Larry Combest

Mr. COMBEST

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's interest. Biotechnology offers extraordinary potential, not only to improve the economic viability of farms in the country, but to also help combat animal and plant diseases, improve food safety and quality, and enhance our ability to produce more food on less land with fewer agricultural inputs. Therefore, improving our ability to enhance the environment. I appreciate the gentleman's interest in the subject. Mr. Chairman, the committee would be pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. COMBEST. I appreciate the gentleman working with the committee on trying to come up with this amendment and his advance notice of it. We have looked at it. We appreciate the gentleman's interest in agriculture. We wish he served on our committee, but I understand that the powerful committee that he is on has an agricultural interest as well. I would like to tell the gentleman that the committee would be in a position to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for working with us to develop her amendment. This is a very important matter that we take very seriously. We appreciate the work that the gentlewoman is doing on it. The committee would be in a position to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding, and I appreciate her leadership on this extremely important issue. Certainly agricultural biotechnology, such as golden rice, which is a product with enhanced vitamin A, already is being used to solve problems of childhood blindness among cultures whose diets are heavily dependent upon rice but would normally be deficient in this important vitamin; and I think this is just one example of some of the benefits that can come from biotechnology. As I believe our staffs have discussed, there are some technical issues regarding the structure of the amendment which we would like to work with the gentlewoman on as we proceed through conference. The gentlewoman has been very agreeable to do that, and I appreciate that. I will just say that the committee is prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that half of the time for the opponent be given to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who made reference in his opening comments about the fact that the Chair would not agree to a time agreement, I might just mention that we have been working on this bill for 9 months. This bill was reported from committee in July. It has been out there. People have had the opportunity to look at our bill. We have only been able to look at this very lengthy and complex amendment, offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for the last 36 hours. This amendment has a wide variety of things which we want to make for certain that Members of Congress have the opportunity to know are in the bill before we, in fact, do vote on it. We will have an opportunity to discuss that as the day goes on. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Agriculture is appropriately named. I think if we look back at what has occurred over the past 4 years, recognizing that we have had virtually record-setting low prices for every year for commodities across this country, and why the Congress very generously provided an additional $30 billion was a recognition that under a program that has not had an adequate safety net, the American agricultural economy potentially is in peril. So we set out 2 years ago to begin to look at what we could do to keep the good parts of the current farm bill and to make changes in the areas that, in fact, needed changes. We recognize that we cannot be regional in our approach. We have to look at the Nation as a whole. We have to look at all aspects of legislation, of programs which come under our jurisdiction, from food stamps to research to export programs to commodity programs to conservation to rural development, to all of those things that, in fact, fall under our jurisdiction. In almost any other climate, the areas that we have changed in terms of conservation would have been considered at least generous. For example, in the current program versus the new program, here are the comparisons of some of the numbers. In conservation reserve, we have moved from 36.4 million acres, a $1.5 billion increase, to 39.2 million acres. In wetland reserves, we have gone from 1 million acres to 1.5 million acres, with a $1.7 billion increase. In the environmental quality incentives program, we have gone from $1 billion to $12 billion. In water conservation programs, there were no programs, and we have gone to $555 million. In wildlife habitat incentives programs, we have gone from $62 million to $385 million. In farmland protection programs, we have gone from $52 million to $500 million. There was no grassland reserve program. We have gone to a program that will provide 2 million acres to be able to come into contracts and easements. But the concern that I have about this amendment, let there be no question about it, from the approach that we are trying to take to deal with American agriculture, this amendment, if passed, would totally devastate the bill. The reason I say that is because, as we have traveled for the last 2 years over this country and in every region of the country, and as we have had many hearings in our committee over the past several months, the one thing which stood out in all of the recommendations that the people who were suffering the most under the current program, was the need for a countercyclical program. It is the countercyclical program that is being attacked in this amendment.