[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 158 (Thursday, October 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9904-H9922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1976, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 
 AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 235 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 235

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
   Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 235 is a simple resolution providing 
for consideration of the conference report making appropriations for 
the Department of Agriculture, rural development, the Food and Drug 
Administration, and related agencies for fiscal year 1996. House 
Resolution 235 waives all points of order against the conference report 
and against its consideration. I am pleased that the rule was 
unanimously approved by the Rules Committee.
  This was a productive conference and it is important to note that the 
conference report provides a total of $63.2 billion, which is $4.8 
billion less than was appropriated last year. The conference report is 
also $3.3 billion lower than the amount requested by the Clinton 
administration, and $630 million lower than the Senate-passed bill.
  It is clear that the appropriators have to balance an assortment of 
concerns and make difficult choices with limited funding at their 
disposal this year. I want to recognize Chairman Bob Livingston and 
Subcommittee Chairman Joe Skeen for their efforts to keep the 
appropriations language as close as possible to the provisions included 
in the original House bill during the conference with the Senate.
  The product of their work under extraordinarily tight fiscal 
constraints will help guarantee that the available funding is spent 
where it is needed most.
  Among the notable appropriations and provisions in the conference 
report is funding for rural water and waste disposal grants and loan, 
funding for conservation programs to sustain agricultural productivity, 
the retention of a provision prohibiting the use of Market Promotion 
Program funds by the mink industry, and the establishment of priorities 
for the women, infants and children nutrition program. While the 
conference report makes its contribution to balance the budget and 
continue the consolidation of the Department of Agriculture, this bill 
also effectively maintains functions that are crucial to the health and 
safety of the American consumer and to the future success of this 
Nation's farming communities.
  I am encouraged to note that the Clinton administration has indicated 
that it is supportive of this bill. In light of this support, I hope 
that the President will sign it. I urge my colleagues to support the 
rule so that we may proceed with debate and consideration of the 
underlying legislation.
   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL. 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.)

[[Page H 9905]]

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague 
from Georgia, Mr. Linder, as well as my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle for bringing this rule to the floor.
  House Resolution 235 makes it in order to consider the conference 
report on H.R. 1976, the Department of Agriculture and related agencies 
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1996, and waives all points of order 
against the conference report. The Rules Committee reported the rule 
without opposition by voice vote.
  The conference report on H.R. 1976 appropriates a total of $63.1 
billion. I believe the conferees did a good job of setting priorities 
under difficult budget constraints and I commend the leadership of Mr. 
Durbin and Chairman Skeen.
  I am especially pleased that the bill includes $3.7 billion for WIC. 
This is one of the most effective Federal anti-hunger programs that 
provides food and nutrition to low-income women, infants, and children.
  I am also pleased with the funding levels for international food aid, 
which is one of the best U.S. international programs. In my travels to 
the developing nations such as Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Peru, I have 
personally seen United States grain save the lives of hungry people 
during times of famine. It is fitting that this bill gives high 
priority to the title II portion of Public Law 480 which provides food 
for people threatened by a humanitarian crisis or natural disaster.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just adopted, I call up 
the conference report on 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 Clerk read the title of the bill.


                             general leave

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
that I be permitted to include tables, charts, and other extraneous 
material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  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 28, 1995, at page H9628.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that since the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] is in support of the conference 
report as it now stands, as is the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin], the ranking Democratic member on the subcommittee, that the 
rule provides that the time be allocated with at least one-third being 
given to a Member who is at this point opposed to the proposal. Given 
that rule, I would ask that one-third of the time be assigned to me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Since the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin] does not appear to be present, the Chair is going to assume 
that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] is in favor of the 
conference report because he signed it. Therefore, pursuant to the 
rule, the time will be allocated 20 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen], 20 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin], and 20 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House today the 
conference report on H.R. 1976 which appropriates funds for fiscal year 
1996 for Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and Drug 
Administration and related agencies.
  The House approved the bill on July 21 by a vote of 313 to 78. The 
Senate passed its version of the bill on September 20 by a vote of 97 
to 3. House and Senate conferees met on September 27 and approved the 
report which was printed in the Congressional Record of September 28 
and which is before the House today.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report has an appropriation of $63.1 
billion which is $4.8 billion below last year's appropriations bill and 
$3.8 billion below the fiscal year 1996 request. It is right at the 
committee's allocation for budget authority for discretionary spending.
  There were two limitation provisions against mandatory programs in 
the House bill. These were agreed to by the authorizing committee. The 
Senate repeated these two limitations in their bill and added five 
more. In conference, we persuaded the Senate to drop three of these 
five new limitations. It was our understanding that the two we kept 
were not being used for savings by the authorizing committee in fiscal 
year 1996. Since then the situation for one of these limitations has 
changed, but it was adjusted so the authorizing committee can still 
capture $570 million in out year savings.
  Before recommending this bill to my colleagues, I want to once again 
point out that although we always refer to this as the Agriculture 
appropriations bill, the scope of programs which this bill supports 
touches and improves the lives of every American, every day. This is a 
bill for rural America, for urban America, for every constituency 
represented in this body.
  To begin with, this bill supports a system of agriculture which 
allows less than 2 million farmers and ranchers to deliver an abundant 
supply of food to 260 million Americans. It also is the basis for an 
export system that this year is delivering a record $50 billion in 
sales overseas, supporting jobs in the agriculture, food processing, 
and transportation industries in every one of our great States, 
territories and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. That same system also 
continues nearly 50 years of American leadership in delivering food aid 
to fight hunger and disease in other countries.
  Included in this bill are the appropriations for the food safety 
programs which protect our food supply as well as the Food and Drug 
Administration's programs to ensure the safety of medicines and medical 
devices.
  The bill continues strong support for the Women, Infants, and 
Children feeding program and food stamps as well as feeding and 
nutrition programs for preschool and school-age children, the elderly, 
and the homeless.
  I would say to all of my colleagues that during the August recess, 
many of your offices contacted the subcommittee to express concern 
about rural housing and development programs, asking us to add money 
back into these programs if possible. I am pleased to tell my 
colleagues that we were, in fact, able to do this. The conference 
report provides for a loan level for section 502 direct housing of $1 
billion and $1.7 billion for guaranteed housing loans. This was 
possible, in part, because the subsidy rate for the section 502 direct 
loan program has dropped by nearly one third since we first marked up 
the bill. In addition, we were able to increase the House level of 
funding for rural water and sewer programs to $488 million.

