Collin Peterson

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chair, I'm now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Iowa, the chairman of the General Farm Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee that deals with this issue and is a leader on this issue for us on the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Boswell, for 3 minutes. (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PETERSON. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 4173 and of the Peterson-Frank amendment to this legislation, which will be considered at a later time. I want to thank Chairman Frank and his staff for working with us and our staff over the last few months on the amendment and on the provisions in the underlying bill that affect both of our committees. Mr. Chairman, passage of this bill is necessary to improve the financial regulatory structure in America. The House Agriculture Committee has played a significant role in contributing to this legislation, and while I may not agree with every provision in this bill, I support the goals of increased oversight, more transparency, and an end to taxpayer bailouts of large financial institutions. Mr. Chairman, our committee has spent over 2 years examining various elements of derivatives markets, and we have focused for the last year specifically on their contribution to this financial meltdown, most notably the prevalence of unregulated, heavily traded bilateral swaps used by large financial institutions that either collapsed or received taxpayer bailouts. Now derivatives, in and of themselves, were not the cause of the financial meltdown in the second half of last year, but they did play a role. Had the provisions of the Peterson-Frank amendment that we will consider later been in place last year, financial institutions like AIG would have never gotten themselves into a position where they needed billions of taxpayer dollars just to keep them solvent. The derivatives reforms in the Peterson-Frank amendment and the resolution authority provided for in the underlying bill will mean large financial institutions, and not the taxpayers, will be financially responsible for their own undoing. I also want to thank Chairman Frank for the work he did with our committee on ensuring that this legislation does not have unintended consequences for the Farm Credit System, a network of rural lenders that support local agricultural producers, utilities and businesses. So Mr. Chairman, Farm Credit had nothing to do with the financial crisis, and in fact, the strong underwriting, capital, security, appraisal, and repayment statutory standards that we put in place after farm country went through its own stressful credit period have resulted in a more stable financing network. The Treasury Department agreed with this assessment when they said it was not their intention to bring Farm Credit into the regulatory reform discussion, and I thank Chairman Frank for recognizing this. With that said, Mr. Chairman, I still have some concerns with some parts of the underlying bill, particularly the establishment of a systemic risk regulator and the empowerment of the Federal Reserve to take a leading role. I am concerned that the real power resides in the Federal Reserve instead of the Financial Services Oversight Council established by this bill, particularly the ability to impose whatever prudential standards it sees fit. And there does not seem to be any mechanism for the Council to check the power of the Federal Reserve if it believes the Fed is going too far. While I think the systemic risk language needs much more refinement, I will not let these concerns deter my support for the underlying bill and the much-needed Peterson-Frank amendment that will finally shine light on the previously dark markets for over-the-counter derivatives and ensure that we will never again threaten the stability of our financial system. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri), a member of our committee.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage Chairman Frank in a short colloquy, and then give the rest of our time on our side to Mr. Murphy, who is our last speaker. So if Mr. Frank would be willing, I would yield myself as much time as I may consume and would like to enter into a colloquy with my good friend, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. Title I of this legislation creates a systemic risk oversight and regulatory structure that enables regulators to raise capital requirements and impose heightened prudential standards on large, interconnected firms that could pose a threat to financial stability. The legislation also empowers the Federal Reserve Board to impose a host of additional requirements on institutions and activities deemed systemically important. It appears that this new structure is not intended to replace or duplicate regulation of securities or derivative exchanges that are already subject to regulations by the SEC or the CFTC. In looking at the statutory criteria for determining whether a financial company should be subjected to stricter prudential standards, it is hard to visualize the application of these criteria to derivatives and securities exchanges. Exchanges are not the players who perform the trading, but the administrators of the marketplace where such trading occurs. Do you agree that while derivatives and security exchanges would certainly qualify for the definition of a financial company in Title I, the intent of the legislation is targeted more at the players in the marketplace as opposed to the administration of the marketplace?

