Collin Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue. Policy is always best when we can work together in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation which we have done on this piece of legislation and we have legislation that addresses the needs of his stakeholders. I think we have accomplished that today with the reauthorization of the mandatory price reporting law. I think it should be noted that when this was first put together and considered back in 1999, it was somewhat controversial and there were some groups that were opposed to it. And to show you kind of what has happened this time, the groups that were concerned back then support this law and support this reauthorization. Originally, it was balanced to address the concerns of the livestock producers with price transparency, and mandatory price reporting I think has served the industry well. Mandatory price reporting is a necessary tool to ensure that our producers have a transparent market atmosphere. As the structure of our livestock production systems continue to change, it is necessary to preserve the safety net that guarantees our producers are receiving fair prices for their livestock. The legislation we consider today improves the quality and quantity of information, making the process more accurate and more efficient. The 5-year reauthorization is important and should be completed as soon as possible. It is important that we complete this task so we can avoid the gap in reporting that occurred last year. I am pleased to support this bill with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 25, 2005, 84-year-old Dean Olson of Montevideo, Minnesota lost control of his pickup truck during a storm, went off the road, and landed approximately 35 feet into the Minnesota River. The vehicle was not visible from the road. Mr. Olson spent over 2 hours trapped in the vehicle, submerged to his shoulders in 40-degree water, after sustaining multiple injuries. It is our intention today to recognize the compassionate and heroic efforts of three people who saved Mr. Olson's life that day: Mr. Kevin Applewick, Chippewa County Sheriff Deputy Timothy Christensen, and Mr. Robert Pender. Kevin Applewick discovered the partially submerged truck while searching for a fishing spot. Mr. Applewick could not determine if anyone was in the vehicle. He promptly notified the Chippewa County Sheriff's Office. Deputy Timothy Christensen was dispatched to the scene and arrived at the same time as Robert Pender, who was fishing in the area. By the time of their arrival, Mr. Applewick thought he had heard low moans coming from the pickup. Mr. Pender and Deputy Christensen immediately waded into the swift current of the near freezing Minnesota River, where they discovered Dean Olson trapped in the vehicle. They notified emergency response personnel, and kept Mr. Olson breathing and prevented him from drowning for 20 minutes while standing in over 4 feet of cold river water until EMS professionals could evacuate him. Dean Olson, who served his country as a fighter pilot in the Pacific Theater during WWII, remains hospitalized in serious condition at Hennepin County Medical Center. He and his family are extremely grateful for the extraordinary efforts that sustained Mr. Olson's life. The extraordinary efforts and exceptional actions of Kevin Applewick, Timothy Christensen, and Robert Pender are hereby recognized and commended.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to question whether or not the United States should remain in the WTO. Among them: the current trade deficit of $618 billion; the disappointing enforcement efforts of the Administration on past trade agreements; and the lack of consensus in the WTO on how to move forward with the Doha Round. But at this point, it is too early to give up hope. The WTO is essentially our only chance to address the major distortions in world agricultural markets. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is a group of 30 countries including the United States, most European countries, Japan, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand. It is widely regarded as the most reliable source of objective information comparing subsidy levels of various developed countries. Perhaps the most useful number the OECD calculates is one that compares the amount of each dollar that a farmer receives due to government policies, such as tariffs or farm support programs, versus the amount the farmer receives from the marketplace. They call this number the Producer Support Estimate. In its 2004 report on Agriculture, the OECD notes that the Producer Support Estimate for the United States decreased in recent years, and that this is a part of a long term trend in U.S. agricultural policy. As the OECD points out, support in the U.S. to producers decreased from 25% in 1986-88 to 18% in 2003, and has remained below the OECD average. Europe has increased support to 37% in 2003. What this means is that European farmers rely on the government for twice as much of their income as do U.S. farmers--or 37 cents from each dollar versus 18 cents for U.S. farmers. What relevance do all these statistics have to the current WTO negotiations on agriculture? The framework agreement provides for harmonization in all three major areas of negotiation. On domestic subsidies, the framework states: ``Specifically, higher levels of permitted trade-distorting domestic support will be subject to deeper cuts.'' In the section of the WTO framework agreement on export competition, it is agreed that export subsidies will be eliminated. The EU remains the largest user of export subsidies in the world, and the elimination of export subsidies will eventually apply additional pressure to its domestic subsidy programs. In the section of the WTO framework agreement dealing with market access, there is language calling for a tiered formula with ``deeper cuts in higher tariffs''. Average U.S. tariffs on agricultural products is 12% versus 30% in Europe and 50% in Japan. The world average tariff on agricultural products is 62%. This means that the U.S. tariffs on agricultural imports should be cut less than European, Japanese, or other countries tariffs on our exports to them. As with all negotiations, the framework agreement reached last July on agriculture allows for a best-case and worst-case scenario to exist, which future negotiations will determine. In these negotiations, we will depend on our U.S. Trade Representative to achieve a result that upholds the principle of harmonization that was set out in the original U.S. negotiating position in June of 2000. If that principle is upheld in the final agreement, we will be glad we rejected this resolution today. If not, it will be time to give serious consideration to leaving the WTO.