[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 135 (Friday, September 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4554, AGRICULTURAL, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 
 AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(H.R. 4554) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report 
is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of 
September 20, 1994, at page H9341.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Skeen] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset the consideration of this 
conference committee report marks the end of era on this important 
subcommittee of the House of Representatives. We are all painfully 
aware of the fact that our cherished colleague, the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Whitten], has announced his retirement.
  The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] is literally a legend in 
the history of the U.S. House of Representatives, and for this 
particular Agriculture Subcommittee, it has been Mr. Whitten's world 
for so many years that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary on 
Capitol Hill. In fact, for 46 years, Jamie Whitten of Mississippi has 
had a steady hand on the rudder for this important agency, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.
  His legacy has been noted in speeches on this floor many times, but I 
will tell you that we can give him credit, a large measure of credit, 
for the fact that America, through this almost half century, has 
remained a country well fed with the most efficient agricultural 
production in the world.
  He has fought long and hard for these programs and for many other 
programs for which he has not received credit. There is an orphan-drug 
program in the Food and Drug Administration which provides drugs for 
families which have a member suffering from rare diseases. These are 
not drugs that are really profitable on a market basis, but we invest 
in these drugs so these families have hope that the family member 
suffering from the disease may find some comfort, relief, or cure. The 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] initiated this program on his 
own and did it with little or no fanfare.
  I can tell you that literally thousands of American families owe a 
great deal of gratitude to him. In fact, all of us across this country 
do. We are going to miss him. He is a great institution.
  For those who give long speeches about term limits, let me tell you, 
if we had lost the service of Jamie Whitten after he had been here for 
6 years, this Nation would have lost a great treasure and a great 
resource. He career and his contribution are unparalleled in the U.S. 
House of Representatives.
  At the staff level, we also have a changing of the guard here which 
is a painful one for many of us. Bob Foster has been one of the very 
best members of the Committee on Appropriations staff over the years. 
He was appointed to the Committee on Appropriations by Chairman George 
Mahon in May 1969. He was assigned to the Defense Subcommittee, but 
came to his senses and moved over to the Agriculture Committee in 1972. 
He became clerk of the subcommittee in 1975.
  Most folks do not understand the huge job which our staff members 
have in dealing with these budgets. This year this total budget is in 
the neighborhood of $68 billion. We literally have the hard work and 
good services of our three direct staff members, Bob Foster, Tim 
Sanders, and Carol Murphy, who are attempting to deal with this budget 
and to make some sense of it, find savings, and make certain that what 
we do is consistent.
  Bob Foster has led this effort now since 1975. He has been my strong 
right hand for the last 2 years. He has announced his retirement. We 
are certainly going to miss his service. Like the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Whitten], he has made an incredible contribution to 
this country, one which most people will never know.
  Those of us who have the responsibility of standing before the 
microphones and cameras realize how critically important their 
contribution has been. I want to personally thank Bob and, of course, 
thank all of the staff for the work that they have done.

  I am blessed on the subcommittee to have the very best minority 
spokesman in the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen]. They just do 
not get any better. Joe and I have worked closely over the years. We 
have worked closely on this conference committee report.
  There were some delicate moments, some tough moments, but we worked 
through them together on a bipartisan basis.
  I could read the names of all the members of the subcommittee, and I 
could say that without exception these men and women have worked hard, 
have earned their pay, and have done a good job for the American 
people.
  But let me speak to this bill, because I know it is a Friday, and 
people are anxious to go home and get back to their districts. This is 
known as the agriculture bill, and many people dismiss it as just an 
agriculture bill. If it were only that, it would be a very, very 
important bill.
  In fact, it does provide for agricultural production programs to 
guarantee a reliable food supply for our country, and that is no mean 
feat. We have done that consistently throughout our Nation's history 
because of the foresight of planners in Washington and also because of 
the initiative and hard work of farmers and producers across America.
  But this bill does so much more. It provides school lunches for 25 
million American kids. It provides prenatal care nutrition for 40 
percent of America's infants; some 6.5 million American mothers and 
infants and children work through the WIC Program to make sure they get 
adequate nutrition. This bill provides commodities to food banks, and 
food stamps for low-income and unemployed Americans; it provides for 
safe and nutritious food inspection so the families know they can be 
confident the food products reaching our tables are safe for their 
families; it protects our Nation's water resources; it preserves our 
soil; it builds homes, waterworks, and sewage treatment plants in 
small-town America; it provides disaster funds when floods, droughts, 
hurricanes, and other natural calamities occur. It also funds the Food 
and Drug Administration, which is the little giant of the Federal 
Government.
  With less than $1 billion to approve our new drugs and medical 
devices, inspect our foods, monitor our Nation's blood banks, 
mammography clinics, and medical laboratories, this critically 
important agency is funded by this bill, and it serves each and every 
American family.
  This bill passed the House on June 17, the Senate on July 20, it 
returned to the Senate August 12, and our conferees met September 19 
and 20 and filed this report on September 20 after many hours of hard 
work by our staff people.
  The conference agreement totals $68 billion. It is $2.8 billion less 
than last year. It is below the President's request by some $461 
million. It is $1.2 billion below last year's spending in discretionary 
areas.
  There is a lot of talk on this floor about cutting spending on 
Capitol Hill. We have just heard a long series of speeches on both 
sides of the aisle about the wisdom of a balanced budget. I will tell 
my colleagues that this is the first step, if you want to know what the 
balanced-budget process is all about. We literally had to sit down and 
take good and valuable programs, in some cases eliminate them, in many 
other cases reduce spending. I wish that we did not have to do that. 
Some of these programs really are necessary.
  But in order to bring our deficit under control and keep our economy 
moving, it must be done.
  Now, when we left the House, we had hoped the House Committee on 
Agriculture would establish a user fee for meat and poultry inspection 
in the United States. We assumed that they would and that we would 
derive some $100 million plus from that user fee that the industry 
would pay for overtime inspection, and that these funds could be used 
for other purposes. No legislation has been enacted, so we had to 
reduce the bill in conference in order to fund it, and with that 
suffering a shortfall of over $100 million. As a result, several 
programs were reduced below the mark which left the House.
  We have funded the Food Safety Inspection Service of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture at last year's level. We have given the Food 
and Drug Administration only $6 million more than last year, and with 
this level of funding they will be forced, I am afraid, to reduce the 
number of employees doing this important work.
  In the major items of this bill, we have increased WIC by $260 
million, which moves us toward full funding, a goal which I believe 
Democrats and Republicans share.

  We have funded the TEFAP Program at $25 million for commodities. That 
is above the President's budget request.
  We have provided funds for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program at 
$84 million, and we have also addressed a very contentious issue on the 
cashout of the Food Stamp Program. At this moment, 18 cashout projects 
have been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and are in 
operation.
  In this bill we provide that a total of 25 projects, including the 18 
presently operating, can be approved by the Secretary, so long as the 
total of such projects does not exceed 3 percent of the total number of 
caseloads in the program.
  I think this is an important step forward toward welfare reform. It 
gives the local units of government some flexibility in trying ideas to 
break the welfare cycle. I do not know of a single Member of Congress, 
Democrat or Republican, who endorses today's welfare system. We know it 
needs to be changed. We want to make sure the important mission of food 
stamps, to make certain America's people are well fed, is not 
compromised in the process. I think what we propose in this conference 
report meets that goal.
  For the Soil Conservation Service, conservation operations account, 
we provide funding of $556 million, but allow unobligated, unneeded 
1994 CRP and WRP balances to be transferred to the account.
  We also provide watershed and flood-prevention operations at $70 
million to continue the program.
  We have our export programs funded, EEP at $800 million, MPP at $84.5 
million, SOAP and COAP at $25.6 million.

