[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 115 (Monday, July 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7017-H7021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1976, AGRICULTURE, RURAL 
    DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 188 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 188

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the 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 first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule, 
     and the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     pending. That amendment shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for ten minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. If that amendment 
     is adopted, the provisions of the bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. Further consideration 
     of the bill for amendment shall proceed by title rather than 
     by paragraph. Each title shall be considered as read. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived. During further 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this rule, all time yielded is for purposes of 
debate only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
matter).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 188 is an open rule 
providing for consideration of H.R. 1976, the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The bill is to be read by title for amendment, and each 
title is to be considered as read.
  The rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI--which prohibits unauthorized 
appropriations and legislation on an appropriations bill--and also 
waives clause 6 of rule XXI--which prohibits reappropriating unexpended 
balances of appropriations in general appropriations bills--against 
provisions of the bill.
  Under the rule, it is in order to consider first an amendment printed 
in the rule to be offered by Mr. Skeen of New Mexico. This amendment 
shall be considered as read. The amendment is debatable for 10 minutes 
divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee. The amendment offered by Mr. Skeen is not subject to 
amendment or to a demand for a division of the question in the House or 
Committee of the Whole. If this amendment is adopted, it shall be 
considered
 as a part of the original text for the purpose of further amendment 
under the 5 minute rule. In allowing this amendment, we are following 
past practices of previous Congresses, in order to be as fair as we 
possibly can be on these appropriations bills.

  This rule accords priority in recognition to Members who have 
preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. The rule does 
not require pre-printing, but simply encourages Members to take 
advantage of the option in order to facilitate consideration of 
amendments on the House floor.
  Finally, House Resolution 188 provides for one motion to recommit, 
with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority members 
of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth open rule to be offered during the 
consideration of the 1966 appropriations process--the sixth if you 
count the first Interior appropriations rule. House Resolution 188 is a 
typical open rule to be considered for general appropriations bills. 
This rule does not restrict the normal open amending process and any 
amendments that comply with the standing rules of the House may be 
offered.
  H.R. 1976 appropriates a total of $62.7 billion dollars, which is 
$6.3 billion less than was appropriated last year. This bill provides 
$13 billion in discretionary spending and $49 billion in mandatory 
spending, a decrease of about $5.3 billion below the amount available 
for fiscal year 1995. Clearly, the Appropriations Committee has had to 
balance a wide array of interests and had to make very difficult 
choices with drastically reduced resources.
  With that in mind, I want to commend the close work of the 
authorizing and appropriating committees in crafting the legislation 
that will soon be before the House. They have worked together under an 
incredibly tight budget to ensure that all funding is spent where it is 
needed most. Together, they have responsibly sought to maintain 
functions that are crucial to the health and safety of the American 
consumer and the future success of this nation's farming communities.
  H.R. 1976 was favorably reported out of the Committee on 
Appropriations, as was the open rule by the Rules Committee. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with 
consideration of the merits of the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record information on the amendment 
process. The document referred to is as follows:


[[Page H 7018]]
  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of July 14, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 34                 72
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 12                 26
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  1                  2
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 47                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             