  Finally, the bill continues strong levels of support for research, 
conservation, and environmental protection throughout the country.
  Mr. Speaker, on a personal note, I want to once again thank all my 
Democratic and Republican colleagues on the subcommittee, each and 
every one of whom made valuable contributions to this bill. My special 
thanks go first to the former chairman of the subcommittee and now the 
ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois and my good 
friend, Dick Durbin. I also extend sincere thanks to our Democratic 
colleagues Marcy Kaptur, Ray Thornton, and Nita Lowey. And to my 
Republican colleagues I also want to say thanks for all their help and 
hard work in getting us here today: John Myers, Jim Walsh, Jay Dickey, 

[[Page H 9906]]
Jack Kingston, Frank Riggs, and George Nethercutt.
  I would also like to point out that both the distinguished chairman 
and ranking member of the full committee were active in the work on 
this bill from subcommittee markup through the conference, and I want 
to also thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for their efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good, bill. It was created in a bipartisan 
process and deserves bipartisan support. The White House has indicated 
that the President will sign this bill. If you support the conference 
report you can go home and tell your constituents that you did a lot 
for them for fiscal year 1996 and a lot for them in the future because 
it does its fair share to reduce the deficit and downsize the 
Government.
  The statement of managers accompanying the conference report 
inadvertently fails to explain the conference committee's agreement 
regarding Agricultural Research Service [ARS] laboratories proposed for 
closure in the President's fiscal year 1996 budget. The conference 
agreement provides funding to maintain the El Reno, OK; Sidney, MT; 
Clemson, SC; and Miami, FL, ARS laboratories. The other locations not 
transferred to nonFederal ownership, as proposed by both the House and 
Senate, are to be maintained as ARS worksites. The Houma facility is to 
be used as a worksite of the ARS center in New Orleans, LA.
  The conference report concurs with Senate report language that the 
Food and Drug Administration not proceed further with a cosmetic 
hotline. It should, instead, evaluate existing programs to promote the 
voluntary reporting of serious adverse reactions to cosmetics.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the 
conference report for H.R. 1976.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my chairman, the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen], in saying at the outset that this subcommittee, 
despite the tremendous challenges which we have had to provide funding 
for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and other 
important agencies, despite these challenges and despite the fact that 
the resources available are so limited, it has been a genuine pleasure 
to work on this subcommittee.
  We have our differences, we have our battles, but I think that the 
people of this country would be proud of the way that they are handled. 
Virtually every issue is handled on a bipartisan basis. We strive to 
find a commonsense solution. Quite honestly, I think that is what 
people expect of Congress and expect of their elected representatives 
in both the House and the Senate. It is one of the reasons why I have 
enjoyed this subcommittee so much over the years, both as chairman and 
as the ranking minority member.
  I want to salute the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] for his 
leadership. It has been a tough, tough year. Not only did you have 
budgetary restraints, the new mantle of leadership puts you in a 
tougher position than you have seen in the past, and you have handled 
it so well. It is a great source of satisfaction to you, I am sure, and 
to all of us to have been part of this process.
  I want to salute my colleagues, my Democratic colleagues who have 
played such an important role on our side of the aisle: the gentleman 
from Arkansas [Mr. Thornton], the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Lowey], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and, of course, 
sitting right next to me during the course of the deliberations, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur]. All of them made a significant 
contribution.
  Let me tell you about the pluses and minuses, and I think the 
chairman has pointed to them.
  I am very happy to report that the level of funding for the women, 
Infants and Children supplemental feeding program has been maintained 
at what I consider a very responsible level at a very tough time. The 
gentleman from New Mexico and all Members know of my commitment to this 
program. I honestly believe that if we do not invest our dollars in the 
women of America who are in fact lower income and disadvantaged and 
pregnant, that we will pay a very dear price.
  We have to make certain that these women are given the very best in 
medical care and in nutritional care, as well, so that they have a good 
pregnancy and give birth to a healthy baby. That is the best investment 
in the future of this country we can make.
  This committee is the ag subcommittee but it is also by and large a 
nutrition subcommittee. When we assign priorities to nutrition in 
America, there is no higher priority than pregnant women and their 
small children. The WIC Program takes care of them.
  I thank the chairman for taking care of them this year. He has 
maintained a commitment which we all have the highest respect for in 
the future of this program. We cannot let up in the future years. We 
have got to keep this commitment very much alive.
  I am concerned that even though we have improved some figures on 
rural development, we still are far short of what we need. The chairman 
lives in small town America, as do I, he in the southwestern part of 
the United States, myself in the Midwest. Small towns in this country 
are really facing great pressures, economic pressures. They need to 
make sure that resources are available to modernize their 
infrastructure and to provide for housing. We help them. Unfortunately, 
we are not going to help them enough.
  I hope we can find creative ways, perhaps with less Government money 
but with better results in the future, and that is what we are striving 
to do. I am glad that we were able to restore some of the money for 
research in this bill, because ag research is so critically important. 
When you consider that some 17 percent of our gross domestic product 
comes from the production and sale of food and fiber in America, it is 
a major industry in the economic fabric of our country. Yet when you 
look at the research dollars from the Federal level that are dedicated 
to this industry, they are very small, $1.1 billion roughly given by 
this Government out of a $1.5 trillion budget for research purposes. 
Quite honestly, when you look at money invested in the Pentagon or 
other areas of research, the amount given here is minuscule. What we 
ask of the people involved in research here is substantial, to come up 
with new ways to grow crops, to do it in a safe way.
  One of the issues that we got involved in in this committee, a debate 
which was resolved on the floor of the House, was over the new 
standards for meat and poultry inspection in America. It has been my 
experience to meet one woman in Chicago who lost her 6-year-old son to 
contaminated meat. E. coli bacteria, literally in the course of 4 or 5 
days, took the life of her son. It is still devastating, this long 
afterwards, for her to speak of it. But she understands, as all of us 
must, that modernizing meat and poultry inspection is in the best 
interests of America.
  We have got to get beyond the old days, the 1908 days of Upton 
Sinclair's jungle where the Federal inspectors stood by and if they did 
not smell something funny or it did not look odd, they approved the 
meat. We are in a new era and our meat and poultry inspection has to 
come of age with it. I am glad we are dedicated to that happening.
  Also the market promotion program, that was a big hassle and one that 
went late into the night. We finally, I think, came to a good 
conclusion. This is a good program. We are going to dedicate resources 
where they are needed the most. We have to maintain our competitive 
edge around the world.

