry sold in the
United States may be labeled ``fresh''; and
(B) finalize and publish a decision on the issues as
expeditiously as possible after holding the hearings; and
(2) no person serving on the expert advisory committee
established to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on the
issues should stand to profit, or represent any interest that
would stand to profit, from the decision of the Department on
the issues.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if you ask the average person, ``If a
chicken is frozen to 10 or 20 degrees, is it frozen,'' they would say
yes. The Department of Agriculture in its rule did not even force them
to do that; it said you can

[[Page S13762]]
market hard chill. And no one is up here saying that it is bad to buy a
frozen chicken or turkey at all. All we are saying--the Consumer
Federation of America and all the consumer groups that are lined up
behind this rule--is, you have a right to know. You should know. It is
only fair to know. Consumers now know how much fat there is in a
product. I hope we all support that. That is an important health issue.
We know how many vitamins there are, how many minerals there are, how
many calories there are, and how much protein there is. Should they not
know if the product has been frozen? It affects the taste. It affects
the price. It affects whether or not they will throw it in the freezer
again because we know that is not a good thing to do if it has been
defrosted once or twice.
Again, we hear a lot of talk about, oh, let us hold off. Do you know,
my friends, when this all started? It was more than 8 years ago now
because it was under the Bush administration. Eight years ago the Bush
administration attempted to solve this problem. My colleagues came on
the floor, ``We need more time.'' How about 100 years? How much time
does it take to understand that fresh is fresh and frozen is frozen? I
think it is a no-brainer. But then again, others may disagree.
Truth in labeling should be a practice in this country. And the only
reason I can see why people oppose this is--you guessed it--money. You
can get more money for a fresh product, and they know they cannot
deliver it fresh. So they freeze it, but they market fresh. And it is
highway robbery, if you really want to get down to it, for the
consumers of America. How are we going to do this?
I do not know where these votes are going to come out here, but I
know there is an awful lot of money behind it. And if this Senate votes
today that frozen is fresh, I do not know. That will be a low point for
me in terms of common sense.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, thank you.
Mr. President, I thank Senator Cochran.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
Senator from California to strike a provision requiring the Department
of Agriculture to report back to Congress with a new rule regarding
poultry labeling. Both consumer groups and the poultry industry support
the development of new labeling rules which are fair and based on
scientific data about consumer views regarding descriptive labeling
terms. But instead of taking this approach, the USDA arbitrarily
established temperature ranges and descriptive terms which have no
basis in science, marketplace experience, or consumer preference, and
have never been heard of before.
Moreover, in issuing its recent labeling rule, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture ignored 23,000 comments which it received in opposition to
the proposed rule change. And it is worth mentioning that they only
received 4,000 in support of the rule change, and these all primarily
from one State.
This rule discriminates against poultry producers which market their
products nationwide, and most agricultural products are marketed
nationwide. But this rule carves out regional markets where local
producers can sell their product free from out-of-State competition. It
simply is a barrier to trade. Thus, in the end, this new rule is not at
all proconsumer. It is anticompetitive and will result in higher
consumer prices and protected markets where regional producers will
reap monopolistic benefits.
The very day that Secretary Glickman was confirmed by the Senate, I
came to the floor and voiced my concerns about this issue, which at the
time was still in the form of a proposed rule.
Mr. President, I am disappointed and surprised that Secretary
Glickman has allowed his Department to issue a final rule with as many
flaws as this one has. I am shocked that he would tolerate the
development of a major labeling rule with total disregard for
scientific data or consumer views. He has allowed the USDA to pick the
term ``hard chilled'' out of thin air. It is a term that has never
existed in the poultry industry before. I have been around the industry
all my life and had never heard the term. It is a totally meaningless
term. There are absolutely no market data to support the
appropriateness of the term, and there is no history of it ever having
been used in the poultry industry.
Another problem with the USDA labeling rule is that it totally fails
to provide for temperature variance for products shipped over long
distances.
Common sense tells you that when you load a truck in Virginia and
drive it across country to California, it is impossible to maintain an
exact, no-variance temperature. I know from personal experience you
just simply cannot maintain the temperature without any variance
whatsoever as it travels through different climates and different time
zones en route to its final destination. But what does a variance of 1
degree matter anyway?
In addition to the weather problems, the shippers also have to
contend with cooling equipment, which is simply not that exact.
Calibrating a thermostat to maintain a product temperature at exactly
26 degrees is a very inexact science and impossible to do. However, the
USDA rule provides no temperature tolerance.
This is totally an unreasonable and farfetched idea, and it is
completely unacceptable. A real proconsumer rule would be based on
scientific data and would ensure competitive prices for poultry
consumers throughout the Nation. The existing USDA rule accomplishes
neither.
I encourage Secretary Glickman to revise the existing rules in a
manner consistent with fairness, objectivity, and real marketplace
competitiveness. Therefore, I strongly oppose the amendment offered by
my colleague from California and urge its defeat. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I was prepared to yield some time to the
distinguished Senators from Arkansas. I am going to let them decide
which one goes first.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 32 minutes on the side of the
Senator from Mississippi, 33 minutes on the side of the Senator from
Arkansas.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as the distinguished
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] would like to have on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, let the Record show that the junior Senator
from Arkansas was certainly willing to yield to the distinguished
senior Senator from Arkansas to make his statement at this time. I have
been looking forward to that statement. I think he, as the ranking
member of the subcommittee, along with our friend from Mississippi,
Senator Cochran, is doing a very good job of putting this issue exactly
where it should be placed, and that is it is not an issue, in my
opinion and I think in the opinion of many of my colleagues, of
consumer protection. It is an issue basically of the protection of the
State of California. That is where we see this issue coming down.
There is something missing about this debate, I might say, Mr.
President, that is disconcerting to me, which I think, and hope, will
deserve a response certainly, if I could elicit one, from my colleague
from California, Senator Boxer. I am hoping to find out why the issue
of only poultry--only poultry--is today before the Senate in this so-
called great debate between frozen and fresh poultry products.
Mr. President, it is a known fact that beef, that pork, that fish may
be frozen at any degree and they are not affected as the Senator from
California, or I should say the Senators from California, would attempt
to affect the products of poultry especially from the South and the
Southeastern part of the United States.
I might say, also, Mr. President, that the Senator from Mississippi
has rightfully offered his amendment and placed it into this basic
legislation, into the committee bill. The Senator from Mississippi is
not trying to obliterate what the U.S. Department of Agriculture is
attempting to do. He is simply trying to say that any regulation in
this area,

