Larry Combest

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. J.C. Chambers, an individual who understands the meaning of dedication and service to his neighbors and his community. On November 10, Mr. J.C. Chambers of Lubbock, TX, received the 1999 Award for Philanthropy. This award recognizes all of the many civic activities for which he has volunteered and supported. J.C.'s volunteer work in Lubbock spans 40 years and includes leading the Lubbock United Way as president and campaign chairman. He has also chaired the Red Raider Club in Lubbock. Furthermore, J.C. serves as a board member of the Lubbock Methodist Hospital Foundation, the Advisory Board of the Southwest Institute for Addictive Diseases, the Committee of Champions, the Texas Board of Health, the Center for the Study of Addiction, and the Children's Orthopaedic Center. J.C. has earned many additional awards honoring his achievements, such as Lubbock's Outstanding Young Man in 1965 and Lubbock Christian College's Servant Leader of the Year in 1985. In 1990, he received the Distinguished Alumni of Texas Tech honor and in 1992, the People of Vision Award. Mr. Chambers earned the Rita P. Harmon Volunteer Service Award from the United Way in 1995, the William Booth Award from the Salvation Army, and the Lubbock Chamber of Commerce Distinguished Citizen Award in 1998. J.C. has been a local insurance sales agent at Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company in Lubbock since 1957. He graduated Lubbock High School in 1950 and from Texas Tech University in 1954. J.C. volunteers out of a sense of responsibility to his community. Through his service, he has made the city of Lubbock and our society a better place to live. I would like to congratulate Mr. J.C. Chambers for his outstanding commitment to others.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a man who has made his mark in West Texas with a long and successful career at the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Having worked his way up from sports writer to editor-in-chief over a span of four decades, Mr. Burle Pettit has announced he will retire January 15. Burle's reputation for fairness, his passion for journalism and his love for the community, won high praise from A-J Publisher Mark Nusbaum who said, ``When you think of what an editor should be, you think of Burle Pettit.'' Fortunately for all of us in the Lubbock community, Burle will still be a presence around the Avalanche-Journal in several ways. He plans to serve on the editorial board, provide general consultation, and continue writing his well-loved columns. Burle's influence will also be felt in the generation of journalists who have worked under him, inspired by his strong work ethic and reliance on accuracy. I am grateful for the years of service Burle has given to our community--not only through his hard work on the paper, but also to the organizations he has supported with his time, such as the South Plains Food Bank, the March of Dimes, the Salvation Army, and the Monterey Optimist Club. On behalf of his many readers in West Texas, I wish Mr. Burle Pettit a relaxing and rewarding retirement.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Madam Speaker, S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, is an important step in revamping and modernizing America's financial system. While there are both pluses and perils to the approach contained within this act, today I wish to highlight several portions of the bill which are of particular importance to the Committee on Agriculture, and which were very much in the minds of the Managers and staff while drafting this conference report. S. 900 contains several provisions relating to the treatment of certain financial instruments for various purposes under this country's securities laws. In particular, a bank is explicitly not required to register as a broker-dealer under the '34 Act for participating in certain hybrid and swap transactions. These provisions, contained in Title II of the bill, are not a finding that all swaps are securities. Furthermore, in the case of both swaps and hybrids, it is important to note that the classification of a particular type of instrument for purposes of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act does not preclude that instrument or transaction from falling under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under the Commodity Exchange Act. This result is made clear in section 206(c) of Title II of the bill. Furthermore, section 210 of Title II states that ``Nothing in this Act shall supersede, affect, or otherwise limit the scope and applicability of the Commodity Exchange Act.'' This section recognizes that transactions which are futures contracts or commodity options under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act do not receive an exemption or exclusion from the Commodity Exchange Act because of anything in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. No financial instrument described in this act, be it a swap agreement, new hybrid product, or identified banking product, is exempted or excluded from the jurisdiction of the CFTC solely by virtue of anything contained in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The CFTC's traditional exclusive authority is unaffected by this legislation. The Privacy Title, Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, explicitly excludes persons and entities subject to the jurisdiction of the CFTC, and the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and persons and entities chartered and operating under the Farm Credit Act of 1971, from the provisions of this Title. The purpose of sections 509(3)(B) and (C) and 527(4)(D), excluding the above mentioned persons and entities from the definition of ``financial institution,'' is to make it clear that no provision of Title V will apply to farm credit system institutions nor to CFTC regulatees.