Larry Combest

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say we will be very happy to work in getting this amendment cleared up. I do rise in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania and recognize the significance and importance of both the declass and the environmental funding to certain members of our committee and will try to make certain that that concern is accommodated.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman that, as amended, I would be very willing to accept the amendment of the gentleman from Washington.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, the perfecting amendment to the Dicks amendment would simply indicate that the Secretary of Defense may not obligate or spend any of the funds until the Secretary has submitted to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House and Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate a detailed cost analysis and report on specifically how the funding would be used.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], a member of the committee.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon]. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the Chair of the time remaining in general debate.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to say I appreciate the kind remarks of both the ranking member, Mr. Dicks, and the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Richardson. It is a pleasure working with all members of this committee. While we may have some philosophical differences, we, I think as well as any committee, have always tried to make certain that every member was heard. Let me just make two quick comments, one on the issue of the comments by the gentleman from New Mexico on the overall amount of the budget. I would remind Members that in real numbers this budget is 14 percent below fiscal year 1990 in terms of expenditures. The issue of personnel, I would just want to state for the record that this committee has always had, No. 1, a keen respect and admiration for the individuals who put their lives on the line and for the intelligence community. We initiated on this committee in the past major personnel reforms. I might add last year we did that, as well, and found both the administration and other committees of the Congress in objection to those, and subsequently those were removed from the bill. As explained to the Members in the personnel hearing, we will be moving forward on the DCI's recommendations for personnel reform, only wanting to look at those in a much more detailed fashion than we have been able to do up to this point. I would be remiss if I did not indicate we do have great admiration for those people who are involved in the community. In the area of overall funding, without getting into those areas that make it difficult to discuss, I am sure the gentleman from New Mexico is aware, following a discussion of the National Reconnaissance Organization's carry-forward account last year, which was discussed quite publicly, and even more so recently, there were substantial reductions taken in last year's level. When we compare our this year's bill to the last year's level, we are accommodating a request of the administration to replace some of those funds that were taken out last year, to the tune of several hundreds of millions of dollars and, consequently, that is reflected in the overall. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], a very valued member who is in his second term or sentence on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, however one might put that, and at one time served as ranking member, who I had the fortune of sitting next to.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring H.R. 3259, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997, before my colleagues for consideration and, I trust, approval. Before I turn to the contents of the bill, I would like to thank the staff of the committee for their hard work. We marked up two bills in 1 week and brought this bill to the floor in half the time that we have taken in the past. None of this would be possible without our staff's diligence and very long hours. Five short months ago, I spoke on the floor about the conference report for the fiscal year 1996 authorization. I noted at that time that we had been disappointed in the President's budget submission on intelligence for fiscal year 1996 because it did not show the forward thinking and vision I think our intelligence policy needs. Instead of a blueprint, we got a snapshot of 1 year's needs. I also noted that another such submission would not be acceptable. I had been assured by both the Vice President and the Director of Central Intelligence that the fiscal year 1997 intelligence budget would show vision and foresight. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. The budget we received was more of the same, another status quo budget. To say that we have been disappointed would be an understatement. That is why the committee has made more substantial changes in the intelligence budget than last year. The details of those changes are in the classified annex, which I hope Members have taken the time to read. Our changes were made only after the most careful consideration. We held 6 full committee hearings, 15 member briefings, and more than 100 staff briefings. I might add that we expect to have further briefings between now and conference on issues that are still undergoing changes. Overall, this bill increases the amount requested by the President by an additional 3.9 percent. It is money well spent. As always, our ability to talk in detail on this subject is limited, but as many of my colleagues know, U.S. intelligence continues to provide crucial support for sensitive negotiations and for U.S. forces deployed overseas, and in combating terrorism, narcotics, and proliferation. I would like to spend a few moments highlighting some of the major aspects of this bill. Our most important intelligence asset is the people who are the intelligence community. Downsizing, more drastic than we had first assumed, has taken its toll and yet we are still faced with the problem of the proper skills mix in each NFIP agency. There are also a number of quality of life issues that are of fundamental importance. I give DCI Deutch full credit for making personnel reform his highest priority issue. Unfortunately, he did not provide the committee with the kinds of detail we require in order