Larry Combest

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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 yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and appreciate the good working relationship that we have. Our committee works on behalf of American agriculture, I think, on a bipartisan basis as well as any committee in the Congress. It is vitally important, and I strongly urge my colleagues who have any reservation about the level of this funding to move forward with this suspension to allow the House to have completed its action so that we make for certain that the $5.5 billion which was established in the budget resolution is in fact eligible to be paid to farmers by the end of the fiscal year of September 30. I think it also sends a message to farmers that in fact there is some assistance on the way at a very critically needed time. Mr. Speaker, to the Members who spoke of the committee's action in the next few weeks in reporting a farm bill, I will say that we have heard them and all others. This will be a comprehensive farm bill. It will have a strong conservation title, as some have indicated is needed. It is an area that we are looking at very carefully. It is something that we will be trying to craft to deal with all aspects of American agriculture, and we will be spending a great deal of time on it. It is the intent of our committee to report a bill by the beginning of the August recess so that consideration for a full farm bill in a much-needed sector of the American economy that is suffering tremendously can be moved forward; and that we will be able to send a message to American agriculture that there is help on the way. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest, the intensity, and passion of all of my colleagues on the committee.

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

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. 2213, the bill just passed.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join Midland and West Texas in congratulating the Midland High School baseball team in their great victory in the Class 5A state championship title. Their June 9th victory over Austin High is an accomplishment that is truly deserving of recognition and praise. The Midland High baseball program has been built upon a solid foundation of hard work, dedication and sportsmanship. The Bulldogs have shown what today's youth can accomplish when teamwork and determination are applied. They will forever hold a place of honor in the pages of Texas athletics. It is with great pride that I recognize the members of the Midland High School baseball team and their coach Barry Russell for this accomplishment. I would also like to recognize the administration and fans that carried them through victory's final inning. Thanks to their tremendous efforts, Midland, Texas is now home to the 2000-2001 Class 5A State Champions. I sincerely wish to congratulate the Midland High Bulldogs for bringing horne a state baseball title.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my deepest sympathy to the people of West Texas for the loss of Odessa Mayor Bill Hext. Bill was a selfless leader, a visionary, and a faithful statesman. Bill personified service and will be remembered for his relentless pursuit of improving the lives of the people of Odessa. Prior to being elected mayor in 2000, Hext had served as a City Council member since 1998, and continued his work in public service as a member of many civic and charitable organizations. Bill's commitment to serving his community and his influence on Odessans will be an inspiration for generations to come. It is with great empathy that I salute Bill Hext as an outstanding individual and faithful mayor to the city of Odessa. He will forever hold a place of honor and respect in the pages of community service.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution. When I became chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, I pledged that Congress would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with America's farmers and ranchers, to see them through tough times and to strengthen U.S. farm policy. This conference report is the cornerstone of that commitment. I thank President Bush and the House and Senate leadership for their commitment to U.S. farmers and ranchers. Mr. Speaker, I especially thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) knows what our farmers and ranchers are up against so he rolled up his sleeves and he did something about it. The fruit of that labor is what we consider today, and its timing is crucial. Conditions in farm country are serious. Net cash income over the last 3 years has fallen in real terms to its lowest point since the Great Depression. The magnitude of this problem reaches beyond farms, ranches, and rural America. It is a national problem. The ad hoc help Congress has provided each year since 1998 has helped, but it is only a year at a time. A long-term farm policy is what this country needs. The conference report gives the Committee on Agriculture the tools to make it happen and, as chairman of that committee, we will get it done. I urge my colleagues to support this report.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for working closely with us. This budget resolution contains an innovative feature that I want to address. Mr. Chairman, the Congress and the Committee on Agriculture that I chair have been struggling for over 3 years to cope with major economic crises on the farm. The basic programs that we passed in 1996 have not been able to keep up with collapsing prices and skyrocketing costs, leaving family farmers hanging on by a thread. As it should have, Congress has stepped in with emergency economic assistance in each of the last 3 years, and many farmers are in business today because of that. Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop ad hoc assistance and move to a more permanent solution that producers and their lenders can count on. Mr. Chairman, in preparation for this, the Committee on Agriculture is completing a series of almost 1\1/2\ years of hearings to determine what our future course should be. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), recognizing the critical need that our farmers face, worked closely with us to address the problem. This resolution names agriculture along with defense as a budget item eligible for access to the $517 billion reserve fund for fiscal years 2002 through 2011. In addition, it accesses fiscal year 2001 reserve funds for assistance in the current year. Mr. Chairman, when the Committee on Agriculture reports legislation later this summer, budget allocations can be adjusted to reflect the Committee on Agriculture's action. By granting access to the reserve fund, the House will have an opportunity to consider a policy reform that will meet the needs of our farmers within the constraints of our budget. This will not produce a debate over numbers, but instead a serious discussion of the farm policies needed in the current situation in the coming years. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken to the President at length about the problems facing farmers. I was impressed by both his understanding of the problem and his willingness to help address them. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and his budget team have brought to the floor a resolution that not only makes provision for the immediate crisis of this year's crop, but provides the means to put a more permanent policy in place based upon policy needs rather than driven by number fixation. Mr. Chairman, every Member who is working to relieve the pain of American farmers should join me with enthusiasm in supporting this budget. It is just the prescription to deliver a cure for farmers' problems instead of another Band-Aid.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 84, the Omnibus Committee Funding Resolution. First of all, I would like to commend and congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for the work they have done in committee to bring forward today what I consider to be a very fair and responsive funding resolution. In this budget they have not only provided sufficient resources to facilitate the work of the committees and the Congress, but they have done so in a fiscally responsible way. In this regard, I think it is worth noting, as the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) said, that the budget for the 107th Congress is still $20 million below the spending levels for the 103rd. I also want to commend the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), for the long hours they have put in to assure a more fair and equitable distribution of resources to the minority. I should say that the Committee on Agriculture, which I chair, has long lived by the two- thirds/one-third rule with respect to the division of committee funds. I think this has served our committee well. I think it serves the interests of the people we represent well. I think the fact that today's resolution finally achieves this ratio broadly for all committees is remarkable and historic, and will ultimately serve this Congress in the best interests of the people that we represent and that we work for. Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this resolution, a very responsible resolution. I urge my colleagues to support overwhelmingly the passage of House Resolution 84.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit for printing in the Congressional Record, pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(a) of the Rules of the House, a copy of the Rules of the Committee on Agriculture, which were adopted at the organizational meeting of the Committee on February 14, 2001. Appendix A of the Committee Rules will include excerpts from the Rules of the House relevant to the operation of the Committee. Appendix B will include relevant excerpts from the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In the interests of minimizing printing costs, Appendices A and B are omitted from this submission. Rules of the Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Mayor Bill Hext and Jane Hext for their tremendous contributions to the city of Odessa, Texas. They were recently honored by being named ``Outstanding Citizen(s) of the Year'' for 2000. The ``Outstanding Citizen of the Year'' award was established some 44 years ago to recognize those who dedicate their time, talent and resources to improve the quality of life for the community. Mayor and Mrs. Hext are more than civil servants, but also leaders and role- models. Their commitment to public and community service and their adherence to family- and faithbased principles truly make them ideal for such an honor. Mayor Hext has been actively involved in such organizations as the Texas Municipal League, the MOTRAN policy advisory committee and Grace Christian Fellowship, serving in various leadership positions. He was inducted into the Business Hall of Fame in 1995 in recognition of his entrepreneurial ventures in two successful businesses and served as a member of the City Council for two years. Last May Mayor Hext was elected mayor of Odessa with the focus to continue the successes and build upon new opportunities in education, health care and the economy. Mrs. Hext has dedicated her time and talents over the years to the Ector County Independent School District schools, Meals on Wheels, the Girl Scouts, Operation Blessing, and the Boys and Girls Club of Odessa. Mayor and Mrs. Hext went above and beyond the call to service when they established the Hext Family Foundation committed to providing resources to foster educational, medical and faith-based organizations in Odessa. It is with great pride that I commend Mayor Bill Hext and Jane Hext for their active involvement and leadership in the community and I congratulate them on being awarded the ``Outstanding Citizen(s) of the Year.''