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill that provides the United States Trade Representative with additional tools to ensure freer and fairer world trade. For U.S. agriculture, 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 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, United States agriculture has provided a positive return to our balance of trade. In order to continue this positive balance, and to improve upon it, markets around the world must be open to our agricultural exports. One of the biggest threats to trade policy is the inability to make certain the trade agreements are adhered to and other countries live up to their commitments. This weakens support across the country for trade agreements. This is true for farmers and ranchers, and others interested in exporting United States goods around the world. The bill my colleagues and I are introducing today addresses this issue by requiring that the United States Trade Representative (USTR) periodically revise the list of goods subject to retaliation when a foreign country fails to comply with a WTO ruling. The goal of this legislation is implementation of the recommendations adopted in the WTO dispute settlement proceedings or in achieving a mutually satisfactory solution to the issue that gave rise to the dispute. Right now retaliation is the only authorized tool for persuading countries to comply with WTO decisions. No matter how selective USTR is in applying this retaliation tool, American jobs and businesses are affected. The preference is obviously that countries comply with WTO decisions and provide market access for the products of United States agriculture. That is the goal of this bill and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot this morning about, obviously, the wants and desires of Members in regards to the process, in regards to things that were in the bill, that were not in the bill, and if we spent, made all of those decisions, based upon that and those Beltway issues, we would probably never pass anything. Let me just mention a few of the people that are out there that this bill has tried to intend to help that support it: The Southwest Peanut Growers Association of Virginia, North Carolina Peanut Growers Association, the American sheep industry, the American Farm Bureau, the National Cotton Council, the American Soybean Association, the U.S. Rice Federation, the National Grain and Sorghum Association, the United States Sugar Beet Association, the American Sugar Beet Growers, the Hawaiian Sugar Growers, the Florida Sugar League, the Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, the National Corn Growers Association are the ones that have just come in since we started debating this bill. Mr. Speaker, let me mention one other thing, if I might, as well. I agree with those people who have said that this is probably inadequate in terms of disaster money. We do not know how much that is. In fact, in some instances and in some cases the waters have not even receded enough to know what the damage is. But I will tell my colleagues that as this bill started off at $500 million, we had a hearing in the Committee on Agriculture, and we asked the administration and the Secretary how much would they need, and they said they had no idea. But they guessed, and they would estimate at this time between 800 million and 1.2 billion. Mr. Speaker, this bill has 1.2 billion. It is at the top end of what the administration suggested that they would need. If that is not enough, then at some point in the process I think we should come back and revisit that issue. But I will tell my colleagues that the farmers of America see the opportunity in a very short order to begin to get some very needed assistance in their hands. This is the way to do it, and I would encourage Members on both sides to give strong support to this bill. I think the American farmers deserve it, and I think they anticipate it.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2559, the bill just passed.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for bringing a regional balance to this, as well as for his great work on the Committee on Rules in providing this rule. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the other gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). Mr. Speaker, I just would like to say I rise in support of this rule. I think it is a process by which all Members should have an opportunity if they have desires to discuss this subject. It should give plenty of time for that. There are some amendments. We will be dealing with those, as well. To the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) I would say, I appreciated his opening comments and statement. I just wanted to make the point, Mr. Speaker, that while the $6 billion additional money for crop insurance that was provided for in the budget which passed this House several months ago is in itself very significant in that this is, I think, the largest increase in crop insurance, that alone is not what I believe is probably the best part of this bill. One of the major problems that we have confronted with farm policy for many, many years is the lack of adequate risk management. To actually begin to move toward adequate risk management, it is important to make some major changes. This bill does that, and I think there are very positive changes. We saw a disaster package last year of $6 billion. There is one being considered today and may be considered this week that is going to be probably in excess of $8 billion. While this alone does not solve that problem, nor would I want to lead any of my colleagues to believe that it would totally solve it, I do believe that this is the first major step in a right direction to help provide adequate protection and much needed protection. To my colleagues who may not have an opportunity to deal in agricultural policy or who do not have a lot of farmers maybe in their districts, I would like to just make a brief explanation of why this is so important. Almost in every endeavor of life, Mr. Speaker, whether they are buying homeowner's insurance, whether they are a businessman or businesswoman that happens to have a small business or a large business, it is possible for people to protect themselves by buying insurance. They can buy it to protect their home. They can buy it to protect their inventory. If the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and I are in business side by side and my inventory costs more than his inventory, I buy more insurance. It costs me more, but I can buy that. And if something happens to that inventory through some disaster that is covered by the insurance policy, then the insurance policy pays and I buy insurance on my next warehouseful of inventory. Unfortunately, one the real fallacies in crop insurance has been that farmers cannot cover their capability. As an example, if my colleague is a farmer, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is a farmer and can grow 50 acres of wheat on a normal year