[[Page S13763]]
assuming that we would have hearings, as the Senator from Virginia,
Senator Warner, has stated on the issue, that the Committees of
Agriculture in the House and the Senate must approve ultimately any
language that the U.S. Department of Agriculture would adopt in
imposing and, I might say, implementing such a far-reaching, sweeping
regulation, in regulatory language.
Mr. President, I think it is also needful, or let us say worthwhile,
at this point for us to sort of go back just a couple of years and see
how this issue got to the Senate in this form.
First, about 2 or 3 years ago, the State of California passed a law
to prohibit fresh labeling as has been under discussion today. I think,
if I am not mistaken, that was in 1992 or 1993. The American Meat
Institute and the National Broiler Council and others took this issue
to court, in fact to the Federal court. The court held, with the
support of the Department of Agriculture, that this particular law
passed by the State of California was preempting Federal law and
therefore basically was struck down. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
then, Mr. President, agreed to review this regulation and issued an
interim or a proposed rule.
During the rulemaking process, as other Members of the Senate have
mentioned this morning, during that particular time of several weeks
when people could comment on how they felt about this rule about to be
proposed, or which assumingly was going to be proposed by the
Department of Agriculture, of the 26,000 comments that came in, 23,000
stated they felt that the regulation went too far.
We think it also interesting to note, and perhaps the Record could be
made clear on this, we do not know of any consumer in the State of
California who objected to this labeling process that we have had so
long, that has been so fair. We do not know of any consumer in Senator
Boxer's or Senator Feinstein's State who has objected to this process.
Who objected? The California Poultry Association, which is an
association made up of California poultry producers who might not be as
efficient as those throughout the South and the Southeast in the field
of poultry production.
Once again, Mr. President, I think that there is no scientific basis
today that we can see for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
arbitrary selection of 26 degrees as the threshold temperature for
determining whether poultry is fresh. In fact, some say that if you
kept poultry at 26 degrees, it might well spoil.
What this is, I think, is a nontariff trade barrier erected by the
California poultry industry, not brought about by California consumers.
There is no objection from California consumers that we know of.
Perhaps we might even consider initiating new GATT or NAFTA rounds for
a trade agreement among the States, involving the State of California
and these particular poultry concerns that they are raising this
morning.
Mr. President, we have time to hold hearings. And with the Cochran
amendment in place, if it is kept in place, we are certainly willing
and, I think, able to work out a fair solution to the issue of fresh
versus frozen poultry.
I sincerely hope that the Senate will defeat the amendment offered by
our very good and distinguished friends, the Senators from California,
Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I might
consume.
Let me say to my dear friend from Arkansas that he is correct that
there were 26,000 comments. Now, 22,000 comments came from people who
were employed in the chicken business in his home State and other
Southern States, so I do understand their point of view. Of course I
do.
A couple thousand came in from California, also people employed by
the chicken industry there. So when they were making a decision,
obviously people with a special concern do not carry as much weight as
people who are not economically affected.
Let me tell you about that, because the Senators from Arkansas keep
making this a California issue. As I said before, I have a split in my
State. I have the chicken people backing this rule, and the turkey
people strongly opposing it. I have come down on the side of consumers.
As the Senator knows, it is hard when your State is not united. In this
case, the Senator from Arkansas's State is pretty much united.
Let me say that I have a breakdown of the comments: 611 from poultry
processors and growers, clearly with a special concern; 23 from trade
associations; 12 from State government agencies; 6 from academia; 6
from consumer organizations; 5 from congressional Members; 3 from chefs
who are interested in this issue; 2 from retailers; and 4 from other
sources. And the vast majority of the individual letters were on
company forms.
So I think it is hard to learn a lot from that. I think we all know
if we are concerned that a rule might impact our economic abilities, of
course we are going to write, and I support those people. But I think
we have to cut to the bottom line here, which is, what is fair and what
is just and what is right?
Clearly, the Senate is on record asking the Agriculture Department to
issue this rule or this kind of a rule, which I think bends over
backward. They did not say that produce under 26 degrees must be marked
frozen--it allows the producers in Arkansas to mark those products
``hard chilled'' down to zero degrees--only when they go below zero. I
also think it important that I place in the Record, and I ask unanimous
consent to do so, a statement of the administration about this move by
the Appropriations Committee to essentially cancel this rule or, if you
will, I will say in nice terms, to deep-six this rule or to put it in a
hard freeze.
This is what the administration says:

The administration is strongly opposed to the committee
bill's prohibition on the use of funds to implement or
enforce the final regulation on fresh and frozen poultry,
which was published on August 25, 1995. Publication of this
regulation was the culmination of nearly 2 years of effort,
during which the views of all stakeholders were heard and
considered. The issue of proper labeling of poultry products
has been the subject of litigation in Federal court as well
as congressional- and USDA-sponsored public hearings
throughout the Nation. Committee language would prevent
consumers from receiving accurate information and assurance
of a national standard in this area and could result in
disparate and conflicting State enforcement activity.

I think this is important coming from the administration:

The committee's language represents unwarranted legislative
intrusion into the regulatory process.

We all know here that we are opposed to regulation that overreaches.
But in this particular case, I say to my friend, the Senate itself
voted, urging the Department of Agriculture to produce this rule, and
now when they produce a rule that bends over backward to be fair--it
takes them 2 years, public hearings all over the country--there is a
backdoor attempt to stop it from going into effect.
I also want to make this other point. We keep hearing this is a
California issue. I already told my friend that the California poultry
industry is split on it, but I also want my friend from Arkansas to
know that other States have passed labeling laws that mirror or are
similar to this rule. Those States are: Alaska, Arizona, Delaware,
Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Washington.
So clearly, these other State legislatures are waking up to the fact
that their consumers deserve truth in labeling.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list of those States
and the types of laws that they have.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Irell & Manella,

January 25, 1994.
To: Team
From: Matthew Sloan.

Memorandum

File: NBC v. Voss and CPIF (Intervenor).
Re State Labelling Laws.

State Laws

1. Alaska (unlawful to sell prev. frozen as fresh; no
definition of fresh?):
Title 3: Agriculture and Animals: Section 03.05.035(a):
Meat, fish or poultry which has been frozen may not be sold,
represented or advertised as a fresh food.
(c) Commissioner shall adopt regs to provide for
examinations to ascertain whether it has been frozen.
Title 45: Trade and Commerce: Sec. 45.50.471: Unlawful to
(b)(21) ``selling, falsely representing or advertising meat,
fish or poultry which has been frozen as fresh food''.

[[Page S13764]]

