Larry Combest

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I thank my most able friend from Texas for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. In particular, I am concerned because it would strike a provision in this bill that denies funding for the Department of Labor to enforce the Hazardous Occupational Order H.O. 12, which prohibits teenagers from merely loading a baler. I have been involved in this issue ever since these outdated restrictions were brought to my attention by grocers in my district who were fined by the Labor Department for violating H.O. 12. A fine of up to $10,000 can be issued every time a cardboard box is simply tossed into a silent, nonoperating baler by teenage employees under 18. Unfortunately, efforts to change this regulation through the Labor Department fell on deaf ears and that is why we are here today arguing against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, in typical bureaucratic form, it took 7 months for the Labor Department to respond to a letter signed by over 70 Members on both sides of the aisle that requested a revision of H.O. 12. The Labor Department did not even have substantial evidence to support the prohibition of teenagers to load nonoperating balers. In addition, in the last Congress, language was included in this very bill that instructed the Labor Department to do a review of H.O. 12. If I remember correctly, in the last Congress the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of the committee and the subcommittee. The Labor Department then promised to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking by May. We have heard nothing yet. Mr. Chairman, you will hear that this provision will undermine child safety, but that is a far cry from the truth. The Labor Department admits it only has 11 documented cases involving baler-related accidents, but in 6 of these there was operation of the baler, and under the provision in the bill, operation of the baler would still be illegal. One case the Labor Department lists happened next to a baler when a piece of metal happened to fall that was leaning against it. In another documented case an individual had a paper cut when they picked up the box. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be defeated.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to salute the musical drama, ``Texas,'' as they celebrate their 30th anniversary. Set in the natural confines of Palo Duro Canyon State Park in the Texas panhandle, ``Texas'' has maintained its reputation as the best attended outdoor drama in the country, as well as the Official Play of the State of Texas. The Palo Duro Canyon State Park is located near Canyon, TX, and is administered by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Since its inception in 1966, ``Texas,'' produced by the nonprofit Texas Panhandle Heritage Foundation, Inc. has contributed over $1 million from show revenues to the department. Written by Pulitzer Prize winning author, Paul Green, ``Texas'' portrays the struggle and hardships, celebration and joy of early settlers living in the Texas panhandle. Well over 2\1/2\ million people from across the country and around the world have come to the Grand Canyon of Texas to watch this epic story, which captures the uniqueness of the Lone Star State. The talented cast of over 80 singers and dancers act out the historic tale on the stage of an open-air theater with a 600-foot cliff serving as a backdrop. ``Texas'' uses great choreography and stirring music to tell its story. Modern technology has improved props, sound effects, and light displays to help make ``Texas'' nights an unforgettable experience. The play ``Texas'' embodies the true values of a great musical romance. I now ask that you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues join me in commending ``Texas'' for 30 wonderful seasons. As we look forward to the next 30 seasons, I am confident this extraordinary musical drama will continue its professional depiction of early Texas history for our children and our children's children.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I have consistently opposed the lifting of the arms embargo in Bosnia, and I continue to maintain that consistency. I do not question the motives of those who strongly support this action. I respect their position, and I think it is a way to speak out against the atrocities that are occurring. However, this is not a free vote. Some people have said that a vote in favor of this resolution would be a condemnation of the administration's failed policy, and I would have to admit that that makes it very tempting, but I think it is much more than that. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that if this policy becomes the law of the land that I am wrong, because if I am not wrong, it is going to mean that there have been Americans that have died in Bonsia. If the proponents succeed and if the policy that is outlined becomes reality, supporters of this resolution had better be ready to support the engagement of American troops. I think it is important that these questions must be answered: Who provides the arms? How long does it take to put the arms in place? How long does it take to adequately train the Moslems? What happens to the Americans that are training and delivering those arms? Do we expect the Serbs to stand idly by? What do the Russians do about providing arms to the Serbs? Mr. Chairman, there are too many unanswered questions, even before we consider the possibility of engaging Americans on the soil in Bosnia. All of the questions must be answered and all of the contingencies must be contemplated and the alternatives must be planned. Mr. Chairman, several years ago, we voted to authorize the use of force and military action in the Persian Gulf, and I did not, as any Member of this body, take that lightly or as an unconcerned bystander. At that time I had a son who wore a marine uniform to work every day and there was a great probability that he would wind up in the gulf, and yet I think the action that was taken that day was right. I supported it. It was right then, and I think it is right now. But I think that today is a substantially different question. Where is the American interest? Mr. Chairman, I would not vote to send my son to Bosnia, and I will not vote to send yours.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. 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.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. I do not enforce rules of the House, I tell the gentleman from Missouri. And I suggest he take it up with the leadership.