for us to commit the sums of money he needs. Section 403 of our bill denies authorization for the expenditure of funds for personnel reforms until the committee is briefed. Some may argue that we are taking the DCI to task with this provision. We are not. Our colleagues in the other body have no provisions at all in their bill that deal with personnel reform. Section 403 is a good-faith pledge on the part of our committee that we will address this important issue when we have a detailed proposal. Some of our most important changes to the President's budget are in the National Reconnaissance Program. Last year we began to force the NRO to give more thought to alternative means of intelligence collection, with satellites that are smaller and cheaper, yet no less capable. Many attacked this vision. I am happy to report that it has been confirmed by experts and that we will continue to push the NRO along these lines. We are coming up to a crucial moment of generational change in our satellite systems. Unless we begin planning for that now, we will face a future when we will pay more to know less in a more complex world. As we did last year, we are limiting the amount of money that can be spent on declassification under President Clinton's Executive Order 12958. We favor more open government. Some of the recent declassifications of such programs as CORONA and VENONA underscore the achievements and importance of intelligence. But we do take exception to having annual expenditures mandated by an Executive order for a program that has yet to prove it can declassify without revealing secrets. H.R. 3237 helps put us on the path toward the intelligence community we will need in the 21st century. I despair that this President will ever give us the kind of intelligence budget that will move us in the right direction by bold and large steps, rather than hesitant ones. I look forward to the next President doing so, soon. Until then, I know that my colleagues will support this bill so that we can move the intelligence community in a positive direction. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMBEST

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 1997, H.R. 3259, are available for review by Members at the offices of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in Room H-405 of the Capitol. Staff will be available through Friday and again beginning Monday for any Members who wish to review this material. I am informed by the leadership that H.R. 3259 may be considered on the floor early next week. 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 1997 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 XLIII 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 next week.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I know of no other Federal program more maligned and misunderstood that the Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, helium operations. Many of my colleagues have piled on board to eliminate the program. They've heard the clever talking points about German zeppelins and toy balloons. Although I know I am in the minority on this issue, I hope to set the record straight on a few essential points. The Federal helium operation is actually one of the few Federal programs that has done what it was intended to do. Going from a time when there was no helium produced by the private sector, the Helium Act has been tremendously successful in helping to develop private sector production and a strategic reserve for helium. I hope my colleagues and the folks out there listening to this debate will reflect on 67 years of dedicated, quality service given this country by those who took on a mission in 1929. My colleagues who mention the cost to taxpayers for this program are speaking of the accumulated interest costs--not the annual cost, which is a net positive gain to the U.S. Treasury of $10 million last year alone. A legitimate debate has taken place regarding whether or not the Federal Government should be in the helium business. Regardless of your view, this bill, H.R. 3008, is not the best answer. Here's why: This measure effectively prevents private purchase of the helium reserves and refinery. It attempts to recoup the Government's investment with a formula selling off 100 years worth of helium. But it will do so at a price still higher than what its private competitors sell at market. The bill is designed--plain and simple--to repay the debt and interest on a loan that was made between two Federal agencies. But also just as plain and simple, this bill will not privatize the helium operations. All of that excess helium will remain unsold. However, there is a better, more balanced approach: It was offered by another one of our colleagues, Mac Thornberry, during the budget debate over this legislation in the Resources Committee. His amendment would have allowed some helium to be sold at market price, as long as it did not disrupt the market. Adequate helium stockpile would remain for national security needs, while ensuring the taxpayer a sufficient return on their investment. It would have canceled the bookkeeping debt between two Federal agencies. This commonsense substitute is nowhere in today's bill. The inclusion of this language into H.R. 3008 would have made this measure a better investment for taxpayers. Without a balanced, commonsense approach, I cannot support H.R. 3008. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' so that true reform of the helium program may become a reality.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, the importance of helium and the Government involvement in helium conservation and production dates back to the passage of the Helium Act of 1925. The building and operation of a large-scale helium extraction and purification plant went into operation in 1929 in Amarillo, TX, that until 1960, was the only domestic helium producer. In 1960, Congress amended the Helium Act to provide incentives for stripping natural gas of its helium, for purchase of the separated helium by the Government, and for its long-term storage. With now close to 34.25 billion cubic feet of helium in Government storage and a large private-sector helium recovery industry, some have asked whether or not the Federal Government should have a role in the helium business. While interest in helium began with World War I when its military value as an inert lifting gas was recognized by the Army and Navy, its current uses have far surpassed what many