                              {time}  1110

  There is money, $905 million, for water and sewer loans, and $500 
million for water and sewer grants in the Farmers Home Administration. 
One item we debated long and hard was section 515 rural rental housing. 
We maintained the same level as it left the House at $220 million. This 
is a dramatic cut from last year's spending.
  I hope everyone involved takes very seriously the debate that took 
place in the committee and on the floor about the future of this 
program. We need Federal help to continue to build housing in rural 
areas for the elderly and low-income families. But we certainly need a 
better and more cost-efficient program. I hope this appropriation bill 
is a signal to the industry and to everyone involved to take this very 
seriously. If this program does not change when we come back next year, 
this Member, if he is reelected, will make certain that the message is 
delivered in even more forceful terms.
  This conference committee report also includes disaster funding, 
funding necessary for 1994 crop losses, particularly in areas like 
Georgia and Florida, which have been hard hit, to provide this disaster 
assistance.
  At this point I reserve the balance of my time.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico, my friend and colleague, 
Joe Skeen, and again I want to thank Joe for the fine work he has put 
into this bill and that of his staff, as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SKEEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying to my chairman, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Dick Durbin], that it has been to me one of 
the most pleasant associations and fruitful associations that I have 
ever experienced because, when you talk about respect and dignity, that 
is the way in which this chairman has led this group from the very 
beginning. I think it is in the best traditions of the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] whom we honor today.
  I also want to speak about the staff. Bob Foster, Tim Sanders, Carol 
Murphy, all those folks who work so hard.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know why Bob Foster wants to retire. He 
has been only giving us about 95 percent of his time for a long time, 
and I do not know why he wants to expand the 5 percent so as to have 
some enjoyable time on the golf course. But I am sure he is going to 
find some other pursuits. I have never seen a group so dedicated in my 
entire life to the furtherance of the work of this subcommittee to make 
sure that it is right, that it is accurate, that we are well informed.
  Thank God nobody brought up the idea of term limitations for 
professional staff in the Congress of the United States because 
otherwise this place would never function as well as it does because 
there is an institutional memory and these folks should be given the 
kind of credit they deserve because day in and day out around the clock 
every season they are here, and we appreciate it very, very much.
  It is also, I think, to the credit of our chairman that he is wise 
enough to keep that counsel going and to extend that tradition.
  Now let me talk about the bill. I think the chairman has done a good 
job of covering it. This bill provides about $68 billion in new budget 
authority, approximately, for mandatory and discretionary USDA, FDA, 
and other related agency programs for fiscal year 1995.
  This represents a reduction, a reduction of $2.8 billion, less than 
the amount enacted in 1994 and $461 million dollars below the 
President's 1995 budget request. Only $13.4 billion of the total is 
allocated for discretionary spending. That is a cut of almost $1.2 
billion below 1994 and $457 million dollars under the budget request.
  The discretionary spending makes up less than 20 percent of the total 
spending, meaning that mandated programs represent 80 percent of our 
spending, meaning that these, year in and year out, the mandatory 
spending programs require 80 percent of our funding there by law, and 
you must obey the law.

  The mandatory entitlement programs continue to increase at an out-of-
control rate. This bill's mandatory spending continues to gobble up 
more of the discretionary programs, including WIC, Agricultural 
Research, export and conservation programs, which is why Congress and 
the Administration need to fight for expeditious consideration of 
entitlement reform.
  The major differences: This conference report deleted the 
controversial user fees totaling more than $250 million from the Food 
and Safety Inspection Service and the Food and Drug Administration. 
This conference deleted this controversial user fee section. While 
deleting these user fees was a popular decision, we had to make a 
number of difficult choices about which program would be cut in order 
to make up the shortfall. The committee made sure that the Food and 
Safety Inspection Service, Agriculture Research Service, Food and 
Nutrition Service, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
were among the agencies that were virtually fully funded. These are for 
the protection of the consumers of this country and for the entire 
world, for that matter, because we are a provider of foodstuffs to 
almost the entire world.
  WIC, Agriculture Research, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, and 
disaster assistance payments were also given high priority. On the 
other hand we were forced to cut some very popular programs. Farmers 
Home Administration section 502 and 515 loan programs on housing were 
necessary for us to cut. The Food and Drug Administration, temporary 
emergency food assistance program, [TEFAP] is a very popular program 
among the some 26 nutritional programs that we deal in year in and year 
out, and the export programs, including the market promotion program, 
were cut in order to get below our budgetary caps. While the spending 
for those programs is lean, it is also responsible under these tough 
budget times and the parameters under which we have to work on the 
money situation.
  This conference report makes sure that Federal spending will continue 
to insure that our food is the safest, healthiest, and cheapest food in 
the world. Spending for research helps our farmers compete and remain 
the most productive anywhere in the world. We are going to continue to 
feed the hungry here at home and abroad as we have done consistently 
throughout our history. This is what this conference report is all 
about. This is responsible Federal spending, but it is getting tougher 
and tougher as the discretionary money continues to decline. I urge you 
to vote for this conference report. It is a product worthy of final 
passage.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, if I may, I would like to engage the 
chairman in a colloquy.
  There has been considerable interest in the disposition of amendment 
No. 81. This was a provision that has been in the appropriation bill 
annually since fiscal year 1986. Would the chairman please explain the 
impact of dropping this provision?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, yes. I would be glad to discuss it. Since the early 
1980's different administrations have continually proposed user fees 
for the Food and Drug Administration. At one point several years ago, 
the FDA claimed it had authority to collect generic user fees. It cited 
``31 U.S.C. 9701'' as its authority to establish and collect such user 
fees. This particular law is very general in nature and provides that 
as one of the criteria of consideration is public policy. Congress has 
steadfastly explained to the FDA that due to the significant change in 
public policy for FDA to charge user fees it must come to the Congress, 
testify to any specifics, and have Congress address the issues. While 
the Appropriations Committee has not taken a position on the 
appropriateness of user fees, it firmly believes that such a 
significant change in FDA policy for user fees must be explicitly 
approved by the authorizing committees and the Congress. The FDA 
currently charges user fees for many activities but I know of no case 
where they charge without specific statutory authority. The conference 
decision to delete the language contained in amendment No. 81 in no way 
gives authority to FDA to charge generic user fees. Interested parties 
should know that if the FDA were to try to use 31 U.S.C. 9701 as user 
fee, authority that Congress would step in and take action.
  Mr. SKEEN. I thank the chairman for the explanation and assurances. 
I, too, want to voice my support for what the chairman has said. I want 
to reiterate that the conference position did not in anyway give the 
FDA any generic user fee authority.