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that this bill does have in it that is from the authorizing side is the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. This is not some insignificant piece of legislation, this is something that has been worked on for the last 2 years, very difficult to get through a number of committees in both the House and Senate. I can speak at length on the bill. I will not. What I do want to say is this would not have happened had it not been for the leadership of our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), who will be leaving the Congress of his own choice at the end of this year. This is something that I think he will be able to take with him as one of the major accomplishments that he made. I cannot thank him enough, number one, for his work and effort in seeing this come to fruition, as well as thanking him for his friendship.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I concur with the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bliley, concerning title II of H.R. 5660, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. It is my understanding as well that nothing in title II of the bill would: Authorize any bank or similar institution to engage in any activity or transaction, or hold any asset, that the institution is not authorized to engage in or hold under its chartering or authorizing statute; authorize depository institutions either to take delivery of equity securities under a security futures product or under any other circumstance, or otherwise to invest in any equity security, otherwise prohibited for depository institutions; and allow a depository institution to use single stock futures to circumvent restrictions in the law on ownership of equity securities under its chartering or authorizing statute.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, October 24, 2000, the other body adopted H.R. 4788, a bill that contained a number of provisions important to U.S. agriculture and the rural areas of our country. Among other items in this bill is legislative language contained in Title I of H.R. 728, the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments, a bill Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma introduced early in this Congress. The House adopted this legislation on July 17, 2000, but it was not acted on in the other body until yesterday. The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000 will authorize the Department of Agriculture to provide cost-share funding for local sponsors to rehabilitate dams that were built with USDA assistance. Under the Act, the Secretary of Agriculture will establish a system for approving requests for rehabilitation assistance, taking into account health, safety, environmental and cost considerations. Before approving a rehabilitation project for USDA funding, the Secretary will examine and consider all feasible options for rehabilitation, which under the bill may include correcting damage or deterioration of the structure, upgrading the structural measures to meet changed land use conditions or safety needs within the watershed, and decommissioning the structure. The legislation is clear that a local sponsor may not be required to engage in a particular form of rehabilitation, and a project may not commence unless the Secretary and the local sponsor agree on the form of rehabilitation. At the same time, the Secretary will not place any specific form of rehabilitation assistance at a disadvantage when evaluating applications for rehabilitation assistance. It is expected that NRCS will follow the normal procedures for Federal agencies for water resource planning. In closing, Mr. Speaker, the legislation contained in H.R. 4788 for dam rehabilitation under the small watershed program is important to rural areas, and I am pleased we have sent it on to the President for enactment. I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma, Congressman Frank Lucas, who is a valued member of the House Agriculture Committee, for his hard work and dedication to this issue.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to comment on the rule, but I want to let my colleagues know that I rise in strong support and appreciate the work that the Committee on Rules did giving us an opportunity to bring the Commodities Exchange Act in front of the Congress today under a suspension. And since we are establishing a record here, I wanted to take the opportunity to make a couple of comments in response to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) in regards to one area that she specifically singled out as having had some concern. This has been a long going process, and the process has been with the intention and the goal of trying to relieve to the extent possible the regulatory burden on the exchange activity and commodities in the United States, giving them much more of a level playing field in regards to some of their foreign competitors. And at the same time while the interest and endeavor has been to relieve some of the regulatory burdens, we wanted to make sure that there was still a great amount of public confidence by the fact that there would be an oversight regulatory body that would be in fact monitoring these trades. The specific new businesses that the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) referred to we generally call electronic billboards. I just wanted to make mention that I had met with a number of them over a long period of time; and certainly as an endeavor not to increase regulations on various types of trading associations and groups, we wanted to make for certain, as they requested, that we did not in fact increase regulatory burdens on them. We have not done that, Mr. Speaker. In fact, there are a number of sections of the bill that specifically indicate that the type of trading that is done by electronic billboards would be totally excluded as a part of CEA, would not come under the regulatory burden; and the President's working group that also had a great deal of input agreed to the fact that there should be exclusion from the CEA. A question remains. I have visited with the gentlewoman about it. We will continue to look at it into the future. Actually, the problem seems to arise from a request of certain of these new electronic billboards to have a specific carve-out that in fact would give them additional authority that other type exchanges would not have, and it is strongly opposed by other exchanges giving them a specific advantage. That is the reason that there were not the changes. But in terms of the regulatory authority, not only did we not include them, we excluded them in some areas in some parts of the bill. In regards to liability, we in fact created a number of things that electronic billboards, I think, would find very pleasing.