                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of July 14, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/13/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
 95).                                                              Protection Act.                              
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95)               
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95)      
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1159...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95)               
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95)               
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95)  
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  A: voice vote (4/6/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.                          
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95)               
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  A: 414-4 (5/10/95) 
H. Res. 144 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 146 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 614............  Fish Hatchery--Minnesota.  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95)     
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95)               
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
                                                                   1996.                      183 (6/13/95)     
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1817...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ:223-180 A: 245- 
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95)     
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
 95).                                                              1996.                      191 (6/20/95)     
H. Res. 170 (6/20/    O...................  H.R. 1868...........  For. Ops. Approps. FY      PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
 95).                                                              1996.                      175 (6/22/95)     
H. Res. 171 (6/22/    O...................  H.R. 1905...........  Energy & Water Approps.    A: voice vote (7/12/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 173 (6/27/    C...................  H.J. Res. 79........  Flag Constitutional        PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
 95).                                                              Amendment.                 152 (6/28/95)     
H. Res. 176 (6/28/    MC..................  H.R. 1944...........  Emer. Supp. Approps......  PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
 95).                                                                                         192 (6/29/95)     
H. Res. 185 (7/11/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 235-193 D: 192-
 95).                                                                                         238 (7/12/95)     
H. Res. 187 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 230-194 A: 229-
 95).                                                              #2.                        195 (7/13/95)     
H. Res. 188 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1976...........  Agriculture Approps. FY    ...................
 95).                                                              1996.                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has described, House 
Resolution 188 is a rule which provides 1 hour of general debate on the 
Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies bill for fiscal year 
1996. The rule does provide waivers of clause 2 of rule XXI to allow 
unauthorized appropriations in provisions in the bill, as well as 
clause 6 of rule XXI prohibiting reappropriations in some provisions. 
The rule also provides priority recognition to Members who have 
preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the rule does provide waivers to 
allow certain legislative language in the bill which will weaken our 
Nation's food safety. This language in the bill will cut off funding 
for the Department of Agriculture's new plan to modernize its meat and 
poultry inspection program. I am very concerned over the protection of 
this language which will delay tougher food inspection standards which 
could expose thousands of people to deadly levels of the E. coli 
bacteria and other pathogens.
  This is not the time, Mr. Speaker, to be weakening food inspection, 
especially inspection of safe meat. We all remember the 1993 outbreak 
of the deadly E. coli bacteria in a fast food restaurant that resulted 
in over 600 illnesses and 4 deaths. According to the Center for Disease 
Control, E. coli causes 20,000 illnesses and up to 500 deaths each 
year, primarily among senior citizens and children. The Department has 
taken the correct action in moving forward to modernize and upgrade its 
food inspection system. Halting the program through this bill is 
unacceptable, and frankly, not in the interests of public safety. Just 
in the last few days, another strain of E. coli bacteria made 18 people 
ill in Montana. Unfortunately, an amendment offered to the rule to 
remove the protection for the weakening language failed in the Rules 
Committee.
  If the weakening language in the bill is removed on a point of order, 
it will not in any way preclude the Agriculture Committee, in its 
oversight capacity, from continuing to negotiate 

[[Page H 7019]]

with the USDA on updating its meat inspection program. In fact, if the 
provision is not removed, we will have to go back to square one and 
start the food safety negotiations all over again. We just can't afford 
to prolong these new meat inspection regulations indefinitely. Human 
lives are at stake.
  In addition to the food inspection issue, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned 
with several of the provisions in the bill which affect nutrition 
programs. While the committee, to its credit, included an increase to 
cover inflation in the Women, Infants, and Children's feeding program 
[WIC], the Administration's request for an additional $90 million was 
not included. Had this request been honored, another 180,000 women and 
children per month would have been eligible to receive nutrition 
supplements. The bill also caps the total number of people who may 
receive WIC. I am afraid that a cap on total numbers of people served 
will eliminate an incentive for innovative cost savings to make the 
money go further.
  With respect to food stamps, I note that the bill eliminates the $2.5 
billion reserve for food stamps that the Agriculture Department 
maintains to handle unexpectedly high demand. This is risky because in 
a sudden recession, we could see the people who legitimately qualify 
for help, unable to receive benefits. Also disturbing is the freeze in 
calculating the standard deduction for food stamp eligibility which 
will have the effect of forcing people to become ineligible for food 
stamps or having their benefits reduced.
  The committee did increase funds for child nutrition programs such as 
school lunch and school breakfast. However, we will see some of the 
smaller programs such as donations to soup kitchens and TEFAP shrink.
  Finally, in the Rules Committee hearing, Representative Harman did 
request an amendment known as the Brewster-Harman deficit reduction 
lockbox amendment. This would have allowed any savings obtained through 
floor votes to go into a special deficit reduction trust fund. Given 
the interest that many of us have in deficit reduction, I believe the 
Rules Committee should have made a lockbox amendment in order.
  Because of these serious shortcomings in the bill, I do plan to ask 
for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is 
defeated, I will move to include language to strike the protection of 
the weakening language for USDA's meat inspection program, and to 
include the Brewster-Harman amendment under the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
                              {time}  1615