on a normal basis and he puts his input costs in to grow 50 bushels of wheat on his farm but because of past problems that have occurred, there are some antiquated historical data information that is used to determine how much insurance the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) could buy and he might only be able to buy insurance to cover 25 or 30 bushels of his crop but his input costs are to produce a 50-bushel crop of wheat, it is not advantageous, even under the maximum amount that could be purchased, for him to buy insurance. It is not cost effective. It does not adequately cover him. And there is no incentive. So what we are trying to do in this proposal is to give him an opportunity to have his actual production capability or movement toward his actual production capability to be able to insure for. This bill also is a major step in the right direction for revenue assurance, and that is very important to people that farm in areas that do not have historical natural disasters and generally always make a crop. Because the revenue aspect or the downward turn in revenue aspect are one of the reasons we are looking at disaster and emergency packages today, farm assistance, because of low market prices, some of the lowest we have seen in many, many years. So this does have a good program in it to provide insurance for revenue loss. It does increase the subsidy substantially that the farmer receives for buying insurance. We believe that this creates real incentives, albeit not as far as I would like to see it. I will tell my colleagues that, in the next couple of years, we intend to even move forward with a second phase of crop insurance reform. But it is important for there to be a risk management tool available to farmers that is, number one, economically feasible and, number two, it covers their crops in an adequate fashion and creates an incentive to buy rather than disincentive, which I think today is the case. Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a major move in the right direction for risk management that I think will lessen the impact of natural disasters or low commodity prices in the future, and I would commend it to my colleagues and ask for their support. Again, I am strongly in support of the rule, and I appreciate the Committee on Rules for its efforts.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley), a very valuable member of the committee.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today we consider H.R. 2559, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 1999. This important legislation was approved by a voice vote in the subcommittee and the full committee and enjoys broad bipartisan support from colleagues representing farmers and ranchers from all regions of the country. Equally important, I am pleased to report that this bill fully complies within the budget resolution approved by the Congress earlier this year. As my colleagues know, this country's farmers and ranchers are not experiencing the prosperity that other Americans enjoy today. Confronted by adverse weather and low prices, they are facing a second year of extreme economic crisis. Mr. Chairman, there are two ways a farmer or rancher can lose money. That is where a strong farm safety net is needed. The culprits are low prices and lost production, and, sadly, both of these culprits are at work again this year. On the price side of the equation, just as examples, cotton is expected to receive the lowest price in 13 years; wheat the lowest in 22 years; and soybeans the lowest in a quarter century. Fortunately, in an effort to avert a financial disaster in farm country, the House and Senate are working together to provide an emergency farm relief package. Mr. Chairman, I believe the short-term assistance provided in the fiscal year 2000 agricultural appropriations bill is urgently needed and will bring our Nation's farmers and ranchers at least some peace of mind. But make no mistake, ad hoc relief of any kind will not bring about a long-term solution to chronic problems. That is why I have announced the committee's intention to convene a series of hearings early next year to evaluate current and future American farm policy. By providing our farmers and ranchers an opportunity to fully participate in this process, we will steer clear of the kind of fixes in farm policy that are made in haste and ultimately do more harm than good. On the other side of the equation, there is something Congress can do now about severe crop losses that each year rob farmers and ranchers of their livelihood. After more than 8 months of input from farmers and ranchers on the problems with crop insurance, Congress is in a position to act. The Federal crop insurance program was created in 1938, but it was not a case where the government intruded on the private sector thinking it could do better. Instead, the program came about because countless private sector attempts at crop insurance had failed miserably. Without a Federal commitment, the widespread losses associated with natural disasters would make something as fundamental as insurance protection simply unavailable to our farmers. Unfortunately, during its 61 years of existence, this critical program has been both underfunded and seriously undermined by ad hoc disaster. This dual policy has fueled a vicious cycle that has not saved taxpayers money but cost them countless billions. By underfunding the crop insurance program, farmer-paid premiums have been unaffordable, leading to a Nation of underinsured farmers at best and uninsured farmers at worst. For years, the practical effect of this policy has been that farmers who do not buy crop insurance or buy too little leave Congress little choice but to enact ad hoc disaster bills; and in the following year, farmers who had insured their crops the year before decide not to, trusting that Congress will once again come through. This vicious cycle has seriously undermined the crop insurance program. It has eroded program participation and fueled the need for Congress to pass costly, unbudgeted ad hoc disaster in every year but three since 1985, at a cost totaling more than $30 billion. Mr. Chairman, while this is by no stretch a desired effect, it is totally understandable when you consider that many of America's farmers just cannot afford crop insurance. Mr. Chairman, reducing the need for ad hoc assistance and putting an end to this vicious cycle is my aim with respect to all of Federal farm