                              {time}  1100

  Now there is one provision in the bill which I disagree with, and it 
relates to chickens, and I do not know if we will get into this debate 
today over frozen and fresh chickens. If we do, I will have my 
opportunity to speak to it, but I think quite honestly that we have 
taken the wrong course when it comes to this important issue.
  When a consumer goes in a store in America and sees a chicken labeled 
as fresh, that consumer should, of course, be confident that they are 
buying a fresh chicken, but unfortunately the poultry industry has 
decided that they can freeze a chicken down to zero degrees and still 
call it fresh.

[[Page H 9907]]

  My colleagues, all of us know by common sense that is not the case. A 
fresh chicken tastes differently than one that has been frozen, and a 
fresh chicken may cost a little more than one that has been frozen, but 
the poultry industry, in order to protect their profit margins, want to 
continue to basically hoodwink consumers in this country and not tell 
them the true story about whether or not that poultry product has ever 
been frozen. Most people, men and women, who work in the kitchen at 
home know that once a chicken is frozen it is not desirable to refreeze 
it, it is not a good idea, and yet consumers may not know any better 
based on how it is labeled.
  So, the administration tried to move to a new category, one that I 
think is fairly bizarre, called hard-chilled, whatever the heck that 
means, hard enough to be a bowling ball, but they called it hard-
chilled. I think it is frozen, and I think we ought to just level with 
consumers.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in this bill we basically say we are not 
going to, we are going to continue to play the game. The poultry people 
are going to put the label ``fresh'' on something that has been frozen 
as hard as a bowling ball, and the consumers will not know any better, 
and, quite honestly, I think that is a mistake, and I voted against it 
in committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that issue will come up today in 
deliberation, but, if it does, I hope that we have a chance to rectify 
that.
  But, having said that, I will not make of that wart the whole face. I 
will say that in fact this is a great bill. It is one that was worked 
on long and hard by staff and Members, and I congratulate my chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, first let me say that, when I left, or when the bill 
left the House originally, I opposed it because I thought that the 
reductions that were provided for rural sewer and water and rural 
housing were very much too deep to reflect a fair share of the required 
spending reductions in the budget which were assigned to rural America.
  Mr. Speaker, I think people often forget there is as much poverty in 
rural America, in fact more, than there is in urban America, and we, as 
a society, have a tendency to ignore that.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] because I think that they have 
done probably the best job that was possible to do in restoring some of 
those unfair reductions and achieving a better balance within the bill 
in terms of the reductions that are required. And I guess, while I am 
uncomfortable with some of the reductions, I guess I would have to say 
that I think people in rural America want spending reductions as much 
as anybody else, and, if they do, then they have to expect them to be 
applied to programs that affect rural America just like everybody else.
  So, while I still have great misgivings about some of the squeeze 
that this will put on our rural communities, I cannot really quarrel 
with the judgments that the committee has made. And I think it is a 
substantially improved bill, and I really do not want to urge anyone to 
vote against it because of what I am going to say here this morning. 
But I am taking the well because I am concerned with the item that was 
mentioned by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], and I will have 
a motion to recommit at the proper time because I think that, while 
this bill is a reasonable bill in terms of its spending reductions, I 
think that is unreasonable with respect to the fraudulent labeling of 
poultry products which it allows to continue.
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply summarize what that situation is:
  The insane situation that the conference agreement would continue 
allows poultry to be labeled as fresh if its internal temperature is 1 
degree above zero and below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Only poultry chilled 
to zero degrees or below would have to be labeled as frozen under the 
existing situation.
  Now it is that existing situation which has led to considerable 
consumer confusion and to court cases. In fact, in one legal action 
striking down what was a fairly sensible California State law, Mr. 
Speaker, a U.S. appeals court wrote the following:

       We affirm this absurdity. Congress has given Federal 
     bureaucrats the power to order that frozen chickens be 
     labeled fresh.

  Now to remedy that situation, Mr. Speaker, the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service has tried to stop that fraudulent labeling. They 
reviewed some 26,000 comments from the public and from interested 
parties, and they decided that in the interests of consumer protection 
and honesty in advertising they decided to require that in order to be 
labeled fresh, poultry must have an internal temperature not lower than 
26 degrees, because 80 percent of the water in a chicken is frozen at 
that temperature. And they decided as a concession, as a concession to 
the poultry processing industry, that chicken with temperature greater 
than zero, but less than 26, would be labeled as hard-chilled rather 
than frozen.
  But even that was not good enough for some of the special interests, 
Mr. Speaker, and so unfortunately the other body, the Senate, agreed to 
a proposition, and the conferees in turn agreed to that Senate action, 
which would continue the present absurdity of letting obviously frozen 
poultry be labeled as fresh. It will mean that the large special 
interests in the poultry industry will have won another battle in their 
ongoing effort to keep the American consumers as uninformed as possible 
as far as labeling is concerned. Under this turkey of an agreement they 
will continue to label as fresh, poultry that is chilled down to 1 
degree Fahrenheit.
  Now why is that important to the special interests? Because they can 
charge more and get away with it in the marketplace for poultry which 
is labeled as fresh rather than frozen, and that mislabeling has led 
consumers to overpay for what they are buying to the tune of up to $1 
billion, and so it just seems to me that to allow this rip-off to 
continue is something which the Congress simply should not do.
  Mr. Speaker, I come from a rural area myself, and I want to see as 
many agriculture products sold as possible around the country, but I do 
not want to see them sold under false pretenses, and to suggest that 
a piece of poultry which is chilled to 1 degree above zero is not 
frozen or at least hard-chilled is to me to revamp the Webster's 
dictionary definition of what indeed is fresh.