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first let me say that again this is an open rule, and 
the gentleman is right that we protect the provisions that deal with 
the issue of meat inspection. While I am not an expert myself on meat 
inspection, I am very expert on consumption. With that, I should say 
that I am convinced, based on the action that was taken by the 
committee, that there is a tremendous effort that has been made in the 
area of inspection.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the distinguished chairman from the 
Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations, to deal with this issue.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say right now insofar as meat inspection is 
concerned, and I understand the concern of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
and others who have worked with this, but the program that we are 
undergoing now does not extend the time for the adoption of new 
standards for meat inspection. It cuts it much shorter and expedites 
the process of initiating the HACCP Program.
  This is taken at the behest of the Secretary of Agriculture, along 
with other people who have been very much interested and very much 
involved in trying to speed up this process and make it one of common 
understanding and agreement between the processors as well as those who 
are concerned about the health and safety of the meat inspection 
program. But it is a new scientific program that must be initiated. It 
is a drastic change, I do admit, that has caused a great deal of 
controversy.
  The process is ongoing, as we speak, at the behest of the Secretary 
of Agriculture, and I would ask the gentleman to consider this when 
considering voting against or opposing the previous question. I do not 
have any other comment.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] is on his way over, Mr. 
Speaker, and he is in direct negotiation on this particular program. I 
would say this, that voting against the previous question is not going 
to help this matter be resolved or speed it up or anything else. As a 
matter of fact, it may delay it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply say, because of my great respect for the 
distinguished subcommittee chairman, I am very reluctant to oppose the 
rule and the previous question on the rule but I feel compelled to, 
nonetheless.
  Mr. Speaker, I come from a district that has a lot of farmers. I come 
from a district that has a lot of small towns. I also come from a 
district that has had direct recent experience with E. coli. In my 
hometown just this weekend, for instance, we had another case of E. 
coli break out. I think that drives home to everyone, whether you work 
on a farm or you work in the city, the seriousness of the issue that 
will be debated when this bill eventually reaches the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say simply that I would like to see some middle 
ground on this. I understand the reasons why the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh] offered the amendment, because anybody who represents 
small businesses, and I have an awful lot of them in my district, you 
are bound to be concerned about the impact of any rule and any 
rulemaking process on small business.
  I am also concerned, however, because I think that our committee 
frankly is not the right forum in which this issue ought to be 
discussed. This issue ought to be dealt with by the Committee on 
Agriculture. They know the most about the issue. The Committee on 
Appropriations is essentially a committee that is supposed to deal with 
budgets. If you want to have effective nonpolitical discussion of this 
issue, I think that it belongs in the policy committee, not a finance 
committee.
  Nonetheless, it is here. If it is here, I would prefer, for instance, 
that in addition to the choice of either having the Walsh amendment or 
not having the Walsh amendment, that we would have a third option such 
as that proposed by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] when he 
was in the full committee last week. It seems to me that would be a way 
to force compromise in the regulatory process without going to the 
extremes that the Walsh amendment does.
  For that reason, I very reluctantly would simply state that I will 
also oppose the previous question on the rule and the rule itself, 
because I believe that something like the Durbin amendment perhaps 
would give us a much better way to deal with this issue than having to 
either go up or down on the Walsh amendment, which I personally prefer 
not to do.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] as I understand 
it is on his way here, and we are certainly going to give him every 
opportunity, and also the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] is on his 
way.
  I understand the argument that this matter should be debated in the 
Committee on Agriculture, but unfortunately that is not the case. This 
was dealt with through the Committee on Appropriations and begun 
through the Committee on Appropriations. We would be very happy to lend 
that purview to the Committee on Agriculture, but they are not up to 
speed on it. We have been in the thick of the negotiations. 

[[Page H 7020]]

  At the behest of the Secretary of Agriculture, we have kept out of 
the negotiations between the two sides. Protecting small producers, 
small processors, is absolutely of major concern to us, because in many 
respects I think they view this as a threat to continuing business. We 
do not want that to happen. We want our food situation safe.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree with that. I would 
also say, however, that assuring the consuring public that they can 
safely consume these products to me is of utmost importance, obviously 
because of the public health questions involved and also because, 
frankly, people in the industry need to have the market security of 
people knowing that their products are perfectly safe.
  But the problem with this rule is that the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Durbin] would not be able to offer the compromise proposal that he 
tried to offer in full committee, and because this rule goes out of its 
way to protect the base amendment, the Walsh amendment, which would not 
be in order normally under the rules of the House, it seems to me that 
we would be better off if we had another choice to choose from. But 
under the rule, we do not.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may 
consume to my friend, the gentleman from Dodge City, KS [Mr. Roberts], 
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am out of breath. This is one of these I had not 
intended to speak but was viewing the proceedings on the floor and 
overheard the concern that was voiced by the distinguished gentleman 
from Wisconsin in regards to meat inspection and the rule that pertains 
to this issue.
  As I catch my breath, I would like to inform the gentleman from 
Wisconsin that we held a meeting, a very important meeting, in this 
regard with Secretary Glickman of the Department of Agriculture. By we, 
I mean the distinguished ranking member, the chairman emeritus, if I 
can use that term, of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm], who has been extremely active in regards to meat 
inspection and this subject; the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] 
who is the ranking member of the appropriate subcommittee; and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  We will be doing, regardless of what happens on the proposed 
rulemaking, a bill, or legislation as it applies to meat inspection, 
not only in regards to meat but fish and also poultry.
  The gentleman from New York who is not present and can speak for 
himself in regards to his amendment simply proposed that there would be 
some kind of rulemaking to make sure that there would be an open 
process as we arrive at the proposed rules that make sense to guarantee 
food safety and the safety of our meat supply.
  In meeting with Secretary Glickman, those of us who serve on the 
Committee on Agriculture expressed some concern with the proposed 
rulemaking. By that, I mean there are now two proposals: One involves 
the current regulations in regards to food safety and how the USDA 
conducts its meat inspection, which quite frankly in my personal 
opinion is not based entirely on sound science, it is very complex, it 
is very burdensome, and it is very costly.
  Then we have this new proposal called HACCP. That is the hazard 
analysis control point. That is the better system. That is a system 
that we have all proposed in the Committee on Agriculture and all 
throughout agriculture to try to use sound science to guarantee the 
safety of our meat and to address the tragedy that happened in the 
Northwest in regards to
 E. coli.