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4541) to reauthorize and amend the Commodity Exchange Act to promote legal certainty, enhance competition, and reduce systemic risk in markets for future and over-the-counter derivatives, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers a bill that addresses another of the contentious areas where capital and investment needs of American business intersect with the needs of managing economic risk in a global market. Although the issues in this bill do not have the long history associated with Glass-Steagall reforms, the process that we hope to be culminating this afternoon actually began in 1989. Then it took the Congress 3 years to broker a solution on how to deal with over-the- counter financial instruments that had many of the economic characteristics of agricultural futures. While the Futures Trading Practices Act of 1992 proved temporary, we hope that today's legislation will be more lasting. Let me emphasize at the outset of this bill it aligns itself closely with the recommendations of the President's Working Group on Financial Services. The Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission compromise the President's Working Group. The PWG urged the Congress to steer clear of allowing over-the- counter financial instruments to be offered to unsuspecting individuals who could lose their life's savings by picking an unsuitable investment. These are the so-called ``retail customers,'' and in all instances this bill has followed the PWG's advice. Indeed, the three committees of jurisdiction here in the House have taken a cautious approach, while making the three remain reforms the centerpiece of this legislation. First, we provide legal certainty to the vast multi-trillion dollar derivative markets, but we make certain that only highly sophisticated, deep-pocketed companies and individuals may participate in these markets. Second, we provide the U.S. derivatives industry the ability to trade single stock futures, but only under the watchful eyes of Federal securities and futures regulators. Third, we allow U.S. futures exchanges to set their own course in operating their derivatives markets under CFTC oversight, but without the burdens of a regulatory regime designed for the mid-20th century. These accomplishments were realized even though three committees shared legislative jurisdiction over these matters. The Committee on Agriculture, whose jurisdiction grew from the 150-year-old agricultural futures markets, understands the urgency of giving legal certainty to a $90 trillion swaps market. The Committee on Commerce, with jurisdiction over the securities laws, knows that if U.S. financial firms are to compete in global markets, single stock futures must be allowed to trade here in this country. And the Committee on Banking and Financial Services accepts the nexus between traditional banking activities and the tools of risk management that are not of their making. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this sound legislation. It rounds out many of the historic financial reforms passed by the 106th Congress. To fail to pass this legislation this year will put our financial services industry at a severe competitive disadvantage in the world market. That is why it is so important that the House get this bill to the other body now, where it may be considered and sent on to the President. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would simply say in recognition, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), the chairman of the subcommittee with this jurisdiction, has not spent simply days, weeks or months on this bill, he has spent years on drafting this. We all regrettably know that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) is finalizing his congressional career at the end of this term. This, I think, could be his legacy. There have been countless hours that he has put in on this work. I commend the gentleman very much for what it is that he has done. I also want to thank the staff on all of the committees for the countless numbers of hours that they have put in over the past several weeks to try to get us to this point today. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) control the balance of the time that is allotted to the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services have control of 5 minutes of my time and that he be permitted to yield blocks of time.