  So, Mr. Speaker, I will be offering a motion to recommit which asks 
the House to reject that specific provision in the conference report so 
that this conference committee can go back and do what is honest, tell 
the American public what it is they are buying when they are buying 
something that is labeled fresh, and, if it is not fresh, for God's 
sake tell them. I think the Congress would be better off if we take 
that approach. I think the industry itself would have more credibility 
and certainly the consumer would be better informed than they would be 
under this turkey of an arrangement which the committee is bringing us 
here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's motion, and I 
appreciate all the great things he said because we had a good working 
relationship. There is a lot of controversy in dealing with this 
poultry situation. We had a very interesting exchange of ideas in the 
conference committee as well, learned more about chickens than I ever 
really wanted to know. We in the West, if we do not freeze it, we do 
not eat it, because it is transported such long distances. So I am 
always amazed at the arguments that we get into. However, if we say it 
is fresh, and under false pretenses it has been frozen, I really object 
to that as well. But I will oppose the gentleman's motion for 
recommittal because the Senate bill, passed bill, included a provision 
that delays the implementation of a poultry-labeling regulation until 
legislation is enacted directing the Secretary of Agriculture to 
promulgate such a regulation or the House and Senate authorizing 
committees receive and approve a revised proposal. The conference 
agreement includes this provision, and let me tell my colleagues why.
  When we were getting ready to conference with the Senate, we asked 
both 

[[Page H 9908]]
the Department and the poultry industry if there were some alternative 
or compromise language that could be substituted for the Senate 
language which everyone could live with. The response from the 
Department was that they did not have an alternative proposal, and, 
even though they did not like the Senate language, they could live with 
it. The poultry industry stated that they did not want to delay the 
regulations. They just wanted two changes made to the Department's 
proposed regulations, but deferred to the conferees to negotiate. Since 
the administration did not seem to think the Senate language was worth 
a compromise proposal and the industry was unwilling to officially 
propose an alternative on its own, the original Senate language was 
retained. I am confident from the statements made before conference 
from the poultry industry and the Department that a compromise can be 
reached, a compromise that will be acceptable to the authorizing 
committee. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to defeat any motion to 
recommit so that we can move on to the passing of the conference report 
and would appreciate a ``no'' vote.
  Now I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin for their kind remarks. It has been great working with 
both of them. The association has been good. We have got a great 
committee. We also have a great staff, and I want to give them credit 
for the hard work they do on both sides and tell them how much we 
appreciate the time they give and also the guidance they give.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not want to beat a dead chicken, but I do want to 
try to make clear what this issue is all about. It may strike some 
people as odd or even amusing that Members of Congress and this great 
legislative body are talking about frozen chickens today, but what is 
at stake here is a lot of money.
  Mr. Speaker, if a chicken can be sold as fresh, it means a much 
greater profit for the company that is selling that chicken. I have no 
objection to people selling fresh chickens as fresh chickens and making 
the money that might be attendant to that sale. What I object to, what 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] objects to, what people in the 
administration object to, is deceptive labeling, deceptive advertising.
  Mr. Speaker, if a consumer walks into the supermarket, that consumer 
ought to be confident that what is labeled on that product is a fact. 
Today a consumer can walk into the poultry section and see in a plastic 
bag a chicken which is labeled fresh and not know that that chicken has 
been frozen as hard as a bowling ball.
  Now of course the people who sell the chickens would like us to 
believe that they are all fresh regardless of how much they have been 
frozen or to what temperature they have been brought to, but that is 
not right.
  A few years ago Dr. Kessler of the FDA angered some of the food 
giants who were running around the grocery store and labeling 
everything ``fresh.'' Bottled spaghetti sauce and canned products were 
being called ``fresh.'' Mr. Speaker, consumers had a right to be 
suspicious, and Kessler said:

       Your suspicions are well founded. Make that labeling 
     accurate. When a consumer makes a purchase, let them know 
     that their hard-earned dollars are being spent on something 
     they actually want to purchase.

  So he took on some of the giants in the industry on behalf of this 
administration, and I am glad he did because it meant better labeling, 
and it made for authentic and more honest labeling, and now when it 
comes to poultry products, once again we are fighting some of the 
giants of this country. They want to sell these chickens, mislabel 
them, call them fresh. They want the consumers to fall for it, pay 
more, so that they can get more profit out of the sale.
  Mr. Speaker, frankly we spend a lot of time in Congress changing 
laws. We cannot change the laws of physics. The laws of physics tell us 
water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and that chickens freeze, 
because of their water content, at 26 degrees Fahrenheit.

                              {time}  1115

  So this administration tried to come up with a reasonable compromise, 
came up with a bizarre term called hard chilled, something between zero 
degrees and 26 degrees; I have never quite understood it.
  The Chicago Sun Times came up with an editorial a few weeks ago. They 
thought this was a pretty simple idea. What they said was this: ``We 
can help the bureaucrats and the Congressmen out. If chickens are 
frozen, let us call them frozen. If they are thawed but used to be 
frozen, call them previously frozen. If they have never been frozen, 
call them fresh.
  There used to be an old commercial on television about chickens, 
saying parts is parts. Well, this debate is about whether fresh is 
fresh, and I will tell the Members, it goes far beyond the chuckling we 
have had on the floor this morning. There is a lot of money at stake, 
and what is even more important, what is at stake here is consumer 
confidence across this country. Our government is entrusted with the 
power and authority to regulate advertising so when we walk into the 
supermarket and see something on the counter and it is labeled, it is 
labeled honestly and accurately. This is not a buyer beware situation. 
It is a situation where the consumers have the right to know so their 
hard-earned dollars are spent on products they actually want to buy and 
the deception is taken away. I am going to join my friend, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], in supporting his motion to 
recommit on an otherwise very good bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak against this motion, 
and want to stress one thing, that this is not a consumer issue. This 
issue has come up because of the situation that exists in California, 
so what I call it is a California market protection motion. What 
happens is that California cannot raise chickens, process them, and 
sell them as cheaply as we can in the southern States, in Arkansas, my 
State, and other States, and ship them out there. So what they want to 
do, rather than this being a consumer issue on that side, what they 
want to do is allow them to sell chickens by the pound for a higher 
amount in California than in other States. We think the consumer wants 
the price lower. We think the consumer is not harmed by this in any 
way.
  If we had our way, when we first started all this we would not have 
the government intrusion. We would say, ``Okay, we are not going to 
label this at all.'' That is like saying the government comes in and 
says, ``We are going to label this pretty or not pretty.'' It is that 
irrelevant to the issue. Six hundred million pounds of chickens in 1 
year's period of time were sent out with an 800 number, an 800 number 
that says, ``If you are dissatisfied with this labeling or with this 
food or this product in any way, call us.'' Less than 50 came in in 1 
year.