  The problem is that we cannot layer the two together without really 
getting to a real problem. The problem is the small meat locker 
industry and the meat processing industry, according to their concerns, 
have not been part of the process.
  The problem is in regards to sound science again, we have some 
concerns that a better approach might be used. Then we have a small 
business concern where a lot of small meat lockers might be put out of 
business. That is a very real concern in farm country.
  So we met with the Secretary. I have here a draft of a letter that 
the committee gave to the Secretary and the Secretary is working on it. 
He has another draft. It was supposed to be back at about 4:30.
  I think that if we reach an agreement with Secretary Glickman, and I 
have talked this over with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], 
that if there is an open process and if we can guarantee at least the 
future of the small meat locker industry, and if we can use sound 
science approaches, and if the cowboys and all the livestock producers 
and the meat processors and the meat industry can be saying, ``We are 
part of this process, we can sit at the table,'' and if in fact we can 
make sure in the layering of this process that we do not get into more 
red tape and regulations and a lot of perception but very little 
protection for the American consumer, I think we can work this out.
  I would say to the gentleman that there is a process ongoing and 
hopefully in working with Secretary Glickman and the Committee on 
Agriculture, I think we can find an answer. It may be that the 
gentleman from New York at that particular time, who is part of the 
process, can simply withdraw his amendment, and we can all declare 
victory and we can all reach a product that we could agree upon.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say that I would very much like to see 
something worked out, as a representative of a rural area myself. My 
concern, however, is that I would like to avoid a repeat of what we had 
on the rescissions bill where we were actually debating the language of 
one provision on the floor, on timber, for instance, while the 
language, itself, was being worked out between the administration and 
the committee in a room one floor below us in this building.
  I would kind of like to know what agreements have been worked out 
before we decide whether we have to deal with the specifics of the 
Walsh amendment or not. All we have to go on at this time is the 
comment from Secretary Glickman which says, ``I am writing to express 
my strong concerns and objections to the adoption of the amendment in 
question.''
  Like the gentleman, I would like to see something worked out. My 
concern about this rule is that it does not give us the opportunity to 
have another approach to this problem the way the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] would have liked to have had in the amendment 
that he offered.
  I do not have any objection to the goals that I think all of us 
share.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
  The statement by the Secretary, I feel--I cannot speak for Secretary 
Glickman although I try a lot, in Kansas, we try to get him to go at 
least 65 in a 55-mile-an-hour zone--but I think in regards to his 
comment on meat inspection, that it is somewhat dated.
  We have had a lengthy meeting, as I have said, a bipartisan one, with 
the members of the Committee on Agriculture, the leadership of the 
committee that will have to produce the legislation to follow up in 
regards to the rulemaking.
  We are negotiating now with language that I think may have a chance 
to work. I would just urge the gentleman to maybe consider that. There 
will be ample time, I think, for the gentleman to raise his points of 
concern.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield further, I like to hear that, 
because frankly you are the people that should be working the language 
out. Those of us on the Committee on Appropriations, I do not think, 
have the expertise that your committee has to deal with the issue.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I would like for the gentleman to say that again about 4 
times on virtually every subject that has come up under this 
appropriation bill if he would.
  Mr. OBEY. I have said that on at least one other occasion in the past 
2 weeks.
  Mr. ROBERTS. The gentleman has got two to go. Reclaiming my time, we 
have worked out a partnership arrangement with the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and others on the committee. I am quite confident of 
the total package.