2. Arizona (defines fresh; prohibits misbranding):
Title 3: Agriculture and Dairying: Sec. 3-2151:
Definitions. This section defines:
(7) ``Fresh'' means any dressed or ready to cook poultry or
poultry product which has not been frozen.
(8) ``Frozen'' means any . . . poultry product which is in
fact in a frozen state and which has been constantly
maintained at a temperature of thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit
or lower.
(11) and (12) define label and labelling.
(13) ``Misbranded'' shall apply to any poultry product
under one or more of the following circumstances, if:
(a) Its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.
3. Delaware (fresh prohibition):
Title 16, Part IV, Chapter 33: Pure Food and Drugs. 16 Del.
C. Sec. 3309:
Misbranding of Food:
For the purposes of this chapter, food is deemed to be
misbranded:
(5) If it is obtained by the dealer in frozen bulk form and
is subsequently thawed and offered for sale in a package or
bearing a label indicating such food to be fresh.
4. Illinois (misleading; previously frozen requirement):
Chapter 410 Public Health Food and Drug Safety: Ill. Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act Sec. 410 ILCS 620/11
Sec. 11. A food is misbranded--(a) If its labeling is false
or misleading in any particular.
(j) If it purports to be or is represented for special
dietary uses, unless its label bears such [info prescribed by
Director as necessary to inform buyers of value for such
purposes].
(n) If its is a color additive unless [labelling in
conformity with Section 706 of Federal Act] [Mr: shows when
refer to federal act or regs for definitions/guidelines?]
(o) If a meat or . . . poultry food product has been frozen
prior to sale unless when offered for sale, the package,
container or wrapping bears, in type of uniform size and
prominence, the words ``previously frozen'' so as to be
readable and understood by the general public except that
this subsection does not apply to [precooked items].
[My notes: (1) not define frozen; use federal definition?
(2) This is a requirement not prohibition.]
5. Kansas (imported):
Section 65-6a47: requires that wholesaler or retailer label
poultry from foreign country as ``imported''.
6. Maine (organic):
Title 7. Part 2. Chapter 103.
7 M.R.S. Sec. 553. Labeling and advertising.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a good shall
not be labeled or advertised as ``organic,'' ``organically
grown,'' or ``biologically grown'' or by a similar term,
unless the food is:
D. Meat, poultry or fish produced without the use of any
chemical or drug to stimulate or regulate growth or
tenderness, etc.
7. Mississippi (imported):
Sec. 75-33-101: must label foreign poultry as imported.
8. Nevada (imported)
Sec. 583.045: must label foreign poultry as imported.
9. New York (kosher labelling prohibitions and
requirements; frozen labelling requirement.):
A. Prohibits Using Kosher Label Unless Meets Orthodox
Hebrew Requirements:
See Sec. 201-a (1). Person who, with intent to defraud,
represents poultry as kosher or k. for passover, if not meet
orthodox Hebew religious requirements, is guilty of
misdeameanor or felony (depending on amount of poultry.)
B. If Retailer Sells ``Kosher'' Poultry Must Label either
``Soaked and Salted'' or ``Note Soaked and Salted'';
See Sec. 201-a(2).
C. Fresh Meat as defined under Kosher Law:
Section 201-a(3): ``Fresh meat, meat by-products and
poultry shall be defined as meat or poultry that has not been
processed, except for salting and soaking.''
[Me: bolsters arguments that many different definitions of
``fresh''?]
D. Labelling Requirement for Food First Offered for Sale as
Fresh and than Frozen:
Section 214-g provides that if any poultry, seafood, or
meat was first offered for sale as fresh and then later
frozen, it must bear label in form prescribed by commissioner
informing that it was previously offered for sale in its
unfrozen state.
10. New Jersey (kosher prohibitions):
Section 2C:21-7.2 Defines ``kosher'' as prepared in strict
compliance with orthodox reabbinate.
Section 2C:21-7.4(b)(3) defines as a ``disorderly persons
offense'' falsely labelling food product as ``kosher'' or
otherwise if tend to deceive.
[Me: Note that (b)(1) and (2) seem to apply only to
retailers (they exempt manufacturer or packer of food) but
(b)(3) has no such limitation).
11. Ohio (kosher labelling prohibitions and requirements):
A. Kosher Prohibitions:
Section 1329.29 (A) No person shall do any of the
following:
(1) Sell or expose for sale at retail, or manufacture, any
meat or meat preparations or any fowl or preparations from
fowl and falsely represent the same to be ``kosher'' or as
having been prepared under, and of a product or products
sanctioned by, the Orthodox Hebrew religious requirements;
(2) Falsely represent any food products or the contents of
any package or container to be constituted and prepared as
described in division (A)(1) of this section by having or
permitting to be inscribed thereon ``kosher'', ``kosher
style,'' etc.
[Me: Does this only apply to retail?]
B. Kosher Requirements:
Sec. 1329.29(B) requires that all prepackaged ``kosher''
meats/poultry must be ``soaked and salted'' and all fresh
poultry marked ``kosher'' must either be labelled ``soaked
and salted'' or ``not soaked and salted.''
12. Oregon (fresh; state of origin prohibitions):
Section 619.365 prohibits use of labels that say:
(A) misrepresent state of origin; or state that chicken
``(B) are fresh, if at any time after slaughter, they have
ever been frozen''.
[Me: Where's definition of frozen? Federal definition or
state? More research]
13. South Carolina (foreign origin requirement):
Section 47-17-310 requires all meat (poultry?) imported
into state from outside shall be labelled ``imported'' in 24
point type.
14. Washington (frozen/thawed label requirement):
Section 69.04.333 requires that if poultry has been frozen
at any time it must bear a label ``clearly discernible to
customer that such product has been frozen and whether or not
the same has since been thawed.''
15. California (organic).

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I hope I have debunked the myth that this
is a California issue. Certainly, there is support among parts of our
poultry industry for this rule, but it is not universal. The main issue
here is, do the consumers have a right to know? They already know the
fat content, they already know the calorie content, they already know
the minerals in products, they already know the vitamins, protein. For
goodness' sake, they ought to know if a product has been frozen or deep
frosted, and exactly what they are getting when they pay their hard-
earned dollars.
I just have to say, again, I understand that colleagues must fight
for their States, and I understand that completely. When you have a
State that ships these products out, I understand why you would be here
fighting for that industry and making sure that your State was not
disadvantaged. So I have total respect, and if I was the Senator from
Arkansas, who knows what I would be doing. So I am not being holier
than thou in any way, shape, or form.
But I have to make the point that this is really about money; it is
all about dollars. Otherwise, who would be opposing such a commonsense
rule? You can get more money for a fresh product, so you market fresh.
What is a little lie? You can ship your frozen product miles and miles
into another State to compete with truly fresh chicken, and no one will
know and you get top dollar, so what is a little lie? I say it is
wrong.
I would like to take a little time to read a Washington Post
editorial, or just portions of it. I ask unanimous consent not that we
print this copy in the Record, but that a smaller copy be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Fair's Fair on Fowl

``When I use a word,'' said Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty,
``it means exactly what I want it to mean.'' Humpty Dumpty
was an egg, but the observation applies especially well to a
fight that's going on about chickens. Michael Taylor, acting
agriculture undersecretary for food safety, recently tried to
call a halt to 2\1/2\ years of squawking by issuing a rule
that chickens and turkeys frozen rock solid and shipped that
way, then thawed, may no longer be labeled ``fresh.'' At the
last minute, though, a Senate subcommittee has come up with
appropriations language that would block the rule, leaving
frozen chickens and turkeys still eligible for the label of
freshness.
The notion that fresh chickens aren't frozen, and vice
versa, might at first seem uncontroversial. Consumers might
like to know if a bird has been frozen and thawed, whether
out of health or cooking preferences or because they prefer
fresh meat. Small regional chicken companies see this
preference for freshness as a possible selling point, since
they, unlike the bigger producers, don't have to freeze their
birds to ship them cross country. They have been wanting for
some time to label their own birds ``fresh'' and to stop the
national companies from so labeling theirs.
Inconveniently enough, however, the government at some
point agreed that to be defined as legally ``frozen'' a
chicken or turkey had to reach an internal temperature of
zero degrees Fahrenheit, although the meat actually freezes
solid at about 25 degrees above that. The big companies thus
have been within their legal rights all this time to freeze
their birds down to a point above zero

[[Page S13765]]
and label the meat ``fresh'' because it has technically never been
``frozen.'' The National Broiler Council beat back a
California law that attempted to redefine ``fresh'' as having
``never reached an internal temperature of 25 degrees or
below for more than 24 hours.'' The big birders successfully
sued to establish that the state law was superseded by the
less nature-bound federal version.
Would a frozen chicken under the proposed rules now be
referred to as ``frozen''? Heaven forbid. ``Frozen'' chicken
and turkey--the kind chilled below zero--would continue to be
``frozen.'' The stuff that had been frozen to between zero
and 26 degrees, previously called ``fresh,'' would be labeled
``hard chilled.'' For now, though, barring a Senate
turnaround, the victory may remain with the broiler lobbyists
who complain that it's too arbitrary to draw an either-or
distinction between fresh and frozen at all. Seriously, you'd
think this one would be easy.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the first paragraph says:

