Larry Combest

Mr. COMBEST

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a very able member of the committee.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), one of the most interested members of our committee.

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

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentleman that I appreciate the difficulty he has been going through in Erie County, Pennsylvania. He has been trying to get this issue resolved, and we think we can do it legislatively in the bill. CBO would not score this at a cost, and so I am glad to accept the amendment and appreciate the gentleman's willingness to try to work with us on this issue and hope it comes to now a positive resolution.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, let us talk about this amendment for a moment. This amendment was offered in committee; and after USDA was called upon for comment, the amendment failed by voice vote. This is not just a limitation amendment. What this does is it dramatically changes the way that the loan program works. Following the farm crisis in the 1980s, the marketing loan program was created. Its purpose was to aid a producer in marketing commodities to minimize the government accumulation of stocks, to minimize the potential loan forfeitures, and to minimize the cost. The information which the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) put in the committee report in ``additional views'' talks about the imposition of this limitation would only affect the largest one-half of 1 percent of farmers. It claims that the average acreage harvested to reach that loan limitation would be, for example, 1,950 acres of cotton for 1,700 acres of rice. In reality, it would take 701 acres of rice in Arkansas or 432 acres of cotton in California, and I do not think that a 432-acre farm is in the top 1 percent in size. Let me give an example of how this would work, in reality. Today, a cotton farmer in California with 432 acres and an average yield would be affected by this amendment. Let us assume that the farmer put all of his cotton from the 432 acres in the loan. With a 19 to 20 billion bail crop, the loan deficiencies would continue downward to 30 cents. Even though the farmer could have forfeited the cotton to the Government in the past, this amendment would limit the amount which they could forfeit, which would therefore then force that farmer to take that loan out when he could have gotten 50 cents and a market price of 30 cents. It is a dramatic change in the way that a non-recourse loan program in the past has worked for the past 50 years, and it is not simply a matter of concern about the largest one-half percent of the farmers. Again, I want to reiterate, a 701-acre rice field in Arkansas or a 432- acre cotton field in California is not an exceptionally large 1 percent of the top farms in the country. That is a very average-sized farm. It is not simply a limitation on the payments; it is a dramatic change in the way the program operates. I would strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), who has a tremendous interest in agriculture, as well as being the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget. (Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a very active member of the Committee.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. COMBEST. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would certainly agree and again look forward to receiving the report. While I am concerned that this and any other new program achieve the goal set out for it, I share the concern of my colleague from Ohio that the needs of hungry children should not go unmet, especially when the United States is able to produce food in such abundance. I appreciate his intent and look forward to working with him on this program in the future.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I just want to rise in support of this rule. I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and others on the Committee on Rules for a very open process there in granting this rule. As mentioned, the rule does provide the opportunity for Members to offer a wide variety of amendments. Some of those, I am sure, will create some extended discussion. That is, however, part of the process. It is a good rule, and I particularly would again like to thank the Committee on Rules for granting the rule that was requested by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and myself.

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

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and want to assure him that I support the provisions of the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program contained in the bill in hopes that they and the rest of the bill will be enacted quickly. I want to state that I agree that the current program should be continued so that there will not be a gap in the important work that is being done. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I have requested that the General Accounting Office review the current Global Food for Education Initiative, and we expect that review to be completed in a few months. I will be happy to work with the gentleman to examine that GAO recommendation.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), chairman of the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Foreign Agriculture Programs.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the chairman of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), a very active member of the committee.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a very able member of the Committee.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a good hand, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves), who understands the difficulties firsthand of agriculture.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

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

Mr. COMBEST. Like the gentleman from Virginia, I recognize and respect the role that the farmers have played in our Nation's history and the importance of their work to our national economy. The development of this bill represents the best package we could achieve in balancing critical needs for commodity, conservation, trade, nutrition, credit, rural development, and research programs, while fitting into the fiscal restraints given to us by the budget resolution. I appreciate the gentleman's concern about the peanut provisions of the bill, and I am pleased that we have been able to work with him to accommodate some of those concerns. Specifically, we have proposed a change in the manager's amendment that would allow a producer to establish a base, at which point the producer would have a one time ability to set the base on any land that he chooses. This would give the producer the ability to put the base on land he owns or will give the producer a better bargaining position if he sets down this base on the land he rents. I thank the gentleman for his work and concern on this issue and I look forward to working with him to continue to address the problems and concerns that he has of the producers of Virginia as this bill goes forward to conference with the Senate.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).