Mr. COMBEST. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. COMBEST. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to all Members of the House that the classified schedule of authorizations and the classified annex to the committee report accompanying the intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 1996, H.R. 1655, are available for review by Members at the offices of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in room H-405 of the Capitol from 8:30 to 5:30, Monday through Friday. It is important that Members keep in mind that clause 13 of rule XVIII of the House, adopted at the beginning of the 104th Congress, requires that before Members of the House may have access to classified information, they must sign the oath set out in that clause. The classified schedule of authorizations and the classified annex to the committee report contain the Intelligence Committee's recommendations on the intelligence budget for fiscal year 1996 and related classified information which may not be disclosed publicly. After consultation with the general counsel to the Clerk of the House, I would advise Members wishing to have access to the classified schedule of authorizations and the classified annex that they must bring with them to the committee office a copy of the rule LXIII oath signed by them or be prepared to sign a copy of that oath when they come to see these classified materials. I would also recommend that Members wishing to read the classified schedule of authorizations and the classified annex to the committee report first call the committee office to indicate when you plan to review the classified annex to the report. This will help assure that a member of the committee staff is available to help Members, if they wish, with their review of these classified materials. I urge Members to take some time to review these classified documents to help them better understand the actions the Intelligence Committee has recommended before the intelligence authorization is considered on the House floor in the next several weeks.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, on November 30, 1994, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on the Aldrich Ames espionage case. Among the findings of that report was the fact that ``the CIA failed to keep the oversight committees fully and currently informed'' about the case ``despite several instances of pointed questioning by Committee members. The lack of notification extended to the end: Neither the CIA nor the FBI advised the oversight committees of the investigation until shortly before Ames' arrest.'' This chilling finding left unanswered the question as to why the oversight committees had not been kept informed, as the law requires: Was it a witting coverup or inadvertent? Although neither answer would be comforting, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence deemed it necessary to close out this unanswered question with regard to the Ames case. Despite the heavy press of business the committee's staff and Members made this a priority at the outset of this Congress. After extensive work by the staff and a review by the committee, the committee voted unanimously on May 11, 1995, to release the following statement: Congressional Oversight of the Aldrich Ames Spy Case On February 21, 1994, Aldrich Ames was arrested and charged with violating U.S. espionage laws and spying for the former Government of the Soviet Union and the Government of Russia. Since that date, the Committee has conducted an aggressive inquiry to determine what went wrong in the Ames case and how to fix it. In November 1994, we issued an exhaustive report that had specific recommendations for remedial action. The Intelligence Community and the FBI have taken significant steps to address problems we highlighted in our report. The remedial actions have had a positive effect on counterintelligence issues. One issue, in particular, surfaced during our inquiry that necessitated additional follow-up: that is, whether the CIA violated Section 502 of the National Security Act of 1947 and whether that violation was intentional. Section 502 requires that the Congress be informed of ``all intelligence activities . . . including . . . any significant intelligence failure.'' At a full committee hearing on February 7, 1995, and in correspondence with this committee, Acting Director of Central Intelligence Admiral Studeman has stated that the CIA failed to meet this statutory obligation. The CIA's admission of its violation of Section 502 led us to the next question, whether this failure was intentional. The Committee has interviewed a wide range of current and former CIA officials involved in the Ames case. We also reviewed the voluminous reporting that we have received on the Ames case. This examination produced no evidence that any former Director of Central Intelligence, Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, or Deputy Director for Operations made a decision to withhold information about the loss of Soviet assets in 1985 and 1986 and the resulting investigation from this Committee. At lower levels of the CIA, where the counterintelligence investigation was being conducted, it appears that no one ever thought to bring this matter to the Committee's attention. Five Members of this Committee asked precisely the right questions about espionage problems at CIA during the CIA's own investigation: former Chairman Anthony Beilenson; two ranking Members, Representatives Henry Hyde and Bud Shuster; and two Committee members, Representative Dick Cheney and Larry Combest. At a minimum, what is clear is that, at certain levels, CIA officials did not understand the requirements of the law. The CIA is taking steps to ensure that all employees are aware of Section 502. Moreover, it is important to note that it is not the responsibility of the Committee ``to ask the right questions.'' The onus lies with the Intelligence Community to be forthcoming vis-a-vis its oversight responsibilities. The Committee is taking the following additional actions: We have prepared a letter for the new DCI, John Deutch, drawing his attention to Section 502 and the transcript of the February 7, 1995 hearing. We are confident that the new DCI will be vigilant in ensuring that the mandates of Section 502 are followed. Notification is not merely a matter of law, but is also a matter of common sense. Senior CIA officials must bring matters to the attention of the Congress when there is any ``significant intelligence failure.'' This raises the corollary issue of ensuring that all officers of the CIA understand that they will be held accountable for the management of their operations, as Admiral Studeman has already informed personnel of the CIA. The new DCI has also pledged to make accountability a focus of his management policies. The Committee has a continuing interest in the Ames case. A full briefing on the results of the Intelligence Community's damage assessment will be received later this year. Following that briefing, the Committee will determine if there is additional legislative or other remedial action that is required. The Committee will also continue to monitor the counterintelligence reforms that have been put in place by the CIA, the Intelligence Community and the FBI to ensure that there is no backsliding on this matter.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who has for many years devoted himself and his talents to the community of Lubbock, TX. Dr. Mike Moses is now in his sixth year as superintendent of the Lubbock Independent School District. Recently, Dr. Moses was selected by Governor George W. Bush to become the State commissioner of education. This prestigious appointment is certainly deserved by Dr. Moses for his efforts, not the least of which is that his management expertise and business abilities kept LISD financially viable after he inherited an almost bankrupt district in 1989. Dr. Moses was named ``Educator of the Month'' in the July/August 1994 issue of Texas School Business. In the summer of 1993 he served as a member of the Select Committee for Sunset of Texas Education Agency, and was awarded the first ever ``Good Scout Award'' in December, 1993. In addition to his tireless efforts to strive for better educational opportunities for our young people, he is a Rotarian and a member of the First United Methodist Church. He is also involved in the chamber of commerce, Boy Scouts, and United Way. Mr. Speaker, it is a honor for me to recognize such an involved and devoted citizen of west Texas. I salute Dr. Mike Moses for willingness to freely give of his own time, energy, and talents. He has positively affected the lives of many in Lubbock, TX, and has dedicated himself and his life to a better education for our young people.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute Gaines County, TX, as they celebrate their 90th anniversary. In October 1905, Gaines County was officially organized. This new county was named for James Gaines, an original signer of the Texas Declaration of Independence, whose fierce spirit of independence, strength, and steadfastness was exemplified by the early settlers of Gaines County. West Texas and the Permian Basin area have a rich and varied heritage, beginning with the native Americans and Mexicans who roamed the Llano Estacado and continuing through current day with the ranchers and farmers who thrive in modern-day Gaines County. When ranchers first arrived, cattle and sheep roamed the fertile grasslands of the area, and even today these animals provide a livelihood for many who live there. After the ranchers, the farmers arrived, and experienced the difficulties of west Texas agriculture. The farmers, too, survived hard times when they discovered rich soil beneath the sandy surface. This fertile soil is the very reason that today Gaines County is the leading cotton and peanut producing county in the State of Texas. The farming and ranching industries of Gaines County should in no way overshadow the rich oil supply which makes Gaines County one of Texas' major oil suppliers. In light of the severe challenges that the oil industry has faced in recent times, the nature of this profession has changed dramatically, and the people of Gaines County are working to meet these ever-changing needs. For 90 years, Gaines County has persevered through hardship and adversity to become a strong and thriving community. In the next 90 years, I am confident the county will continue its growth and expansion and remain a wonderful place to live, work, and raise families.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman: In order to be able to have equal debate on the and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] both reserve their time, and let us wait until someone appears or a decision is made about the remaining 20 minutes?

