Larry Combest

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 57, a resolution of disapproval of normal trade relations (NTR) status for products from China. I believe that it is in the best interest of United States agriculture to continue, and eventually expand, our trading relationship with China. U.S. agriculture exports to China were more than $3 billion last year. China represents an agriculture market that is vital to the long- term success of our farmers and ranchers. Agriculture trade with China can strengthen development of private enterprise in that country and bring China more fully into world trade membership. More than 60 agricultural organizations representing producers, processors, and exporters support extension of normal trade relations with China. There are few countries that do not have normal trade relations (NTR) status with the United States. NTR status allows a country's products to enter into the United States at the same tariff rates that apply to other trading partners. In fact, NTR provides no special treatment. It allows us to treat all countries' imports in the same manner. Failure to do so often has a serious negative impact on American agriculture, the first to feel the impact of embargoes and retaliation. Recently the United States signed a bilateral agreement with China that will break down the artificial barriers China erected for certain U.S. exports. China has closed its market for far too long to high quality U.S.meat, wheat, citrus and poultry. Under this agreement, China will accept specific science-based standards and our farmers and ranchers will have access to the vast Chinese market. Failure to continue normal trade relations with China may jeopardize this agreement. Additionally, I am encouraged by the progress made by the U.S. Trade Representative in negotiating the rules for China's accession to the World Trade Organization. The goal is to open China's marketplace and secure China's agreement to trade concessions that result in lower tariffs and improved access. Based on the information provided by the USTR, if the preliminary agreements reached remain a part of a final agreement with China, significant progress has been made. I urge the Administration to continue its negotiations. Free and fair trade agreements are good for U.S. agriculture. International trade is important for American agriculture and for the success and prosperity of American farmers and ranchers. I urge my colleagues to reject H.J. Res. 57.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 312, the Campbell amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Smith of New Jersey amendment, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey, as Amended

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 314, the Paul of Texas amendment, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 313, the Sanford amendment, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Paul

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 311, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the community of Andrews, Texas in celebrating the Andrews High School baseball team's victory in the 1999 4-A State Championship. Their triumph on June 11 marks the first time that the Mustangs of Andrews High School have brought home the Texas state title, an accomplishment that is truly deserving of recognition and praise. The Andrews High School baseball program has been built upon a firm foundation of hard work and sportsmanship. In its 22 years, Mustang baseball has steadily grown and developed into a force to be reckoned with in Texas athletics. The group of young men who claimed the state crown for Andrews displayed what can be accomplished when West Texas determination and teamwork take the field. It is with pride that I recognize the members of the Andrews High School baseball team for their hard-fought victory, as well as the coaching staff, faculty, and fans that rallied behind them. Thanks to their tremendous efforts, a corner of West Texas is now home to the 1999 Class 4-A Texas High School Baseball Champions. I wholeheartedly extend my congratulations to the Andrews High School Mustangs, with every best wish for the seasons to come.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 17, the Selective Agricultural Embargoes Act of 1999. The bill requires the President to report to Congress on any selective embargo on agricultural commodities and specifies the period during which the embargo will be in effect. I congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Risk Management, Research and Specialty Crops, and the author of this bill, for his hard work and tenacity on moving this subject forward. The use of economic sanctions is a subject that has captured the attention of all of us that are interested in the prosperity of farmers and ranchers. We can all agree that food should not be used as a tool of foreign policy. I especially welcome the administration's April 28 announcement regarding lifting of certain economic sanctions of food and agriculture. Food should not, under nearly all circumstances, be used as a weapon. Such a policy ends up hurting our farmers and ranchers and all who are involved in agriculture production, processing and distribution. There are three things that can happen when agricultural sanctions go into effect, and none of them are good. Exports go down, prices go down, and farmers and ranchers lose their share of the world market. For American farmers and ranchers, trade is an essential part of their livelihood. Currently exports account for 30 percent of U.S. farm cash receipts and nearly 40 percent of all agricultural production that is exported. U.S. farmers and ranchers produce much more than is consumed in the United States; therefore, exports are vital to the prosperity and success of U.S. farmers and ranchers. For years, U.S. agriculture has provided a positive return to our balance of trade, and in order to continue this positive balance and to improve upon it, markets around the world must be open to our agricultural exports. Embargoes and sanctions destroy the United States' reputation as reliable suppliers. U.S. agriculture remembers the 1980 Soviet grain embargo. Not only did our wheat farmers lose sales, but markets as well. France, Canada, Australia and Argentina stepped in and sold wheat to the former Soviet Union. The only people hurt by those sanctions were U.S. wheat farmers. The one lasting impression left of that embargo was that the U.S. could not be considered a reliable supplier of wheat. The past 19 years have been spent attempting to reverse that opinion. Therefore, because of the importance of assuring the reliability of the U.S. as a supplier of food and agriculture product, we must address the effects of embargoes on U.S. agriculture, and I urge support of H.R. 17.