could have imagined. Helium now plays a vital role in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] Space Shuttle program as well as one of the most important materials in modern science. These are but a few of the current modern-day uses of helium that many of the opponents of the helium operations have failed to mention. The Space Shuttle uses more helium than any other single program in the Federal Government. The principle consumption comes just before launch time when the external tank must be purged before the liquid hydrogen fuel can be loaded. During flight, the hydrogen is pressurized with a helium atmosphere to force the liquid fuel to the turbines and the three main propulsion engines. While this is certainly the most high profile use at NASA, several other space projects used liquid helium supplied by the Bureau for cooling detectors, instruments, and entire satellites down to -452 degrees F. Currently NASA requires 80 railroad cars of helium for each shuttle launch but it can only take it in gaseous form. No private company can supply it in gaseous form, so if H.R 3008 passes, NASA is going to have to spend millions of dollars to accept the helium as a liquid and then convert it to gas. The Department of Defense [DOD] is also very reliant upon helium. Bureau helium is used by the Defense Nuclear Agency [DNA] in experiments which simulate nuclear explosions. The Air Force is deploying an operational airborne antisatellite missile system with liquid helium in an aircraft before takeoff. DOD has also awarded two competing $12 million contracts to develop a ground-based, liquid-helium-cooled laser power system. The Navy, too, is conducting research on the use of airborne superconducting magnetometer to detect submerged enemy submarines. The Department of Energy [DOE] awards and administers contracts with Government-owned, contractor-operated [GOCO] national laboratories at Brookhaven, NY; Oak Ridge, TN; Fermi and Argonne, IL; Los Alamos, NM, and Berkely and Livermore, CA. DOE also conducts defense-related research, development and production, primarily at Los Alamos, Sandia, Livermore, Rocky Flats, and Pantex. Helium also plays a role in protecting our borders. Helium-filled, radar platform blimps, provide electronic surveillance of the southern border of the United States. The helium-filled inflatables float at 10,000 feet and provide round-the-clock coverage from Arizona to the Bahamas. The Bureau is currently supplying liquid helium to several universities and medical facilities with Federal contracts who are conducting research on magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] to improve this technology. The concern over shutting down Government operations under H.R. 3008 has prompted a warning from the American Physical Society that, ``Any helium that is not extracted will be lost forever as the natural gas is burned. Some incentive or requirement to store it must be in place.'' All of the Federal agencies combined purchase about $20 million per year of helium from the Bureau. This is a small part of their budgets for research, development, and operation of these Government activities. The helium operations have supplied quality service to the programs so vital to the national defense, general welfare, and security to the Nation. The helium operations provide their product for numerous state-of-the-art projects that are a far cry from the World War I dirigibles that opponents claim as its only means for existence. Incidentally, the helium operations in Amarillo began in 1929, several years after World War I. The Helium Program does not receive Federal appropriations. The program operates on the revenues of returning between $7 to $10 million per year to the Treasury, even after operating expenses. Since 1990, the Bureau of Mines has made debt repayments totaling more than $40 million. A General Accounting Office study in 1992 recommended that the helium debt be canceled since it was characterized as a bookkeeping transaction between two Federal agencies, with no impact on the deficit or national debt. Mr. Speaker, I hope that my comments will give my colleagues a better understanding of Federal involvement in helium. The national media and others have both maligned and misunderstood this program. I have urged my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3008 so that true reform of the helium program may become a reality. Sadly, H.R. 3008 will actually prevent speedy privatization of the helium operations and prohibit the sale of excess helium.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced today the Intelligence Community Act. This bill represents an important stage in our committee's major project, IC21: The Intelligence Community in the 21st Century. The Intelligence Community Act makes comprehensive changes in how we manage intelligence. I would like to outline for my colleagues the principles that have led to this legislation. First and foremost, the United States continues to need a strong, highly capable and increasingly flexible intelligence community. Our national security concerns are more varied and in many ways more complex than they were during the cold war. The United States needs an intelligence community that is more corporate, i.e., one that works better together as a more coherent enterprise aiming toward a single goal the delivery of time intelligence to policy makers at various levels. A key issue is opportunity, not reform. In the aftermath of our cold war victory we are more secure than we have been since 1940. This is a good time to update and modernize intelligence. IC21 is not a budget or staffing exercise. It is an effort to ascertain the type of intelligence community we will need as we enter the next century. Issues of cost and size should be debated during the regular legislative budget deliberations. Finally, the focus must be on where the intelligence community needs to be in the next 10 to 15 years, not a snapshot of where we are today. With these principles--flexibility, ``corporateness,'' opportunity, future vision--in mind, the Intelligence Community Act proposes several changes. Among them are: A more clearly defined central role for the Director of Central Intelligence [DCI] as head of the intelligence community, including expanded authority over resources and personnel. The DCI would also continue to be directly responsible for the CIA, clandestine services and the community management staff. Re-establishing