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Pastor], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering an important piece 
of legislation. It is one which will impact many American households by 
providing some of the most valuable and basic assistance contained in 
the U.S. budget. Funds provided here will help supplement the 
inadequate diets of too many of our children and senior citizens and 
help expand housing choices for many low-income citizens. I am pleased 
to be associated with the efforts that have produced this legislative 
proposal. It was a difficult process but one in which fairness and 
genuine interest in balancing competing interests prevailed.
  Still, I would be remiss if I did not emphasize that some truly 
painful choices had to be made in the fashioning of this appropriations 
bill. Funds have fallen far short of the levels needed to adequately 
fund not only nutrition and housing programs, but also many important 
conservation initiatives.
  I feel it is most appropriate to stress at this point that the budget 
cuts implemented in last year's budget agreement are real and will be 
felt through the country; the 1995 Agriculture budget clearly reflects 
a genuine effort to reduce the budget deficit. While I agree many cuts 
to the Federal budget are necessary in this context, I think some 
valuable programs have been reduced to the point where important 
initiatives will be virtually canceled. To illustrate, funding for The 
Emergency Food Assistance Program, or TEFAP, will not come close to 
filling the gaps many families face as they work to put food on their 
tables.
  I worry about the choices which lie ahead for us, and hope that we 
will continue to work assidiously to preserve any progress we have made 
toward the goal of helping the neediest and most disadvantaged in our 
society.
  Mr. Speaker, I also would like to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the ranking minority member, and the staff for the fine 
work they have done.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
matter.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4554, the Agriculture 
Appropriations Conference Report, and I would like to thank and praise 
our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], and the staff for all their 
leadership and hard work in crafting this bill. I would also like to 
thank my colleagues on the subcommittee for the courtesies they have 
extended me. I have enjoyed working with them very much through this 
bill.
  I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been very proud to 
serve with Chairman Whitten over the past 2 years on this committee, 
and when I grow old, I can tell my grandchildren that I served with 
Chairman Whitten, as did my father, William Walsh, who has asked me to 
extend his regards also to Chairman Whitten.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report makes the best of a bad 
situation, as budget pressures caused us to cut many important 
programs, including Soil Conservation. We had tough decisions to make. 
But we were able to maintain $25 million in the Commodity Purchase 
Program for TEFAP and $40 million for administrative costs. This 
program has more volunteer activists involved than any other program I 
can think of within our jurisdiction. It does a good job. It helps 
people who do not receive public assistance, are too proud to receive 
public assistance, but are willing to go into a food pantry for some 
assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, we were able to pass a bill that did not impose FSAS 
user fees for meat and poultry producers and did not impose user fees 
for the FDA.
  I would like to thank the ranking member and the subcommittee 
chairman for their clarification of amendment No. 81 regarding user 
fees and state that I remain strongly opposed to additional user fees. 
We do not want to send a signal to the FDA, the OMB, or the Clinton 
administration that in any way could be seen as an encouragement for 
them to establish user fees. In fact, we need to be sending the 
opposite message to the administration, that is, that they need to stop 
submitting to Congress budget requests that contain unauthorized user 
fees.
  I support the increase in the WIC program. It has broad, strong 
bipartisan support.
  I would also like to praise Chairman Durbin's compromise on the food 
stamps cash-out demonstration projects, limiting the total number of 
the projects to 25. While I question the good sense of this program, 
others do not. Others have faith in it. My feeling is that we should 
strongly support the EBT, the Electronic Benefit Transfer Program, the 
use of debit cards for food stamps. I think we should be getting away 
from anything that is negotiable, as are food stamps and certainly 
cash. But there is some support for these demonstration projects. I 
think we should run the course with them and then eliminate them and 
get straight to the Electronic Benefit Transfer Program.
  The conference agreement is $68 billion. It is almost $3 billion less 
than last year, and only 20 percent of this is for discretionary. It 
shows clearly that we on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee 
are doing our fair share to meet deficit needs.
  Last, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that the Members support the 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, under permission to include extraneous matter, I submit 
into the Record clarifying language concerning an Agricultural Research 
Service project related to alternatives to chemicals on apples, as 
follows:

                      Agriculture Research Service

       The conference agreement contains $300,000 for research on 
     identifying practical alternatives to pesticides on apples. 
     Apple growers are anxious to lessen their use of pesticides 
     in the growing, handling, storing, and processing of apples 
     to reduce production costs and environmental exposure. 
     Alternative control approaches are important to identify as 
     35 or more diseases, insects, and other pests attack apples. 
     It is expected that these funds will be allocated to ARS 
     research projects and facilities in New York State (Geneva, 
     Cornell) and California and that research and funding 
     priorities should be done in consultation with the apple 
     industry through the International Apple Institute.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another member of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, before the gentleman is recognized, 
that Mr. Smith makes an extraordinary contribution to this 
subcommittee. His practical knowledge and firsthand experience in 
agricultural issues has been invaluable to us as we have debated this 
matter. He makes a positive contribution to this subcommittee and to 
the Committee on Appropriations, and I am just glad that we have him 
here.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to thank the 
gentleman from Illinois for those remarks, and I want to say that this 
subcommittee has done a very good job this year with a very tight 
budget. I want to give my accolades to the chairman of the subcommittee 
and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee and all the members 
and the staff.
  As was indicated a while ago, we have a professional staff. I hear 
this talk on the floor all the time about congressional reform. They 
talk about what percentage should go to the majority and what 
percentage to the minority. We should not even be talking about that. 
We have a professional staff, and that is the way it ought to operate, 
and it operates well in this case.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement.
  I wish to commend Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Skeen, the members 
of the subcommittee and the staff for the hard work needed to bring 
this bill within the tight budget limits.
  The conference report provides $68 billion in budget authority for 
fiscal year 1995, $1.2 billion less than what was available in fiscal 
year 1994 for discretionary programs, but all that is available under 
the allocations to the various subcommittees within which we stay to 
meet deficit reduction goals.
  I believe that nearly all of the members of the subcommittee agree 
that we did the best we could with the allocated funds available. We 
could have fully justified additional funds for export programs, 
conservation, nutrition, food safety, rural development and several 
other programs in this bill.
  We could not do all we wanted to do, but we accomplished as much as 
possible through a judicious use of the funds that were available.
  One thing that we accomplished which did not cost any money was to 
impose some limits on food stamp cashouts. There has been a recent rash 
of proposals by States wanting to pay for what they call welfare reform 
by securing cash from the Department instead of food stamps for low-
income families. It is sure to result in many children's food allowance 
being used for other purposes. I vigorously oppose these cash-outs and 
believe they must be stopped.
  Under the conference agreement, the Department may not approve more 
than 25 cash-out projects at any one time. The limit is on the number 
of projects, not States. Some States have more than one project. At 
present, the Department has approved 18 projects. Some of these 
projects focus on AFDC recipients, others have the elderly and others 
cash-out food stamps for the first month or two to certain new 
applicants.
  The conference agreement would also limit cash-out projects to a 
total of not more than 3 percent of the national household 
participation level for the Food Stamp Program.
  I do not favor any cash-out programs that would take food out of the 
mouths of needy children and families. The conference agreement allows 
the current cash-out projects to continue until I believe they will be 
proven a bad experiment and provides an adequate opportunity to approve 
some spending applications for additional projects.
  I urge your support of the conference agreement.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Myers], another fine member of the subcommittee, a 
longtime member, one of the longest in tenure.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I rise first to say this committee is going to be quite different 
next year. We knew that the gentleman from Mississippi, Chairman 
Whitten, was going to leave our committee, and it is going to be a 
tremendous loss to this committee, because I do not think there is 
anyone in this Congress that knows more about agriculture, knows more 
about the experience of the various programs, how they came about, how 
they have been funded, than our colleague Jamie Whitten. So we are 
going to miss the gentleman from Mississippi very much.
  I was surprised this morning to learn one of our staff members now is 
also joining those ranks. Is there a message coming across here we do 
not know about? Bob Foster, who has helped both Democrat and 
Republican, ignoring politics, as has already been mentioned by Mr. 
Smith of Iowa. This committee has always been nonpartisan, not 
bipartisan. In the interests of helping agriculture and helping 
farmers, we cannot afford to be partisan. We have to put our best foot 
forward at all times.
  Yes, I guess next to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith], I will be 
the longest serving member then of the Committee on Agriculture next 
year.
  Certainly the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith], being a practicing 
farmer like myself, knows something about the problems of a producer 
today.
  This is where I have concern today with this agriculture 
appropriation bill. Realizing that it is not the fault of any member of 
this committee, and I commend every Member of this committee, and the 
staff, for the hard work. The 602(b) allocations that were given to us 
earlier in the year dealt us a severe blow. And I certainly support 
reducing spending. But we reduced it here on the backs of the wrong 
people, the people that can least afford to be cut.
  I believe in a balanced budget, but we cut agriculture research in 
this bill. If there is any place where a farmer can be helped today, it 
is finding better production methods, more use for agricultural 
products, so we can get a better price for the product we produce. And 
this is being cut in this bill. This is not the fault of the committee, 
but the fault of the allocation system.
  In the committee, the mandates are 80 percent of the bill today, and 
the discretionary, where we have an opportunity to play with some 
money, to put it where it best can be served, down to 20 percent, and 
both of those figures are moving in opposite directions. Next session 
we must do something about this. We simply have to cut down the 
mandated section, so we will have more opportunity to help the farm 
producer out there who is suffering today. When those figures are 80-
20, it is way out of proportion. When we look at the allocations in 
title I, the farm programs, the programs that go directly to a farmer 
to help him, where the research money is, we find a reduction of 11 
percent this year from last year. A reduction of 11 percent in research 
and farm programs that help the farmer produce.
  Using one comparison of where we also had to meet cuts to meet the 
budget that our chairman spoke about, the National Endowment for the 
Arts. I do not think many people here find a whole lot of favor, and 
our constituents certainly do not, we cut the national Endowment for 
the Arts only 2 percent, leaving all that money in for pornography and 
all of these social programs that most taxpayers could care less about. 
We cut that only 2 percent, while we cut farm production, helping 
farmers to be competitive, in not only our own market but the world 
market, we cut it 11 percent. So again, it is not the criticism about 
this committee, but the procedure we are using today. The only thing we 
can do about it is next year start to do something about these mandates 
versus discretionary funding. I hope the next session of Congress, we 
all get our heads together and start doing something about this.
  So again, it is the best bill I think that could be produced, but it 
comes far short of what we should be doing to help farm producers, 
meeting agribusiness, meeting world competition, where most of the 
export surplus can be exported. I hope next year we can do better.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I lend full support to the conference 
committee report on H.R. 4554, and I commend the chairman, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], and the ranking minority member, 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], and members of the 