``When I use a word,'' said Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty,
``it means exactly what I want it to mean.'' Humpty Dumpty
was an egg, but the observation applies especially well to a
fight that's going on about chickens. Michael Taylor, acting
agriculture undersecretary for food safety, recently tried to
call a halt to 2\1/2\ years of squawking by issuing a rule
that chickens and turkeys frozen rock solid and shipped that
way, then thawed, may no longer be labeled ``fresh.'' At the
last minute, though, a Senate subcommittee has come up with
appropriations language that would block the rule, leaving
frozen chickens and turkeys still eligible for the label of
freshness.
My friend, that is what this is about. Some of us are trying to stop
that attempt by the Appropriations Committee to block a rule that is
over 2\1/2\ years in the making and, by the way, which started under
George Bush. He tried to resolve this problem. We are talking about an
8-year-old issue that has not been resolved. He goes into the rule,
which I have explained already, that says that it can be labeled
``fresh'' if it is down to 26 degrees, and ``hard chilled'' between 26
and zero, and it must be labeled ``frozen'' if it is below zero. The
person who wrote this article is critical. He says:

Would a frozen chicken under the proposed rules now be
referred to as ``frozen''? Heaven forbid. ``Frozen'' chicken
and turkey--the kind chilled below zero--would continue to be
``frozen.'' The stuff that had been frozen to between zero
and 26 degrees, previously called ``fresh,'' would be labeled
``hard chilled.'' For now, though, barring a Senate
turnaround, the victory may remain with the broiler lobbyists
who complain that it's too arbitrary to draw an either-or
distinction between fresh and frozen at all. Seriously, you'd
think this one would be easy.

Mr. President, I echo that. I thought this one would be easy. This
one is not easy; it is difficult.
Mr. PRYOR. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.
Mrs. BOXER. I would be happy to.
Mr. PRYOR. I wonder if the Senator from California would educate this
Senator as to the California Legislature, I think in 1993, enacting the
law only relating to poultry. Why is it that the State of California
only objected to poultry labeling and not the labeling of beef, not the
labeling of pork, and not the labeling of fish? Why is it that we are
letting those groups off and concentrating only on poultry products?
Mrs. BOXER. I say to my good friend, I do not serve in the California
State Legislature, and I do not always agree with them on things. I
cannot answer for why they did this. I assume that one of the reasons
they did this is because, clearly, the issue was brought to their
attention. I say right now to my friend that I am very much in favor of
doing more. He asked before, why are we not doing fish? As far as we
know, that is under the FDA authority. I am happy to team up with my
friend to work for truth in labeling on every conceivable product. That
is what it is about to me, making sure consumers know what they are
buying and what they are getting.
Again, I guess one of the problems I have is--and this Senator is
certainly saying nothing ill about a frozen product. Some people prefer
to buy a frozen product. All I am saying is that it ought to be labeled
so we know what the truth is. In terms of the legislative agenda of the
California State Assembly, remember, we have many thousands of issues
that come before us. I would be happy to research the issue and come
back with a specific answer. I can only speak for what I can do.
In this bill, the Appropriations Committee is stopping a truth-in-
labeling bill that involves poultry. I would be happy to support my
friend for truth in labeling in any and every product he would like to
bring forward.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator has
completed her statement at this moment, I will be happy to yield such
time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas [Mr.
Bumpers].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining for the
Senator from Mississippi?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 24 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is another one of those issues
which, on its face, would appear to give the California Senators the
high ground. But it does not. It is the phoniest issue I think I have
ever seen come before the Senate. The Senator from Arkansas, my
colleague, Senator Pryor, has just asked a very relevant question. Red
meat products are routinely shipped at below 26 degrees and sold as
fresh. Listen to this. Whole hog sausage is packed warm into tubs, then
exposed to glyco or brine to chill below 26 degrees.
I can tell my colleagues that any time you buy sausage in the fancy
meat section of the grocery store, the chances are about 90 percent of
the time you are getting sausage that has been previously frozen. It is
thawed for display purposes. Pork and beef loins and other products of
beef and pork are routinely brought below 26 degrees. Why? So it is
easier to slice. You get a better consistency in the slice if the
temperature of the bacon is much lower than freezing. Trim products.
When you trim steaks and roast, pork chucks and pork roasts, they take
the trimmings and freeze them--not to 26 degrees, but to zero. And then
they are later thawed and put with whole hog, and you buy whole hog
sausage, some of which is fresh and some of which has been frozen.
Frozen beef: Frozen beef is mixed with fresh beef. Do you know why?
To give it a better consistency, because it forms a patty better if
half of it has been frozen. When you buy beef patties and pork patties,
you are getting formerly frozen product. Frozen lamb is routinely
thawed at retail and sold fresh.
Why are those things not included here? Because the California
Poultry Federation does not care about lamb, they do not care anything
about beef or pork, and they do not care anything about fish. What they
care about is the fact that they only have 25 percent, or less, of the
poultry business in California. California, right now, has the highest
poultry prices in the United States. And if the Senators from
California prevail, it will go a lot higher, under the name of
consumerism.
Do you know what this regulation of the Department of Agriculture
says? It says exactly what the California Legislature said in 1993--
that the California Poultry Federation went to the California
Legislature and said, ``Look, we cannot compete with the Southern and
Southwestern States, so here is the way we have conjured up to deal
with the issue.''
So the California legislature says, ``Any poultry product coming into
the State of California may not be below 26 degrees.'' What does this
regulation say, after the court, incidentally, had ruled that one
illegal? The very same thing. Dan Glickman did not think this up. The
Department of Agriculture did not think this up. They never thought of
it until the California Legislature told them to think of it. And when
the Federal court declared that the Federal Government had preemption
rights over the safety of food, they came to the California Senators.
I am not complaining about the California Senators going to bat for
their State, and I hope nobody will blame me or Senator Cochran for
going to bat for our States. So here we are on the floor of the Senate
protecting the California poultry industry. Unhappily, this rule
applies to the entire Nation.
Mr. President, I have watched this Congressman--I forget his name--
over in the House. He got a lot of publicity. You have to do crazy
things to get on the evening news around here. So he takes a chicken,
frozen at zero degrees, and uses it for a bowling ball.

[[Page S13766]]