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, a countercyclical program works in such a way that if prices are low, there is a safety net which is built into the program. I think, to my budget-conscious colleagues, of which I am one, this is much more of an honest way to deal with this problem than ad hoc disaster bill after disaster bill after disaster bill after disaster bill. It also gives an opportunity for farmers to plan much better, because they know there is a program in place. If prices are high or if prices are good, a countercyclical program does not kick in. So I would say to my friends who look at this from a spending standpoint, under our program, if we achieve what we are hoping for, and that is higher commodity prices, we will spend substantially less, substantially less than we would by the authors of this amendment, if it passed, because this spending will be there, regardless of what happens to crops. If prices next year or the next year or the next year are extremely low, do we not think that we are going to come back to the Congress, because there is no mechanism to help in those low-price situations, and ask for billions upon billions of dollars? Another thing, this amendment also is very unfair, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is important to point out a couple of things that sound pretty good on the surface, but when we begin to look under a little bit, we begin to realize that this is a little inequitable. It is great to name the people who get payments. We are only taking from the top 5 or 10, percent, or whatever. Let me just mention, for one thing, that it is sort of like one robs money where the bank is; the reason some people get more money is because they produce more. They are more at risk. They are the ones who provide the food and fiber for this country. They are not hobby farmers, they make their living farming. They are heavily at risk every year with weather and with pricing conditions over which they have no control, and with huge increases in the price of production. Let us talk about how inequitable this is. If we take and separate this across the top 10 percent of those, and that sounds good, only the top 10 percent, if we are on an average corn farm of 409 acres, which is not a big farm, that would receive, on an average yield, $12,500 in a fixed decoupled payments, that farmer would be cut back to $4,250, whereas his neighbor on a 392-acre, who would fall just below the cutoff point, would get $12,500. That seems to me to be a terribly inequitable situation. If there is a countercyclical program, and the only commodity in the country is corn that has a low price, then all of the other producers in the country do not share in this. All of the money comes off of the top producers of the people who produce corn. So just by capping, you are hurting the people who actually need the help the most. The people who have good crops, the people who have good prices are not going to be affected because that is the design of our program. They are not going to get that payment, anyway. But the person who actually would need it, because the prices are so low, is going to be the one that is damaged the most. So it seems to me to be extremely inequitable. I understand, it is much easier for people to come up and try to create divisions among regions of the country when they do not have to represent the country as a whole. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I went into this whole discussion and debate, for the last 2 years on farm policy, recognizing that we have to look at agriculture as a whole. We have to represent this entire country. We have to look at it as to what we can do to maintain a balance in which everybody feels that they are being treated equitably. Yes, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) have a group of people for their amendment, but I did not notice that the people who farmed for a living are the people who are for their amendment. If we look at people who are in support of the House bill as passed by the committee, we will find it is the American farmer. It is the person out there providing the food and fiber for the people in this country, and it is the one group that has been hurt more economically in the last 4 years of any economic group in the country.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to propose a time agreement on this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that all time on this amendment be limited to 1\1/2\ hours, equally divided between a proponent and an opponent of the amendment and all amendments thereto.