conference for the outstanding job they have done in this important 
legislation now under consideration in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a 
statement on this very important bill. I stand in strong support of 
H.R. 4554, Agriculture appropriations for fiscal year 1995. With my 
colleagues I would like to express my appreciation for all the hard 
work and time that members and their staff, of both House and Senate 
subcommittees, have put in to crafting a comprehensive and well thought 
out bill.
  As the bill progressed through both the House and Senate my attention 
lay with the treatment of funding for the American Samoa Food Stamp 
Program--slightly modified to provide nutritional assistance only to 
the elderly, blind, and disabled persons. I was pleased to see that 
this program gathered a lot of support especially when there was the 
possibility of underfunding.
  I support the conference report in that future appropriations for 
this program should be funded under the proper food stamp account and 
not the discretionary account of food donations. Because of the unique 
nature of this program we can not afford to play with nutritional 
assistance appropriations, especially to the needy.
  I ask my colleagues to work with me on this and ensure that American 
Samoa's Food Stamp Program is properly authorized in the 1995 farm 
bill. Let us apply equal treatment to this program as we have done to 
other nutrition assistance programs.
  Once again the combined efforts of key members and staffers ensured 
that American Samoa's program would not be left in the cold. I 
especially would like to thank the following people for their 
assistance in this matter: Representatives Richard Durbin, Joe Skeen, 
and staffer Carol Murphy; Senators J. Bennett Johnston, Daniel Inouye, 
Patrick Leahy, and their staffers, Laura Hudson, Margaret Cummisky, 
Mark Fox, and Edward Barron; from American Samoa, Governor Lutali and 
director of ASNAP John Suisala, and last but not least USDA Secretary 
Mike Espy and his staff at Food Nutrition Services. Thank you so much 
for your help.

                                    Department of Agriculture,

                                Washington, DC, September 1, 1994.
     Hon. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Eni: This is in response to your letter of July 27, 
     1994, requesting support for the future funding of the 
     American Samoa Nutrition Assistance Program (ASNAP) for the 
     low-income elderly, blind, and disabled in American Samoa. I 
     want to assure you of the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 
     support for this program.
       USDA has requested $5.3 million in funding for ASNAP for 
     fiscal year (FY) 1995 which should be more than adequate 
     considering the initial participation. I assure you that USDA 
     is committed to securing appropriate funding for the program. 
     As you know, the House of Representatives deleted funding for 
     ASNAP in H.R. 4554, the FY 1995 USDA Appropriations Bill, but 
     the Senate included ASNAP funding as the Administration had 
     requested. We will urge the House and Senate conferees to 
     provide appropriate funding for ASNAP so that future 
     operation of ASNAP is not in jeopardy. We also support your 
     efforts to help resolve this problem.
       I was pleased to be able to support ASNAP by sending Food 
     and Nutrition Service (FNS) staff from the national office, 
     the Western Regional Office, and the Honolulu field office to 
     American Samoa in June and July to provide technical 
     assistance for the opening of the program on July 1, 1994. I 
     also plan to send FNS staff to American Samoa in September to 
     provide further assistance.
       Once again, I assure you of USDA's commitment for securing 
     funding for ASNAP and we will work with you toward that goal.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Mike Espy,
                                                        Secretary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], a very valuable member of the subcommittee, one of 
my colleagues who came to Congress with me.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of this 
agriculture appropriations conference report, and want to especially 
compliment our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for 
his stellar leadership, along with our ranking member, the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen]. I also want to thank Bob Foster for his 
dedicated years of service, not just to this committee, but to the 
American farmer and American agriculture. It is that type of 
professionalism which has kept America the most productive nation in 
the world.
  I could not stand here today and not acknowledge the presence of our 
chairman, the gentleman from Mississippi, Jamie Whitten, for his years 
of service and lessons to all of us, especially teaching us that there 
is a difference between money and wealth. Our job on the Committee on 
Agriculture is to help create the wealth of America through the 
investments that we make through this department.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill appropriates $68 billion in fiscal year 1995 
spending. This is $2.8 billion less than the fiscal year 1994 bill, 
$461 million less than the President's request, and $1.2 billion less 
than fiscal year 1994 discretionary spending.
  To call this an agriculture bill is a bit misleading. Nearly 60 
percent of the programs funded by our subcommittee are nutrition 
programs, primarily food stamps. The bill also funds rural development, 
food assistance, and export programs as well as the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  Mandatory spending not under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee 
accounts for a majority of the appropriations in this bill. 
Discretionary spending in this bill amounts to $13.4 billion in budget 
authority.
  I would like to commend the chairman and the members of the 
subcommittee for putting together a fiscally responsible bill. We were 
faced with tight budget constraints that forced us to cut over 70 
programs including: rural rental housing, emergency food assistance, 
agricultural research and conservation programs.
  Tough choices had to be made. Yet while faced with tight budget 
constraints we were still able to shift resources to priority programs. 
I am especially pleased we were able to extend $1 billion in emergency 
disaster assistance to those communities who suffered through the 
severe weather conditions of this past year. In my own district, the 
nursery industry suffered losses as a result of ice storms and the 
extreme cold this past winter. This bill will assist these vital small 
businesses in their recovery.
  Our subcommittee worked hard to see that TEFAP, the Emergency Food 
Assistance Program, receives funding for commodity purchases in spite 
of the administration's recommendation to zero out this program. This 
program will receive $65 million for fiscal year 1995; $25 million for 
commodity purchases and $40 million for administrative expenses.
  The Women Infants and Children Feeding Program receives an 8 percent 
increase over last year's funding and is intended to move the program 
to the administration's goal of full funding for WIC by the end of 
1996. WIC decreases infant mortality rates and investments in WIC are 
offset by decreases in long term Federal Medicaid expenditures.
  Traditional farm programs however continue to receive a decreasing 
portion of our spending. With the upcoming debate on the 1995 farm 
bill, it is my hope that we can reverse this trend.
  In the decade of the 1980's we have slowly eroded the basis of 
American agriculture--the family farmer--and are moving in the 
direction of large corporate farms. I will be looking to next year's 
farm bill to ensure that prices are maintained at a level high enough 
to compensate for costs of production and to maintain standards of 
living in order to attract and retain individuals in farm production. 
We must also negotiate trade agreements which encourage and enhance the 
ability of family farmers to compete in world markets.
  In agriculture trade, we must also work to recapture lost markets and 
increase exports. As American agricultural exports grow, foreign 
agriculture exports are being shipped to the United States in greater 
magnitude. Since 1981, our agricultural exports have declined from 
$43.8 billion to a low of $26.2 billion in 1986 and back to $37.6 
billion for 1991. Under the USDA programs, the profit has gone to the 
exporter but the cost is charged to the farmer. Since 1981 agricultural 
imports have increased from $10.8 billion to $22.6 billion in 1991, a 
100 percent increase, in many cases these are products our own farmers 
could be selling.
  In closing, I want to again commend the chairman and the ranking 
member for putting together a good bill. I urge the Members to support 
this fiscally responsible measure.