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the Private Calendar be dispensed with today.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would indicate to the gentleman, who has been a strong advocate of a dairy policy in this country and with a great deal of interest in this, there is a bill which has been introduced that will be the vehicle on the 24th of June for a hearing in the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture that is chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). Very shortly after that, there will be markup on that bill, and that bill will then move to full consideration. Given the fact that there is a recognition of some timely concern here without the Chair's being, I believe, able to give individuals total assurances about exactly what that final product would be, the vehicle that will be used for hearing purposes and for markup I think will be very much in line with the interest of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) in the dairy program.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly be able to say yes just indicative of the fact that there is a bill to implement a different policy that I think has almost half of the Members of the House that are cosponsors of the bill. Certainly with the interest and concerns among the dairy industry, the Committee on Agriculture is certainly going to be looking into this in very short order.

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

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the last couple of days have been somewhat frustrating for a number of us who find that due to some of our committee responsibilities and some of our interests in agriculture, we are finding ourselves going through this. I need to make it clear to the gentleman from Oklahoma that I have no qualms whatsoever with his rights to do what it is that he is doing. I have heard a lot of comments here. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) mentioned earlier, and I do not know if he is on the floor, but that Members need to be sure to come over and support or defend the attacks that were being leveled on various projects in various districts, as if they were all personal and the work would not be done if it was not being done in that particular district. It has to be done somewhere. I think probably it is done a lot better out in the communities, rather than it is in Washington, always. I do not have any defense that I need to make of this particular amendment. We do not do any peanut research in my district. But I do want to say that I do not feel terribly comfortable in the fact that if each person came over and did defend an attack that was being made, that that would be sufficient to some of the proponents of some of the amendments to make dramatic cuts. I was the chairman in the last Congress of the Subcommittee on Risk Management, Research, and Specialty Crops, the first time that that title had been reauthorized in a number of years. We spent a great deal of time looking at the value and the significance and the importance, not only to American agriculture but to the entire American population that eat, about the strides and about the accomplishments and about the progress and the success that agriculture research has made. I think it probably is some of the best money that is spent. Now some people have said, well, we could best take this and give it to farmers and buy tractors or whatever. That is not part of the proposal. The proposal is not to take, in this case, $300,000 and give it to anybody, it is to simply eliminate it. So that argument in itself is somewhat hollow. I do not believe that intentionally people are trying to do harm to a significant number of very important programs that the chairman of this subcommittee and the ranking member of this subcommittee spent hours deliberating over to try to come up with a balance within what they were told they had to work with. Some people do not like that, but that is what they were told they had to work within, and they did it. They did a very good balance of a number of very longtime continuing programs and some new programs. But I hope that we do not totally limit ourselves just to things that have always been done in the past; that we look at how we can do them better, that we look at new programs that ought to be brought into place, that we look at things that should be done on behalf of American agriculture with a very, very limited budget and the very, very small amount that is expended on agriculture. I would hope that while the gentleman may continue for as long as he can hold out offering his amendments, that this body, that this committee, and that in the full House, we would take a very close look at a very well-defined product, and not let one and two and three here nitpick and pull this thing apart and totally disrupt what it is that we are trying to do, not only on behalf of American agriculture but the American people, who have the best quality food, the safest quality food, and the cheapest food of anybody in the world.