The ordinary citizen looks at that and says, ``You mean I have been
buying chicken like that?'' The Senator from California came in here
with a frozen chicken this morning. You can use that for a bowling
ball, too.
That is not what the debate is about. You take a chicken frozen to 26
or 27 degrees and use it for a bowling ball, and you will get
splattered. This chicken, when it leaves the plant to go to California
or any other State, is usually at 27 or 28 degrees. When it arrives at
its destination, there is a distinct possibility that over the course
of that 2-day trip, that some chickens--they are in boxes; they are in
what they call a ``chill pack''; they are in a tray and the trays are
in boxes--some of the boxes in the middle of the load may conceivably
be below 26 degrees, maybe 25 degrees when it gets there.
Now, how are you going to handle that, Mr. President? Are you going
to make them unload the whole load and relabel every chicken?
Obviously, that is not doable. Economically, that is not doable.
So, what do you do? Nobody can tell you what the Department of
Agriculture Inspection Service is going to ask for. I can tell you one
thing: The $25 million that we put in for the Food Safety Inspection
Service in the bill before the House is not going to be nearly enough
to hire all the inspectors to check every temperature.
Is this just me? Listen to this. The Agriculture Research Service,
which does all of the research on these things in their laboratories--
in the laboratories--the Agriculture Research Service allows a plus or
minus 3 degrees because that is the best they can do.
Yet, the California Senators say it has to be 26 degrees, not 1
degree below. As high above as you want to go, but if you go 1 degree
below 26 degrees, no plus or minus allowances. Even the Agriculture
Marketing Service has a minus or plus 2 degrees. No mistakes for
mechanical failures, no allowance for anything.
Mr. President, while, as I say, this looks good on its face, I want
to remind my friends from the red beef and the pork States and the fish
States, you are next. Whoever you may be competing with, you can depend
on them going to their legislature, the Department of Agriculture, and
saying, ``We want the same treatment.''
The poultry industry has been attacked as long as I have been in this
Senate. It is, as Gilda Radner said, it is always something, is it not,
Senator? It was always inspection. Now the poultry industry has agreed
to what we hope will be the best and final inspection of a product in
the history of man: a macro-organism inspection system that will pick
up anything on the carcass of a chicken.
Do you know who is squawking now even though it will cost a lot of
money to put it in place? The labor unions, because ultimately it will
be labor saving. As I say, it is always something.
Who do you think, Mr. President, finally, has the most to lose by
shipping a bad product? It is the industry, is it not? If they send a
bad product, if somebody gets sick, they are the ones would pay the
price.
Listen to this. Billions and billions and billions of chickens have
been shipped to the State of California and all over this country, that
left the packing plants at 27 or 26 degrees and when it gets there,
maybe some of the chicken was at 25 degrees, some of it was at 26 and
some of it was at 27.
Do you know something else? Not one complaint out of billions shipped
all over the United States, not one single complaint from anybody but
the California Poultry Federation. Does that tell you what this
amendment is about?
I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my friend from Arkansas is a great
debater. He says this is the phoniest issue he has ever seen come
before the Senate. Let me tell you what is phony. What is phony is
marking a frozen product fresh. That is phony. What this regulation is
going to do is cure that problem.
To make this a California issue is misleading. Alaska: ``It is
unlawful to sell previously frozen as fresh.'' Why not attack Alaska, I
say to my friend? Arizona: ``Prohibits misbranding.'' Attack Arizona, I
say to my friend. Delaware: There is a prohibition; you cannot misbrand
a food. Illinois: If a meat or poultry product has been frozen, it
cannot say fresh. It has to say ``previously frozen.'' Why not attack
Illinois?
New York: There is a frozen labeling requirement. Oregon prohibits
the use of a label that says ``are fresh, if at any time after
slaughter, they have been frozen.'' Washington State: Poultry that has
been frozen at any time must bear a label ``clearly discernible to
customer that such product has been frozen and whether or not it has
been thawed.'' We know that California has a law, as was mentioned here
several times.
So, put to rest the claim that this is only about one State. This is
across the country, and I think that we in the U.S. Senate should
respect those States that have gotten out in front of a consumer issue.
Now, I tell you something, I know these consumer groups and they do
not get behind a phony issue. I do not know if you have ever dealt with
them before, but I do not see Citizen Action standing up here on behalf
of one industry. I do not see consumer unions standing up behind one
industry. I do not see National Consumer League standing up behind an
industry. I do not see Public Voice doing that, and I do not see the
American Veterinary Medical Association doing that.
Clearly, this is not a phony issue. But if we do not defeat the
committee amendment, a phony situation will continue.
By the way, do not be misled. They say the committee will put a rule
into effect, but when we pass it, when we decide it. It has been 8
years since we have been trying to solve this consumer problem and it
will be another 8, 10, and God knows how long, the consumers will not
have their right to know. So I think the issue is drawn.
My friend says the price will go up. How does the price go up? It is
the opposite. The price is artificially up now because a product that
says fresh gets a higher price. And that is why the people in your
State do not want to put an accurate label on there. They fetch a
premium price for a frozen product. Therefore, they want to keep
calling it fresh.
On the contrary, when this goes through--and I hope it will, and I do
not know how we will come out on it--prices will go down and consumers
who want to get a good price can buy a frozen product.
By the way, there is nothing wrong with that. Some prefer it. All we
are asking for is truth.
Then my friend says the California Senator said ``26 degrees.'' We
never said any such thing. The way the rule came about was because this
Senate asked the Department of Agriculture to go hold public hearings,
hear the experts, and they found out that the temperature in which it
is frozen is 26 degrees. If they picked 24 degrees or 22 degrees, I
could not challenge that, I say to my friend. It is a scientific
determination. If it is rock solid it is rock solid at 25 degrees.

And he is right. He said a Congressman bowled a chicken down an alley
to bring attention to this issue. He is right. It got the Congressman
on the news. And sometimes people do that because they are so desperate
that things like this will be legislated in the dead of night, in a
committee, stuck into an appropriations bill, that they have to shine
the light of day on this.
I hope every single consumer in America is watching this vote today.
Because you will hear a lot of talk about pork, beef, fish--let us talk
about that another time. I am with you. Let us have honesty in the way
we sell products in this country. That is the way we are moving. We let
consumers know a range of things about the products that they buy.
So, I am going to move, at the proper time, to table the committee
amendment. As I understand the rules, and I ask the President if this
is correct, the appropriate time would be just before the vote rather
than at this time? Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator is correct.
Mrs. BOXER. Then I will at that time reserve my right to move to
table the committee amendment. At this time I reserve the remainder of
my time.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on April 4, 1995, 19 Senators sent a letter
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture in which we expressed our concern
about

