"SEC. 27. The Secretary shall annually report to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry of the Senate with respect to the slaughter of poultry subject to this Act, and the preparation, storage, handling, and distribution of poultry parts, poultry products, and inspection of establishments operated in connection therewith, including the operations under and the effectiveness of this Act."

SEC. 18. The heading "Designation" preceding section 5 of said Act is hereby amended to read "Federal and State cooperation"; the heading "Labeling" preceding section 8 of said Act is hereby amended to read "Labeling and containers; standards"; the heading "Records of interstate shipment" preceding section 11 of said Act is hereby amended to read "Articles not intended for human food; record and related requirements for processors of poultry products and related industries engaged in commerce; registration requirements for related industries engaged in commerce; regulation of transactions in commerce in dead, dying, disabled, or diseased poultry and carcasses thereof; authority to regulate comparable intrastate activities"; and the heading "Violations by exempted persons" preceding section 16 of said Act is hereby amended to read "Entry of materials into official establishments."

SEC. 19. If any provisions of this Act or of the amendments made hereby or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the Act and the remaining amendments and of the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 20. This Act shall become effective upon enactment except as provided in paragraphs (a) through (c):

(a) The provisions of subparagraphs (a) (2) (A) and (a)(3) of section 9 of the Poultry Products Inspection Act, as amended by section 9 of this Act, shall become effective upon the expiration of sixty days after enactment hereof.

(b) Section 14 of this Act, amending section 15 of the Poultry Products Inspection Act, shall become effective upon the expiration of sixty days after enactment hereof.

(c) Paragraph 11(d) of the Poultry Products Inspection Act, as added by section 11 of this Act, shail become effective upon the expiration of sixty days after enactment hereof.

And the Senate agree to the same.

STATEMENT OF MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 16363) to clarify and otherwise amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act, to provide for cooperation with appropriate State agencies with respect to State poultry products inspection programs, and for other purposes, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the act agreed upon by the conferees and recommended in an accompanying conference report.

The House receded from its disagreement to the Senate amendment. of section 9(a), striking the word "knowingly" in order that the Poultry Act might conform to the corresponding section of the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

The Senate receded from its second amendment prohibiting the change in the official inspection legend for the reason that the Department had no present plans to change the same. It was the intent of the conferees and agreed in conference that the Secretary shall not require any change in the official inspection legend in use under this act on the date of enactment of the Wholesome Poultry Products Act without reasonable notice to the processors and the opportunity for public hearing. If such change is made, ample time shall be provided for use by the processors of the supplies of labeling material on hand on the date of such change.

The managers on the part of the House receded to the Senate. amendment striking out the requirements that labeling information be arbitrarily placed on both the carcass and the container in the case of nonconsumer packaged carcasses. The conference language as agreed to would give the Secretary the discretion whenever such action was both practicable and necessary to require nonconsumer packaged carcasses leaving the processing plant to bear directly thereon any information the Secretary might consider necessary from paragraph (h) of section 4 of the act, but not necessarily all or even a major portion of such information. In practice, it might be possible to require only the name and address of the processor but the conferees intend that such requirement be minimal.

The managers on the part of the House receded to the Senate amendment which would provide interested parties with an opportunity to present their views orally with respect to proposed rulemaking under the Wholesome Poultry Products Act.

With the addition of the word "unduly," the conferees agreed to the amendment by the Senate prohibiting a State, territory, or the District of Columbia from imposing storage or handling regulations. It was agreed in conference that the Secretary needed such authority to dictate storage or handling requirements or the removal thereof only where those requirements unduly interfered with the flow of poultry products in commerce.

Managers on the part of the House receded to the omission by the Senate of the House language limiting the Secretary of Agriculture's

(19)

authority to regulate storage and handling under section 13 of the act to permit the regulation by States rather than the Federal Government of these steps by local retail stores, restaurants, and similar local enterprises. This was considered as being in consonance with the previous change.

The managers on the part of the House receded to the inclusion as a part of the declaration of policy a statement to the effect that scientific fact, information, or other criteria must support the condemnation of poultry or poultry products because of disease.

The managers on the part of the Senate receded to the language of the House bill and struck its amendment to the import poultry section of the Poultry Products Inspection Act. It was agreed that imported poultry constituted a very small segment of the industry and that it presented no problem requiring legislation.