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Peterson], a member of the subcommittee and hard-working 
contributor to this important conference report.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
this bill, a very tough bill. I think we did the best job we could with 
the constraints that we had. I also want to commend the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Whitten], for all of his service to this committee.
  It has been absolutely magnificent. He will be sorely missed.
  I, too, was surprised to hear that Bob was going to move out on us 
next year. I just wanted him to know that he taught me a lot in the 
last 2 years. His process that he gave to me will be used in ongoing 
years as we go ahead.
  This is a very austere bill. I am very concerned with the fact that 
we did not do what I felt we should do, be able to do in conservation 
programs, emergency feeding programs, and certainly in the rural 
housing programs. Those are issues that are very dear to America and 
certainly to rural America.
  We have got to look at this as we get into the next year. I strongly 
support, in closing, the electronic transfer card as we get into the 
food stamp program. We have got to expand this process. We have to look 
at this as America demands greater accountability as we look at the 
expenditures as food stamps grow in ensuing years.
  I appreciate the good works of the gentleman and the ranking member 
as we worked on this very difficult bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
conference report and urge my colleagues to support its passage. I 
commend the gentleman from Illinois for his dedication, leadership, and 
diligent work in drafting this legislation. I applaud the conference 
committee's efforts in supporting American agriculture and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's food and nutrition programs which are so 
important to millions of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not overlook the difficulty which the 
Appropriations Committee faced in putting together this crucial 
legislation. Despite this difficulty, this bill manages to put a 
premium on the needs of families and children while maintaining the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture's commitment to our Nation's farmers and 
rural communities.
  I applaud the conference committee's resolve in maintaining the 
funding level which the House passed originally increasing the Women, 
Infants, and Children [WIC] Program by $260 million for fiscal year 
1995. This increase guarantees that the administration's goal of full 
funding for WIC by the end of 1996 is right on schedule. Thousands of 
families with young children across this Nation will benefit from this 
effective program.
  Furthermore, I applaud the chairman for his continued support for the 
section 515 Rural Housing Program. The funding level in this 
legislation will enable scores of poor rural families in this Nation to 
have decent and affordable housing.
  This conference report is both fiscally responsible and good for 
rural America. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this 
conference report.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Thornton], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to express my deep 
appreciation to the gentleman for his leadership in this subcommittee 
and to express my appreciation and that of the entire State of 
Arkansas, and, indeed, our Nation for the leadership of the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten].
  In 1972, when I was elected to my first term in Congress, the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] was already a legend. He has 
conducted himself in a manner that is exemplary of what all of us 
should aspire to be.
  Additionally, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has shown the 
kind of bipartisan support that has made this difficult bill possible.
  Mr. Speaker, in Arkansas we have a saying that when the going gets 
tough, the tough get going. This was a year in agriculture where the 
going got tough. Thanks to the leadership of the chairman, the tough 
got going.
  We worked on programs to continue the support for education. As a 
former president of a land grant institution, I know the importance of 
that program in support of rural housing in section 515.
  I just want to congratulate the gentleman for his leadership and rise 
in strong support of this conference report.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas. If the 
going gets any tougher, I am going to give this back.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota 
[Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman 
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies in a colloquy about 
a matter of great importance to the State of North Dakota that I 
represent.
  As the chairman and I have discussed, North Dakota has been excluded 
from participation in the Wetlands Reserve Program because our State 
law limits Federal wetlands easements to 30 years. The Department of 
Agriculture issued regulations for the Wetlands Reserve Program so that 
only States with permanent easements could participate. As a result, 
North Dakota, a State comprised of a major portion of the Prairie 
Pothole Region with highly valuable wetlands has never been permitted 
to participate in this valuable program.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have worked together to include 
report language in this year's agriculture appropriations bill to 
clarify the intent of the Wetlands Reserve Program. When Congress 
passed the law in 1985, it created a method to prioritize with the 
highest value and the longest term easements being most attractive for 
participation in the program.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, is it the intent of the committee 
to include North Dakota in the Wetlands Reserve Program and to 
compensate producers for the high value wetlands?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, before addressing the question directly, let 
me thank the gentleman for his contribution. Agriculture is so 
critically important to the economy and future of the State of North 
Dakota as well as our Nation. The gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. 
Pomeroy] has made a valuable contribution to this Congress. I have 
enjoyed working with him.
  I am happy to rise to participate in this colloquy to clarify a very 
important point. It is, indeed, the intent of the committee to include 
States covered by the Water Bank Program in the Wetlands Reserve 
Program. North Dakota is one such State. The Wetlands Reserve Program 
is an important program to preserve, protect, and restore wetlands, 
improve wildlife habitat, and protect migratory bird habitat. 
Established criteria for the program ensures that the highest priority 
wetlands are accepted in the program.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, is it further the intent of the committee 
that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in its administration of this 
program, create a fair compensation scheme for high-value wetlands with 
less than permanent easements.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
while the committee believes that permanent easements are the most 
cost-effective and environmentally beneficial, it is the intent of the 
committee that the Department recognize that States such as North 
Dakota have State laws regarding easement limitations and adjust the 
regulations accordingly.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I congratulate the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies for 
their very good work.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say one more time what a distinct honor, 
privilege, and pleasure it is to serve with the people who have served 
on this committee under the leadership of our chairman, who has done an 
outstanding job and very innovative.
  I want to say, also, members of this subcommittee are outstanding men 
and women, each and every one of them. It is a real pleasure and 
privilege. About all we get out of life is the friends that we make and 
the acquaintances that we make. I really treasure those of you who have 
served on this committee with us, because you have made it a real 
pleasure to do it. I think it has been a very effective job.
  A lot of times, Mr. Speaker, we think we have to apologize to the 
public for what we do. In this case, we do not even have to apologize, 
because we have given it our all and done our very best.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased that this 
conference report includes $1 million to fund a 50-project 
demonstration program to provide Federal loan guarantees for the 
development of multifamily rental rural housing. This Member thanks the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], chairman of the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Skeen], the ranking member of the subcommittee, and all of the 
conferees for their cooperation in funding this program.
  Mr. Speaker, this demonstration program is included in H.R. 3838 
which passed the Banking Committee on June 15, 1994. The conference 
report specifies that the $1 million transfer would become available 
only upon the enactment of the authorizing legislation. This would 
leverage up to more than $30 million in loan value, and probably far 
more than that figure.
  The demonstration being funded will finance 25 projects in each of 
fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and will provide a 90 percent guarantee on 
loans made by private lenders to the developers of rental housing for 
five or more families in rural areas.
  Current law provides direct loans for the development of rental 
housing for low to moderate income families. The demonstration program 
will provide for additional housing for low and moderate income 
families at a limited cost to the Federal Government. Unlike direct 
loans, which require appropriations of the whole amount of a loan, loan 
guarantees only cost the Federal Government the amount of defaults on 
private loans. For example, the current FmHA 502 Middle Income Loan 
Guarantee Program for single family housing development in rural areas 
began similarly as a demonstration program, which this Member also 
advocated. It is currently operating with great success, in fact the 
502 Program's default rate is only 2.33 percent.
  Funding this new demonstration program will allow us to move forward 
to provide a cost effective innovative method for financing rural 
rental housing.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased that the committee 
has agreed to provide $423,000 in agricultural research funding for the 
Midwest Food Manufacturing Alliance. The alliance is an association of 
12 leading research universities whose purpose is to develop and 
facilitate the transfer of new food manufacturing and processing 
technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S. 
agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to increasing 
world-wide demands for U.S. exports of intermediate and consumer good 
exports. In order to meet these changing worldwide demands, 
agricultural research must also adapt to provide more emphasis on 
adding value to our basic farm commodities. The Midwest Advanced Food 
Manufacturing Alliance provides the necessary cooperative link between 
universities and industries for the development of competitive food 
manufacturing and processing technologies. This will, in turn, ensure 
that the U.S. agricultural industry remains competitive in a 
increasingly competitive global economy.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member is also pleased that the conference 
committee has agreed to adopt Senate recommended funding levels for all 
but one of the following ongoing Cooperative State Research Service 
[CSRS] and Extension projects at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln:

