Larry Combest

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I do not know of anyone who is supportive of the inhumane treatment of animals, and it is something which obviously there are many occasions in which one can point to in which that occurs. But the concern that the Committee on Agriculture has is a number of unintended consequences that this may have in a more broad- reaching impact and implication. We held a hearing on this issue in September of last year to determine the need for the legislation. It was very apparent during testimony, we were trying to look at what other implications might be brought into it unintentionally; and from questioning many witnesses, there are issues and concerns that have not been resolved. Among these issues were the effectiveness of the legislative proposal, the impact such legislation could have on transportation of birds for purposes other than fighting, and the implications for animal health programs. If the amendment was enacted, someone wishing to get under the legislation that the law would create could simply indicate that they are not shipping the birds to Oklahoma, but instead they were going to the Philippines. The amendment would have a chilling effect on transportation of other birds. Breeders and exhibitors of fancy birds have testified that airlines, shipping companies, et cetera, were not willing or able to distinguish between live birds for fighting or those from exhibition, kids in 4-H clubs or FFA clubs or others for show purposes that happen many times between States. Many poultry breeders, including those breeding game birds, voluntarily participate in the National Poultry Improvement Program. This program is a joint effort between industry, the Federal and State officials to establish standards for evaluating poultry breeding stock and hatchery products for freedom from hatchery dissemination and egg dissemination diseases. The National Poultry Improvement Program's mission is to certify all baby chicks, poults and hatching eggs for interstate and international movement. Criminalizing interstate shipment of game birds may dissuade game breeders from participating in the program, which could have certainly some impact on the industry. This is a $25 billion-a-year industry. So there are the concerns that were raised by people in the business, and I will say people who do not engage in game fighting, that I think are very legitimate, that I think in fact warrant further discussion and clarification, so that if broad blanket of trying to reach a number of folks that I think the gentleman's intent is to reach, we do not also encompass many, many others who in fact are interested.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it does nothing to address the issue of concern about those people who are trying to ship totally legitimately poultry within the United States; that may be a totally legitimate shipment that would not be involved in game fighting that would, in fact, come under this. That is the primary concern I have. The point that I was simply trying to make, and certainly maybe his second amendment does address that, relative to whether it is intrastate or international, it probably would be addressed by his second amendment, but the other concerns that I mention, in fact, would not be addressed.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, certainly there is probably some merit to what the gentleman said. I think, however, it is much more identifiable which dogs potentially are going to be used for fighting purposes than there are for game birds.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order under 302(f) of the Budget Act.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. We have had a discussion on this amendment and it is acceptable to us. I appreciate the gentleman's help.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure about what the earlier statement that I did make that was not clear, but as I indicated, we accept the amendment.

Mr. COMBEST. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller-Miller amendment. It kicks the sugar farmers when they are down. It is interesting that since 1996, prices of sugar are down nearly 30 percent. It is also, if you look at it among the comparative in the world, it is among the most affordable in the world, 20 percent below the developed country average and essentially unchanged since 1990. Who benefits when prices are down? It is certainly not the consumer. And who suffers? It is certainly the farmer. In reality, history shows inarguably that users of sugar do not pass their savings on for sugar and other ingredients to the consumer. Lower commodity prices are just an opportunity for higher profits at the expense of the farmer. As evidence, retail prices for sugar, candy, ice cream and other sweetened products are up, not down, though the prices that are received by the farmer are substantially down over the last 5 years. This is an amendment that would have tremendous implications to the farmer. It does nothing to help the consumer in terms of lower prices for commodities. I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that on this amendment and all amendments thereto the remaining time be 40 minutes, equally divided between a proponent and an opponent of the amendment.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes of the time allocated to the opponents be given to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding and his agreement to roll these into one vote, therefore conserving some time. We certainly looked at the amendment. The gentleman makes some very good points. The committee would be in a position to accept the amendments.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's offering the amendment, and I know that this is of great concern. I wanted to mention that numerous studies have been undertaken by private scientific societies, public universities, regulatory agencies and the National Academy of Sciences, which have addressed and dismissed this question. While the initial reaction to this amendment may be to question the duplicative nature of yet another study, I recognize there is value in continued education, evaluation of the ability to oversee the application of new technologies to our food production and processing systems, and I would like to indicate to the gentleman from Massachusetts that the committee would be happy to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. I understand the problem that the catfish farmers are facing as a result of an imported fish being inappropriately labeled. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) has worked hard to develop a solution to this problem both administratively and legislatively. We can continue to work to try to find solutions to the problem. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and will be happy to accept it.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentlewoman as well that the whole idea of renewable fuels in a wide variety is obviously something that is of great benefit to this country. I think it has also given the emphasis that we are placing today on energy and new energy sources that further development in this is critical. As the gentleman from Texas stated, obviously, one of the big concerns is the readjustment of monies which have gone in in a very balanced way. The concept the gentlewoman has I think is something that certainly needs further development, and I would agree that I think a major opportunity for this lies and exists as overall energy policies and energy programs are being looked at. Those of us who work on the Committee on Agriculture that come from a parochial interest also have this from a standpoint that we think there are some wonderful opportunities here for farmers as well. So we will be happy to work with the gentlewoman.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I just want to say to the gentleman we appreciate his cooperation in trying to work through this, finding it as something that would be acceptable and that we could try to work with. We have no objections from the committee on this side and we will be happy to accept the amendment. I yield back.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Madam Speaker, the gentleman would not be prevented from offering other amendments, which would be included in the time of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, we have looked at this. We do, as the gentleman knows through the discussion, have some concerns. It may take some adjustment throughout. The committee would be happy to work with the gentleman on trying to achieve that.

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