The conferees agreed to a new exemption category by the inclusion in the conference report of a new section, 15(c) (4). This provides for a complete exclusion from the provisions of the act of all poultry producers with respect to poultry of their own raising on their own farms if such producers do not buy or sell poultry products other than those produced from poultry raised on their farms, and if none of such poultry moves in interstate commerce so long as such producer slaughters not more than 250 turkeys, or not more than an equivalent number of birds of all species during the calendar year the exemption is determined. For the purposes of this act four birds of other species are deemed equivalent to one turkey. This would enable the producer of this category to slaughter not more than 1,000 chickens and still be exempt from the act.

Subsection 15(c) (3) was amended in conference to provide that poultry producers or processors of 5,000 turkeys or an equivalent number of other poultry in the current calendar year (four birds of other species being equivalent to one turkey) might, by the regulation of the Secretary of Agriculture, under conditions of sanitary standards practices and procedures that he prescribed, be exempt from specific provisions of the act. It was agreed that the Secretary shall exercise such authority over this category of producer or processor as may be necessary to assure consumers of wholesome poultry products processed under sanitary conditions. The conferees by this action intended that the exemption granted producers slaughtering their own birds in small numbers, 250 turkeys or 1,000 other birds, be absolutely immune to this act but that limited authority be extended the Secretary over processors or producers slaughtering their own birds, in amounts from 250 turkeys, or their equivalent, up to but not more than 5,000 turkeys or the equivalent number of birds of other species.

GRAHAM PURCELL,

FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD,
THOMAS S. FOLEY,

CATHERINE MAY,

Managers on the Part of the House.

O

90TH CONGRESS 2d Session

}

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

{ No. 1840

REPORT

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY-TRIAL BY JURY IN CASES INVOLVING THE CONDEMNATION OF REAL PROPERTY

AUGUST 1, 1968.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. FALLON, from the Committee on Public Works,
submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 4846]

The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 4846), to amend the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 to provide that the issue of just compensation may be tried by a jury in any case involving the condemnation of real property by the Tennessee Valley Authority, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

The amendments are as follows:

(1) Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following new material:

That the last six paragraphs of section 25 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (48 Stat. 70), as amended (16 U.S.C. 831x), are hereby repealed. SEC. 2. The amendment made by this Act shall be effective only with respect to condemnation proceedings initiated after thirty days following the date of enactment of this Act.

(2) Amend the title so as to read:

A bill to amend the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 with respect to certain provisions applicable to condemnation proceedings.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 4846, as amended, is to amend section 25 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as amended (16 U.S.C. 831x), to provide that the issue of just compensation may be tried by a jury in cases involving the condemnation of real property by the Tennessee Valley Authority.

GENERAL STATEMENT

Section 25 of the TVA Act provides for the determination of the issue of just compensation by three commissioners appointed by the district court with provision for appeal from their determination to a three-judge Federal court. Further appeal is made to the court of appeals. No jury trial is available.

Other agencies of the Federal Government involved in land condemnation cases operate, in general, under rule 71A (h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under that rule, any party may have a trial by jury of the issue of just compensation by filing a demand therefor unless the court in its discretion orders that, because of the character, location, or quantity of the property to be condemned, or for other reasons in the interest of justice, the issue of compensation shall be determined by a commission of three persons appointed by it.

The Tennessee Valley Authority handles its own land condemnation cases, while the Department of Justice conducts condemnation litigation for all other Federal agencies.

Section 25 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act as amended by H.R. 4846 makes applicable rule 71(A) (h) to the Tennessee Valley Authority as it is in all other Government agencies.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Public hearings were held by the Subcommittee on Flood Control on May 14 and 15, 1968, in order to obtain the views and recommendations of all concerned.

Testimony was received from the Tennessee Valley Authority, interested Congressmen, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and others who had expressed an interest in the legislation.

Proponents of the legislation indicated that no landowner should be denied his basic right to a trial by jury involving the condemnation of his property. In addition, it was indicated that the absence of a right to a jury trial had generated friction between TVA and landowners which was seriously affecting the public relations of that

agency.

Opponents of H.R. 4846 advanced a number of reasons for retaining the condemnation procedures presently followed under section 25 of the TVA Act. It was indicated that the present condemnation procedure followed by TVA involving the use of commissioners in lieu of a trial by jury was well adapted to an agency engaged in the comprehensive development of resources of a region requiring substantial acquisition of land and land rights.

COMMITTEE VIEWS

The committee notes that the procedure followed by the Tennessee Valley Authority involving the use of commissioners in land condemnation cases has been in use for a good number of years. The procedure in most instances has been fair and workable but recently individuals whose land was acquired by TVA through condemnation have indicated dissatisfaction with the system.

Although TVA testified that they considered the commission system has served the ends of justice well for over 30 years and is both fair