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Blumenauer-Flake amendment; and I just want to correct some misinformation that is put out here, some of it by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). We are not the highest-priced support system in the world. In fact, CAFTA was brought up. I was in Guatemala, and the internal price in Guatemala is actually higher than the internal support price in the United States. We are importing 1\1/2\ million tons of sugar that we do not need that the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and I could grow in the Red River Valley with our farmers, and here we are in CAFTA letting sugar come in from a country that has an internal price support that is higher than the United States. The Europeans are 50 percent higher than we are in this country, and this program does not cost any money directly for the government. But the irony of this amendment, if we pass it, we probably will have forfeitures for the first time in 20 years, and we will cost the government money. So oppose the Blumenauer amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2744. Madam Chairman, the Chairman and the new Ranking Minority Member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee have done an excellent job under very difficult circumstances. Madam Chairman, I support this bill because it will ensure that important farm bill programs are administered--as well as many of the important discretionary programs of USDA. Madam Chairman, the Farm Bill was developed in a responsible, forward-looking manner. It was devised within the terms of the Congressional budget, and while it addressed farm income, it also made substantial investments in research, in conservation, and in enhancing the nutrition programs that protect the needy. But because of this Congress' failure to take a similar, forward- looking approach to government debt, this bill makes deep cuts in those farm bill programs that were so strongly supported in this House. The FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill made substantial cuts in Farm Bill programs, the FY 2005 bill went even farther, and this bill cuts them even more. Madam Chairman, the Appropriations Committee can't be blamed for this situation. They have worked on a bipartisan basis to provide the best bill possible in a bad situation. But in order to meet the cap, this bill cuts these mandatory farm bill programs: the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems; rural broadband and local television initiatives, the Wetlands Reserve Program, bioenergy and renewable energy development; the EQIP program, the Conservation Security Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the Farmland Protection Program, and others as well Madam Chairman, the Farm Bill--which was developed in a very inclusive and bipartisan manner--has been working very well. In fact, during the time it has been in effect, commodity program spending has been $15 billion less than originally projected. But our current fiscal policies are tearing the Farm Bill apart bit by bit. I hope that soon we can end the partisanship that characterizes fiscal policy and work together towards a common solution. Madam Chairman, once again I commend Appropriations Committee members on both sides for their work on this important bill and I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, on May 9, 1930, a group of Minnesota community bankers held their first official meeting in Glenwood, Minnesota, in my district. The agenda that day was to focus on how to respond to the broad challenges facing the nation, as well as the specific challenges to community banks--the stock market crash the year before, a nation struggling to get back on its economic feet, a rash of bank foreclosures, and the rapid growth of chain banks. This meeting of 28 bankers grew from a one-state organization, focused on state issues, into today's Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), the largest constituency of community banks in the nation. 2005 marks ICBA's 75th anniversary. In 1962 the bankers returned to their original mission and set up the Independent Community Bankers of Minnesota (ICBM), to focus again on issues specific to Minnesota. This year also denotes a special milestone for the state association, ICBM. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty proclaimed May 9th Independent Community Bankers of Minnesota Day, commemorating the founding of the only state association that exclusively serves the independent community banking industry. Initially, industry consolidation and interstate banking heightened the need for legislative representation of community bankers. Today that need remains strong as community banks continue to serve a vital role in our state and national economies by consistently reinvesting deposits in the communities they serve in the form of agricultural, educational, small business, real estate and consumer loans. Moreover, as industry consolidation continues, community banks stand out as the only financial institutions that keep control in local hands. ICBM serves nearly 300 statewide members through its unique programming. In addition to its annual convention, various publications and wide-ranging committees, ICBM offers valuable services and products through its partnerships and associate memberships; a technology tradeshow; legislative representation; education resources; and networking opportunities. ICBM continues the tradition started 75 years ago of innovation and community concern while it partners with the Pohlad Family Foundation to offer T.E.A.M. (Training, Educating, And Mentoring) Future Bankers, a unique summer youth jobs program that introduces students to community banking and invests in the futures of the next generation of community bankers. This year, 75 interns will be