Collin Peterson

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I'm now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maloney).

Mr. PETERSON. I'm now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Enyart).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I'm now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I'm now pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown). (Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. PETERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, it would be helpful to me if you could yield me 2 minutes. You may not like what I have to say.

Mr. PETERSON. I thank the chairman, and I thank him for his leadership through this process. America's two largest farm organizations, the American Farm Bureau and the National Farmers Union, which don't often agree, both asked us to oppose this bill. I will submit their letters for the Record. American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, DC, July 11, 2013. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representatives: The American Farm Bureau Federation is our nation's largest general farm organization, representing more than 6 million member families in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Our members represent the grassroots farmers and ranchers who produce the wide range of food and fiber crops for our customers here and around the world. To achieve this, farmers and ranchers depend on the variety of programs such as risk management, conservation, credit and rural development contained in H.R. 2642 that is scheduled to be voted on by the full House today. Last night the House Rules Committee approved the rule for considering H.R. 2642, which also includes separating the nutrition title from the remaining provisions of H.R. 1947, a complete farm bill that was reported out of the House Agriculture Committee by a 36-10 bipartisan vote. We are very disappointed in this action. The ``marriage'' between the nutrition and farm communities and our constituents in developing and adopting comprehensive farm legislation has been an effective, balanced arrangement for decades that has worked to ensure all Americans and the nation benefits. In spite of reports to the contrary, this broad food and farm coalition continues to hold strong against partisan politics. In fact, last week, more than 530 groups representing the farm, conservation, credit, rural development and forestry industries urged the House to not split the bill. Similar communications were relayed from the nutrition community. Yet today, in spite of the broad-based bipartisan support for keeping the farm bill intact, you will vote on an approach that seeks to affect a divorce of this longstanding partnership. It is frustrating to our members that this broad coalition of support for passage of a complete farm bill appears to have been pushed aside in favor of interests that have no real stake in this farm bill, the economic vitality and jobs agriculture provides or the customers farmers and ranchers serve. We are quite concerned that without a workable nutrition title, it will prove to be nearly impossible to adopt a bill that can be successfully conferenced with the Senate's version, approved by both the House and Senate and signed by the President. We are also very much opposed to the repeal of permanent law contained in H.R. 2642. This provision received absolutely no discussion in any of the process leading up to the passage of the bill out of either the House or Senate Agriculture Committees. To replace permanent law governing agricultural programs without hearing from so much as a single witness on what that law should be replaced with is not how good policy is developed. As recently as last December, the threat of reverting to permanent law was the critical element that forced Congress to pass an extension of the current farm bill when it proved impossible to complete action on the new five-year farm bill--an action that not only provided important safety net programs for this year, it ensured Congress would have time this year to consider comprehensive reforms that contribute billions to deficit reduction. We urge you to oppose the rule as well to vote against final passage of this attempt to split the farm bill and end permanent law provisions for agriculture. Sincerely, Bob Stallman, President.

Mr. PETERSON. The idea of splitting this bill is a brainchild of the conservative groups like Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity and Heritage Action. Ironically, now that they have split the bill, they don't support it. I will submit their letters and statements in the Record. Key Vote Alert The House ``Farm-Only'' Bill (HR ) The Club for Growth strongly opposes the ``Farm-Only'' bill and urges all House members to oppose it. We believe floor consideration of the bill could happen as early as this week. The vote on final passage will be included in the Club's 2013 Congressional Scorecard. Breaking up the unholy alliance between agricultural policy and the food stamp program within the traditional farm bill is an excellent decision on behalf of House leadership. However, the whole purpose of splitting up the bill is to enact true reform that reduces the size and scope of government. Sadly, this ``farm-only'' bill does not do that, especially under an anticipated closed rule. It is still loaded down with market-distorting giveaways to special interests with no path established to remove the government's involvement in the agriculture industry. Worse, we highly suspect that this whole process is a ``rope-a-dope'' exercise. We think House leadership is splitting up the farm bill only as a means to get to conference with the Senate where a bicameral backroom deal will reassemble the commodity and food stamp titles, leaving us back where we started. Unless our suspicions are proven unwarranted, we will continue to oppose this bill. Our Congressional Scorecard for the 113th Congress provides a comprehensive rating of how well or how poorly each member of Congress supports pro-growth, free-market policies and will be distributed to our members and to the public.

Mr. PETERSON. You know, I spent 4 years working on dairy policy, and I lost a vote on the floor here on that dairy policy. That was not an easy thing for me to swallow. In spite of that, I was going to vote for the bill, and I did vote for the bill. What I don't get is that you guys over there have people that have put amendments on this bill, that were successful in amending this bill, and then they vote against it. I don't get how we're going to get a bill done in this place when you've got that kind of a situation going on. I'll say this: We're willing, in spite of everything that's happened, to try to work this out somehow or another through this process. I'm not sure how it's going to work, I'm not sure if you've got the votes, where we're going to end up. But we have stood ready to work with you. I think you know that, Mr. Chairman. I believe we had the votes to get this done if we would have just taken that Southerland amendment out, but it didn't happen. So let's finish this up and move ahead. You know, I had the first hearing on this when I was chairman on April 21, 2010, and I am sick and tired of working on this bill. So let's get this thing over with.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce to the House the loss of another of our former Members of the House of Representatives, the Honorable Arlan Stangeland, who served the Seventh District of Minnesota prior to me, from 1977 to 1990. He passed away last Tuesday in our district. He lived about 20 miles south of where I live. Before he came to Congress, he was in the Minnesota House of Representatives. Arlan served on the Agriculture Committee, and he served on the Transportation Committee. He rose to senior level on both of those committees, and he did a tireless job in working for the farmers and for the rural people in the Seventh District of Minnesota. Since 1990, he had been enjoying living in the lake country of Minnesota. He loved to play bridge and loved to spend time with his family, including his sons and daughters and grandchildren. So I wanted to let the House of Representatives know that one of their former Members had passed, and would it be appropriate for us to have another moment of silence?

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to rise for a moment of silence.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chair, I join you in pledging to work with the former Member of our Committee from Georgia. As he indicated, we were pleased to work with him and other Members during the 2008 Farm Bill to open up both the McIntire-Stennis program and Section 3(d) for full participation from the 1890 Institutions. I look forward to working with the 1890 colleges and universities and USDA on addressing the concerns that they have raised with the Committee.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chair, I'd like to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. PETERSON. I yield the gentleman 1 minute.

Mr. PETERSON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the subcommittee that deals with this, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chair, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to a good friend of the American farmer and agriculture, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).