Larry Combest

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that half of the time allotted in opposition, which I think would be 11\1/4\ minutes, be given to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) or his designee for his control.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the dairy subcommittee on the House ag committee.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for all of the many things she has contributed to agriculture and that we have worked with throughout this entire process. All of us support rural development. It is critical to all of us who come from rural America. Rural development is something that we see every day when we go to our small towns, and we have seen the progress of it. But again, my objection to this would be the same as it was to the Dooley amendment and the same as it was to Boswell amendment, and that is that we have this balance and we, fortunately, have so far been able to protect it. It does not say anything about a negative feeling toward rural development. I am totally supportive of rural development. Mr. Chairman, we have added rural development funds into the bill. We just have not had enough to go around. I appreciate the gentlewoman's tenacity and how hard she works on this subject, and I think she knows how much I respect her and appreciate her. However, I do rise in opposition. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, if the time was not divided by the gentlewoman's unanimous consent agreement, then I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have half the time in opposition.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, the chair would be agreeable to that if the gentlewoman is proposing that unanimous consent on her amendment.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I want to say, primarily to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), that there is not a more intelligent, thoughtful, studious, interested, committed, caring member of the Committee on Agriculture about American agriculture than the gentleman from California. I say that with tremendous sincerity and honesty. I have deep respect for him. I oppose this amendment, not on the substance of the amendment nearly as much as I do on the effect of the amendment. When I was fortunate enough to chair the Research Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture, and I have made statements then and since that time, that I think probably research money is some of the best money we could spend. We increased in committee, in the bill that is before the House that this amendment would affect, an increase of $1.16 billion in funding for the initiative. Is it as much as any of us would want? I would say no. Is there as much in any part of this bill as anyone would want? I would say probably not. If there is, I have not found them yet. But my main objection to this, Mr. Chairman, is what I have said, and we are going to hear a lot, and that is the balance. It was the same reason I objected to the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), is that this takes money from part of this very delicate balance that we have and it does shift it into another area. I wanted to make certain that everyone understands that I am not objecting to agriculture research or increasing funding for agriculture research; but when we had all of these competing interests in committee with a finite amount of money, I think we did a significantly generous increase, and for that reason, I would oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. COMBEST. No, you would not have to do that, anyway. I did not yield to the gentleman, but I did hear him say that you would have to do that, anyway. You would make the adjustments into the future if, in fact, you bumped the limit. That is what the trigger mechanism is. I again oppose the amendment. I think it is totally unworkable.

Mr. COMBEST. One would hope not as well, but the gentleman made the point himself in trying to retrace the money that has already been paid out.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the reason that I am opposed to this amendment is, I do not know how it would work. Let me quickly explain, if I might, what I perceive as the unworkability of the amendment. As the gentleman from Michigan mentioned, we have in the bill a circuit breaker in which if, in fact, we do bump the limit under the amber box, under negotiated agreements of the amount that can be expended that fall into that box, there is a trigger mechanism by which it would allow the Secretary to make adjustments across the board in order to comply with that. None of us want to exceed the limit. We have talked about that all throughout the 2 years of discussion on this farm bill. The problem with this amendment, however, is that that decision and that determination of when we hit the limit, it will be after the fact. It will be after the people have received their money. It will be after the crop happened to be already in the loan, and you take the action from that point forward. You cannot take it back to the people that have already received the money. And so the action of any trigger mechanism would be to respond to the overage from that point on. Again, the problem is that that money will have already been expended, it will already be in the hands. It may be 1, 2, 3 years after the money has been expended before there is a recognition of the fact that we have bumped the limit under the amber box. In terms of would you, could you take it out of those people's amounts of money in the future, they may not be eligible to receive any money in the future. And so, therefore, it would all be prospective. I just do not think this would be a workable amendment and, as I indicated, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this important matter to our attention. I am certainly willing and prepared to work with her and the Agriculture Marketing Service to make sure the concerns of organic caneberry growers are addressed in regards to any new Federal marketing order for caneberry growers. I appreciate the gentlewoman not offering her amendment. I would be happy to work with her.

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

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

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, we have consulted on both sides. We will continue beyond 10:00 with the intention of completing the bill tonight and having the final votes in the morning. Mr. Chairman, we will proceed with debate as we refine the unanimous consent agreement. Amendment Offered by Mr. Walsh

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, in consultation between the two sides, I would like to tell Members what we are attempting to do in resolution of the bill that is before the House at this time. There is a unanimous consent that is being drafted, and at some point when it is completely drafted and cleared on both sides, we would propose the unanimous consent in the full House. Basically this is what we would like to do this evening, if we can. The next series of votes will occur around 10 p.m., and those will be the final votes of the evening. It is our intent to continue to try to complete the bill tonight, and any votes that would be remaining would be voted on in the morning when the House reconvenes. Under the agreement, there are a number of amendments that we think we will have realistic time agreements on, and we can deal with those amendments in fairly short order. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has an amendment, and he has graciously agreed to cut back the time and put a 45-minute limit on it and vote that amendment tonight. In addition, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has an amendment to the Sanders amendment, and he has requested 10 minutes on the Obey amendment to the Sanders amendment. That would be included in the unanimous consent agreement. The anticipation is that the vote on the Sanders amendment would lead us to 10 p.m. We would have a series of votes at that time, including that amendment. And from that time, Members would be free from voting this evening; and we would continue with debate.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, as we have seen in recent weeks, there certainly is an effort to develop a national policy, and it has been somewhat elusive. I understand the gentleman's concerns. We appreciate the gentleman offering this amendment, and I would be happy to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2646.

Mr. COMBEST

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

Mr. COMBEST. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Chairman, just to make the record clear, subsection B of the amendment would have provided an opportunity for a point of order by the Committee on Appropriations. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has worked this issue out with Chairman Bonilla. Striking that subsection makes the amendment agreeable. I would be in a position to recommend the committee accept the amendment.