[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.
____________________