hired statewide to work in this valuable program. Every intern also will be invited as a guest of Twins owner Carl Pohlad at a baseball game on June 19th. On the political side, ICBM launched a separate non-profit in 2004 called Debate Minnesota, a unique effort to bring civility back to Minnesota politics by hosting a series of roundtable debates that focus on issues. The Star Tribune, the state's largest daily newspaper, in an editorial on Election Day 2004, had this to say about Debate Minnesota, ``Their concept for candidate debates is what made them stand out this year. The result was a series that drew considerable local media coverage, and expressions of appreciation from participants and observers alike. Debate Minnesota established a good name for itself in its first year. Debate Minnesota ought to be back, in more places and races in 2006.'' From 28 original founders to a nationwide network of 5,000 banks, ICBA and ICBM continue to bring much-needed diversity and leadership to the banking world as well as the communities in which their members serve. I would like to commend both organizations for their innovative spirit and community dedication, and wish them well on their journey toward their 100th anniversary.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, in 2002 we passed a bipartisan farm bill that has been successful. In the first 3 years of the bill, we saved 40 percent below what we spent the 3 years of the last farm bill. We saved $15 billion below what was projected to be in the farm bill. Yet, unbelievably, they are asking us to open this bill up and cut another $3 billion out of the bill. I do not think anybody can tell me any other part of the government that saves money during this period of time, and we were promised during that conference that we were not going to change this bill. Farmers made decisions based on the fact that the farm bill was going to be there for 5 years. So this is absolutely the wrong thing for us to do. The Committee on Appropriations has already capped some of the programs in the farm bill in the last 2 go-arounds. We think this is unfair. This breaks a contract that we have with the American farmers. For those of you who represent farm country, I can tell you most of your farm groups are opposed to making these cuts to the farm program that are being proposed in this budget.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I have the honor of representing the people of the Red Lake Nation, which is a very strong people, a very proud people. They have a beautiful reservation in northwestern Minnesota, fairly remote, but they have some of the most beautiful land in the country. This tragedy that occurred on March 21 has affected every single member of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians. This is a very tight-knit community. I was there to attend many of the funerals. I can tell from personal experience that there was not, I think, a single person on the reservation that was not affected by this terrible tragedy. Lives were lost, as has been said, families were shattered, and this entire community was reduced to quiet heartbreak and painful tears. Many of us witnessed that. But, as I said, they are a strong community, they are responding well under the circumstances, and what I am doing here is giving people an opportunity to show what we have experienced up at the Red Lake Reservation during this period of time. I cannot tell you how many letters and e-mails and phone calls we have received, a tremendous outpouring within Indian country from every part of the world, the United States, from other parts of the world, calling and offering their sympathy, their condolences and their support for the people of the Red Lake Nation. So I think I speak for all Members of Congress when I say that we here offer our heartfelt sympathy and support for these families. I heard from many of my colleagues shortly after this incident occurred. And we also want to, as was said, offer thanks and appreciation to everybody who stepped up to help in the aftermath of this tragedy. Of course, the tribal leadership has done an outstanding job and they were there to make sure that the response was coordinated and effective. The tribal police did an outstanding job. We had a lot of other local first responders that came in and helped out. The health care professionals on the reservation and in the surrounding area were outstanding in their help and support. Social workers, the school personnel, everybody up there just really pulled together. And because of that, some of these young people that were wounded look like they are going to come out of this, after a long recovery, doing okay. Of the five people that were wounded, two of them still remain in the hospital, and they are going to have a long recovery. But they are doing well. They are actually coming around faster than people expected. I have had the opportunity to go up and visit with them and their family on two different occasions. And shortly after this occurred, it was kind of a touch-and-go situation. But they really have responded. And there are some brave young men that are still in the hospital and are going to take some time to recover. One of the things that, in trying to do what one can do to console people in this kind of situation, the one thing that I think everybody agreed with up at the Red Lake Band is that something good has to come out of this terrible tragedy. And as we speak, there is a meeting going on over in the Rayburn office building that some of us pulled together with the tribal leaders, with the members of the Minnesota delegation, and, by the way, I want to thank all of my fellow members of the Minnesota delegation for co-sponsoring this resolution and being there to support us in any way that they can. They have been outstanding both in the House and in the other body. But that meeting is going on now, and I have never seen such a group of high-level Federal officials from the administration in one place in just the time that I have been in Washington. And that shows that this is not only something that concerns us in the Congress. The President and the administration have stepped up. The President had a representative up at the Red Lake Reservation for the first funerals. The director of the BIA spent