Larry Combest

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, today I remember the life of Mr. David Butler, an individual who understood the meaning of dedication and service to his neighbors and his community. On September 19, Mr. Butler was doing what he did best--helping people--when he collapsed and later passed away. A firefighter with the Idalou, Texas, Volunteer Fire Department for 23 years and Assistant Chief for 10 of those, David gave the ultimate gift of life to save that of another. David, along with other members of the Idalou and Lorenzo Volunteer Fire Departments, arrived at the scene of a one-vehicle roll-over to find the driver trapped beneath a water truck. In an effort to free the driver, Assistant Chief Butler helped set up air bags to lift the truck off the pavement. Once the bags were inflated, he operated the controls to raise the truck, and the man was soon freed from the wreckage and transported to a local hospital. As firefighters were loading their equipment for the return home, David collapsed never to regain consciousness. The fire department was an extension of David's family, and he acted as a father to his colleagues just as he did to his own three children. He was the epitome of a family man; an ever-dedicated servant to his family, friends and community. David is a true hero, and through his service, he has made Idalou and our society a better place to live. I would like to extend my most sincere condolences to his wife and children and to all who had the pleasure of working with and knowing him. You are all in my thoughts and prayers.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I, along with my distinguished colleague, Mr. Thornberry, wish to congratulate the Amarillo Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System for receiving the Robert W. Carey Quality Award from the Department of Veterans Affairs. This annual award is one of the highest honors that a VA facility can receive. The Carey Award recognizes model organizations for their quality transformation efforts, organizational effectiveness, and improvements in performance service and satisfying customers. The Amarillo VA Health Care System, which provides medical assistance to veterans throughout the Texas and Oklahoma Panhandles and portions of Eastern New Mexico and Southern Kansas, received the 2000 Carey Award for the health care category. The Amarillo VA Health Care System serves a population of 75,000 veterans and houses an acute care facility, nursing home, two community-based outpatient clinics, and four contractual primary care clinics. Over 25,000 patients are treated annually, including 3,300 inpatient and over 200,000 outpatient visits. They have implemented a wide variety of innovative measures, from moving the Substance Abuse Program to an outpatient setting to restructuring Primary Care and to establishing a safety program to reduce employee accidents. Through the use of employee teams, the hospital now administers a Bar Code Medication Administration, which uses computer technology to track and monitor patient medications. In addition, they have established a pilot program of the Computerized Patient Record System, enabling the hospital to coordinate patient information so that all aspects of the health care system may be utilized. The mission of the Veterans Health Administration and the Amarillo VA Health Care System is to improve the health of the served population by providing primary, specialty, and extended care, and related social support services through an integrated health care delivery program. As a learning organization, the VA Health Care System continually raises the standard for VA facilities nationwide. By focusing on trust, teamwork, and continuous improvement, the Amarillo VA has been able to greatly reduce the costs of primary care, increase the quality of health care available and improve employee relations. These combined efforts have built a facility that provides an invaluable service to thousands of veterans. It is with pride that we recognize the doctors, nurses, administrators, volunteers, and other staff who have contributed to this outstanding accomplishment. Thanks to their tremendous efforts, West Texas is home to an outstanding veteran health care provider. We wholeheartedly extend our congratulations to the Amarillo VA Health Care System for receiving the 2000 Robert W. Carey Quality Award.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support as an original cosponsor of H.R. 5224, the International Food Relief Partnership Act of 2000. Because of our agricultural productivity, the United States is able to aid the victims of famine, drought, and natural disasters all around the world. Many of the groups that assist in feeding hungry people around the world are faith based and private nonprofit organizations that donate their services. For years, these groups, who want to contribute food aid to victims of international disasters, have been prevented from fully participating in these efforts. H.R. 5224 would authorize the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development to provide grants to private, nonprofit, and private voluntary organizations for the stockpiling and rapid transportation, delivery, and distribution of shelf-stable prepackaged foods to needy individuals in foreign countries. This legislation also provides an incentive for farmers and ranchers to donate their surplus. Preference is given to U.S. nonprofit organizations that can provide 50 percent matching funds. This will improve our food relief efforts by enabling nonprofit organizations to contribute more food to international disaster sites, decrease the cost of the Federal Government, and increase the public participation. One example of a nonprofit organization that provides food assistance in the United States and around the world is Breedlove Dehydrated Foods. Breedlove Dehydrated Foods, an unusually committed group of people, have energized my home community and are simply looking for a way to help the needy around the world. This organization accepts food donations from farmers and then dehydrates the food and packages it. The product Breedlove creates is a nutritious blend of vegetables and legumes that serve as a great source of protein. This product has been used before by private voluntary organizations in North Korea, Iraq, Kosovo, Turkey, Russia, Belarus, and Iran. Several other nonprofit organizations support this legislation. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 5224.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the National Agricultural Communicator of Tomorrow for celebrating 30 years. This organization, comprised of college students from across the nation, plays an important role in developing skills students need to excel in the communications field. ACT provides students with the opportunity to network with ag communications professionals and attend seminars and meetings to learn more about possible career choices. Individuals with an agricultural communications degree have the task of educating and informing the public about agriculture. As Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, I know firsthand the value of having such advocates and voices promoting American agriculture, and ACT gives students a chance to expand upon these abilities. Twenty-three students from seven universities formed ACT in July 1970 at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. Currently, ACT has grown to include 21 chapters with over 351 members nationwide, including a chapter in Puerto Rico. Many professional communication organizations support ACT. These ``parent organizations'' provide guidance, act as mentors, and serve as a resource for students to utilize when looking for employment. The National ACT organization holds a national convention each year in conjunction with one of its parent organizations and is participating in the U.S. Agricultural Communicators Congress occurring in Washington, DC July 23-26. At the convention, students are given the opportunity to compete in contest categories such as black and white photography, feature story writing, page layout and design, video editing, and present a public relations campaign. These contests allow students the opportunity not only to compete, but to showcase their work to future employers. ACT has been instrumental in preparing our students for the future. As the population continues to grow and fewer people are involved with production agriculture, it is imperative that organizations like ACT play a prominent role in educating consumers. ACT members have the ability to inform the public about the value, diversity, and importance of American agricultural products in today's society. I want to recognize the National Agricultural Communicators of Tomorrow on their 30th birthday, applaud them for their outstanding achievements, and wish them continued success in all of their activities.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Texas Boys Ranch of Lubbock in celebration of their 25th Anniversary Telethon on August 26th, 2000. Texas Boys Ranch provides adolescent boys of the South Plains an opportunity to realize their dreams and reach their goals. The Texas Boys Ranch began in 1975 as a way for community leaders to minister to the lives of troubled youth. For 25 years, Texas Boys Ranch has served over 400 boys and young men from all walks of life. Texas Boys Ranch is a working ranch with cattle, hogs, horses, and ponies. In addition to their full academic schedules, the boys live on the ranch and are required to preform chores in their cottages and on the ranch. Texas Boys Ranch also offers a unique program to young men age 17 or older. The Independent Living Program allows these men to live at the Ranch's Cottage III, where they are given the responsibility to make choices regarding their day to day lives. For the past 25 years, the Texas Boys Ranch has provided boys and young men of the South Plains with a stable environment in which to grow and develop. Generous contributions from individuals, churches, businesses, and foundations, as well as reimbursement by the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, provide the funding for Texas Boys Ranch. A recent capital campaign led to a much needed renovation project of cottages, Dinning facilities and infrastructure at the Ranch. The Silver Anniversary Telethon is yet another opportunity for the community to help the Texas Boys Ranch in influencing the lives of young men. At a time in our nation when young people have more obstacles and challenges growing up, and fewer quality role models, Texas Boys Ranch serves as a positive and stabilizing force in the lives in many young men. The success story of Texas Boys Ranch demonstrates how communities can come together and reach out to the needs of our young boys.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against the provision appearing on page 85, lines 6 through 15, of H.R. 4461, the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. The provision cited above violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the House in that it contains legislative or authorizing language in an appropriations bill as noted below: The provision places a limitation on expenditures of the Insurance Fund authorized under the Federal Crop Insurance Act where such limitation does not exist under current law instead of confining such limitation on expenditures to funds made available under this act. Additionally, by addressing funds in other acts, the amendment changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the House.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), and I recognize and understand the frustration that has driven the gentleman to this fairly serious amendment. As I am sure it is in the district of the gentleman and all of the districts of the other Members, it is not the common sense regulation approach of the Federal Government that concerns people. It is the approach and the regulations that simply do not pass the logic of the stupid test. This subject is one that has gained the attention of agriculture all across this country, and it has gained their attention in a very negative way. As the gentleman from Texas, my colleague, mentioned, we felt somewhat excited about the fact that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the agency that we look to to speak in behalf of the American farmers, not as a rubber stamp but those who understand the problems of agriculture, as well as any other agency of government, was going to have a more equal role in making the decisions that were going to affect farmers, with other agencies of government. When the total maximum daily load issue arose sometime back, we felt that USDA would be there to explain what the benefits or what the costs would be to agriculture, in fact, felt quite heartened by a letter that was written that talked about the hundreds of millions, even possibly billions of dollars of expense that this was going to impose upon agriculture, and without having the scientific basis on which to base these regulations that are proposed, whether or not it would even accomplish the good that EPA was trying to accomplish. Well, subsequent to that time, I will describe the actions of USDA as we would back in Texas. They have basically tucked tail and run and now have become almost a rubber stamp for the EPA. Well, this concerns us a great deal because this is moving forward in an area that we do not believe is scientifically based. It is moving forward in an area that we believe is going to be extremely detrimental, and it is moving forward in an area that we do not believe is going to do the most good. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I and 92 of our colleagues have introduced a bill that would stop the implementation of the regulations. There are several other bills in both the House and the Senate, and totally there is almost half of the Congress that is supporting at least one or a variety of these bills. I think that if nothing else that this should send a strong signal to USDA and hopefully to EPA as well that they have in the past run roughshod over the American farmer. We do not intend to let them run roughshod over the U.S. Congress.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituents who participated in this month's National Race for the Cure in Washington, D.C. as part of Team Hope, a team of West Texans lead by Suzie King, a breast cancer survivor from Lubbock, Texas. Suzie was one of many survivors who traveled to Washington to participate in this year's ``celebration of survivorship.'' The Washington event was just one of many Races for the Cure that occurred nationwide as part of the fund- raising efforts of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. As the number of breast cancer diagnoses continues to rise, so does our nation's need for breast cancer awareness. The Komen Foundation, which was founded by Nancy Brinker in 1982 to honor her sister, a victim of breast cancer, has raised more than $242 million for this worthy cause. Team Hope members are to be commended for rallying around Suzie and the other breast cancer survivors who participated in the national race, as are the Americans in every state who support the efforts of the Komen foundation. I believe that Team Hope inspired others to join in the fight against breast cancer. Two publications based in Lubbock, Texas, the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal and Texas Tech University's University Daily, are to be commended for their coverage of Team Hope's engagement in the event and their support for the National Race for the Cure. These publications reach a wide range of readers, all of whom can benefit from their poignant portrayals of a survivor's story. Our nation must engage in a dialogue to promote breast cancer education, research and screening and treatment. I commend the Komen Foundation, Suzie King and the members of Lubbock's Team Hope, and the Lubbock community for their bravery and dedication to this worthy cause.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this resolution. As the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, I know how essential exports are to farmers and ranchers across the United States; but, more importantly, the U.S. farmers and ranchers recognize the importance of trade to their own success. Withdrawing from the WTO would have the effect of isolating American producers from the rest of the world. For an industry that exports 30 percent of its production, a resolution such as this would have a devastating impact. If the House supports this resolution, the effect will be that the United States will be applying economic sanctions to the world; and we know who feels the effect of economic sanctions first, it is the American farmer and rancher. There are three things that can happen when agricultural sanctions go into effect, and they are all bad: exports go down, prices go down, and farmers and ranchers lose their share of the world market. The 1980 grain embargo on the Soviet Union is one of the examples of the effect on sanctions on U.S. agriculture. Our wheat sales were lost, while France, Canada, Australia and Argentina sold wheat to the former Soviet Union. H.J. Res. 90 can have the same or more devastating impact on American agriculture. U.S. farmers and ranchers provide much more than is consumed in the United States; and, therefore, exports are vital to the prosperity of the American farmer and rancher. The WTO is not a perfect organization, and Congressional oversight is essential and needed. Nevertheless, it is superior to previous organizations, and American agriculture recognizes this. Negotiations to further improve access to markets around the world and eliminate export subsidies are now going on. Since the end of World War II, eight rounds of negotiations have reduced the average bound tariff on industrial goods from 40 percent to 4 percent. Meanwhile, bound agricultural tariffs remain at an average of about 50 percent. If agriculture is to catch up, it is essential to keep the U.S. a part of the negotiating process to convince our trading partners to talk about further reforms in agriculture. U.S. membership in the WTO is necessary to continue this progress. I urge my colleagues to reject H.J. Res. 90 for the future of American agriculture.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1504, as amended was included in the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2559, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000 as title IV of this Act. As introduced, H.R. 1504 was referred primarily to the House Committee on Agriculture, and in addition, to the Committees on Judiciary, Resources, and Ways and Means for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker. To expedite consideration of H.R. 1504, and to allow it to be included in this conference report, the following letters were exchanged between the Committee on Agriculture and the other committees of jurisdiction waiving further consideration of the bill. House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC, May 23, 2000. Hon. Bill Archer, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing with regard to H.R. 1504, a bill that was primarily referred to the Committee on Agriculture and additionally to the Committee on Ways and Means. This bill modernizes and enhances the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to plant protection and quarantine. Please find the enclosed copy of H.R. 1504, as amended, along with a side-by-side comparison showing current law. In order to allow the timely consideration by the entire House of Representatives during the remaining period in the 106th Congress, I am requesting that you waive your Committee's referral of H.R. 1504. I understand that such an action is not intended to waive your Committee's jurisdiction over this subject matter or any similar legislation now or in the future and look forward to working with you on matters of shared interest. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Larry Combest, Chairman. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, May 25, 2000. Hon. Larry Combest, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Combest: I am writing concerning the Conference Report to H.R. 2559 (Report), the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 1999, which includes an amendment to H.R. 1504, the Plant Protection Act, offered by Mr. Canady. Section 413 of the Report contains an item of jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Ways and Means. This Act is intended to consolidate existing laws relating to plant safety. Specifically, section 413 of the Report, ``Notification and Holding Requirements Upon Arrival,'' would require the Secretary of the Treasury to notify promptly the Secretary of Agriculture of the arrival of any plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed at a port of entry. This provision also requires the Secretary of the Treasury to hold those products until they are inspected and authorized for entry into or transit movement through the United States, or otherwise released by the Secretary of Agriculture. Current section 156 of title 7 of the United States Code requires the Secretary of the Treasury to notify the Secretary of Agriculture of the arrival of any nursery stock at a port of entry. Section 413 repeals current section 156, and instead, requires such notification for all of the above referenced products, including nursery stock. The statutory requirement that the Secretary of the Treasury hold such shipments until released by the Secretary of Agriculture and the authority for the Secretary of Treasury to release a shipment from the port of entry without necessarily requiring an inspection are new. The U.S. Customs Service already follows similar procedures, and it is our understanding that section 413 does not change current law, with respect to such imports, but only enhances enforcement of the current laws relating to those imports. Normally, the Committee on Ways and Means would meet to consider such legislation. In order to expedite consideration of H.R. 2559, I will not object to the inclusion of section 413 of the amendment, and, for this reason, it will not be necessary for the Committee on Ways and Means to meet to consider the legislation. However, this action is being done with the understanding that it will not prejudice the jurisdictional prerogatives of the Committee on Ways and Means on these provisions or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the future. Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter in the Record. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in this matter. With best personal regards, Sincerely, Bill Archer, Chairman.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his comments and the comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts. I want to say that I strongly support this rule and urge its passage and the accompanying conference report. I appreciate the Committee on Rules meeting so late yesterday evening and into the night in order to give us this opportunity today. This is a measure that we have been working on for about a year and a half. It is something that in fact needs as soon as possible to get into law so that the regulations can be written, so that the provisions of this program can be implemented for the coming crop year. It is vitally important that American producers understand the assistance package that is coming, and it is very critical that this happen at this particular time. I want to again extend my appreciation for all of those members on the Committee on Rules who made this possible.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 512, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2559) to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net for agricultural producers by providing greater access to more affordable risk management tools and improved protection from production and income loss, to improve the efficiency and integrity of the Federal crop insurance program, and for other purposes.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud today to bring this conference report to the floor. With this single piece of legislation, we have the opportunity to strengthen farmers' ability to manage the risk the future may bring and to provide them the financial assistance that they badly need to cope with their immediate financial crisis. H.R. 2559 began last year when the House provided the budget resources to overhaul and reinvigorate our ailing agricultural risk management system. The Committee on Agriculture then crafted, on a truly bipartisan basis, the most significant improvements in the crop insurance program in its history. The result last year was the House passage of legislation that makes risk management more affordable and more effective for more farmers. While the Senate was unable to pass a similar bill until this year, passage of this conference report today will ensure that producers will see the benefits of this major initiative beginning with the next year's crop. In addition to sustaining the drive to secure future farm financial stability, this year's budget resolution also provides $7.1 billion in emergency economic assistance to farmers facing their third straight year of historically low prices. Recovering Asian markets and trade openings like yesterday's passage of permanent normal trade relations with China are optimistic signs for future prices. But this year, farmers face a bleak situation. Providing temporary economic assistance now will bring a measure of economic stability to farm families as they struggle to regain markets and secure improved prices. Altogether, the elements contained in this conference report signal Congress' commitment to help America's farmers get through their current price crisis and to provide a more stable foundation of risk management for their future. This has been a massive undertaking that would not have been possible without a broad bipartisan effort. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking Democrat on the committee who set aside partisan considerations to work for a year and a half to bring us to today's vote. His effort typifies the spirit of all 51 members of the House Committee on Agriculture to work tirelessly on behalf of American farmers. Our committee also owes a debt of gratitude to the whole House, who in two successive budget cycles recognized the need to focus special attention on one sector of our booming economy that is struggling. The work of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and his colleagues on the Committee on the Budget made available the resources needed to bring this bill to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be a part of such a broad, sustained, and bipartisan effort to provide economic assistance and lay a stronger foundation for the future of American farm families. I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report to H.R. 2559. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one of the pleasures we have had in the past year and a half personally from this Member's standpoint has been the opportunity to work with and to have very open and frank discussions with not only my colleague on the committee, but my friend and my neighbor, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), my neighbor not only the committee, but neighbor in Texas as well. But there are a couple of points that I want to make, Mr. Speaker, in regards to the comments of the gentleman from Texas. I agree with the gentleman in the fact that we have problems in agriculture and problems that the program has its deficiencies. It was that recognition after the second year of the amount of money that was required in order to keep agriculture afloat in this country that our committee embarked on a series of hearings across this country to listen to farmers, to get their input on what is good and what is bad about current farm policy. We have just concluded in the past 2 weeks 10 of those hearings, and I will say my friend and partner, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), accompanied me on all 10 of those. We were the only two members on the committee able to attend them all. But it was for the express purpose of going out and listening to farmers. We heard a number of suggestions, but a couple of the things we did hear, that I think resonated throughout, was the fact that it has been the assistance that Congress has provided over the last couple of years that helped tremendously, keeping farmers in business. Another was the need for a dramatic reform in crop insurance. I think today's activity and legislation addresses both of those in a very significant way. I think we need to have a better way to make this delivery, but I will say that given the fact that this is paid in this fiscal year, given the fact that it has to be deliverable in a timely fashion, there have been a lot of discussions with people from the outside and others about a need to make a change in the delivery process. I am very open to looking at that change. There has been a lot of discussion about it. It has not come forward. We will continue to look at it in any possible way we can do the job better. But I do not want those listening to this conversation to believe that this is not something that is strongly supported by commodity groups all across this country. There has been virtually unanimous request for making the payments from commodity groups in the fashion that is provided for in this legislation. It does ensure that farmers do know exactly what it is they are going to get, they know exactly when they are going to get it, and that helps them tremendously in their financial obligations and considerations and concerns that they have to deal with today. I think that, given the fact that we are dealing in an area that has tremendous concerns and problems, agriculture, that this is a very healthy and a very positive response to those concerns. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), the vice chairman of the committee.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), a very important and active member of the committee.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Not only is the chair aware but extremely concerned about what did go on in the grading program. While I regret that we were unable to include funding in this particular package for the economic damage that these growers incurred, I agree that both the House and the Senate committees should immediately consider ways that we can help these growers recover their economic loss. It is a travesty that this loss occurred as a result of illegal action by Federal employees. I assure the gentleman I will work with him in every way I possibly can.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a member of the committee who has been very involved in this entire process.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a former member of the Committee on Agriculture and a gentleman who still has an extreme interest and is a tremendous amount of assistance on agricultural matters. (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), another very active member of our committee.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman and Ranking member of the House Committee on Agriculture, we are pleased to introduce the Water Pollution Program Improvement Act of 2000 on behalf of farmers, ranchers, woodland owners, local governments and states throughout America. In August of 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed two changes to the regulations governing the implementation of the Clean Water Act which, if finalized, would fundamentally alter the agency's role in the management of nonpoint sources of pollution. While we agree with the EPA's stated intent of improving the quality of our nation's waters, we strongly oppose both the substance of these rules and the accelerated process employed by the EPA to bring them to finality. Our bill is designed to address these two concerns directly. Our criticisms of EPA's proposed rules generally fall into two categories: (1) lack of authority and (2) lack of information. Lack of Authority Congress has clearly identified the responsibilities of the federal government and the states for maintaining the quality of our nation's