[[Page S13767]]
proposed changes in poultry labeling standards. The USDA has ignored
our concerns and is preparing to impose unfair and subjective rules
which will adversely and unnecessarily affect the poultry industry in
North Carolina, indeed across this country.
At issue is the process by which the poultry industry labels its
products--either ``fresh'' or ``frozen''--and whether the USDA will
change the rules, unnecessarily and unfairly, on America's food
producers. The losers, if the USDA prevails, will not be confined to
America's chicken and turkey producers and processors, but also the
consumers who are certain to be confused and misled by this USDA
bureaucratic meddling.
Senators should be aware of some important facts when considering
whether the Senate should allow the USDA to proceed with such
unnecessary requirements.
First, the proposed rule change unfairly singles out the poultry
industry. Currently, meat, fish, and poultry products are allowed by
USDA to be preserved at temperatures below 26 degrees and be labeled as
``fresh.'' If the USDA has its way, the poultry industry alone must
label its products as ``previously frozen'' when poultry products are
stored at temperatures below 26 degrees.
Second, the proposed rule changes will hinder the growth of America's
chicken and turkey industry. The USDA bureaucracy proposes to make
permanent standards that the poultry industry already has had
difficulty in meeting. Keep in mind, under the USDA's proposal, poultry
companies will be required to process, store, and transport their
products at specific temperatures beyond their control--and this
bureaucratic meddling will automatically reduce the quality of food.
This disservice to the consumer will also harm the poultry industry.
Mr. President, America's poultry industry is the envy of the world.
Its further growth, and the confidence of the consumer, are at stake in
this debate. The Senate should support Senators Cochran and Bumpers in
their efforts to prohibit funding for this unwise USDA rule change that
will serve nobody's best interests--except, perhaps, the ego of the
bureaucrats who came up with an idea whose time should never come.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield time to my
distinguished friend and colleague from Alabama [Mr. Heflin]. How much
time would the Senator request, 5 minutes? Ten minutes?
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, 5, 6, 7, 8, somewhere in that
neighborhood.
Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield the distinguished Senator 8 minutes,
Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I appreciate that. I rise in opposition.
But first let me say that no opponent is more formidable than the
little package of dynamite from California. Senator Boxer is a
tremendous opponent. They say dynamite comes in little packages. And
she certainly works on every issue that she takes a stand on. Most of
the time she is right. But every now and then she gets misled and this
is one of those instances.
My colleague asked me how much time I wanted, 5 minutes, maybe? I
said 6, 7, 8, somewhere around that so I got 8--but, you know, as I
think about that, why did I not say a specific time? Well, it is
because there may be some variances of thoughts that I had, and
variances are very important.
What is lacking from this, in regards to fresh, is variance.
Thermometers differ. I have been in a hospital a good deal, and they
take my temperature one way and it is one figure and they take it
another way and it is a different figure. Then they, all of a sudden,
will get thermometers that they take it in the ear for a minute, and in
the old days you take the thermometer and you kept it for 3 minutes in
your mouth, and you are supposed to put it in a certain spot and
everything else relative to that.
The point I am making is you have a hard and fast rule and you are
crossing the desert in a truck, you set it at 26 degrees, but by the
time it gets through west Texas, where you are going through some area
where the temperature is about 105, and 106, and it varies. Then I
think what this also is, it is that we are going to see the inspectors
are going to be the thermometer brigade. The thermometer brigade will
be coming around, checking.
What we need here is some flexibility, some variance, that will
allow--if you have something at 26 degrees, why not have it, say, a 4-
degree variance because of weather or whatever else, relative to this?
Trucks will have to stop and check the temperature about every 5 or 6
minutes to see that it gets to be 26 degrees.
As you travel across the desert and everything else they will stop.
Sometimes, when these truckdrivers stop, they might also have something
else to quench the heat. So I do not know what might be occurring
relative to this. But, I think there is certainly a need for variance.
I have the front page and the introduction of the California Poultry
Workgroup, University of California, Cooperative Extension, called
``Turkey Care Practices.'' In the introduction it has this:

The number of turkeys produced in California peaked at 32
million in 1990 and dropped to an estimated 24.5 million by
1993. The major causes for this reduction was the necessity
to import feed grain and the unfavorable business climate in
California. Production costs in California are higher than in
other areas making it difficult for the California industry
to competitively produce turkey meat products for the
consumer.

That is said there. I assume feed is the same for chickens. The same
climate is there for chickens as it is for turkeys.
When you get out there, this is a cost issue. It is basically a
protectionist issue. It seems to me we are missing the point on all of
this. The way I heard Senator Bumpers talking about freezing various
meats, and you freeze bacon to slice it and you freeze beef to do
various and sundry things, but turkeys--I know very few people who, on
Thanksgiving, do not have frozen turkeys. Most of the turkeys that you
buy in the market are frozen. That is one of the delicacies of the
American cuisine, is turkey on Thanksgiving. But how many live turkeys
do you see? There is nothing wrong with frozen food. Frozen food has a
lot of things.
We talk about diseases. It kills a lot of germs in a lot of things
that might be flying around and get on to the meats. So this is a
safety protection, a food safety provision that Senator Cochran has
come up with as well, in regards to this.
So, there are a lot of things we feel that people are not reviewing,
they are not thinking about in all of these. This 26 degrees that has
been said is not any scientific number. A lot of the companies put it
on the market at 26 degrees. It is pliable, it is soft, it is
certainly, with the ideas we have on poultry and other things, this
concept of fresh--if it is 25 degrees it is no longer fresh.
When you cannot tell the difference in the feel, you cannot tell the
difference in anything else, even if it is 24 degrees instead of 26
degrees. The point I am making here is the Department of Agriculture
has some 26,000 comments and 23,000 of them, as I recall, were against
this proposal. But they have some zealots over there in the Department
of Agriculture on certain issues who throw to the winds reason, who
throw to the winds the logic that is necessary and the real facts that
underlie all of this.
So I think this is a mistake on what the Department has done. We
ought to adopt the Cochran amendment that is in the bill, send it back
to them, and tell them, ``All right. Let us take another look at it.''
At that time, Senator Boxer, with her dynamite approach toward her
issues, can argue with the Department of Agriculture, and the
California turkey group that I quoted from here can make their
arguments. I just think that we are reaching out and making a very
unrealistic approach toward an issue that is not the problem that it is
being made here today.
Mr. President, I oppose the motion to strike the provision in this
appropriations bill. The purpose of the language is to ensure that new
poultry labeling rules are meaningful to all consumers.
The rule promulgated by the Food Safety and Inspection Service on
August 25, 1995, prohibits poultry products