considerable time up there, as well as many other folks from different agencies. So we have had a tremendous response from not only Members of Congress but from members of the administration. And I can speak on behalf of all of the people in Red Lake, that response has been greatly appreciated. But as I said, the Tribal Council, they are having a tough time because it is a remote area. They do not have the resources to meet the basic needs, and what we need to do in this Congress is help them to put together a plan so that they can emerge as a stronger Red Lake Nation but, more importantly than that, that we can give the young people of this reservation that are going to be the future leaders the hope and opportunity of support that they need so that they can carry on the great tradition of the Red Lake Nation. And, lastly, I would like to say that a number of these folks that were involved in this were true heroes. They shielded classmates, friends. Because of their actions, fewer people were injured and fewer people died. They were true heroes. And in the tradition of the Red Lake Nation, what they would refer to these people as is warriors. They earned the designation of warrior because they stood up at a time when it was needed. So I just appreciate the support of all my colleagues. I encourage my colleagues to support us and to continue to support us as we move forward to help the Red Lake Nation become stronger and have more opportunity for young people in the future.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10 is not the best bill that this body could produce. H.R. 10, as introduced, included a curious provision in Title V, section 5021 of the bill would give the President the authority to draft a completely new intelligence reform bill and submit it to Congress for only an up or down vote with no ability to amend. Now, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the committee with the expertise and jurisdiction on restructuring the intelligence community, voted on a bipartisan basis to strike this provision. But the Committee on Rules overruled the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and left section 5021 in the bill before us today. This provision would create the same mess that we already have when we are dealing with Trade Promotion Authority, a situation where the Congress has almost no say in what the administration does in our trade agreements. Why would we want to set up another system like that? It would undermine Congress' ability for effective oversight of our intelligence operations, and that is clearly not the right thing to do. In addition, I do not understand why the House Republican leadership is ignoring the President's endorsement of the Senate's bill and so much of what the 9/11 Commission recommended. Their approach is not going to help us get to where we need to go on this bill and get done in a constructive and timely manner. I believe the proposed National Intelligence Director should have strong authority in the areas of budget control, appointment of senior officials in the intelligence community and assignment and tasking authority of personnel, and we should have a strong National Counterterrorism Center with responsibilities for assigning roles and planning counterterrorist operations. Mr. Chairman, I think that the bill passed by the other body is much preferable to H.R. 10 in all of those areas, and I think that is the direction that we should go.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the City of Montevideo who received the National Civic League 2004 All- America City Award. The City of Montevideo is located in the southern part of the 7th Congressional District of Minnesota, where the prairie meets the Minnesota River Valley. Montevideo is a small rural community that has made a large impact in the surrounding area and through the Nation. Although I have only represented Montevideo for a short period, they have been a shining example of a progressive community that has been able to keep their identity in a changing world. Most people round these parts have a mutual respect for preserving the outdoors while balancing economic growth and development. People who live in Montevideo maintain a quality of life filled with family and civic responsibilities. They take pride in public service and volunteering. If the All-America City Award is described as ``. . . a Nobel Prize for constructive citizenship,'' then the City of Montevideo is an excellent example. The All-America City Award encourages and recognizes civic excellence, honoring the communities in which citizens, government, business, and non-profit organizations demonstrate successful resolution of critical community issues. Whether you are picnicking along the Chippewa River or biking aside the Minnesota River, the City of Montevideo is a wonderful example of what a community is supposed to be. I am proud to represent the City of Montevideo and congratulate them on their outstanding performance among a Nation of communities.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I am, in its present form.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The motion to recommit includes the 100 percent funding for counterterrorism that we have talked about on this floor probably more than some of my colleagues want to hear about. But we are very concerned about this, and we are offering that again in this motion to recommit. I want everybody to be clear what is happening here. We kind of put the cart before the horse. Yesterday we passed the Defense appropriation bill, which had the money in it for these items. Today we are doing the authorization. This is not the way we should be doing things. We have the cart before the horse, if you will. One of the reasons that we are doing this on this side is because we were not really in the loop on these negotiations that took place where they made the deal between the different committees to come up with these amounts. The staff was involved in some of the discussions, but the members were not. We did not get the final thing until about a day before the markup, and during this process, our staff had told the other side that we wanted 100 percent funding for counterterrorism, and it was not in the bill, so we offered this amendment. And that is the spirit of what