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, if no one is here to claim the time of the opposition, is it proper under the House to ask for disposition of that time at this time, so that all of the time by proponents is not used up prior to someone claiming the time?

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, this bill goes right at the heart of what the frustration in this country is, and I would challenge Members of this Congress to walk down the streets of your community, stop anyone, and ask them what their concerns are, and I bet you more than not you will hear that the that is what I have heard in my district. It is ironic that people in the district look at the concerns and then recognize the fact that this administration is trying to govern by regulation. Most people in my district do not understand that regulation that seems to be so stupid can many times be put into law. What we are doing by this act, Mr. Chairman, is we are going to put the stupid test to regulations. If it is stupid, it is not going to become one. There is nothing that is creating more of a problem economically to the American people than over-government regulation. The average American family today is expending $6,000 a year to comply with Federal Government regulation. That is $6,000 they ought to be able to keep in their pocket.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding if the gentleman from California and gentleman from Texas yield back their time, the question would be put?

Mr. COMBEST. I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to stand with Mr. Condit in offering this amendment today. Our amendment will extend the regulatory moratorium in the case of new listings of endangered species or designations of critical habitat until the Endangered Species Act [ESA] is reauthorized or the end of 1996. The ESA expired in 1992 and until the act is reauthorized the bureaucracy should be shut down. Under current law several species have been listed without adequate scientific proof of the need for their protection. This has resulted in severe regulatory actions which limit the use of natural resources and private property. These regulations have no real benefit to species protection. Over the last few years we have seen more and more cases of lives of law-abiding citizens being affected by ESA actions. These regulatory actions have resulted from a poorly written law. Do I have interests that concern me parochially? Yes, I do. I am concerned about the possible listing of a 2-inch minnow. This could lead to unneeded regulation of drinking water for 11 cities in Texas and pumping of water by farmers for irrigation. Excess pumpage of ground water could result in fines of up to $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for corporations per incident, plus 1 year of jail time. Our people and our economy depends on the use of these resources for their survival. Yet they could be subject to these enormous fines for normal water usage. Even though the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service says the minnow is endangered the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department concludes that the Arkansas River Shiner is neither threatened nor endangered. When the act is reauthorized it should be rewritten to bring more legitimate science into the process and include strong provisions to protect property rights. Until that is accomplished the bureaucracy should not be allowed to continue wasting Federal resources. Citizens Against Government Waste says our amendment ``addresses one of the many examples of waste and mismanagement of taxpayer dollars.'' There is no need to protect species which are not endangered while restricting the use of precious natural resources and private property. Support the bipartisan amendment to bring rational science back into the endangered species process. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. parliamentary inquiry

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stockman]. (Mr. STOCKMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger]. (Mr. HERGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) strong support of this amendment.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona, [Mr. Hayworth]. (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas]. (Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)