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, which has primary jurisdiction over the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-determination Act of 2000 (H.R. 2389), I rise on behalf of myself and Mr. Stenholm, the ranking member of the committee, to explain the intent behind a number of provisions in the bill and how we expect these provisions to be carried out. We will address these roughly in the order in which they appear in the bill. Sections 101(a), 102(a), 102(b) and 102(c) of Title I provide how payments to states and allocations to the counties within those states should be calculated and made under this Act. The intent behind these provisions is to ensure that each county's elective share of a state's full payment amount be based, to the extent practicable, on the county's historic percentage of the 25% payments received by the state during the eligibility period. Thus, if over the course of the eligibility period a county received 10% of the aggregate payments made to the state, that county would be allocated 10% of the amount calculated for the state under section 101(a) if the county elected to receive its full payment amount. It is understood that there will be exceptions to this general rule based on the individual circumstances of states and counties. Congress has been careful to delegate the determination of each county's portion of a state's full payment amount to the state to accommodate these exceptions. It is expected, however, that such exceptions will be relatively rare and the reasons for them compelling. Title II of the bill establishes a significant new role for counties and local stakeholders in federal land management decision-making. It is essential to explain several provisions in this Title to ensure that it is carried out in a way that will meet the intended policy objectives. The overarching intent of Title II is to foster local creativity and innovation with regard to the projects that participating counties and resource advisory committees propose to the Secretary. This necessarily requires the Secretary concerned to flexibly construe the provisions in this title. It is understood that not every project proposed by resource advisory committees will succeed. It is expected, however, that participating counties and resource advisory committees be given every opportunity, within the parameters of existing law, to make their ideas work. Section 202 establishes a general limitation on the use of project funds to ensure that such funds are used on projects that meet ``resource objectives consistent with the purposes of this Title.'' This provision is further explained by subsection 203(c), which states that projects submitted to the Secretary under this title ``shall be consistent with section 2(b).'' Thus, projects conducted under Title II are permissible provided they meet the objectives identified in section 2(b). A similar dynamic exists between sections 204(f) and 203(c). Section 204(f) requires that 50% of all Title II project funds be used for road maintenance, decommissioning or obliteration or for the restoration of streams and watersheds. It is expected that these requirements be construed to include a broad range of projects that are consistent with the requirements of section 2(b), as provided by section 203(c). For example, a forest thinning project that meets the requirements of section 2(b) would also meet the requirements of section 204(f) if its purpose were to restore the vegetation within a watershed to a more fire-resistant state. Section 203(a)(1) provides that resource advisory committees must submit project proposals to the Secretary concerned ``not later than September 30 for fiscal year 2001 and each September 30 thereafter for each succeeding fiscal year through fiscal year 2006. This provision is reiterated in section 207(a). The relationship between the participating county and the resource advisory committee under these provisions is significant to the policy objectives that these provisions seek to achieve. It is intended that the participating county and the resource advisory committee come to an agreement on the projects to be undertaken prior to submission of such projects to the Secretary concerned. It is for this reason that the date by which the county must elect whether to reserve project funds for Title II projects and the date by which the resource advisory committee must submit Title II project proposals to the Secretary concerned are identical. It is expected that counties and resource advisory committees will come to an agreement on the projects that will be proposed to the Secretary concerned in advance of the September 30 deadline for each fiscal year. However, it is also understood that, in some cases, this deadline will not be met. It is for this reason that language has been included under section 207(b) allowing unobligated project funds from one fiscal year to be rolled over for use in the subsequent fiscal year. Thus, if agreement between the participating county and resource advisory committee is not reached by the conclusion of a fiscal year, the county may defer its election regarding the use of such funds to the subsequent fiscal year. A resource advisory committee may not, under any circumstance, propose a project to the Secretary concerned over the objection of the participating county. Section 204(e)(3) establishes a pilot program for the implementation of projects involving merchantable material. The central concept tested in this pilot program, as identified in paragraph 3(A), is the use of separate contracts for the removal and sale of such material. This provision purposely does not specify how merchantable material shall be handled or transported between removal and sale. This provides maximum flexibility to federal resource managers and private contractors to innovate in ways that will minimize costs and optimize efficiencies while meeting desirable resource management objectives. It is expected, for example, that federal managers will work with private contractors to develop creative ways to minimize transportation and other transactional costs associated with the contracts. It is also expected that implementation of the pilot program will not create market competition between the Secretary and the private sector in markets for the sale and use of merchantable materials. It is intended that the Secretary concerned will implement this pilot program, to the extent practicable, on a voluntary basis. The Secretary should first include projects in the pilot that have been requested for inclusion by resource advisory committees. The Secretary The annual percentage requirements provided under paragraph 3(B) requires only that a fixed percentage of all projects involving merchantable