waters. When Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972, the primary emphasis of that legislation was to address point source pollution discharges. Congress at that time established a clear role for the Federal Government in the regulation of point source pollution through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) program. Congress was also careful to define the point sources of pollution that would be subject to the NPDES program. This definition specifically excluded agricultural storm water discharge from the point source designation, thereby placing discharges from farming, ranching and silviculture operations outside of the reach of the federal permitting program. In 1987 Congress amended the Clean Water Act to establish a framework within which states could carry out their responsibility to manage nonpoint sources of pollution. It was the intent of Congress at that time to preserve the distinctions between point and nonpoint sources of pollution established in the 1972 Act so that there would be no ambiguity with regard to the role of the state in relation to the federal government. At no time has Congress granted the federal government an affirmative regulatory role in the management of nonpoint sources of pollution. Neither has Congress granted the EPA the authority to unilaterally change the clear distinctions between point and nonpoint sources of pollution currently established in law. Upon review of the draft rules proposed by the EPA, it is our view that the agency's proposal exceeds the authority provided by the 1972 Act and the 1987 amendments both in terms of the new regulatory role assumed by the EPA and the designation of silvicultural activities as point sources of pollution. We further believe that while the joint statement issued by the EPA and USDA on May 1, 2000 partially addresses concerns raised by Congress and affected stakeholders regarding the EPA's authority, it does little to overcome this fundamental problem. Lack of Information Over the last 28 years, the Federal government and the states have placed great emphasis on reducing pollution levels from point sources. Both have made significant investments in technologies and scientific methods to measure and control pollution discharges. These investments have paid off as we have seen dramatic decreases in point source pollution over the last two decades. Recently, both the Federal government and the states have begun to place increasing emphasis on the improvement of programs to reduce pollution from nonpoint sources. Understandably, because of the priority emphasis placed on point sources over the years, the technology and data needed to achieve measurable large-scale reductions on nonpoint source pollution are not yet fully developed. States, local governments, businesses and landowners are currently poised to voluntarily spend billions of dollars over the next 20 years in an earnest attempt to acquire this technology and data. In order to realize the optimum return on these investments, however, states, local governments and other affected stakeholders must be allowed to operate within the flexible framework established by the 1987 Clean Water Act amendments. This will preserve the ability of the states to develop innovated methods to gather the information upon which sound management objectives can be based and thereafter design programs carefully tailored to meet those objectives. Unfortunately, EPA's proposed rules move in exactly the opposite direction. By establishing arbitrary deadlines for completing TMDLs, threatening to unilaterally establish TMDLs and load allocations, and imposing mandatory guidelines for best management practices, EPA will force states to act before they have the data needed to act intelligently. In fact, the General Accounting Office has found that few states have the majority of the data needed to comply with the onerous requirements outlined in the EPA's proposed rules. Forcing states to comply with the new regulatory framework required by the EPA at this stage of the process will waste time and money and result in confusion rather than better water quality. Purpose of Legislation The purpose of the bill we are introducing today is to address the two concerns raised previously, namely, that the EPA lacks both the authority and the information to proceed with the agency's proposed rules. Our legislation commissions an independent study of the scientific methodologies, programs, and costs associated with the development and implementation of TMDLs. We intend this independent review to provide the EPA, the Secretary of Agriculture and the states a valuable tool with which to develop sound policies for the management of nonpoint sources of pollution. This approach will help remedy the current problems associated with identifying impaired water bodies and establishing TMDL allocations based on anecdotal and otherwise unverifiable data. It will also require EPA to take a more deliberate and thoughtful look at how the agency might better cooperate with states and landowners to improve water quality rather than impose arbitrary standards and guidelines that will achieve uncertain outcomes. We are also concerned about the workload impact on the conservation agencies that serve private landowners, such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and local conservation and resource conservation and development districts. Nor do we believe that EPA has adequately reviewed the technical and financial assistance that will be needed to assist landowners under the proposed rules. Our bill will also underscore both the language and the intent of the Clean Water Act relative to the role of the EPA in managing nonpoint sources of pollution. We believe the law is clear that the EPA has no regulatory role in the management of nonpoint source pollutions. We also maintain the EPA has no authority to unilaterally change the definition of point source pollution to encompass nonpoint sources. The language of our legislation reemphasizes these points and restricts the EPA from pursuing these unauthorized objectives in a regulatory proceeding. To summarize, we support the objective of improving the quality of our nation's waters. However, we insist on achieving these objectives within the parameters of the law and using the best available information. The Water Pollution Program Improvement Act of 2000 is designed to help ensure that outcome. We urge our colleagues to support this important legislation.