Mr. PETERSON. I thank the chairman for the clarification of the intent. I recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) for the balance of our time, a new member of our committee who has actually got some real world experience in this area and has been a great member in helping us put this together.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentleman, thank him and the gentleman from Arkansas for letting me have a couple of minutes. I think you have already covered all or most of my speech, but we are very honored to be able to name the outpatient clinic in Alexandria after a true American hero, Mr. Max Beilke, who grew up on a small farm near Alexandria, Minnesota. He was a 1950 graduate of Alexandria High School. He was drafted into the Army and sent to Korea in 1952. Shortly after he returned home from his tour of service in Korea, he reenlisted and made the Army his full- time career. Max served in Korea, Germany and, lastly, Vietnam, where he, during his 8-month tour, served as operations sergeant at Camp Alpha in Saigon, where all soldiers were processed going to and coming from the United States. As was noted, he was the last combat soldier to leave Vietnam while his family watched on television. After 21 years in the Army, Max retired in 1974 as a master sergeant. Eventually, he settled in Laurel, Maryland, where he lived with his wife, Lisa, and raised two daughters. After retiring from the Army, he earned a master's degree from Central Michigan University. As was noted, Max was very instrumental in establishing the TRICARE system for our veterans, and it was because of that he was at the Pentagon on September 11 and met his untimely death on that day. He was laid to rest on December 11 in Arlington National Cemetery. He had a distinguished career in the Army and as a civilian. He has the support of all Minnesotans and all our veterans organizations. He very much deserves to have this clinic named after him. I want to commend the VA for opening this clinic. I think this is the fifth clinic that they have opened in my district. It was proposed in 2004, and we had the grand opening ceremony just last month. For too long rural veterans in my district have had to travel too far for health care, but this clinic will bring veterans' health care services closer to all the veterans who live in that area. The VA estimates that it will serve 3,500 local veterans with primary care and mental health care and will provide a variety of other services as well. I urge the House to pass this legislation.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I first want to commend Chairman Emeritus Dingell for all of his hard work on this issue, not only during this session of Congress but in many sessions past. We are hopeful that we can move this legislation forward and get additional safeguards in place for food safety in this country. We also want to commend the other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee on our side of the aisle and on the Republican side of the aisle for their work on this on a bipartisan basis. It is good to see some bipartisan effort happening in the House, and there was some good work done. We did have some concerns in the Agriculture Committee that we engaged in some discussions and negotiations with Mr. Dingell and others on the staff of the Energy and Commerce Committee on, and we think we have further improved the bill in terms of how it relates to agriculture. We were able to clarify things in terms of livestock and grain farmers that there was some concern about the language, so that we cleared up some things in terms of performance standards and record keeping. As the bill came out of Energy and Commerce, there were concerns registered by some of the farm groups. Some of them even indicated they might oppose it. But at this point, because of the changes that have been made, we now have groups that in the past had some concerns, they are now either neutral or supporting this bill. The United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Group, Western Growers, the American Farm Bureau, National Association of Wheat Growers, the Cattlemen Beef Association, Turkey Federation, Chicken Council, Pork Producers, Corn Growers, Soybean Association, Rice Federation, American Food Industry Association, United Egg Producers, the American Sheep Industry, the Wheat Growers and the Barley Growers, are now either supporting the legislation or are neutral on the legislation. We believe that we have addressed the concerns of agriculture. We believe this is a good bill. I encourage Members to support this bill, and again commend my good friend and colleague and the chairman emeritus, Mr. Dingell, for the great work he has done, as well as his staff.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentleman. And I know that he will work with us as he has through this part of the process.

Mr. PETERSON. I will yield.

Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for recognizing me, and I want to thank him for his hard work and his practical way of approaching legislation, which is the right way to do things. I rise today in support of this legislation. Our committee has had hearings regarding food safety, and we had some concerns about the bill as it came out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Dingell was kind enough to sit down and work with us on those concerns; and out of that we were able to especially address the concerns of the livestock industry and the grain industry who were concerned that there may be unintended consequences. So we were able to get exemptions in those areas and also make other changes to make sure that the bill didn't interfere with the production and harvesting parts of agriculture. We had, at the beginning of this, a number of groups that were concerned or even opposed to this legislation. And now, because of the changes that we have been able to work through with Mr. Dingell and others, I am happy to report that these organizations are either now neutral or dropped their opposition or are supporting the bill: the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable folks, Western Growers, the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Wheat Growers, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Turkey Federation, the National Chicken Council, the National Pork Producers Council, National Corn Growers, the American Soybean Association, the U.S. Rice Federation, American Feed Industry, United Egg Producers, and the American Sheep Industry. I think this demonstrates that we have been able to move this legislation in a direction where we in agriculture are comfortable. I agree with Mr. Putnam that there is some additional work that can be done on this, and we intend to do that. So I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. I want to thank the distinguished chairman for his confirmation, and I look forward to working with him on this bill as it moves through the legislative process.

Mr. PETERSON. To that end, we agreed not to object to the inclusion of the CEA amendment subject to the understanding that the ultimate resolution of these provisions would take place in the context of financial regulation reform legislation. I want to confirm this understanding we have among the chairmen.

Mr. PETERSON. These provisions are among those that triggered the referral of H.R. 2454 to the Agriculture Committee, which has jurisdiction over the CEA. Some of these provisions would deal with over-the-counter energy derivatives and credit default swaps, mirror provisions in legislation, H.R. 977, passed by our committee in February. Other provisions are similar, and still others are wholly different. H.R. 977 is awaiting action in the Financial Services Committee. As the gentleman knows the Financial Services and Agriculture Committees will be working on financial regulation reform, part of which will include derivatives regulation reform. As such, Chairman Frank and I initially resisted the inclusion of these CEA amendments in H.R. 2454. However, we understand that some Members feel strongly about sending a signal to address potential excessive speculation in derivative markets and rein in some of the current trading practices on Wall Street.