[[Page S13768]]
that have ever been chilled below 26 degrees from being labeled
``fresh,'' products chilled above 0 degrees but below 26 degrees would
have to be labeled as ``hard chilled'' or ``previously hard chilled.''
There is nothing special or scientific about the 26-degree threshold
temperature selected for determining freshness other than the fact that
it is low enough to permit certain regional poultry companies to
process their products in accordance with accepted industry practices.
At the same time, the temperature suggested by those who have benefited
by this regulation is just high enough to interfere with competing
poultry products transported from other States from reaching these
regional markets without jeopardizing product quality. This is
especially true since USDA did not provide any temperature tolerance in
the final rule.
You will not find anyone who can tell you with a straight face that
poultry products at 26 degrees are fresh while those chilled to 25
degrees are no longer fresh. There is absolutely no scientific evidence
that poultry freezes at those temperatures. That is something that came
from a Hollywood script and a bureaucrat's desire to develop a punitive
and unreasonable regulation. This kind of irresponsible regulation
cannot be tolerated.
USDA has succeeded in developing a labeling system that designates
high-quality poultry products and will confuse consumers. Poultry
consumers will be misled by a labeling requirement that a product is
hard chilled when it is, in fact, soft and pliable to the touch at the
retail counter. Many consumers may be led to believe that such product
is of lesser quality, when, in fact, it is the same high-quality
product they have been buying for years.
Not only will consumers be misled by this designated labeling, but
the threat of such labeling may force companies to ship poultry
products at higher temperatures to avoid being required to use the
labeling USDA has mandated, even in the absence of any affirmative
quality claim. Basic science provides that cooler temperatures enhance
the quality of food products. Poultry, as well as beef, pork, or lamb
products, shipped at 24 or 25 degrees will have a longer shelf life and
maintain their quality longer than products shipped at higher
temperatures--to the benefit of consumers. Because of USDA's
denigrating labeling requirement, however, poultry companies will be
forced to ship products at higher temperatures, to the detriment of
product quality and consumers.
The fresh poultry regulation was designed by the California poultry
industry to make it difficult for competing poultry products from other
sections of the country to be marketed in California without
jeopardizing product quality. When consumers in California have fewer
choices in the marketplace, they will pay higher prices for poultry.
That is the hidden agenda of the California Poultry Industry
Federation. It's simple economics--less competition, fewer choices, and
higher prices. The consumer pays and the California poultry products
take it to the bank.
We should reject USDA's misguided and ill-conceived regulation and
instead require the agency, as we have been forced to do before, to
develop a rule that will not result in consumers paying more for the
high-quality poultry products they buy today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, might I ask how much time I have left in
this great chicken debate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 15 minutes and
53 seconds.
Mrs. BOXER. Let me say, Mr. President, to my friend, Judge Heflin,
that he gave me a wonderful compliment. I really mean it. I want to
give him one back. He is a powerhouse lawyer, judge, and Senator. He is
very convincing. But on this one, I really believe fresh is fresh and
frozen is frozen. You can talk about how to take the temperature.
By the way, while the Senator was speaking, I looked at who actually
worked on this rule. Believe it or not--this is really interesting--
this is an American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air
Conditioning Engineers. They actually made a decision that 27 degrees
should have been the proper degree. But the Department of Agriculture
gave the flexibility of a degree.
So there are scientists who worked on this. It had nothing to do with
zealots. The National Institute of Standards and Technology came out
with 26 degrees. So there was a disagreement. One said it is frozen at
27, and one said at 26 it is pretty frozen. But this is not about
zealots. This is about common sense. The fact of the matter is we want
to make sure our consumers know what they are getting.
I agree with my friend. There is nothing wrong with frozen turkeys,
chicken parts, or anything. As I said, the Senator is right to say some
people actually prefer to buy the frozen product.
All this rule says is you must clearly mark it as frozen if it is
zero degrees or below, and you get to market hard chill if it is from
zero to 26, which I think shows a great deal of flexibility.
On the inspection point, all the details will be worked out as they
go into this rule with the industry. A lot of it is going to be self-
enforcement, I might say to my friend. They are very aware, if there is
a very large shipment, if one part of the shipment may have fallen
below; it does not mean the entire shipment cannot be marked fresh.
So I think rather than saying that they are zealots over there, I
think they have bent over backwards to be fair. They even have gotten
criticized by some consumers for giving the folks a chance to have
their product at 10 degrees marked ``hard chill.''
So my friend is a powerhouse. I have to say that respectfully I
disagree with his conclusion on this one. I hope the Senate will
support commonsense reform in this area. Again, the country is moving
in that way. If people can know how much fat is in a product, how many
vitamins are in a product, how many calories are in a product, how much
calcium is in a product, and on and on, we have decided it is important
for consumers to know this. They ought to know if a product is frozen
or has been previously frozen. Eighty-six percent of the folks agree
with that premise. We have a chance to stand with 86 percent of the
folks.
I hope we will do that in defeating this particular committee
amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the distinguished
chairman of the committee.
Mr. President, while we are exchanging compliments, I think this
amendment is about the efficacy in the way in which the distinguished
Senator from California protects her State. She does an incredible job.
I do not know anybody since I have served here who looks out for
California's interests better than she does. I think that is what this
is all about.
We are very close friends, the Senator from California and I. I do
not doubt for a single moment what she says about her concern about
consumer interests. But I might say, if she prevails, California wins
big in the marketplace. I am sure it is purely coincidental. But again,
she is tenacious when it comes to California. She is too effective, as
far as I am concerned, when it comes to California interests versus the
interests of other parts of the country. I think that is what this is a
little bit to do with.
She is also trying to influence my mind here by sliding something in
front of me that has to do probably with something that says my
position does not make any difference; I am not crazy about him anyway.
So, Mr. President, she will go to any lengths within the legitimate
confines of the rules of the Senate to win, like just handing me that
note.
This debate is not about health and safety. It is not about saving
the taxpayers money. Let me state up front this amendment has
absolutely no impact on Federal spending. Ensuring compliance will be
essentially impossible. Literally one degree of variance would
technically require a different label. A package placed, for example,
near a refrigeration unit which cools to a temperature of less than 26
degrees would not be considered on par with poultry 10 or 15 feet away
from that unit. That is hardly an efficient standard to impose on
business. More importantly, the rule ignores the Agricultural Research
Service study which

[[Page S13769]]
demonstrates that consumers cannot detect any quality difference
between poultry chilled to 26 degrees and poultry at 2 or 3 degrees
lower. Again, there is no difference between these two types of
poultry.
It is not surprising to me, Mr. President, that virtually all
consumers place poultry in the freezer for later use. I know that the
sponsor of that amendment is not suggesting that the tens of millions
of items that consumers take home and put in freezers all of a sudden
make that chicken somehow, that poultry somehow, less palatable than if
they did not take it from the grocery store to their homes.
Interestingly, the Agricultural Research Service study concluded that
under ideal laboratory conditions, poultry temperatures can only be
controlled to plus or minus 2 degrees. Let me repeat that: Under ideal
conditions, literally perfect conditions, we can only control it within
2 degrees.
What the distinguished chairman of the committee has done, he has not
said we are not going to have a ruling. He has said look, let us go
back and look at this. In fact, I respectfully suggest that many of the
advocates of this amendment are more concerned about freezing the
delivery of out-of-State poultry, and not actually freezing the product
that is being allegedly frozen. This is about freezing out.
We sell a lot of chickens in California. I expect that California
poultry producers do not like that. We have not figured how to make
those birds fly from the Delmarva Peninsula to California, and then
jump into a processing plant. We have not figured out how to do that.
We have to put them in trucks. We try to do it at 26 degrees.
We do not want to be put in the position where my distinguished
friend implies that the chickens we are sending, which are not below
zero degrees, by the way, which is now frozen, is somehow less
palatable.
I imagine my time is running out. I apologize for being so
disconnected here. But how much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Your time has just expired.
Mr. BIDEN. I ask for 5 additional seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. This is not about E-coli bacteria or cryptosporidium. The
committee language is about simple fairness. It is about fostering
competition and about improving the information available to consumers.
I hope we reject the amendment of my distinguished friend from
California.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to say to my friend that he may be
right that there is no difference to consumers. But 86 percent of the
consumers think they ought to know what they are getting, No. 1. No. 2,
the Department of Agriculture said they will be flexible in their
enforcement. They have recognized the problem that my friend put out on
the table, and I commend him for that. No. 3, back in October 1994, the
Senate passed a unanimous vote, a sense of the Congress, that the
Department of Agriculture should issue this rule.
We gave them guidance. We told them to hold public hearings all over
the country. They did. We told them to publish a decision on the issue
as expeditiously as possible. They did that. I thought they were a
little slow, taking 2 years, but they finally did that. And we said
that no person on the expert advisory committee could have a conflict
of interest in the outcome.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for 1 second?
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I will be happy to yield.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator tell me whether she thinks consumers know
what ``hard chilled'' means?
Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend they are going to know because of all
the publicity we are giving it. I would prefer that we were just saying
``frozen fresh,'' ``previously frozen,'' ``thawed.'' But what they
tried to do in this rule, I say to my friend, is accommodate some of
the producers in the Eastern States who did not want the word
``frozen'' placed on it, and so they said, OK, if it is between 26
degrees and zero degrees it is hard chilled, and if is zero degrees or
colder it is frozen.
I think both of my friends who have spoken in opposition this morning
said it is an arbitrary thing. The fact is right now the rules say if
you are freezing below zero, you have to say frozen. No one has ever
complained about that. Nobody ever said if it is minus 2 degrees, we
should say fresh. So there has to be some cutoff point. And the science
says it is 26 or 27 degrees and the rule came down at 26.
I would also say to my friend that Delaware has a law on the books
that is called ``Misbranding of food: For the purpose of this chapter,
food is deemed to be misbranded if is obtained by the dealer in frozen
bulk form and is subsequently thawed and offered for sale in a package
bearing a label `fresh.'''
So I think that the Senator's State, in looking at the overall issue,
not necessarily poultry but the overall issue of fresh versus frozen,
is one of the leading States here because there is only about 10 that
have come forward with these kinds of laws.
Finally, I say to my friend--and we are in a mutual admiration
society and I will not go into that--I do find myself fighting for my
State, for the consumers of my State. The poultry industry in my State
is split. The chicken people like the agriculture rule and the turkey
people oppose it. So I have come down on the side of the consumers,
which I believe is what we should really do.
I say to my friend, Citizen Action, Consumer Union, National
Consumers League, the Public Voice, and many others believe that fresh
is fresh and frozen is frozen, and that is why I feel very strongly we
should strike the committee amendment.
The administration thinks it is wrong to derail this rule. Eight
years ago we tried to resolve this issue. It has been hanging around
for 8 years. We finally had it solved. I am really kind of sad that we
might derail it because no matter what my dear friend says to me--and
he has been around here a lot longer--I do not believe the committee is
going to rush to get a new rule in place. I am putting it in the best
terms. I think this is a way to put this rule into deep freeze for a
long time, never to see the light of day. That is my own view.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. BIDEN. Just for 10 seconds.
Mrs. BOXER. I will yield as long as my friend wants.
Mr. BIDEN. I say to my friend, the poultry industry in my State,
which is divided, by the way--some of the poultry people who are in my
State share the Senator's view--is not looking for there to be no rule.
They are looking for some flexibility in the 26 degree mark--2 or 3
degrees either way. They are not asking there not be a demarcation.
They are not saying that the rule should say zero and below is frozen,
above that is fresh. They are not asking for that.
So I am not standing here making the argument that there is no
rationale related to having a third category here. I am suggesting that
it is not workable as the standard proposed by the Department now
which, to use the term freeze, is being frozen by the committee until
there can be some more rational way to look at this.
So I wish to make it clear, we are not asking and I am not of the
view that there not be a distinction made among the categories of how a
chicken or a piece of poultry is packaged and sold.
Mrs. BOXER. I might say to my friend, I am glad to hear that, but
from the bottom of my heart, if this is killed, we are not going to see
that happen.
Let me say this. This is a very difficult issue because there are
special interests on all sides of it, as my friend knows. What my
friend is trying to do, he has a situation in his State where some of
the businesses are for it, some are against. He took a position he
feels is correct. I took a position I feel is correct.
The Agriculture Department in writing this rule really went to the
scientists to set the standard. They did not ask just the industry
because each industry has a special interest. So they asked the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning
Engineers. Clearly, this is a group that is not a household name, and
they do not have a particular interest. They examined the problem, and
they came