material be included in the pilot program for a given fiscal year. This provision is purposefully silent on the size and cost of projects to be included in the pilot. It is intended that the Secretary will, to the extent practicable, limit the pilot program to projects that are smaller in scope in order to test the premises of the pilot with minimal impact on other projects involving merchantable material carried out under Title II. Paragraph 3(E) authorizes the Secretary concerned to use funds from any appropriated account, not to exceed $1 million annually, to administer projects under the pilot program. It is intended that the Secretary use this authority only to the extent that it does not reduce or otherwise interfere with program delivery within the accounts from which such funds are taken. Section 204(e)(3)(E) requires the Comptroller General to review the pilot program and report to Congress on its effectiveness. It is intended that such report will be the basis for determining whether the pilot program should continue. Should the Comptroller General find that the program is not performing efficiently, that it is creating market competition between the government and the private sector, that is hindering the successful planning or implementation of projects, or that it is deterring resource advisory committees from proposing projects involving merchantable material, it is expected that the program will be terminated. Section 205 establishes resource advisory committees to assist counties in the selection and proposal of projects under Title II and Title III. Because the success of each advisory committee will depend largely on the cooperation of its members, it is expected that the Secretary will appoint to resource advisory committees only individuals who have a demonstrated ability to work collaboratively with others of differing viewpoints and achieve good faith compromise. It is strictly contrary to the intent and purposes of this Act for the Secretary concerned to appoint to a resource advisory committee any individual who will likely act in a dilatory manner so as to impede the ability of the resource advisory committee to propose projects to the Secretary concerned or carry out any of its responsibilities as provided in this Act. It is the intent of the House sponsors that members of resource advisory committees be selected from within local communities. Section 205(d)(4) provides that ``the Secretary shall ensure local representation in each category'' of membership within a resource advisory committee. It is expected that, with rare exception, members of resource advisory committees will be selected from among the residents of the eligible counties within which the committee will operate. The Secretary concerned should not appoint non-local individuals to resource advisory committees when local individuals who represent the same viewpoint or interest and meet the requirements for membership are available. It is expected that the Secretary concerned will established a sufficient number of resource advisory committees to facilitate involvement and collaboration at the most local level possible. It would be inappropriate and contrary to the intent of this Act for the Secretary concerned to establish one resource advisory committee for an entire state. Rather, the Secretary concerned should establish resource advisory committees at the eligible county level to the extent practicable. The Secretary concerned may establish a resource advisory committee to serve more than one eligible county, where circumstances require it (for example, if several small counties border a single unit of the national forest system), but the Secretary concerned should exercise restraint in this regard and make every effort to establish the committee at the most local level possible. Title III of the bill establishes a separate class of projects to that provided in Title II. Title III projects require approval by the participating county only to the extent that they do not involve management activities on federal lands that would normally be conducted by the Secretary concerned. It is understood and expected that some of the projects arising under Title III will involve activities on federal lands and require cooperation with and approval from the Secretary concerned. For example, fire prevention and county planning efforts provided under section 302(b)(5) may be conducted in cooperation with federal efforts to reduce wildfire risk in the wildland-urban interface. It would be appropriate in this case for a county to leverage county funds against federal funds allocated to do the project planning and NEPA analysis required for forest thinnings and other forms of vegetation management. This kind of cooperation would necessarily require approval from the Secretary concerned in addition to approval by the county for the use of county funds. Finally, section 403 of Title IV provides that the Secretaries concerned may jointly issue regulations to carry out the purposes of this Act. It is not the intent of the House sponsors that regulations are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. However, they might be helpful in some cases. It would be contrary to congressional intent for the Secretary concerned to delay implementation of any provisions of this act because the Secretary has not completed a rule- making process addressing the implementation of such provision.