we are trying to accomplish here. And folks need to understand that the agencies have come in and asked us for a certain amount of money for counterterrorism. And what is in this bill is about one-third of what was asked for. Now, to go through the list, for example, there is only 5 percent in this bill for the NRO, 19 percent for NSA, 26 percent for NGA, and 35 percent for the CIA. So they put the most money into the CIA, but in this bill, it is 11.1 percent less money in 2005 for the CIA than it was in 2004. So that is what is in this bill. Now, obviously, everybody is going to know we are going to have a supplemental to try to plus that up. But the problem is that these agencies only have the money for the first 3 or 4 months, and we are not going to get that supplemental done until later. And there is going to be a gap. And that is a problem. Because the folks in the country expect us to be focused on terrorism, to put our emphasis on counterterrorism. And we do not think this bill gets us to where it needs to be. We do not want to be in this position. We try to work these things out. But, frankly, we did not have the opportunity to work it out the way it happened through the committee process. So we are here this evening, asking your support to fund what the agencies say they need so we have 100 percent of the money available for counterterrorism to do what needs to be done to protect the people of this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) who has worked with me on this amendment. (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I find this rule very disappointing. It effectively shuts down debate on an amendment to fully fund the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's key counterterrorism operations. It is unusual for me to speak out like this, but 4 or 5 weeks ago it hit me, the current intelligence authorization bill that we are going to consider today is just not strong enough. It authorizes less than a third of the funds that the intelligence agencies need for key counterterrorism operations next year. That is just not right at a time when our Nation is under threat of terrorist attacks. The administration admits that this is not sufficient funding, and says it will seek more money after November. But there is ample evidence that al-Qaeda may try to strike before November. If there is another terrorist attack, do we want the next 9-11 Commission to find that we in Congress failed in our duty to fully fund counterterrorism in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence? We sit there day in and day out in closed session, windowless rooms, for hours on end listening to the intelligence agencies tell us how critical the funds are that the committee authorizes. They routinely criticize the practice of funding them in these small bits and pieces rather than in a full year, the way we are supposed to do it. They have told us how this prevents them from planning effectively, and they have told us they have to rob Peter to pay Paul while they wait for the additional funds to arrive. And they will probably not receive those additional funds that they need until April or May of next year, if at all. This ridiculous practice of shortchanging intelligence at the start of the year has also been roundly criticized on a bipartisan basis by members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The agencies have indicated with some precision the additional funds that they will need in the coming year for counterterrorism. There is no excuse for failing to make sure that the intelligence community has the resources it needs to protect against the next terrorist attack. The amendment that I had intended to offer would have fully funded key counterterrorism operations in the next year for the agencies, as they have said they need them, 100 percent of the funding. And we had a detailed schedule of authorization to specify how the money should be spent. So this was not a blank check, as some have said. The question before Congress is quite simple: Do we fully fund the global war on terrorism or do we want to take the chance that our intelligence community can make due until sometime next year? As it stands now, it is clear what the majority's answer is to this question. And with this rule the majority has made clear that they do not want to debate this issue. That is just not right, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, here in general debate, I feel it is necessary to repeat what I said earlier for the sake of colleagues who may be listening in their offices before they come down here to vote. This authorization bill has a lot of good things in it, and I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and my colleagues for the work that they have put together in this bill. And to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss), I want to say that this Member will miss you when you are gone next year, and we appreciate your leadership. But this bill just is not strong enough. It does not fully authorize funds for the intelligence community's key counterterrorism operations. It authorizes less than a third of the funds that the intelligence agency needs for key counterterrorism operations next year, and that is just not the right thing to do when the Nation is under threat from terrorism. The administration has said that they are going to send down another supplemental request next year, but there is ample evidence that al Qaeda is plotting to strike us again this year, next year and into the future. This bill leaves 3 to 4 months open funding before a supplemental bill can get through this Congress. If there is another terrorist attack, do we want the next 9/11 commission to find that the Congress failed in our duty to fully authorize funding for counterterrorism? I think not. In the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, we sit up there for hours listening to the different agencies tell us how critical it is for these funds to be authorized. They roundly criticize the practice of funding them on recurring supplementals. Supplementals prevent them from planning effectively. They prevent us from doing adequate oversight. They have to rob Peter to pay Paul while we wait for these additional funds to arrive, and they will probably not receive those funds until sometime next year, in April or May, and as I said, it is going to leave 3 or 4 months open. Supplementals have also been roundly criticized on our committee by a bipartisan membership in the committee. The agencies have indicated with some precision that additional funds that they will need in the coming year, what they are, and we have addressed that. So the question before the Congress is quite simple. Do we want to fully authorize funds for the intelligence community's counterterrorism requirements, or do we not? As it stands now, the majority answer to that question is no, and I think we need a stronger bill.