policy. With respect to crop loss assistance that is exactly what H.R. 2559 sets out to do. Three provisions of H.R. 2559 alone go a long way in effectively reducing the future need for ad hoc disaster. These provisions simply allow farmers who already buy crop insurance to buy better coverage and encourages those who have usually relied on the government for help to instead rely on themselves. First, H.R. 2559 makes across-the-board reductions in farmer-paid premiums. In fact, without passage of this bill, crop insurance premiums for every farmer in America will automatically increase by 30 percent. Second, the bill makes insurance that protects price as well as production more affordable to our farmers. Third, the bill helps farmers who are hit hard by multiyear disasters to insure more of the yield that they have proven that they can grow. These are obvious but important changes that farmers from all regions, growing all crops, have said that they need. But H.R. 2559 also recognizes that no matter what amount of premium assistance the government provides, if the insurance policy itself does not work for a farmer, the Federal crop insurance program is flawed. H.R. 2559 responds to calls from farmers from all regions to increase the number of crops that are served by crop insurance and to improve the quality of coverage to crops that are already being served. By promoting new policy research and development, by expediting the policy approval process, and by helping farmers buy these new policies H.R. 2559 works to ensure that all farmers can count on crop insurance. There are many other provisions contained in this bill that give committee members reason to be proud. The bill provides risk management assistance to livestock producers for the first time ever and eliminates an agency-imposed black dirt policy that has prevented farmers from planting perfectly good ground. I am particularly pleased with the farmers who came forward and helped us write tough antifraud and antiwaste and abuse provisions that crack down on those who would dare to farm this program. Mr. Chairman, in short, H.R. 2559 is a fiscally sound bill that is in keeping with the commitment of this Congress to safeguard our balanced budget while strengthening the safety net for our Nation's farmers and ranchers. I would call to the attention of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, and at the appropriate time would ask for inclusion into the Record, of a variety of letters from many, many farm groups and commodity groups that I will have for the Members to review in support of the efforts of the committee and in support of the bill on the floor. I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2559. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), who is a very valuable member of our committee.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, what time did I consume, and how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), a very valuable member of the committee, the subcommittee chair with jurisdiction over this subject, and cosponsor of the bill on crop insurance. (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), the vice chairman of the full committee.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the productive efforts of the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) throughout this process. Part of what he is suggesting is, a part of the whole concept behind this, is to look at new types of programs that can be available for coverage that does not exist today, look at the growing habits and conditions that farmers may have, and to encourage the associations that represent the people who grow those commodities to be involved in the product so that it is a very workable product. We will be happy to work with the gentleman in any way that I might through the conference to assure that his concerns and interests are taken care of.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Vice Chairman of the Committee on the Budget and a member of the House Committee on Agriculture and who I would say more than any other Member is responsible for the additional money that was in the budget for crop insurance. (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a very hard working member of the committee.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, may I have an accounting of the time.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a very hard-working member of the committee.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a former member of our committee and still- hardworking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume and, in closing, I would only thank my colleague and friend and neighbor, the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for his bipartisan work and support. The gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Risk Management, Research, and Specialty Crops, and even though he has left the floor, a special thanks to him; and to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), the subcommittee chairman, who not only has spent a great deal of time and a lot of hard work in a lot of hearings, and probably understands crop insurance as well as anyone. I thank him for his efforts in moving this bill forward. He did a great job, and I certainly could not give him over-acclaim. He did a very good job on the bill, and I thank him very much.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work of the author of the amendment, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), and the cosponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell). We have discussed the amendment. There are some questions I think that at some point will need to be answered and resolved. I think this is certainly within the spirit of the direction of the bill that is before the House today, and I would certainly support the amendment and accept the amendment.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I suggest passage of the amendment.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and would certainly encourage the USDA to see if there is some way they could rectify this problem. The gentleman has been very strongly representative of his people in his district, recognizing there was an initial problem, and I appreciate his tenacity. It is also my understanding that the report language in the appropriations conference report will also address this subject. I appreciate the willingness of the gentleman to withdraw his amendment.