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the National Association of Letter Carriers for their tremendous efforts to help the hungry in communities across the nation. On May 8th, 1999, local branches of the Letter Carriers, in conjunction with the United Way and the United States Postal Service, will participate in a drive to collect non-perishable food and other needed items to stock the shelves of local food pantries. This endeavor will fill pantry shelves for the coming summer months in more than 10,000 hometowns in every corner of the United States. This worthwhile event has taken place for countless years in the past, and this year's drive promises to be one of the most successful. The Lubbock, Texas branch of the Letter Carriers is rolling up its sleeves and preparing for a first-class turnout on May 8th. I am confident that the good citizens of Lubbock will rise to the challenge to ensure that this year's drive is an overwhelming success. The Lubbock branch of the National Association of Letter Carriers is deserving of our full support and praise for their work in the fight against hunger in the 19th District of Texas. Their efforts truly exemplify the spirit of service and giving that draws our community together. With a little help from us all, the May 8th food drive can touch the lives of the many West Texans who are in need.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and achievements of the late O.G. ``Speedy'' Nieman from Hereford, Texas. Speedy was born November 12, 1928 in Dawson County, Texas. He graduated from Lamesa High School and attended Texas Tech University where he played basketball. He served in the U.S. Coast Guard and was a Korean war veteran. He married Lavon Stewart on Oct. 27, 1951, in Hamlin, Texas. Speedy and his wife were co-owners and publishers of the Slaton Slatonite for almost eight years before they moved to Hereford. He worked as the sports editor of several West Texas papers. Speedy then entered into a partnership with Roberts Publishing Co. of Andrews to purchase The Hereford Brand newspaper and reorganized the North Plains Printing Co. He moved to Hereford in January of 1971 where he served as publisher for The Hereford Brand and president of North Plains Printing Co. for 26 years. He was a two-time recipient of Hereford's Bull Chip Award and received a wide variety of professional recognition. He served as president of three press associations. Speedy was a member and deacon at First Baptist Church of Hereford. He also was a member of the Lion's Club and Deaf Smith Chamber of Commerce. He helped establish Hereford's Christmas Stocking Fund. Speedy Nieman always had a strong commitment and tireless dedication to enhance the well-being of the town and its residents he so loved. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 68 before us today. In contrast to other documents, most notably the President's budget, this document underscores our commitment to the recovery and long-term economic health for production agriculture. This resolution makes available a total of $6 billion in new agriculture funding authority over the life of the resolution. This should be viewed as nothing less than a triumph for American agriculture. They are in time of great need and we are working hard to create an adequate safety net to ensure their future. I would remind my colleagues that the President promised crop insurance reform in his State of the Union address. Unfortunately, his budget proposed no new money or policy proposals that came forward, not one idea, not one dime, nothing. The President has decided to turn his back on this problem so it falls to Congress to step up to the challenge, and we have. The $6 billion in new agricultural spending in this resolution is the first infusion of funding for farmers in recent memory. This money will allow us to make permanent improvements in the tools farmers have available to manage the weather and price risks over which they have no control. In addition to the $6 billion in new agricultural funding, the budget resolution creates generous tax cuts in fiscal year 2000 over the next decade. These reductions will allow Congress to continue working to provide American farmers and ranchers with tax relief, capital gains relief, estate tax reform and the creation of farm risk management savings accounts. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle who care about the future of farmers and ranchers to support this budget resolution before us today because it is fair and responsible. In behalf of American agriculture, I would like to extend special thanks to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for the great work that they have done on the Committee on the Budget in behalf of the American farmer and rancher.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a bill, H.R. 1212, with an amendment. This bill's timely passage is critical to thousands of American farmers who may otherwise be unable to buy appropriate levels of insurance on their 1999 crops. The amendment to the bill is noncontroversial and technical in nature. Importantly, H.R. 1212, as amended, enjoys bipartisan support in the Congress, the administration's backing and does not cost the U.S. Treasury any money. I am pleased to be joined by the committee's ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm); chairman of the Subcommittee on Risk Management, Research, and Specialty Crops, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing); the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit); the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry); the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cooksey); and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) in offering this legislation. The facts surrounding the need for this bill are complicated. But, in short, unless H.R. 1212 becomes law, thousands of farmers, by no fault of their own, will be left with three undesirable choices, staying with crop insurance policies that may not be economical for their operations, accepting catastrophic crop insurance that provides very low coverage, or settling for no crop insurance at all. Mr. Speaker, leaving farmers in this predicament is unacceptable. That is why I am offering H.R. 1212. H.R. 1212 is straightforward. It provides a brief window of time up until April 12, 1999, in which farmers who are in this predicament may buy new crop insurance. The bill also permits affected farmers to transfer certain policies during the same period of time. The bill in no way interferes with private contracts. While this bill is limited to providing immediate relief from a current problem, I want to assure my colleagues that the committee expects to thoroughly examine the underlying issues that led to this problem as we work to improve the crop insurance program for this year. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support H.R. 1212, as amended, and urge its timely passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the bill, H.R. 1212, that led to the need to bring this up in a very expeditious fashion. As the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) very well pointed out, it is a dilemma which is very unfortunate in that it occurred. One of the in-depth processes that the Committee on Agriculture is currently going through is looking how we might substantially improve the crop insurance program for coming years; failing that, a risk management tool, a very strong, adequate, sufficient crop insurance program is something that most farmers and farm groups and commodity groups across this country are suggesting that needs to take place, that it is currently deficient in the pending farm legislation. It is somewhat sad, I think, that this has occurred primarily because one of the ideals that we are trying to put forward in considering crop legislation for the future and a crop proposal for the future and reform is to provide the opportunity for there to be some type of adequate revenue assurance measure that is an option for farmers in which to participate. Those farmers that have contacted the committee in the area in which this primarily has occurred, in the southern part of the United States, obviously do not currently have a tremendous amount of confidence in the program as it has worked there, and while I would suspect that future crop insurance programs and reform and legislation that would provide an adequate risk management from the revenue assurance aspect is something that would be very well accepted, I think it would probably be substantially crafted differently than this is. So, I want to ensure those farmers out there who are in fact concerned about the process that, as I had indicated in my opening statement, the committee will look very carefully at the process that led up to the necessity to pass this bill today in very short order, in order to give those farmers an opportunity to make some choices that they went into with good faith, however after the end of the game, the rules were changed. We want to go back and give them the fourth quarter to be able to replay this and to bring into their own business decisions whatever works best for them, giving them some options. We appreciate the fact that the department does support this concept, is willing to work with farmers trying to work through it, and because the deadlines that are imposed and the closing dates to purchase crop insurance have, in fact, expired, it is necessary to give them that option up to, as I mentioned, April 12, as the bill does. We are certainly hopeful that in a very expeditious fashion the Senate would consider this legislation and get it down to the department or down to the President for signature, which has been virtually assured, so that this matter could be dealt with this week, prior to the time that the Congress leaves for its Easter break, and that these farmers can be making these decisions. But again I want to emphasize the fact that we will look very carefully at the conditions that led up to this particular problem, in trying to make for certain that farmers can be assured in the future, as this crop insurance program is revised and reformed, that in fact this is not a situation which they would have to be concerned about, and we will try to do everything we can from our committee to put into place all of the safeguards that would be necessary to protect those. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cooksey) who is a member of the committee.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1212) to protect producers of agricultural commodities who applied for a Crop Revenue Coverage PLUS supplemental endorsement for the 1999 crop year, as amended.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1212, the bill just passed.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Export Apple Act replaces the Export Apple and Pear Act, which was enacted on June 10, 1933. Currently, this 66-year-old legislation requires that apples and pears meet certain standards prior to export in order to ensure only high-quality U.S. fruit moves into foreign commerce. H.R. 609 amends the 1933 act by removing pears from the language, and it will be permitting the means to increase the export of pears. H.R. 609, which is sponsored by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) removes pears from the act, thereby allowing U.S. exporters greater flexibility in the changing international marketplace and the opportunity to increase exports by gaining a foothold in emerging markets. The USDA has advised the committee that mandatory Federal quality standards for pears are no longer needed to assure the high quality of exporting pears. The USDA supports enactment of H.R. 609. As world economies improve and areas of trade continue to decrease, new market opportunities for fresh pears arise. In order to provide the flexibility to meet the requirements of these new opportunities, H.R. 609 should be passed, and I would urge that my colleagues support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman who sponsored this bill and has done a great job in just a few weeks of getting this bill moved forward. We appreciate and commend his work.