  The consumers are not being harmed by this. We need to keep it like 
it is and not start meddling with it, particularly just to take care of 
one State's situation, where they want to charge more.
  As far as the charges are concerned, I understand chicken is 
something like $1 a pound, somewhere around there. We are not talking 
about a great differential if we are sitting there with chicken at that 
price. We are not talking about a great differential. What we are 
trying to do is deliver chicken safer, so the retailer cannot have so 
many shipments in a period of time that it would burden them. They want 
to be able to hold the chickens so they can put it into the retail 
market in a safe way. That is what is behind this. It is a matter of 
government intrusion, and we should not have done it in the first 
place, but now that we have it, we need to keep it for the sake of the 
price of chicken.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the previous gentlemen on this side of the aisle 
said this issue is, and I have forgotten what reason he gave, but he 
indicated this issue was here because people were concerned about 
bureaucrats. This issue is here for one very simple reason: because 
Tyson's chicken company and a number of others like them want to sell 
what is in essence frozen products 

[[Page H 9909]]
and label them fresh, and earn extra money because they can charge the 
fresh rather than the frozen price. That is why this issue is here. 
They got their friends in the Senate to swallow it and push it down our 
throats.
  Shoppers, I think, know the difference between fresh and frozen. It 
seems to me it is time that Congress learned that, too. Chickens hard 
enough to hammer nails are not fresh. They should not be labeled as 
being fresh. One of the other gentlemen said, ``Oh, this is just a 
California issue.'' I am not from California, I am from Wisconsin. I 
believe in legitimate labeling of agricultural products, whether they 
are chickens or whether they are BGH-laced milk. I want that label to 
show what the consumer is buying. My farmers do, too. I certainly know 
my consumers do.
  The issue here is very simple. If you think that the consumer ought 
to know that they are not buying fresh chicken when they purchase 
chicken that is frozen down to 1 degree, then vote for my motion to 
recommit. If Members think the industry ought to be able to continue to 
scam them and continue to deceive consumers into thinking that they are 
buying fresh chicken when they are not, then stick with the committee. 
It is just that simple.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I think we have let the chicken issue be 
well thought out, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], chairman of the committee, for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, despite all the hard work by so many on this bill, 
including the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on 
Appropriations, I reluctantly rise to register my disappointment with 
the Agriculture appropriations conference report, and on a related 
note, the real lack of progress Congress is making on bringing real 
reform to agricultural price support and subsidy programs. Despite 
statements from the leadership that this session would bring genuine 
reform of Federal agricultural policies, it seems that at the end of 
the day very little may change with regard to sugar, tobacco, cotton, 
and other programs. The sugar program is of particular concern to those 
of us from the State of Florida and, in fact, what compels me to be 
here today. It is a Federal program that continues the direct 
involvement of the Federal Government in the marketplace--where it does 
not belong. In addition, the sugar program has a unique impact on 
Florida because it artificially supports and encourages farming a crop 
that is known to damage the Everglades ecosystem and Florida Bay--true 
national treasures. If this Congress falls short of achieving the 
repeal of sugar's benefits, I hope the committee will work with the 
Florida delegation to deal with the consequences of this Federal 
program for our State--possibly by using dollars from Florida sugar 
producers to bolster efforts to save the Everglades and Florida Bay. 
This is the absolute minimum I will accept.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this agriculture appropriations 
bill. In fact, I do not know why we are voting on an agriculture 
appropriations bill when we have not dealt with major issues of reform 
of the agriculture program.
  The bottom line is a simple one, that many of us, particularly 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, were promised that we would 
have an open debate on an authorization bill. Then we were told it 
would not be an authorization bill, but we would be allowed to have 
some input before reconciliation. What we read in the newspapers is all 
sorts of deals are being cut, so that, for instance, the sugar program, 
which I think is one that is way out of line, it is socialism if there 
ever was in America, where we tell people, ``This is the price we are 
going to pay you, this is what you can grow, this is what you cannot 
grow,'' we are not even going to have an opportunity to deal with that 
issue.
  In my judgment, it makes no sense to vote for an agriculture 
appropriations bill unless there is reform. I would say to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they come here saying, 
``Government is the source of all evil,'' they come here saying, ``We 
have to have less Government,'' they come here saying that ``Government 
control is the worst thing in America,'' but when it comes to 
agriculture, they take a bow, they take a duck. This is the most 
intrusive area of Government in our entire economy.
  If Members are going to be consistent, if they are going to say 
``Government is no good to build public housing, Government is no good 
to build our roads, and Government is no good in health care,'' why the 
heck, in a program that is more outdated and more antediluvian than any 
other, do we say, ``Oh, no, in agriculture, we leave it alone.''
  I think it would be a disgrace to pass this bill. I know that all the 
various agriculture interests are fighting over a more limited pie, but 
before we appropriate the money, we ought to see what the program is 
going to be. Is there going to be reform? Are all the promises that, 
``Oh, yes,'' as the chairman of the Committee on the Budget promised 
me, ``there is going to be the same reform there as everywhere else,'' 
we have not seen one jot of reform. We have not seen any changes. All 
we have seen is a lot of just the same thing we have seen in Medicare, 
``Do not do this in public; behind closed doors, maybe we can work 
something out.''
  I say to my colleagues, whether they are liberal or conservative, 
Republican or Democrat, to vote the money on an appropriations bill 
before we see what measure of reform comes about is stupid from a 
policy point of view, it is stupid from a political point of view, it 
makes no sense, and I would urge with all due respect to my good friend 
who is the ranking member of the subcommittee and ranking member of the 
committee, as well as the chairpeople of both, that we should not be 
voting on this kind of bill right now. I would urge my colleagues to 
defeat it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that I significantly disagree 
with the gentleman who just spoke. I do not think people should be 
confused by the debate that is going on with respect to basic farm 
programs and this appropriation bill. This appropriation bill has very 
little to do with that debate.
  I would point out the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] says if 
we are going to be cutting housing, that we should not exempt 
agriculture. I would point out that this is the appropriation for rural 
America, and it does cut housing in rural America as well. Rural 
America is not being exempted from these reductions. They are not being 
exempted from the budget squeeze. In fact, one of my concerns about 
this bill is that I think that in areas such as rural sewer and water 
and housing, this bill is not adequate enough. That is not the fault of 
the subcommittee. They tried to do everything they could within the 
limitations provided to them.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply hope, as I said earlier, I do not want 
anyone to vote against this bill because of my comments on the frozen 
chicken issue, which is a very separate issue. I think this committee 
has done a fairly balanced job under very difficult circumstances in 
trying to allocate the budget actions. I do not agree with every action 
taken in the conference, but I think it is certainly a far better bill 
than the bill that left the House. I think people need to understand 
that in fact, rural America is taking a significant hit in the overall 
budget and in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman that the basic agricultural 
programs are screwed up, and I would not vote to continue them because, 
for one example, the milk marketing order system in this country 
substantially discriminates against small family farmers in my region 
of the country, and unfairly benefits the same region of the county 
which is, I think, speaking out the most loudly in favor of this 