the Committee on Foreign Intelligence within the National Security Council, to provide regular guidance and feed back to the DCI. Creating a second Deputy DCI. One Deputy DCI would run CIA, the other would run the community management staff, thus giving the DCI greater back-up and support for this two major responsibilities--the CIA and the intelligence community. The Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA] would be designated as the Director of Military Intelligence, the senior uniformed military intelligence officer. CIA would be confirmed as the premier all-source analytical agency. DIA continues to be the focal point for managing Defense all-source analysis. The Clandestine Service, comprising current CIA and Defense clandestine human collectors, would be combined into a single entity and separated from CIA. A new Technical Collection Agency [TCA] would manage the technical collection activities of signals, imagery and measurement, and signatures intelligence. A new Technology Development Office [TDO] would manage intelligence community research and development. The current National Intelligence Council would become the National Intelligence Evaluation Council, with the key responsibility of making sure that intelligence means and ends are correlated, and that every effort is made to provide the best intelligence to policy makers. IC21 also comprises a number of nonlegislative proposals that will be found in the unclassified staff studies, which would be available later this week. I want to thank the staff members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who have devoted much of the last year to this effort. The bill I have introduced today is a testament to their hard work and to their vision. I urge my colleagues to look over this bill carefully, and the staff studies as well. The staff of the intelligence committee is always available for questions and consultation. This is a daunting agenda and an important one. Informal discussions among the staff of interested congressional committees in the House and Senate and with the executive indicate agreement on many of the principles I have outlined. I optimistically look forward to working with my colleagues over the next few months to pass a bill that will give us the intelligence community we will need as we enter the 21st century.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the dedication, public service, and patriotism of Lt. Col. William John Nichols, U.S. Air Force, on the occasion of his retirement after a career of faithful service to our Nation. Col. John Nichols' strong commitment to excellence will leave a lasting impact on the vitality of our modern warfighters, commanding admiration and respect from his military colleagues and Members of Congress. Colonel Nichols, a 1977 graduate of Cornell University and the Reserve Officer Training Corps, is serving his last day of a 15-month assignment as the special assistant for space, command, control, communications, and intelligence, and special operations programs, with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. Colonel Nichols' first duty assignment was to the 6931st Electronic Security Squadron, Iraklion Air Station, Crete, Greece, as a flight commander, from April 1978 through July 1980. John was then sent to Osan Air Base, Korea, where he headed intelligence collection operations in support of U.S. Forces in Korea. He was also responsible for U-2 intelligence collection operations during this 1-year remote assignment. In August 1981, John was reassigned to Headquarters Electronic Security Command in San Antonio, TX, where he managed tactical intelligence collection assets. Next Colonel Nichols was assigned to 13th Air Force at Clark Air Base, Philippines, from January 1983 to October 1984, where he was responsible for electronic combat programs throughout the Pacific region. In this capacity, John orchestrated the first ever involvement of electronic combat and intelligence assets into Cope Thunder air combat training exercises. Colonel Nichols was next assigned as detachment commander for the 6947th Electronic Security Squadron in Key West, FL, where he led a 70- person intelligence operation providing key support to operations in the Caribbean Basin. After almost 3 years in this position John was assigned to RAF Mildenhall, England, in July 1987 as the operations officer for the 6988th Electronic Security Squadron. In this job he led a 200-person RC-135 airborne reconnaissance operation in support of theater and national intelligence collection requirements. In July 1990, he was reassigned to Air University in Alabama where he was a distinguished graduate and top performer at Air Command Staff College and where he earned a master of airpower art and science degree as a student in the first class of the School of Advanced Airpower Studies. In July 1992, Colonel Nichols was assigned to the intelligence staff at Headquarters U.S. Air Force in the Pentagon. He quickly moved to the Air Force Secretariat where he was assigned to the Office of Legislative Affairs. After serving for a year and a half in this capacity he moved to the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs where he ably represented the Department of Defense on important intelligence issues until his retirement today. John's support of the Congress and in particular to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which I chair, has been commendable. We understand the importance of the challenges imposed by legislative liaison. Colonel Nichols met them with frankness and aplomb. His expertise will truly be missed. Colonel Nichol's military awards include the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Medal, the Aerial Achievement Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal, the Air Force Achievement Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the South West Asia Service Medal with campaign star, and several unit commendations and service ribbons. John is married and resides with his wife Wil and daughters Sarah and Rachel In Woodbridge, VA. Our Nation, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Air Force, and his family can truly be proud of the colonel's many accomplishments. A man of extraordinary talent and integrity is rare indeed. While his honorable service will be genuinely missed in the Department of Defense, it gives me great pleasure to recognize Col. John Nichols before my colleagues and wish him all of our best wishes in his new and exciting career.