Mr. PETERSON. I want to thank Chairman Waxman for his leadership and cooperation on this bill and would ask him to engage in a colloquy regarding subtitle E of title III, which contains a host of provisions amending the Commodity Exchange Act.

Mr. PETERSON. I want to thank the gentleman for his work on improving the definition in this bill and assure him that, just as with many USDA conservation programs, forest land fully qualifies for this energy incentive program and it is our intent that it be included in this section. Both the terms ``agriculture sector'' and ``projects'' in 788 are inclusive of forest land and could be used to provide incentives for private forest land owners who may not otherwise qualify to participate in the ag offset program. I will continue to work with the gentleman. He can be assured this will be included.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the people of Minnesota and North Dakota for the hard work and community spirit they displayed fighting last month's Red River flooding. When the water started to rise, people came from all around to feed the volunteers and help out in any way they could. Now, these communities are continuing to work together all across my district to rebuild, recover, and get life back to normal. When I've been back home, I've seen the recovery effort firsthand. Neighbors all over my district, in Clay County, Fargo-Moorhead, and throughout the Red River Valley are working with one another to repair the damage. Schools, businesses, and towns are getting back on their feet. It's impressive, Madam Speaker, but things aren't back to normal yet in North Dakota or Minnesota. Although we've come a long way since the flood crested a little over a month ago, we still have a ways to go. Floods don't do many good things, but this flood has shown just how strong our communities are in the Midwest. In the face of the toughest odds, Minnesotans and North Dakotans united to fight for our community. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Minnesota and North Dakota National Guards. They were mobilized to assist in the flood relief efforts and did a great job. Their readiness to help out their neighbors is what the National Guard is all about. In addition, 300 soldiers from the Minnesota Guard were deployed to North Dakota to provide additional support for its flood fighting efforts. We aren't out of the woods yet. There is much more to do, and even when we recover from this flood, we'll need to start thinking long-term to prepare for the next one. I commend the people of Minnesota and North Dakota for what they've done in the recovery efforts. They deserve our thanks.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(a) of the Rules of the House, a copy of the Rules of the Committee on Agriculture, which were adopted at the organizational meeting of the Committee on January 28, 2009. Appendix A of the Committee Rules will include excerpts from the Rules of the House relevant to the operation of the Committee. Appendix B will include relevant excerpts from the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In the interests of minimizing printing costs, Appendices A and B are omitted from this submission. Rules of the Committee on Agriculture--111th Congress

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record the following exchange of letters between the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Ways and Means with regards to H.R. 6849. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, September 27, 2008. Hon. Collin Peterson, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Peterson: I am writing regarding H.R. 6849, which may be considered on the floor today, and which includes amendments to section 901 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2497(a)). As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over legislation amending the Trade Act of 1974, and thus, these amendments fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. However, in order to expedite this bill for floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action. This is being done with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill or similar legislation in the future. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 6849, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Record. Sincerely, Charles B. Rangel, Chairman. House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC, September 27, 2008. Hon. Charles B. Rangel, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Rangel: Thank you for your letter regarding the Committee on Ways and Means' jurisdictional interest in

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6849, which will prevent the U.S. Department of Agriculture from denying farm program benefits to farmers who have several small plots of land that are eligible for commodity program payments. H.R. 6849 is a bipartisan bill that was introduced by my House Agriculture Committee colleagues, Representatives Bob Etheridge and Jerry Moran, the Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the General Farm Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee. An amended version of the bill passed the Committee by voice vote last week. On June 30 of this year, about a month after Congress overrode the President's veto on the Farm Bill, the US Department of Agriculture published a notice stating their intent to ``not approve requests for farm combination reconstitutions of farms having base acres of 10 acres or less.'' The Department's notice is a substantial change from what was in place prior to the 2008 Farm Bill and runs contrary to what was intended by House and Senate conferees who wrote the provision. The manager's report states that small base acreages could be aggregated to allow for farm program eligibility if the sum of the acres is over 10. The USDA's decision to eliminate such a large number of base acres could affect hundreds of thousands of producers all across this country. Their selective interpretation of the Farm Bill is doing no favors for America's farmers and ranchers, who are rightly concerned that the Department is ignoring the Congress's clearly stated intent. Madam Speaker, in recognition of the difficulties in paying for this fix over a ten year period, the Committee amended the bill to temporarily solve this problem by suspending the 10 base acre provision for two years. This temporary, less expensive solution is fully offset in order to meet Congressional Paygo requirements. With passage of this bill today, Madam Speaker, it is my hope that we can make clear to farm country that the Farm Bill will be implemented as Congress intended. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6849.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Well, that was not my decision. What we're doing is the work of the Agriculture Committee. We asked them to bring this bill up so that we could get it passed. So that we're doing our work. We're doing our part.