[[Page S13770]]
out and said at 27 degrees ice crystals begin to form on the poultry
flesh. They believed that 27 degrees was appropriate. Another group
said it is 26 degrees. That group that said 26 degrees is--let me find
it. I had it in the Record before. It is a technology group that said
it is 26 degrees. So they went with the more, if you will, liberal
number of 26 degrees.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a brief comment?
Mrs. BOXER. I believe, if you leave it up to the businesses to come
up with what they think is right, we are not going to have a fair rule.
With all due respect to my friend, if we kill this today, I believe we
are killing this for a very long time.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for another brief question?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
Mr. BIDEN. The experts in the refrigeration industry also point out
that there is no way you can get that ideal number within less than 2
degrees. The science of refrigeration is not precise enough that you
can get it within 2 degrees. So although they give you an ideal number
of 26, they say that is when crystal began to form, they also say, if I
am not mistaken, there are not refrigeration units made that can
guarantee you can keep it at exactly 27 as opposed to 26 or 25 or 25 as
opposed to 23.
So I would ask my friend the following question. Assume the issue
here were to say 26 degrees plus or minus 3 degrees. Would she be
willing to go along with that? Or is she stuck on precisely 27 degrees?
Because the Senator from Delaware would be willing to go along with 26
degrees plus or minus 3 degrees, mainly because there is not the
science in refrigeration that you can put a product in the back of a
truck, send it off to be sold in California or anywhere else and be
assured that for the duration of that trip it will not fluctuate
several degrees above or below.
I might add, the reason why the producers are split in my State, the
producers who sell only on the east coast think this is a good idea.
The producers that sell in California say: I cannot get my product
across guaranteeing it is exactly a certain temperature--I cannot
assert, and the technology cannot guarantee me when I put it in the
truck, that I can keep it within the rule no matter what I tell you.
Mrs. BOXER. May I say to the Senator I am down to 3 minutes.
Mr. BIDEN. I am sorry.
Mrs. BOXER. I have to say to my friend, this is exactly what I do not
think we should get into: Will the Senator agree to 27 minus-plus. I
believe if we start getting into that on the Senate floor, we are
getting into minutia.
There is a science. Now, my friend may not believe it is accurate,
but the other group that said it is 26 is the National Institute of
Standards and Technology. The Agriculture Department said that flexible
enforcement will be absolutely a defining goal. And today we enforce
the law when it gets down to zero degrees. So at some point you have to
have a cutoff with flexible enforcement, because clearly my friend
makes a good point. But I never supported 26 degrees or 25 or 27. What
I supported was science dictating when a product ought to be marked
``frozen.''
I think if we do not act today, I say to my friend--and I think he
means it that he wants to work on something--it will be a long, cold
month, 2 months and years before we get back to this issue.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 10 seconds,
the Senator from California has 113 seconds. Who yields time?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senator from California has
generously yielded me 30 seconds, which may be kinder than I would be
to her under the circumstances.
Mrs. BOXER. Thanks.
Mr. BUMPERS. I thank her very much. Mr. President, I want to make the
point the Senator from Delaware was making. If the Agriculture Research
Service has to have a plus or minus 3 degrees in highly controlled labs
and highly controlled labs have to have a plus or minus 2 degrees, to
ask for a plus or minus 3 degrees in this situation without devastating
an industry seems to make eminent good sense. It seems to me if we can
transport chickens 2,000 miles and still beat the California Poultry
Federation's price, there may be something wrong with the California
Poultry Federation.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let me say to my friends, it is hard to
know what to say to my friends at this point, because when we started
this debate, we wondered if we could keep it together through the
entire debate. I compliment all of us; we have kept it together.
Again, I am going to finish off where I started, and then you are
going to have to hear it again for 2 more minutes before the vote.
If I told you that this desk is a chair, you would think I was
kidding. And if I told you that winter was summer and summer was
winter, and ice was hot and warm was cold, and freezers were toasters,
you would send me to the nearest psychiatrist.
I have to say, everything stripped aside, because there is money in
industry on one side and money in industry on the other side and we
know that, the bottom line is what is fair and what is right and what
is common sense and what is reality.
We can decide we are the scientists here, and we can decide at what
degree it is frozen and what degree it is fresh. I do not think that is
our job. We have a fine, I believe, Department of Agriculture headed by
a very fine man from Kansas who knows agriculture. He stepped in and
oversaw this rule. We have a good rule. I hope we support it and defeat
the committee amendment.
I yield the floor and thank my friends.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, USDA's own study, conducted by the
Agricultural Research Service, demonstrated that consumers cannot
detect any quality differences between poultry chilled to 26 degrees
and poultry chilled to lower temperatures.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service based its rule on assertions
generated through a well orchestrated public relations campaign by
those who would benefit from this new rule.
In effect, the agency is saying that although it cannot control
temperatures under ideal conditions in a laboratory, the poultry
industry must not let their products reach a temperature just 1 degree
under 26 or the products will be declared out of compliance and
mislabeled.
I urge Senators to vote against the California Senators' motion to
table.

____________________