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call special attention to the dedicated work of Ms. Joanne Isham as Director of Congressional Affairs at the Central Intelligence Agency. Ms. Isham served in this demanding job for 2 years, taking over the office in a period of controversy following the reprimand of several CIA employees for their handling of the Aldrich Ames spy case. She recognized that the CIA's relations with the Congress were badly damaged by the spy case and set about immediately to improve them. Mr. Speaker, I witnessed a dramatic shift in the Agency's posture with the Congress following Ms. Isham's appointment. She initiated a series of reforms to ensure that the Intelligence Committees were kept fully and completely informed of significant developments at the Central Intelligence Agency. She accomplished this turnaround not with a heavy hand, but with fair and even-tempered management. Ms. Isham kept me fully apprised of significant developments in the intelligence community. She earned the committee's respect in a most difficult undertaking. Ms. Isham has now been promoted to be Associate Deputy Director for the CIA's Directorate for Science and Technology. This is a new position that will enable her to capitalize on her strong relations with the Congress and many years of experience in the CIA to bring a strategic and more corporate management team to the CIA's Directorate for Science and Technology. We will miss her at Congressional Affairs, but look forward to working with her in this new capacity. Finally, I want to note that, in recognition of her work, she was awarded the Contract With America's Distinguished Intelligence Medal by Director John Deutch on March 18, 1995, in recognition for her outstanding leadership and management of the Office of Congressional Affairs. I want to thank her for her service to her country and her unstinting bipartisan work on behalf of the intelligence community.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago today, the costs of depending on foreign oil came due with our first downpayment on the gulf war. The House voted $42 billion to pay the military costs of ejecting Saddam Hussein from his king-of-the-hill grab of Middle East oil supplies. Let us not make another multibillion-dollar investment to protect foreign oil. Let's at least take a fraction of that amount to ensure a ready domestic supply. America needs a floor price that investors can bank on, regulatory relief and tax incentives to get rigs and roughnecks back into the fields. As Intelligence Committee chairman, I say that our national security is just as threatened by our dependence on the unpredictable lifeline of foreign oil--as if we were to depend on another country for our daily bread. Today, America imports half of its crude oil--this is a national security threat that must not stand. Like our gulf war commanders, America must draw a line in the sand and say 50 percent dependence is enough--500,000 jobs lost is enough--and 5 years to focus on oil supplies here at home is more than enough.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon with great pride to acknowledge an outstanding organization in Midland, TX--Troop 232 of the Boy Scouts of America is celebrating its golden anniversary and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate them on this distinguished milestone. Scout master Cliff Hogue started Troop 232 in 1946, and thanks to his efforts and the efforts of so many fine young men and their families, Troop 232 has reached this impressive record of a half-century of achievement. In the last 12 years, nearly 40 young men of Troop 232 have been awarded the prestigious Eagle Scout Award. In celebrating its golden anniversary, Troop 232 is not only paying tribute to its longevity, but it is recognizing a commitment to leadership and excellence. As a former Boy Scout myself, I am well aware of the valuable role this organization plays in providing our youth with the necessary tools to become outstanding leaders. The Boy Scouts remind us of all that is good in America, and Troop 232, through its unwavering dedication to that organization's noble principles, has enriched the lives of hundreds of young men and given its community a legacy of which to be proud. Congratulations Troop 232. May your success continue as you begin your second half-century.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, we are not going to have enough time to correct all of the misstatements. This cotton program was not started in the Depression. It began in 1985 and has been one of the most successful programs we have. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the subject is always usually discussed in terms of the boondoggle to huge corporate farms. The Marketing Loan Program has been one of the truly successful programs of the Cotton Program. It is ironic that it is available to every cotton producer. It is ironic that at a time that the previous amendment was defeated, which would have killed all farm programs, this amendment attempts to single out and effectively kill the farm program. It is also ironic that this amendment is being proposed to eliminate the market loan for cotton while the legislation that is before us authorizes the same Marketing Loan Program for all other commodities, leaving, if this amendment were successful, only the Cotton Program that did not have it. It was where the program began, and it has worked extremely well. Marketing loan moves cotton in the marketplace. It has been primarily responsible for the fact that today cotton for the last 2 years has set all-time highs, therefore having no Government payments at all, and the option to that would be having the Government buy and store that cotton. This is not a phaseout, it is an immediate kill, but it would leave all of the other programs still subject to marketing loan, and marketing loans, I might add, are still subject to payment limitations as they have been. It has been a very successful program, Mr. Chairman. It is unfortunate that a number of people who have absolutely no concept of how the program works want to be the ones that want to try to kill it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry], who represents the largest per- acre cotton produced in this country in any congressional district.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss]. (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)