[[Page H 9910]]
frozen chicken fraud, which the committee is about to perpetrate. I 
urge with the gentleman that those basic farm programs are screwed up, 
but that has very little to do with what the committee is doing on the 
programs in this bill.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on the 
Agriculture appropriations bill.
  The conference report is almost $5 billion less than the 1995 level, 
so it is making a significant contribution to reducing spending to get 
to a balanced budget. These are real cuts.
  In making these cuts, I realize Chairman Skeen and the members of the 
committee had some very difficult decisions to make. During House 
consideration of the Agriculture appropriations bill, I and many other 
members who represent rural areas expressed concern over the size of 
the proposed reduction in the section 502 Rural Housing Program. At 
that time, Chairman Skeen and Representative Durbin promised that they 
would try to provide adequate funding for this program during the 
conference with the Senate. They have made good on that promise.
  In the original House bill, the committee was forced to make almost a 
50-percent cut in the 502 Rural Housing Program. Because of the changes 
made in conference, the bill will now provide $1.2 billion in loans to 
help low-income Americans in rural areas purchase their own homes. The 
502 Direct Loan Program is the only affordable homeownership program 
that serves low and very-low income families in rural areas.
  The typical direct loan borrower is working and is making $15,165 per 
year. These are hardworking people trying to achieve the American dream 
of owning their own home. The 502 Direct Program is the most effective 
program to help them make that dream a reality.
  This program works. It helps people who would otherwise be unable to 
afford a home, make the step to homeownership. While these families 
have very low income, they pay their mortgages.
  There is currently a 2- to 3-year waiting list for these loans.
  Construction of these homes provides new jobs, an expanded tax base 
for schools and other investments and increased sales and other tax 
revenues. A single family 502 direct home generates 1.75 jobs, $50,201 
in wages, and $20,560 in annual tax revenues to rural America. In 
short, the program not only provides homes to low-income rural 
families, it provides jobs and tax revenues to rural communities.
  The conference committee has done a good job in balancing priorities 
among all our agriculture and rural programs. I strongly support the 
conference report and urge my colleagues to approve its passage.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in admiration and respect for the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and his able staff, but in reluctant opposition 
to the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this bill for several 
reasons.
  Earlier this year the Committee on Agriculture and the Appropriations 
Committee conducted a series of discussions and meetings with 
leadership over the issue of mandatory and discretionary spending and 
which committee should receive credit for any reductions in these 
accounts.
  From these talks an agreement was forged with the Speaker, the 
Appropriations chairman, the Budget chairman and myself as chairman of 
the Agriculture authorizing committee, in which the Appropriations 
Committee pledged, for the purpose of deficit reduction, to stay within 
the bounds of discretionary accounts and the Agriculture authorizing 
committee would in turn stay on the mandatory side of the ledger. This 
was a fair compromise. I am including a copy of that agreement for 
publication in the Record.
  This bill before us today is a disappointing violation of the spirit 
and letter of that agreement. It's not only disappointing for what it 
will do to the policy reform efforts the Committee on Agriculture is 
attempting, but also for the precedent it sets for the next 7 years of 
budget deficit reduction efforts in the Congress.
  This bill avoids the tough choices required in budget balancing and 
it is crafted using accounting gimmickry--the bill merely shifts funds 
from the mandatory side of the ledger over to the discretionary side--
simply put: robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  I have no doubts that this bill's supporters can make good 
justifications for every project and program in this document. Each 
probably has considerable merit. There is only one very troubling 
problem: each account that is maintained and increased is done so at 
the expense of farm commodity and conservation programs. At a time when 
the Agriculture Committee is laboring to reform outdated New Deal Era 
farm programs and help farmers and ranchers adapt to a market driven 
economy, cuts made to mandatory programs will cripple this effort by 
making it impossible for the Agriculture Committee to make necessary 
changes.
  I am further opposed to this bill because it represents business as 
usual. First, and foremost, when the other body marked up the 1996 
Agriculture Appropriations bill, they added $1.2 billion in spending 
over the House passed level. Conferees agreed to keep over $600 million 
of this amount in the bill before us today.
  It should be instructive for my colleagues to look at what this bill 
before us does in terms of additional spending. The bottom line: we are 
spending $3.0 million more on special research grants at a time when 
there is a growing consensus that we should be putting more money into 
competitive research grants.
  To this end we in the Agriculture Committee have been conducting an 
extensive review of the $1.7 billion we spend on agricultural research 
and extension each year. We have sent out an extensive set of questions 
to our Nation's agricultural research community and asked for their 
input on how to better direct limited research dollars. I believe this 
$1.7 billion can be spent in a more efficient manner and I will work 
with the Appropriations Committee next year to coordinate the overhaul 
of our Nation's research effort.
  Equally disappointing is the House's capitulation to the Senate's 
spending on CSREES buildings and facilities account. Having no 
compunction about dipping into mandatory accounts to pay for these new 
university research buildings, the Senate decided it was critical to 
fund $57 million worth of new buildings.
  No less alarming is the level spent in this bill for salaries and 
expense at the Consolidated Farm Services Agency and the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service agency; $1.5 billion, $1.5 billion to 
administer $7 billion worth of mandatory farm and conservation 
programs. That's 20 cents for every dollar spent on commodity and 
conservation programs. We can and should spend less in this area--
taxpayers demand nothing less. The Appropriations Committee should look 
to this and other accounts like it next year before it comes over to 
the Agriculture Committee's mandatory accounts for its required 
savings.
  The bottom line on this bill is truly found on its bottom line: it 
spends over $600 million more than the bill we in this body passed over 
2 months ago. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report.
  I include for the Record a letter from Chairman Livingston to me, as 
follows:

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                    Washington, DC, July 13, 1995.
     Hon. Pat Roberts,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Roberts: This is to confirm the agreement 
     relating to budget responsibilities in future agriculture 
     appropriations and authorization legislation. We all 
     recognize the need to reform our budget process. A part of 
     that reform should be a review of both mandatory and 
     discretionary spending accounts. We further recognize that 
     there are gray areas--areas where appropriations reductions 
     to mandatory spending can advance our mutual policy and 
     deficit reduction goals.
       However, as a general policy it is our intention that 
     beginning in FY 1997 all discretionary spending reductions 
     will be attributed to the Appropriations Committee, and all 
     mandatory spending reductions will be attributed to the 
     Agriculture Committee. Any future situation that deviates 
     from the general policy will require consultation and 
     agreement between the two committees. But as part of an 
     effort to move the FY 1996 Agriculture Appropriations Bill 
     through the House, this agreement will provide a clear basis 
     for managing the federal funds devoted to supporting farmers 
     and the rural sector as we move toward a balanced budget.
           Sincerely,
     Newt Gingrich,
       Speaker.
     John Kasich,
       Chairman, Budget Committee.