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this amendment and correct some of the erroneous statements which have already been made regarding this issue. My district in Minnesota is the home of Arctic Cat and Polaris which produce American-made snowmobiles. I have about 4,000 people in my district which work at these two plants, and there are probably another 2,000 to 3,000 jobs directly related, manufacturing plants which supply pulleys and sprockets and precision equipment. This is a big industry and a big employer in my district. They have really gone out of their way to improve these machines. Artic Cat, for example, started in 1996 developing the four-stroke machine. These companies spent millions of dollars developing this technology so we could have cleaner and quieter machines operating in different parts of the country. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) was saying these machines are actually louder or pollute more than the machines that were developed in 1992. Well, that is absolutely not the case at all. I have a letter here from the National Park Service, Yellowstone Park Director Suzanne Lewis printed on their stationery which commends Polaris and Arctic Cat for the work that they have done in developing these new technologies. They have a number of machines that are now well below the requirements that were placed on these manufacturers and these machines by the National Park Service. In the area of hydrocarbons, they had to meet less than 15 grams per mile, or hour, I guess it is. The 2002 Arctic Cat was not 15, it was 6.2. That was brought down to 5.62 in 2004. In the case of carbon monoxide, they had a level of 120. The original machines that were certified were 79.95 in 2002. That is now down to 9.2. They have made significant progress in these areas. On the sound emissions, they have a 73 decibel rating and those are also below the amounts that were required by the National Park Service. If anybody wants to see this, this is information that is put out on the Yellowstone National Park's stationery by the park manager, and these companies have not only met the standards; they have gone well below the standards. If anybody has ever ridden one of these snowmobiles or been around one of them, when you turn it on, you cannot even hear it run. When it is out there operating, if you are riding with somebody else, you can talk back and forth. They are very quiet. They not only improve the situation in Yellowstone Park; they also improve the situation in any other place in the United States where they are operating these machines. Some people have suggested that we ought to have snowcoaches as an alternative to these snowmobiles. The snowcoaches actually put out more pollution per the number of riders that can go in one of these snowcoaches that would be put out by the equivalent amount of machines that could haul the same number of people using a regular snowmobile. And if you have ever been out to the park and been able to participate in this, it is a wonderful experience. I think it is much better to see the park in the wintertime than it is in the summer because it is a lot more beautiful. But if you are in a snowcoach, it is not that great of an experience. The windows all steam up and really the only time you can see anything is when they stop and let you out. So it really destroys the experience. People need to understand that these machines are on the same roads that we drive with the cars that we use in the summertime. They have speed limits. They have now limited the amount of machines that can go into the park. This compromise that they have come up with makes sense, and it still allows us to use the parks in the way that we intended and that is for the American people to be able to enjoy the beauty of our national parks. Some of the people that are interested in solving this problem, if they really are concerned about pollution, we should think about eliminating cars in the national parks because they produce a lot more pollution than these machines.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 857.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment, and I think it is maybe the right timing because the gentleman before me said real hunters do not bait bears. I would like to say, in Minnesota, I was a sponsor of the bill that created a season and made the bear a big game animal. We are having trouble controlling the population in spite of the fact that we issued two permits last year to every hunter, and this year we did not sell all of the licenses. We have three times as many bears now as we did back when they were not protected. In Minnesota, last year, we shot 2,915 bears; 2,900 were shot over bait. The only way a bear can be shot in the northern climates like Minnesota is over bait. There is no other way hunters are going to do that. If we pass this legislation, the bears are all in the Chippewa and Superior National Forests, we will eliminate the ability for us to control our population. Our DNR is very much opposed to this. It will take away the chance for us to manage this population, and it will cause all kinds of trouble with folks that live up in that area. The bears are starting to move out in the private areas. I very much oppose this amendment and hope it is defeated.