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Madam Speaker, last week, the Democratic candidate for Vice President made a brief stop in Odessa, Texas, in my district. He arrived with an agenda to embarrass our hometown son, Governor George Bush. He tried to cast Odessa in a bad light by making false claims against one of our most ardent businesses, the Huntsman Corporation. The Huntsman plant is a business anchor to the Permian Basin, employing over 700 hard-working men and women. It is a good corporate citizen and an asset to our community. I am sorely disappointed that their campaign would exploit our town for political gain. The folks of Odessa and Midland were ready to accommodate their guests. However, the candidate snubbed officials from both cities, including the chambers of commerce, mayors, and even the chairman of the Democratic Party. Our local media was also kept at arms' length. Only the candidate's handpicked media could cover the story, with only biased facts. We in politics fully understand the staged media events and photo- ops, but the Senator's treatment of these kind folks, whom I am honored to represent, was truly uncalled for and out of line. His visit was a missed opportunity for him to meet the real success story in the Permian Basin, the people.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 4788, with an amendment, and urge my colleagues to support the Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000. This reauthorization will provide the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration with essential authority to continue the inspection of grain utilized in both domestic and international markets, and extends the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to collect fees to cover the costs of services performed under the Act until the year 2005. On September 30, 2000, the authorization for the collection of fees by the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration expired. The latest figures show that approximately 75% of the grain inspection budget is funded through the collection of fees and only 25% through appropriations. Therefore, it is imperative that Congress act now to renew this expired authority. H.R. 4788 also makes improvements to the Warehouse Act. This will provide the United States Department of Agriculture with a uniform regulatory system to govern the operation of federally licensed warehouses involved in storing agricultural products. Currently, warehouse licenses may be issued for the storage of major commodities and cottonseed. According to the USDA, 45.5% of the U.S. off-farm grain and rice storage capacity and 49.5% of the total cotton storage capacity is licensed under the Warehouse Act. The revisions to the Warehouse Act will make this program more relevant to today's agricultural marketing system. The legislation would do such things as (1) authorize and standardize electronic documents and allow their transfer from buyer to seller across state and international boundaries; (2) authorize warehouse operators to enter into contracts or agreements with depositors to allocate available storage space; and (3) protect the integrity of state warehouse laws and regulations from federal preemption. In 1992, Congress directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish electronic warehouse receipts for the cotton industry. Since then, participation in the electronic-based program has grown to more than 90% of the U.S. cotton crop. This legislation would extend the electronic warehouse receipts program to include all agriculture commodities covered by the U.S. Warehouse Act. This legislation has been negotiated with the United States Department of Agriculture and the relevant industries. It provides for a consistent inspection of grains and the ability to utilize electronic receipts and documents for all major commodities, which will foster more reliable, competitive and efficient commerce within the agricultural sector. In summary Mr. Speaker, this legislation will bring grain inspection and the use of warehouse facilities into the 21st century, all at no net cost to the taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of legislation.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2389, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-determination Act of 1999. As I do so, I urge my colleagues to join me as a statement of our united commitment to education and economic stability in rural forest communities all over America. Our rural forest communities are at a crossroads. Nearly a hundred year ago, the federal government made a commitment to share the revenues derived from federal lands to fund local schools and roads. The purpose of this commitment was to compensate these communities for the loss of local property taxes. Yet, during the last several years, the federal government has unilaterally defaulted on this commitment. The federal timber sale program has collapsed and federal policies now virtually prohibit the use of our national forests to sustain the communities and schools that are located in and around them. As a result rural forest communities and school districts all over America are in tatters--the victims of their own government. The purpose of H.R. 2389 is to right this wrong. By providing stable and predictable funding for rural education, it will ensure that school children in forest-dependent communities are no longer punished by the policies of their own government. Passage of this bill will directly benefit 4 million schoolchildren in 700 counties nationwide, thereby opening the same doors of opportunity for them that children in other parts of the country enjoy. H.R. 2389 also provides a framework for rural forest counties to rebuild their communities and their way of life by giving them a direct stake in the management of our federal forests. By giving local stakeholders both the opportunity and the funding resources to address local forest management issues, local experts can work together on solutions that are not only good for the forest, but also the local economies that sustain them. H.R. 2389 is supported by a broad range of interests from all over the country. The bill has earned the endorsement of the National Association of Counties, the National Education Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and a grass roots coalition of over 1,000 local education, business and government organizations in 36 states. I urge my colleagues to take a stand in support of our rural school children and the forest communities in which they live, Join me in voting aye on H.R. 2389.