[[Page H 9911]]

     Bob Livingston,
       Chairman, Appropriations Committee.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, several minutes ago I yielded to the gentleman from New 
York. That was a triumph of courtesy over common sense, because I 
disagree with him so much and yet respect, of course, his right to 
express his point of view.
  It troubles me for him to take the floor and to criticize this bill 
because it has not reformed agriculture in America. The bottom line is 
we have done many things in this subcommittee to bring significant 
reform in the area of agricultural policy.
  Two years ago we made, I think, a significant advance in terms of 
reforming crop insurance in this country, a program that was costing 
taxpayers over $200 million a year, and because of provisions in our 
bill we have pushed forward a reform that will literally save billions 
of dollars for taxpayers over the life of the program.
  Again, in the area of housing which the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. 
Castle] just addressed, because of investigations by this subcommittee, 
by actions in this subcommittee we have pushed for reforms in the 
authorizing legislation on housing programs that will mean that the 
taxpayers' dollars will be more carefully guarded. It also means that, 
frankly, we will be building more and better housing at a lower cost. 
You cannot beat that.
  The bottom line is, if you want to reform agriculture, you have to go 
to the Committee on Agriculture. I sincerely hope the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts] who just rose and said he opposed this bill will 
have second thoughts when it comes to final passage.
  We have done our job. We have accepted our responsibility. We were 
told to pass an appropriations bill. We worked long and hard to do it.
  Now I hope his Committee on Agriculture will accept its 
responsibility. I hope for the first time since Franklin Roosevelt's 
New Deal, we will not see the Committee on Agriculture drop the ball 
and fail to write a farm bill. I served on that Committee on 
Agriculture many years ago. I served on the Committee on the Budget, 
too.
  When I hear people on the Committee on Agriculture saying they are 
going to let the Committee on the Budget write the farm bill now, I am 
worried. There are bean growers on the Committee on Agriculture; there 
are bean counters on the Committee on the Budget. Let us put the farm 
bill in the hands of the bean growers, the people who understand 
agriculture, who live in small town America.
  I sincerely hope the gentleman from Kansas who takes exception to our 
bill will roll up his sleeves in his own committee and address real 
agricultural reform. I think that is only fair. We have tried our best 
to stay out of any area in this bill that might offend him. I am sure 
there have been areas where we have crossed the line. It was not 
intentional.
  But I hope that he accepts his responsibility and the responsibility 
of his Committee on Agriculture. I will join him in that effort. I 
think all members of the subcommittee will join him in that effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am in a position under which, as I said earlier, 
because of the customs of the House, if I am in a position to offer the 
motion to recommit to try to correct this outrageous consumer fraud 
that is going on with respect to frozen chickens, then I really am 
virtually required to vote against the conference report.
  As I have indicated, I do so with great reluctance, because I think 
that the committee has done a pretty good job in restoring some of the 
reductions that were originally in this bill for rural sewer and water 
and housing. I think that responsible folks in rural America recognize 
that they have to accept their fair share of reductions. So while I do 
not agree with all of the reductions, I think the committee has done a 
reasonable job, given the limitations it has been operating under.
  I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition of the House 
Committee on Agriculture to this bill reminds me of the old story about 
Leo Durocher when he managed the New York Giants. Durocher was hitting 
ground balls to Eddie Stanky and Stanky dropped a couple. So Durocher 
said, ``Stanky, give me a glove. Let me show you how to play second 
base.'' He took the glove and went out to play second base, and the 
very first ball hit to Durocher, he dropped. He turned to Stanky and 
said, ``Stanky, you have second base so screwed up, nobody can play 
it.''
  I would suggest right now that agriculture policy has been so screwed 
up by the House authorizing committee through the years, both in the 
past and in this session, that nobody can unscrew it. So what we are 
faced with is a ridiculous situation in which it appears like the 
Committee on the Budget is going to be writing farm policy, and what a 
lot of people on the Committee on the Budget know about cows, you can 
put in your left ear.
  It just seems to me that while I think there are good reasons to vote 
for this recommittal motion, and while I am required, because I am 
offering the recommittal motion, to vote against the bill, I think that 
this bill needs to be evaluated fairly in contrast to what is coming 
out of the House Committee on Agriculture.
  All I can say is that I see the chances of anything good for my dairy 
farmers coming out of the House Committee on Agriculture are slim and 
none, because we are being given a choice between either swallowing 
what is essentially on that bill the status quo, which really puts 
Midwest dairy farmers at a huge economic disadvantage, or else 
swallowing the idea that we ought to in essence end all farm programs. 
It seems to me that we ought to be able to do better than that, but 
obviously we are not going to be given that opportunity.
  I just wanted to say that to keep everything in balance before we 
vote on this turkey of a chicken proposal that is in this committee 
bill.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report on the agriculture appropriations. I would like to congratulate 
our chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], and our 
ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for the 
excellent job that they did in conference in holding to most of the 
House positions. I think they have really worked hard to bring a bill 
to the floor that even the critics can support, or may have a small 
problem with, but overall, this is a good, solid bill.
  Let me give you some of the reasons why we should vote for this. 
First of all, it is almost $5 billion below last year's level. It 
supports the reorganization of the USDA. It consolidates and reduces by 
25 percent the funding available for USDA congressional affairs 
activities. It reforms the market promotion plan, the market promotion 
program.
  It dramatically increases funding from the original bill for rural 
housing, which is of critical importance to our rural communities, and 
in New York, where we do have, believe it or not, rural communities, 
this is a big help. It provides $488 million for rural water and waste 
disposal grants and loans, which is critical, given the difficulty that 
small communities have in meeting EPA standards. It provides additional 
funding for WIC, which is a very important and popular program.
  There are so many reasons to vote for this and so few not to. I would 
really urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit. This bill is far 
too important to recommit it back to the conference because of 
basically a dispute between Arkansas and California chicken farmers. 
That is really what it comes down to. Please give us the opportunity to 
pass this on to the President. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit, 
vote ``yes'' on final passage.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to remind all of my colleagues 
that this bill represents a lot of hard choices and a lot of hard work, 
as every appropriations bill should. We have to look to the taxpayers 
who pay for these programs and who use them 