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I think the gentleman from Montana for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) said he was reluctantly opposing, I am reluctantly supporting this amendment. I have kind of been back and forth on this. But I think it is the best way for us to resolve this issue if we can keep the mandatory provision in place. The main reason I am supporting this is that we should not be dealing with this issue in the Committee on Appropriations. This issue should be dealt with in the authorizing committee. I was ranking member on the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture for many years and worked on this issue on the voluntary and all the other things. I was on the farm bill conference. The big problem here is that the language that was put into the farm bill is bad language, and it needs to be fixed. It has got problems. The authorizing committee ought to do that. I totally agree this is not a food safety issue. It gets mixed up. It is a marketing issue. But I think people need to understand that we are arguing something that we do not even know what it is going to be. The rule has not been developed. There are people out doing studies saying it is going to cost this much. We do not know what it is going to be because there has been nothing that has been put forward at this point. I would just like to point out, people have brought up this issue of marketing versus food safety. In the food safety area, we have had this BSE issue in Canada and everybody has read about that, but I do not know if people understand how it is that we guarantee in this country that we are BSE-free. You talk about the complications of this system. What we are doing in the BSE area, the food safety area, we are asking producers to sign a self-certification that they have not fed animal parts to cattle in this country and that they have not used certain kinds of antibiotics. It is self-certified, very simple and does not cost anybody hardly anything. I am arguing that the same thing could be done with the marketing aspect of this COOL. In other words, if this is good enough to guarantee that we do not have BSE in our livestock, then why is it not good enough to certify that this is where the livestock came from? My point is that this could be implemented in a way that is not very expensive to producers. These issues that are there are caused by the way the law was written, and it was inserted into the farm bill, and, frankly, I do not think we took enough time at that point to go through that and fully understand the implications. So I think that the Committee on Agriculture ought to be dealing with this. I think that there are problems with the law. There are potential problems with implementation. I do not think there has to be. But it ought to be dealt with in the Committee on Agriculture and not on the floor of the House and not in the Committee on Appropriations in my judgment. I think the administration ought to have been out there with some rulemaking at this point so that we had some better idea what they are intending to do. I am going to support this amendment. I think if we keep this in the law it is going to make the committee move faster. We will then be able to resolve this. Because I think, in the end, people want to have the food labeled. It is just a question of how we get there. I think there are simple ways that this could be done that are not going to cost people a lot of money. I encourage the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Today I rise in support of H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2004. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), our ranking member, for their leadership and the professional, bipartisan manner in which they conduct the business of the Committee on Intelligence. H.R. 2417 includes authorizations for the CIA, as well as Foreign Intelligence and Counterintelligence Programs within the Departments of Defense, Justice, State, Treasury, Energy and the FBI. The bill addresses critical threats to our national security, but it also calls attention to particular areas of concern. Among those concerns is the connection between drug trafficking and terrorist activities. The committee is concerned about the level of personnel and funding resources dedicated to combat transnational crimes such as drug trafficking, arms smuggling, and money laundering. As seen in both Colombia and Afghanistan, the activities of terrorist organizations are closely linked to the drug trade. These illicit activities feed upon and sustain each other. To defeat terrorist organizations, the Intelligence Community must understand the transnational organized crime that supports them. Therefore, the committee calls upon the administration to reinvigorate the strategy in this area. In addition, the bill extends the authority granted last year to allow foreign intelligence funds dedicated for Colombia to be used in a unified campaign against drug trafficking and activities by groups designated as terrorist organizations. Finally, the bill establishes an Assistant Secretary of Intelligence and Enforcement within the Department of Treasury to enhance the identification and targeting of illicit financial transactions. This office will also seek to improve the coordination and dissemination of intelligence products concerning drug trafficking, international crime, and terrorist activities. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, Jack Lick retired one year ago as vice president of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union of Minnesota and North Dakota. Jack was dedicated to the union that he served for many years and he made the needs of working people a top priority. Jack took the time to administer to the needs of his members by helping them through difficult professional and personal times. He enabled new members to develop their leadership skills to better ensure the future success of all members. You could see Jack swell with well- deserved pride as those he mentored excelled and led with both passion and authority. Over the past many years, I worked closely with BCTWGM on several important issues, including fair trade and agricultural policy. Jack was always by my side as we sought to improve conditions for workers. We fought against NAFTA, the WTO, and other policies that protected corporations and governments at the expense of workers and farmers. We forged new partnerships between labor and farmers to enhance the future for everyone in rural America. Our work is not done but I know that, although Jack has retired, he will always remain an active and important voice for labor. I thank Jack Lick for his years of hard work and dedication. I extend my appreciation to his wife, Mary Lou, and their children, Carolyn, Jennifer, and Jeff. We will not forget your kindness and love for your fellow union workers.