CSRS:
  Food processing center........................................$42,000
  Nonfood agricultural products..................................93,000
  Sustainable agricultural systems...............................59,000
  Rural housing policy...........................................68,000
  Rural Policy Research Institute (Consortium)..................644,000
  Drought Mitigation............................................200,000
Extension:
  Rural Development.............................................392,000
  Chinch bug, Russian wheat aphid................................67,000
  Agricultural Communications.................................1,221,000

  However, Mr. Speaker, this Member is extremely concerned that the 
huge growth of entitlement spending in the agriculture appropriations 
conference report, which now accounts for more than two-thirds of all 
agricultural spending, is crowding out the normal and necessary 
appropriations for crucial agricultural research, soil and water 
conservation, and agricultural lending and export promotion programs.
  Unfortunately, this entitlement spending does not represent an 
investment in the future of the agricultural industry. Instead, Mr. 
Speaker, cuts in discretionary spending programs like basic 
agricultural research at universities across the country, watershed and 
flood prevention operations, and agricultural export promotion 
represent a serious lack of investment in the future of the 
agricultural industry. For example, this years appropriations bill cuts 
agricultural export programs below levels the United States agreed to 
in the Uruguay round trade agreement negotiations. This unilateral 
reduction in export subsidies is naive and will only enable foreign 
competitors to continue to gobble the United States' rapidly declining 
share of world agricultural trade, while seriously jeopardizing our 
annual $18 billion trade surplus in this important industry.
  Moreover, Mr. speaker, this appropriations bill cuts Farmers Home 
Administration agricultural lending programs at a time when it is 
increasingly difficult for young farmers to get started and when cattle 
and hog prices have reached dangerous lows, and it drastically reduces 
funding for the Soil Conservation Service and many other important soil 
and water conservation programs including: Flood Prevention, cut from 
fiscal year 1994 $221 million to $70 million; Agriculture Conservation 
Program, cut from fiscal year 1994 $195 million to $100 million; and 
Water Quality Incentive Program, cut from fiscal year 1994 $18.5 
million to $15 million.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, despite severe spending cuts in nearly all 
discretionary agricultural spending programs, this Member reluctantly 
supports this legislation because defeat of the bill could, in fact, 
expose the agricultural industry to even greater cuts.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], chairman of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], 
the ranking member of the subcommittee for their work in bringing this 
conference report before the House.
  Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I greatly 
appreciate the work of Chairman Durbin and our colleagues on this bill, 
the last rural development and agriculture appropriations bill I will 
have a chance to vote for.
  I am sorry to hear, also, that the subcommittee is losing the 
services of my friend and colleague, Bob Foster. Bob and I have worked 
closely throughout the years and I have found him to be invaluable. I 
know the subcommittee will greatly miss his expertise and advice. I 
wish he and his wife Jean every success in whatever the future holds 
for them.
  As you know, this marks my final vote for a rural development 
appropriations bill, and I do so with a great sense of pride in what we 
have been able to accomplish over the years for rural communities. 
While this year there were several disappointments about the level of 
cuts we faced under the current deficit reduction program, this year's 
bill does continue to provide for worthwhile Federal programs such as 
rural housing, water and sewer programs, rural electricity and all the 
rest that mean so much to agriculture and rural America.
  Along with the many national programs provided for in this bill, the 
conference committee also provided for many programs of vital interest 
to my State of Mississippi. The bill included funds for the National 
Center for Physical Acoustics and for the School Food Service 
Management Institute at the University of Mississippi. It provided for 
continued research on Kenaf, a new fiber plant being grown in the delta 
and processed in Charleston.
  Funds were also included for the Natural Products Center at Ole Miss, 
for the Polymer Institute at the University of Southern Mississippi, 
for program grants at Mississippi Valley State University, and for 
numerous agriculture research programs at Mississippi State University.
  The conference approved funding over and above the budget request for 
the Soil Conservation Service's watershed and flood prevention 
operations.
  Research funds were also provided to continue aquaculture programs, 
both in the delta and on the gulf coast. Continued funding was included 
for the National Sedimentation Lab at Oxford and the Pesticide Research 
Unit at Stoneville.
  Mr. Speaker, these are all programs that benefit my State, but also 
the Nation as a whole. As I have pointed out many times, agriculture is 
the basis for all the rest of our economy.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4554, 
the conference report on the 1995 Department of Agriculture and related 
agencies appropriations bill.
  I would like to start out by applauding the members of the 
Agriculture Appropriations Committee for their excellent work in 
producing a fine piece of legislation. I commend the chairman, Mr. 
Durbin, and my colleagues for their worthy efforts and cost 
consciousness in keeping the USDA fiscal year 1995 budget down to $68 
million by distributing these limited funds among important projects 
for our Nation's farmers. This funding level is well below budgetary 
limits set by the administration as well as last year's appropriations 
legislation.
  Our country is one of the leading agricultural industries of the 
world. H.R. 4554 provides funding for a wide variety of agricultural 
programs which help us to maintain our renowned status. I am 
particularly encouraged by efforts to fund research and development, 
soil conservation, domestic food assistance, and disaster relief 
programs which benefit the entire country, including the State of New 
Jersey.
  The research and development activities undertaken at the 
Agricultural Experiment Station at Rutgers University are vital to 
agricultural development. These activities include the interregional 
research project No. 4 [IR-4], the Agricultural Biotechnology Center, 
and the ARS Station. H.R. 4554 allocates $5.711 million to continue IR-
4, a national research program to clear pest control agents for use on 
minor crops. IR-4 produces research data on pest control products in 
minor, food crops and ornamental commodities. IR-4 services every State 
and is headquartered at the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station. 
In addition, Rutgers University's Cook/Douglas Campus houses a plant 
bioscience and biotechnology center whose purpose is to propel plant 
sciences and agricultural biotechnology to premier national status. 
This center is earmarked to receive $3.785 million to help complete 
construction of the second phase of this chief test sight.
  Furthermore, a leading agriculture research station, located in 
Chatsworth, NJ, ranks top in blueberry and cranberry production as it 
works to develop technology to reduce pesticide use and its impact on 
the environment. I am pleased by the decision of the conferees to 
allocate $220,000 for additional research at this sight, as well as 
restoring $510,000 in funding for continued operation of the Chatsworth 
ARS Station.
  I am sure that my colleagues agree that we could not maintain strong 
R&D activities and a viable farming industry without the commitment to 
preserving the land. H.R. 4554 seeks to conserve our soil, water, and 
other precious resources through a balanced cooperative program. While 
I am concerned that the $556 million appropriated for soil conservation 
operations conducted through the Agricultural Stabilization and 
Conservation Service and the Soil Conservation Service will not allow 
our farmers to benefit from the technical assistance provided in years 
passed, I do understand that we are experiencing difficult fiscal times 
which include having to make tough decisions about sensitive funding 
issues.
  H.R. 4554 also provides $40.25 billion for domestic food programs. 
Among the many important programs include the Emergency Food Assistance 
Program [TEFAP] and the Women's Infant and Children [WIC], Farmer's 
Market Nutrition Program, which will enable States like New Jersey to 
provide access to a more nutritious diet for persons with low incomes.
  New Jersey's TEFAP Program currently services nearly 523,000 needy 
recipients including families, individuals with disabilities, and 
senior citizens. Currently as many as 15 different foods and 
supplemental commodities, are being distributed through more than 1,100 
local public distribution sites. I applaud my colleagues on the 
conference committee for continuing to provide funds to administer and 
purchase foods for the TEFAP Program. Furthermore, I am delighted to 
report that in fiscal year 1995 New Jersey will be among several States 
participating in the WIC Program. H.R. 4554 allows for New Jersey to 
receive $153,149 in Federal funds to administer WIC for the first time 
since its inception. Approximately 40 percent of the children born this 
year will go through the WIC Program and the committee's decision to 
continue its funding is a worthwhile investment for our future.
  Finally, I realize that the Members of this Chamber are all sensitive 
to the devastating effects that mother nature has inflicted this past 
year. From the winter freeze, to ravaging floods and the engulfing 
flames of wildfires, our Nation's farmers have been faced with the 
ultimate challenge. H.R. 4554 provides much needed funds to qualifying 
growers, such as those in New Jersey who have experience severe weather 
conditions such as icing, heavy snow, frost, hail, high winds, and 
rain, and even a tornado. Farmers in my State and around the country 
will soon be able to apply for disaster payments to help them recover 
and replant lost crops.
  The fiscal year 1995 Agriculture appropriations bill is a promising 
funding measure for the agricultural industry. In these tough economic 
times, it is difficult to establish a funding bill to satisfy all. 
However, I feel that H.R. 4554 provides sufficient means for many 
important programs. Therefore, I strongly encourage my colleagues to 
join with me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. 
The fiscal year 1995 appropriations conference report continues our 
support for the important and diverse agricultural production and food 
assistance programs. Our agriculture sector contributes a major and 
important portion to the vitality of our Nation's economic health. More 
than $40 billion in export trade and millions of jobs depend upon the 
hard work and productivity of our farmers and ranchers. Our core 
Agriculture programs, especially cooperative research, soil 
conservation, export trade assistance, and other price and income 
assistance work in tandem with American agriculture to maintain our 
abundance of wholesome and healthy food. It is easy to forget and often 
take for granted the truisim that America enjoys the very best food, 
and at the most affordable prices in the world.
  For most of our history this appropriation bill has effectively 
maintained a good balance and ratio of Federal support for farm 
production programs and food assistance for the poor. But today, 
unfortunately, due to our budget deficit problems, we find ourselves 
with dwindling and scarce budgetary resources, especially for the 
discretionary agriculture production and support programs.
  This imbalance is evidenced, rather dramatically by this conference 
report. Over 80 percent of the proposed spending, or a little more than 
$54.6 billion is allocated for spending on social welfare and mandatory 
programs, while only about $13.6 billion of the total is available for 
the traditional farm programs. This imbalance was also further 
compounded by the Clinton budget cuts of over $2 billion for this years 
agriculture spending below 1994 levels. And the fact that only the WIC 
Program with an increase of $260 million and Food and Drug 
Administration salaries and expenses are funded at significantly higher 
levels than last year.
  Mandatory spending on food stamps is increased by $600 million for a 
total of $28.9 billion over 1994.
  Despite the bad hand dealt us by the President's budget and our 