[[Page H 7021]]

  I see no further use to discuss this at this time unless the 
gentleman from New Mexico has a question or the distinguished gentleman 
from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I simply would like to say that this is a 
new day. We have seen tremendous cooperation between the authorizing 
committee and the appropriations subcommittee that is dealing with 
this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. SKEEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the gentleman from Wisconsin that there 
is going to be every opportunity for any other approach to this during 
the consideration of this particular bill and rule. The gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] has one of them. I appreciate the concern, but I 
think this tactic of trying, if we do not pass the rule, delays the 
process of coming up with an adequate solution to this problem in 
itself. I would not like to see the delayed. I appreciate the concerns 
of the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Syracuse, NY [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. I thank my good friend the gentleman from California for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to first of all rise in strong support of 
this rule and commend our chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen], who has worked very, very closely with our ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], on this bill all the 
way along. The same sense of fairness that the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Durbin] presented last year, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen] has reciprocated, and we have all worked very closely on this 
together.
  Let me just say, I hope we can pass this rule today. I think it is a 
good rule. It provides for full and open discussion. It is an open 
rule. I do not think they get any better than that.
  Let me just suggest, regarding this amendment that I had offered in 
the subcommittee and full committee which was accepted, that if there 
is indeed a compromise worked out, that would be fine. But I want to 
make sure that the compromise does not gut the amendment.
  I think it is very important to show that the subcommittee and the 
full committee support this
 amendment for good reasons, because this legislation, the standards 
that have been proposed by the Secretary will in fact change the way 
meat is inspected. The meat industry supports that idea. They support 
the higher standards. I think everyone does. It is how we get to them 
that matters.

  What I have proposed is simply a 9-month process of negotiated 
rulemaking that would allow all the principals to come together, work 
out the differences, everyone be on equal footing, no one with special 
promises, everyone working basically with a plain white canvas with the 
same set of paints to get to a finished product on this legislation.

                              {time}  1630

  This is not a delay in any sense. In fact, if this negotiated 
rulemaking process were followed, I think we would avoid a lot of 
lengthy, costly lawsuits.
  But again, if a compromise is worked out that is fair to everyone, I 
am going to support it. But I have not seen that agreement yet. I have 
worked very closely with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]. I 
have discussed this fully with the staff, with the agriculture 
commissioner, and we are working conscientiously to resolve this 
important issue, and it is an important issue.
  But just let me enter a couple of facts into this. First of all, 90 
percent of the meat currently inspected in this country meets these 
higher standards. We are talking about 10 percent. Also, let me say 90 
percent of food-borne illness in this country comes not from meat 
processing but from the failure to cook it properly, and the Secretary 
would do us all a service if he would get up on his bully pulpit and 
tell people: ``Cook your hamburger, cook it; cook it until it is black 
if you have to, but cook it,'' because that is where the problem is. It 
is not steaks and chops and poultry and so on. It is because of the way 
that hamburger is made that we have so much problem with that meat. So 
cook it. If we did that, if we would all cook it properly, we could 
substantially reduce this problem.
  I thank the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier] all for their interest. If there is to be a compromise, I 
will support it, but it has to be a real compromise.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I would say though 
that I would urge a no vote on the previous questions. And if the 
previous question would be defeated, I would offer an amendment to the 
rule which would make in order an amendment which would remove the 
protection from a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI for 
language pertaining to the prevention of implementation of new meat and 
poultry inspection regulation by the USDA.
  I will also offer the Brewster-Harman lockbox amendment, and I 
include the text of the two amendments at this point in the Record.
  The amendments referred to are as follows:

       On page 2, line 25 strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``, except as follows: beginning with ``: 
     Provided'' on page 24, line 13, through page 25, line 5.''
       After the period on page 3, line 7 insert the following: 
     ``All points of order are waived against the amendment 
     numbered 1 printed in the Congressional Record of July 10, 
     1995 pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII, to be offered by 
     Representative Brewster or his designee.''

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if there are no further requests for 
time from my colleague, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume 
to simply say that this is a very fair, balanced, and open rule. It is 
obvious that we have members of the appropriations subcommittee and the 
authorizing committee working very closely together to deal with the 
issue of meat inspection. We also are working on a compromise to deal 
with the question of the lockbox.
  It is very important that we overwhelmingly pass first the previous 
question, and then the rule, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on both.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shays). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed until later today.


                          ____________________