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, one of our country's leading rural organizations, Communicating for Agriculture and the Self- employed, is celebrating their 30th anniversary this year. In the beginning, CA stood for Creamery Association and was made up largely of dairy farmers in cooperative creameries in western Minnesota and eastern North Dakota. In 1972 Milt Smedsrud founded the modern CA in Fergus Falls, Minnesota and the organization has since grown into a highly-respected national non-profit association representing tens of thousands of members, including farm, ranch, small business and self- employed members nationwide. CA is a non-partisan organization known for legislative advocacy of common sense public policy, support of the private market system, dependable information, and for effective service programs for its members. One example of CA's advocacy work is their push for rural Americans' access to affordable, quality health care. In 1976, they were a lead supporter of legislation passed by the Minnesota legislature that established one of the first two state high-risk health insurance pools. Today, 30 states have passed legislation to establish health insurance risk pools guaranteeing that every one of their citizens has an opportunity to purchase health insurance protection. CA continues to work with several states to provide reliable information about risk pools. As a strong voice for family agriculture, CA continues to work for an effective farm economic safety net. In particular, they've been known for work on federal and state finance programs helping beginning farmers and ranchers. Sixteen states operate Aggie Bond tax-exempt beginning farmers programs today, largely with CA's efforts. More than 6,000 young farmers and ranchers have been assisted through these programs since the first program was started in Iowa in 1981. Throughout their history, CA has been a forceful advocate for small business, and a particularly strong voice for fair tax policies for the self-employed, small business and agriculture. CA has also been a strong supporter of the education of young people. In 1985, the CA International Exchange Program was initiated to provide young people the opportunity to train and experience life and personal growth overseas. Today, CA exchange program has become the largest program of its kind in the country. Through CA's Scholarship and Education Foundation, more than $1.5 million has been raised and distributed to help young rural Americans throughout the country to further their education or take part in the international exchange program. Mr. Speaker, In the recent past, there's been a simple slogan used to describe CA's mission--``Good Ideas for Rural America.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the past achievements of Communicating for Agriculture and the Self-Employed and wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule on the conference report. Overall this report represents a balanced bill that provides a good combination of safety net and flexibility. In so many ways, the Farm Security Act of 2002 is a renewed commitment to rural America at a time when it is needed. As a member of the conference committee, I would like to offer my thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). I believe they provided the strongest leadership possible, and they negotiated a good bill for everyone. They were driven and tough, but yet they were understanding. Both of the gentlemen from Texas represented not only the interests of the House, but they also represented the best interests of American agriculture. This bill is not perfect, and one of my disappointments is that we were not able to get a disaster provision in this bill. Members said there would be a point of order raised against it, so it was not possible; but we are going to continue to work to see if we can include it in the supplemental. I am pleased with the dairy program where we have, for the first time, gotten everybody together. We have a national program that treats everybody the same that is going to be a big help when prices are low; and yet it is going to be the least disruptive to the marketplace. And, lastly, it is going to be focused on the smaller family farmers which are the ones that we are having a hard time keeping in business in this country. We have provided some predictability with the commodity section, so with this 6-year bill, farmers are going to be able to update their bases and yields, have a target price, and have some kind of understanding what kind of help is going to be available from the government during these times of low prices that are being caused by these trade agreements and the high value of the dollar. On conservation, the Sportsman's Caucus and the others that I have worked with are very pleased with the conservation program where we are putting money into proven programs like CRP, WRP, WHIP, and other programs that have served us so well and have a backlog, and this is going to be very positive. In the sugar area, I come from an area that is big in sugar production, and we are glad to have the predictability, and being able to get rid of the marketing assessment and putting in market allocations so we can manage this industry on a level playing field with the market. Lastly, in the energy area, I represent an area that has a lot of ethanol, and we are now moving into biodiesel. This bill will give us some strong emphasis on resources, and resources to be place on renewable energy. In the area of wind turbines and biomass, we are given greater latitude in conservation programs. And there is going to be a commitment to biodiesel, which is one of the exciting things we are going to be working. In Minnesota, the legislature just made a big commitment to biodiesel, and we are excited about getting this industry established. This is a good bill for the country. It is a good bill for American agriculture. Again, I commend all of the members of the conference and the staff that worked so hard to put this together, and I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.