lowered 602b allocations, our distinguished and creative subcommittee 
chairman, Dick Durbin and our dedicated ranking republican, Joe Skeen, 
performed true miracles to bring us an improved product. They and all 
of the other good members of this subcommittee were forced to make 
enormously difficult choices, and I have nothing but the greatest 
respect for the work they have performed.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that $1.0 billion in rural housing loan 
guarantees are made available for the section 502 FMHA program, up $250 
million over last year. This cost effective homeownership program will 
assure that more than 25,000 rural families will achieve homeownership. 
I am proud that this program which I introduced in 1987 is achieving 
it's goals. I also commend Chairman Durbin and my good friend from New 
Mexico, Joe Skeen, for their continued fight to preserve vital 
agriculture research funding. Where for such a small dollar investment 
of under a billion dollars in Federal spending the returns for higher 
quality and disease and insect reductions for crops is more than three 
times the pay back benefit.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleagues on their effort and 
I strongly recommend approval of the conference report.
  Ms. LAMBERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4554, the 
fiscal year 1995 Agriculture appropriations bill. Chairman Durbin and 
the members of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, as well as 
Chairman Bumpers and his colleagues in the Senate have done a 
remarkable job with limited resources, and they are to be commended for 
their tireless efforts on behalf of America's farmers.
  This bill comes to us today costing $461 million less than the 
administration's request, and $2.8 billion less than was appropriated 
for fiscal year 1994. Shrinking appropriations bills are a sign of the 
times and a trend that must continue. The Federal Government must spend 
less and deliver better service if the American people are to retain 
faith in our Government. I have been a strong supporter of increased 
fiscal responsibility and tough spending controls. Although I support 
this bill and the important programs that it funds, I come to the floor 
today more than a little frustrated with yet another decrease in 
funding for American agriculture.
  I would like to remind this body of a few facts that I and my 
colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee have been pointing out 
during the entirety of the 103d Congress: agriculture programs account 
for less than 1 percent of the Federal budget and yet agriculture is 
the only sector of our economy that has a trade surplus. With that 
relatively small investment, we not only feed this country, but much of 
the entire world. That statistic alone is remarkable. But consider that 
fact that all of this has been accomplished while agriculture programs 
have been cut over $52 billion during the last 12 years, and the cuts 
keep coming. The Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee had one of the 
smallest 602b allocations of any subcommittee and the administration 
cut USDA's budget more than any other agency. In addition, in the 
spirit of ``Reinventing Government''--of which we have all heard so 
much and seen so little--USDA was the only department to submit a 
reorganization proposal. One would think that American agriculture 
would be held as the model for reform, but instead we are continually 
used as a political target for budget cuts--as if the budget could be 
balanced on less than 1 percent of its entirety.
  I don't attribute these cuts to any malevolent intention but rather 
to a lack of understanding from a country--and a Congress--that has 
grown increasingly urban and disassociated with agriculture. As each 
generation gets further and further from the farm, our farmers have 
been increasingly taken for granted.
  We as Americans have the luxury of the most affordable, safest, and 
most abundant food supply in the world. That fact must not be lost on 
the American public. It seems that people have come to believe that the 
food they enjoy magically produced itself on the shelf of the local 
grocery store, forgetting that it was once part of a crop that was 
nurtured by a farm family who faced incredible adversity from the 
weather, increased cost of production, and burdensome regulations. We 
must reverse this trend of public opinion and hold the American farmer 
as a model of the principles that this country was founded on rather 
than as a scapegoat for budgetary and environmental problems.
  Mr. Speaker, we are about to enter a farm bill year in 1995 and I 
want to take this opportunity to serve notice that I intend to 
vigorously support and defend our farmers from self-appointed 
economists who would cut farm programs while our competitor countries 
subsidize at much higher levels--leaving our farmers at a global 
disadvantage; I intend to defend them from attacks from radical 
environmentalists who seek to place the environmental problems of the 
country on the back of the farmer, and who want to regulate them out of 
existence. I intend to remind them that our farmers are the original 
best stewards of the land and have a direct stake in its health.
  Again I want to commend Chairman Durbin for his hard work and support 
of American agriculture, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, it takes a lot for a farm State 
Representative to rise in opposition to agricultural appropriations 
legislation; however, given the contents of the conference report 
presented to us here today, we simply have no choice.
  For centuries, farmers have had to face great adversaries--climate, 
weather, predators, and pests. Today, those adversaries pale in 
comparison to the unholy duo of the Uruguay round of GATT and unfunded 
mandates. Legislation that we are about to consider in this body will 
forever change the world our agricultural producers will face.
  From the beginning of my congressional career I have said that change 
is inevitable. However, what you do in response to change makes all the 
difference. If you let change happen to you, that is deterioration. If 
you mold change to your advantage, that is progress.
  That's why I have encouraged this body to equip our Nation's farmers 
with the tools they need to face the environmental challenges of the 
future while carving out a permanent place in the world agricultural 
market. Regrettably, the appropriations legislation before us today 
does not do that. In fact, in many respects it cuts our farmers off at 
the knees.
  In the area of environmental funding, financing for the Agricultural 
Conservation Program is cut from $90 to $46 million, conservation 
operations funding is reduced from $544 to $510 million, watershed and 
flood prevention operations--so vital in our recovery from the 
devastating midwestern floods and east coast hurricanes of the past few 
years--is slashed from $128 to $39 million, and funding for our 
resource conservation and development councils is reduced from $20 to 
$16 million. Soon, agricultural conservation will simply become another 
item on the long list of unfunded Federal mandates.
  In response to the Uruguay round, we should be fully funding our 
export enhancement programs like EEP, SOAP, and COAP as well as our so-
called Green Box programs like the Market Promotion Program. Instead, 
this bill makes total cuts in these programs of almost $60 million.
  Further, this legislation does not resolve the problem that the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] and I brought to the floor of the 
House during the debate on crop insurance reform and that is the 
underfunding of the crop insurance program in the upcoming fiscal year. 
Indeed, with the funds provided in this bill, we are still $200 million 
short of the funding we require to have a crop insurance program in 
1995.
  Finally, the issue of meat inspection user fees remains unresolved. 
While there appears to be no user fees outlays assumed in the upcoming 
year, there is a line item for user fees under budget authority. It is 
time to simply remove any reference to user fees in this area.
  I know that the conferees worked hard, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly 
do not impugn their efforts. However, on behalf of the multitude of my 
constituents who rely on the farm economy for their incomes and 
financial livelihoods, I simply say ``we can and must do better.'' I, 
therefore, urge my colleagues in voting no on this bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to comment 
on those sections of the agriculture appropriations conference report 
(H.R. 4554), which deal with our Nation's child nutrition programs. The 
Federal child nutrition programs are authorized by the Education and 
Labor Committee, of which I am the ranking Republican member.
  As a former educator, I am well aware of the link between proper 
nutrition and a child's ability to achieve in school. For this reason, 
I am very pleased that the conference agreement provides $4.1 billion 
for the School Lunch Program and over $1 billion for the School 
Breakfast Program. These two programs provide many of our Nation's poor 
children with the only nutritious meals they receive each day. They do, 
therefore, play a major role in education reform and in our ability to 
raise the educational achievement of our Nation's children.
  Likewise, the Summer Food Program provides meals to children in low-
income areas during the summer months when the School Lunch and 
Breakfast Programs are not available to meet their nutritional needs. 
In this way, we prevent any nutritional-related health problems which 
could impact on their ability to do well in the next school year.
  Of course, one of the most important nutrition programs is WIC, the 
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children. I am 
pleased to note that the conference agreement contains an increase 
which allows for growth in this successful program. WIC also plays a 
major role in the ability of children to do well in school. When 
mothers receive appropriate prenatal health care and nutrition, there 
is a reduced likelihood that they will give birth to children with low 
birth weight and related disabilities. WIC then provides supplements to 
mothers after their children are born to insure that their nutritional 
needs are met during their first few years of life, thus assuring they 
come to school ready to learn.
  Finally, I would like to thank the conferees for agreeing to spend 
$6.7 million for the Farmer's Market Coupon Program. This program not 
only increases the use of fresh fruits and vegetables among WIC 
participants, it provides another outlet through which our Nation's 
farmers can sell their fresh produce. As we attempt to improve the 
eating habits of our Nation's families to assist them in meeting the 
dietary guidelines, it is important that we increase consumption of 
fresh fruits and vegetables among WIC participants. The Farmer's Market 
Coupon Program has been successful in accomplishing this goal since 
many of the WIC participants come back to purchase additional produce 
once they have used their WIC coupons.
  Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of reauthorizing these important 
nutrition programs. I want to commend the conferees for providing these 
programs with the necessary funding to meet the needs of the 
participants.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mazzoli). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 287, 
noes 107. not voting 40, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 438]

                               AYES--287

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Callahan
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Mann
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--107

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Boehner
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Huffington
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Levy
     Lewis (KY)
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Torkildsen
     Walker
     Weldon
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--40

     Applegate
     Baker (LA)
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carr
     Clay
     Cooper
     Dellums
     Dooley
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Glickman
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Inhofe
     Johnson (CT)
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     Manton
     Matsui
     McCurdy
     McKeon
     Moran
     Murphy
     Quillen
     Rangel
     Slattery
     Stark
     Sundquist
     Tanner
     Washington
     Wheat

                              {time}  1213

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Byrne for, with Mr. Herger against.
       Mr. Dellums for, McKeon against.

  Messrs. McCANDLESS, LAZIO, HUTCHINSON, DICKEY, and GILCHREST changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LINDER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________