Mr. COMBEST. It would be divided between a proponent and an opponent.

Mr. COMBEST. In response to the gentleman from Florida's question, my next request would be a unanimous consent that half of the time for the opponent would be given to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) could propose the same unanimous consent request.

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. COMBEST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for his great efforts in arriving at a very bipartisan, very well-thought-out bill. I also want to thank the 51 members of the House Committee on Agriculture for the dedication and the time that they have put in to see us arrive today at the product that we bring before the House. This has been long in coming. And I would be remiss if I did not thank the staff, minority and majority staff, for the tireless, long, long nights, weeks, and months, that they have put into this process. We could not have done it without them. Mr. Chairman, it is with great pride that I rise today to bring before the House H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001. This bill represents comprehensive agricultural legislation, making important changes to all segments of our food and agricultural industries; and I look forward to today's debate. Most importantly, this bill provides a proactive market-oriented solution to the critical economic crisis that has been eroding the financial footing of our Nation's farmers and rural communities for the past 4 years. Just as important, this bill will prevent the need for further ad hoc assistance for farmers in the future. Mr. Chairman, our committee has taken a very deliberate approach to crafting this farm bill. Over the past 2 years, the House Committee on Agriculture held some 47 hearings. We have traveled to all regions of the country to listen to the needs and the concerns of hardworking people from the farming and agri-business community. We have asked all farm and interest groups to provide very specific ideas on how they would improve current agricultural policy, which we received from them. And, most importantly, we have worked in a very open and bipartisan way to craft this bill, which enjoys an unprecedented level of support among the agricultural sector. Mr. Chairman, the key factor of this bill's success in committee, and its outcome today, is balance. In addition to addressing just about every issue under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, H.R. 2646 represents a bipartisan balance between several important issues, including: a safety net for America's farmers; unmet soil and water conservation needs; foreign trade and promotion program requirements; agricultural credit programs for America's farmers, ranchers and rural areas; important agricultural research initiatives; rural development programs that affect thousands of rural communities across the country; and the list goes on and on. I mention this in order to make the point that there is not a single program or issue addressed by this farm bill that could not be further improved with additional resources. However, as I stated, the bill represents balance and it represents a bipartisan balance that the Committee on Agriculture crafted based on the input that we received from America's farmers and ranchers, soil and water conservationists, agribusiness, private food aid organizations, and many others. The economic crisis that farmers have been facing since 1998 is not of their own making. Rather, it is a result of large macroeconomic factors like increased supply resulting from favorable world-wide weather trends, tightening demand resulting from slow economic growth rates, and a strong U.S. dollar pushing our products out of competition and driving prices down on the world market. What is more, in the last 2 years farmers have been further squeezed by high energy prices which have dramatically increased their input costs. All of these are just reasons why Congress has acted to provide relief in the last 4 years; but more importantly, these are reasons why we need to act today and establish a more stable farmer policy for the future. H.R. 2646 establishes the critical safety net that our farmers and the entire agricultural sector need to help this important sector of our economy grow and prosper and create wealth for the future. H.R. 2646 also represents a fiscally responsible approach to providing the assistance farmers need. The $73.5 billion in additional spending in H.R. 2646 was fully contemplated by the budget resolution. The average $12 billion per year that would be spent on commodity supports in this bill pales in comparison to the average $23.3 billion that has been spent over the last 4 years. H.R. 2646 will provide our Nation's farmers with the footing they need to compete in the world marketplace. It is fully consistent with our obligations under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture as enforced by the WTO. In fact, there is a specific provision in this bill which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make adjustments in expenditure levels in order to ensure compliance with our trade treaty obligations. Therefore, it is not only consistent, but complementary, to a proactive trade policy that will seek to level the international playing field and open new markets to our products for the future. H.R. 2646 also has an unprecedented level of support among the agricultural community. The bill is supported by virtually all farm groups, agribusiness and industry groups, many conservation groups, rural advocates, towns and communities. H.R. 2646 is a bipartisan and balanced way to address the needs of America's agriculture sector. I look forward to completing action on this very important legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), one of the most active members of our committee.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state for the record that CBO has determined that there is no cost associated with this amendment. I would like to tell the gentleman from Texas that I support his amendment and would be happy to accept it.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Chairman, I also want to indicate this is a no net cost provision of the amendment. I am glad to accept the amendment. I appreciate the gentleman's introducing it.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we are in the process of trying to work through a number of amendments in which we have had an opportunity to deal with a variety of Members, and I think that the process is moving potentially somewhat more expeditiously than was anticipated. But I want to take just a moment, if I might, Mr. Chairman, to expand somewhat on a comment that I made in my opening statement relative to the amount of work that has gone into this committee print that we have before the House today. The people who do so much of the hard, heavy lifting in our committees are those people who do not sit around the dais or who do not cast votes, but who sit in those offices sometimes three or four deep and literally, as the case was in the development of this farm program, spent all night. That happened on the majority and the minority side, working in concert. My friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), has numerous times mentioned the bipartisanship of this committee. This goes well beyond just Members. This goes to the staff as well. Certainly there are, from time to time, some philosophical differences. That is the nature of the process. That is the nature of the legislative process. But there is a recognition of the bigger goal, and that bigger goal is to try to achieve something in a manner in which we are seeing an extension of handshakes across the aisle. I have personally never felt that we can pass a farm bill that only receives Republican support. Number one, it probably would say a great deal about the inadequacies of that farm bill if it in fact was a partisan bill. It is also many times difficult. Of the 51 members on the committee whose service on that committee is requested and whose service on that committee is asked for and who have deep interests in agriculture, we have many varying opinions from time to time. But all of that is finally put aside when we have the opportunity to come together and to look at the interests of agriculture as a whole, recognizing there are some regional differences, recognizing that there are differences in philosophy, recognizing there are differences in weather, recognizing there are differences in cropping habits, that corn grown in the chairman's district of Illinois is substantially different than corn grown in the ranking member's district or this gentleman's district. Yet, it is a program which we have to try to develop that fits all of it. Without adequate input and without taking into consideration those people who produce that, those people who market that, those people whose livelihood depends upon that, we, in fact, would not be able to write a farm bill that has such a broad base of support. Not enough can be said about the people who work for us on that committee. I might just mention if the statistic still holds true to this day, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is the only full committee of the House in which the Members exceed the number of staff. So it does, I think, show how much work that is dumped upon them from time to time. I will say that we could not be better served than we currently are.

Mr. COMBEST. The gentleman's recollection is correct.