To amend the United States Cotton Futures Act to exclude certain cotton futures contracts from coverage under such Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5810) to amend the United States Cotton Futures Act to exclude certain cotton futures contracts from coverage under such Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 5810.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland), my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As my colleague said, Mr. Speaker, every year, cotton farmers prepare their fields. Off the field they must prepare as well, hedging risk and protecting themselves from possible disaster with cotton futures contracts on U.S. commodity exchanges.

The Cotton Number 2 contract, which is a U.S.-regulated contract, is the benchmark contract for the entire United States cotton industry. However, recently, a wide range of cotton industry participants have recommended the development of a world cotton contract with delivery points inside and outside of the United States. This is in recognition of the global nature of today's cotton industry.

The 1916 Cotton Futures Act requires that all cotton futures contracts that are listed on the U.S. exchange must be classed by the USDA, regardless of where the cotton is being stored. This structure is outdated and does not recognize the global cotton trade that exists today.

H.R. 5810 would simply allow for cotton futures contracts to be offered on a U.S. exchange that is based off of the world market price. This bill would neither change the regulation of the current futures contracts nor the current USDA classing, which requires U.S. cotton be classed again by USDA personnel.

With these technical changes in H.R. 5810, a new cotton futures contract will be available in U.S. commodity markets.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5810. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) has just eloquently stated, there is a great need for this, everybody is in agreement on it. The Cotton Number 2 contract is needed as a hedging tool for our cotton industry globally. It is needed so that we can have both delivery points inside as well as outside the United States because our global markets are now more global.

As my colleague, Mr. Westmoreland, mentioned, we have not touched this law since 1916. That is nearly 100 years. You can imagine so much has changed. It is very, very much more global, and we do not need to put our cotton participants in trade, in marketing, in commodities at a disadvantage, as was indicated, to other markets.

This is urgent. If we do not move within the next 3 weeks, so that we can

have this on the books as law in time for our cotton participants in the United States to be able to function for their year 2015--in the cotton business you start early, you start in January and February, so it is very urgent. The legislation benefits everybody. All participants are in agreement.

The bottom line is that this legislation is about modernization. Our markets, as I said before, have become much more global. It is a technical correction. It will help our cotton farmers, our cotton producers, and those who have to hedge in the marketplace around the world, and it does not--does not--put our cotton industry in the United States at a disadvantage globally.

I certainly urge that we all accept this amendment and move forward with a very, very important part of American industry, the cotton industry.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5810.

This bill would meet the cotton industry's growing need for a rural contract for cotton on the United States market.

H.R. 5810 offers a simple technical fix that is needed due to the outdated 1916 Cotton Futures Act in terms of recognizing the global cotton trade.

Recent discussions with USDA revealed that the 1916 Cotton Futures Act requires all cotton tendered on a cotton futures contract that is listed for trading on a U.S. exchange to be classified by the USDA. This is unrealistic, both logistically and financially, for non-U.S. cotton stored in warehouses outside the U.S.

The industry's desire to trade and hedge a more modern contract requires a legislative tweak to the 1916 Cotton Futures Act to allow for any non-U.S. cotton tendered toward this U.S. contract to be inspected and classed by non-USDA personnel.

Our proposal would not change the regulation of the contract, nor the current USDA classing requirement that U.S. cotton must be classified by the USDA personnel.

Additionally, this bill also would not impact fees being generated by the USDA in the classing of U.S. cotton, tendered toward the existing cotton futures.

Here is the bottom line. For the industry to be able to hedge the 2015 cotton crop, they will need a tweak to this futures act that they may petition the CFTC for the new world contract to be listed. If H.R. 5810 is not passed, a new contract would likely be listed at other exchanges in Europe or Singapore.

With such unanimous support for this contract and solution, we hope this effort will be considered technical in nature and adopted quickly.

I urge my colleagues to support the measure.