[[Page H 9912]]
every day, whether they are urban farmers, such as the gentleman from 
New York, who shops in the Cheerio basket division, and I have great 
admiration for him because he is a great cause-promoter, but this is a 
tough job.
  It is one that has to be done, and I think we have done an excellent 
job. I appreciate the hard work that has gone into the bill, all the 
effort that was made by everybody on that particular committee, 
particularly the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The bottom line is that this bill is a responsible bill and it cuts 
spending and meets our budget targets. We would not and we could not be 
here today if it did not do so. At the same time, the bill provides our 
farmers and ranchers the resources to produce an abundant, safe supply 
of food, and that is what these folks demand day by day and count on, a 
safe, adequate supply of food.
  There is no place on Earth any better than right here in the United 
States because of the kind of work that we do on this committee and 
other committees dealing with agriculture products. We may have our 
debate, but in the end, that is the essence of what we are doing.
  This is an essential bill for women, children, senior citizens, and 
the poor. It provides shelter and economic opportunity in rural areas 
and makes sound investments in research, education and the environment 
for the future prosperity of this great country.
  Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this 
conference report and to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit. At this 
point in the Record I would like to insert a table.

[[Page H 9913]]
TH12OC95.000



[[Page H 9914]]
TH12OC95.001



[[Page H 9915]]
TH12OC95.002



[[Page H 9916]]
TH12OC95.003



[[Page H 9917]]
TH12OC95.004



[[Page H 9918]]
TH12OC95.005



[[Page H 9919]]
TH12OC95.006



[[Page H 9920]]
TH12OC95.007



[[Page H 9921]]

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend our chairman, the 
gentleman from New Mexico, and our ranking member, the gentleman from 
Illinois, for their outstanding leadership in shepherding this bill 
through conference. While I believe this bill provides adequate funding 
for agriculture programs and continues our support for American farmers 
which are the most productive in the world, I have serious concerns 
with two provisions in the conference report.
  First, the conference agreement includes language allowing the 
Secretary of Agriculture to fund all costs for agricultural equine 
quarantine inspection services in connection with the 1996 summer 
games. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is using American 
tax dollars to pay the fees foreign countries would owe a U.S. 
Government agency [USDA APHIS] for inspecting horses competing in the 
equestrian events at the Olympic Games. Let me repeat, this conference 
report includes language which forgives the fees foreign countries are 
required to pay for quarantine costs of horses competing in the 
equestrian competition at the Olympics and then forces U.S. taxpayers 
to pay the bill. Supporters of this provision in the conference argued 
that this was a goodwill gesture which will only cost approximately 
$300,000; $300,000 here, $300,000 there and soon you are talking about 
real money which can reduce the deficit.
  We all know that the days of struggling amateur athletes competing in 
the Olympic Games are long gone. Individuals often receive government 
support to compete or have the benefit of corporate sponsorship or 
endorsement contracts. Why should our taxpayers pay this bill? The 
Olympic organizers or the corporate sponsors who will make millions on 
this event should bear this cost.
  In addition, I object to the inclusion of language in the conference 
agreement which prohibits the USDA from enforcing regulations it 
recently issued, that would have prohibited processors from labeling 
poultry products chilled to below 26 degrees as fresh. On August 25 
USDA issued regulations to take effect 1 year from now which would 
overturn longstanding USDA policy which allowed chickens that had been 
chilled to as low as 1 degree Fahrenheit to be labelled as fresh when 
they are put on sale. Consumers have a right to know whether the 
chicken they buy is truthfully labelled as fresh and has never been 
frozen. Everyone agrees that its a bad idea to re-freeze thawed 
chicken. Yet if the Senate language contained in the conference report 
prevails, consumers will not know if the chicken they are moving from 
the fridge to the freezer is being handled correctly.
  Mr. Speaker, California passed a law which would have prohibited the 
sale of frozen chickens as fresh. This law was struck down in Federal 
court. USDA, after 15 months of study, issued rules which give 
consumers truth in labelling. Under the rule, only chicken 26 degrees 
and above is labelled as fresh; 0 to 26 degrees must be labeled as hard 
chilled or previously hard chilled; and chicken at 0 or below must be 
labelled as frozen or previously frozen. Industry has two concerns, a 2 
degree temperature variance is needed in order to ship chickens in 
extreme climates and that consumers will not buy chickens labelled as 
hard chilled. I appreciate industry's concerns but common sense 
dictates that you do not scrap a rule arrived at after 15 months of 
review and scientific study. Playing politics with food safety is 
wrong.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1996 
Agriculture appropriations bill, H.R. 1976. In particular, I would like 
to thank the conferees for providing an additional $500,000 to the 
Agriculture Research Service to begin research on a virus that 
threatens California's citrus industry--Citrus Tristeza Virus [CTV].
  California's citrus industry is a $1.5 billion industry. CTV puts at 
risk the only remaining disease free budwood stock as well as our $485 
million export market. The ARS' work on CTV in California will 
compliment ongoing private sector research in the State. Ultimately, I 
hope it will give our farmers the tools to eradicate this threat. I 
believe funding for this research is an investment in the long-term 
health of California's economy.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.


                 motion to recommit offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, at this point I certainly am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill, H.R. 1976 to the committee of conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
     disagree to the Senate amendment numbered 150.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 158, 
nays 264, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 707]

                               YEAS--158

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baker (CA)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Calvert
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cunningham
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hunter
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pombo
     Poshard
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thomas
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--264

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Morella
     Murtha

[[Page H 9922]]

     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Baldacci
     Dornan
     Fields (LA)
     Kennelly
     Moakley
     Owens
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1206

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Ms. DANNER, Mr. HILLIARD, Mrs. 
CHENOWETH, and Messrs. EVERETT, LEWIS of Georgia, and RAHALL changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. CONYERS, Mr. PACKARD, Mrs. SEASTRAND, Mr. COX of California, Ms. 
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Messrs. HORN, CUNNINGHAM, MORAN, 
and LEWIS of California changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 288, 
nays 132, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 708]

                               YEAS--288

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--132

     Allard
     Archer
     Bachus
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blute
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Burton
     Buyer
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Fattah
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Lantos
     Largent
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lofgren
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Payne (NJ)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Taylor (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Baldacci
     Condit
     Dornan
     Fields (LA)
     Jacobs
     Kennelly
     Moakley
     Owens
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1224

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Baldacci for, with Mr. Dornan against.

  Ms. ESHOO changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________