Collin Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed out of order so that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, can offer his amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said, I support the gentleman's amendment. I understand the gentleman's frustration with RMA and how it is on operating this crop insurance program for sweet potatoes. We have similar frustrations in our area in some other projects that we have been working on. I have heard from many of my farmers about this as well. That is why once we finish this farm bill, the committee is going to conduct a thorough, top-to-bottom review of all our operations down at USDA, especially at RMA. So I appreciate the gentleman's fighting for his farmers. Given my understanding that this amendment does not score, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I've been working with the gentleman from Virginia on this issue, and I think he has some good ideas here that we have been working through, but we just aren't at the point where we're comfortable on this side at this point. If I could engage in a conversation with the gentleman, as he knows, I think that some of the elements of this are something that we should do. It's just, as I said, we're not there yet. In addition, as you know, I have an interest in looking at this issue of NRCS doing administrative work within their agency. We've been talking about that as well. I still believe that it would be better if we transferred that function over to FSA like they're doing now at CRP. So if the gentleman would agree, I am very much interested in working with him on this issue. I think we can get something accomplished over the next period of time until we end up in conference with the Senate. So if the gentleman would be willing to withdraw, I will make the commitment that we will work on this in a serious way, because I think we can get something done here.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, for such time as he may consume.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. Not that I don't support the Grassland Reserve Program, but the provisions of the commodity title were worked out by the committee very carefully in an effort to balance all of the various commodities' needs in that process. We don't think that it is fair to single out one commodity for changes even though it is for a worthwhile purpose. Cotton has already seen major changes with the bill's termination of the storage payments and also major reforms in payment limitations. Additionally, the bill provides 1,340,000 acres to be enrolled in GRP, a substantial increase. I know that the gentleman from Colorado has been a leader in the coalition that has been advocating this program, and I appreciate his efforts and leadership in this area. Unfortunately, targeting any single commodity, in this case, cotton, for further reductions in their safety net is unwarranted and unfair. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, we had a debate similar to this not too long ago, and I'll say it again, that while we've added several billion dollars to the conservation baseline, we still have backlogs in most of those programs. And the question to me is the same: if large farms shouldn't be eligible for title I payments, why should they be eligible for title II payments? If these operations are diversified enough to have problems with farm income exemption, same question, do they really need Federal payments? So I'd like to hear the arguments against because, to me, a strong title I is necessary to even carry out our conservation programs. If the farmers don't have a strong safety net, that work on conservation is going to be the first thing that's sacrificed. So with limited Federal funds for conservation, we need to make priorities, and providing funds for larger producers and folks with lots of off-the- farm income is a tough choice; but it's a choice we have to make. I'd just like to say that one of the most important reforms that people have pointed to in this bill is that we have finally put a hard cap on adjusted gross income, and this has caused a lot of pain for a lot of people. So it just is not right to have a hard cap on the commodity title and not have a hard cap on conservation. So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I guess we have no further speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for that statement. I want to alert the Members of the body that this motion to recommit has the word ``promptly'' in it. What that means is if this goes back to the committee, this kills this bill. It kills the reform that we have done in this bill. It kills the additional nutrition that has been put into this bill, the energy, all the other hard work of this committee. Now, I am a CPA, and I used to do taxes for a living. I agree with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee: this is not a tax increase. This is doing what is right for this country. What we ought to be looking into is why we are having the taxpayers of this country fund people in the Treasury Department and fund people in the State Department to go out and make treaties with other countries so we can have foreign corporations come to this country and avoid taxes. That is what this is about. If you have a straight-up deal between the United States and Germany, this does not affect you. It only affects you if you set up a corporation in another country that doesn't have a tax rate and go through that process. Mr. Speaker, you can call this whatever you want. But the truth of the matter is that if you send the bill back to the Agriculture Committee, we do not have the offsets in the Agriculture Committee to do what is in this bill. So you are, in effect, killing this bill. I just want everybody to understand that. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the uniqueness of Maine and the gentleman's interest in tailoring this program to the needs of his State. I assure him I will work with him to try to find an acceptable solution to this problem, and I look forward to that. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), who has worked with us very diligently to craft a solution or start a solution for the Chesapeake Bay problem. I appreciate his leadership.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself 30 seconds. The quote that my good friend read is an accurate quote; at the time, that's what I thought. But I just want to make clear that in my opinion what we're doing here is not a tax increase. And frankly, what we ought to be doing is investigating why we have all these people on the payroll at the State Department and at the Treasury going out and negotiating deals so we can have foreign corporations come to the United States and avoid paying taxes. And all we're doing is trying to stop that. So I don't see this as a tax increase. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, this amendment includes an amendment by Mr. Terry, which has a demonstration project on sweet sorghum, which we think has a lot of potential for ethanol feedstock, as well as switch grass that was brought to us by Mr. Davis. It also encourages environmentally responsible practices for actively farmed muck soil land in New York, which is some of our greatest farmland. So I encourage support of the amendment. At this time I'm very much honored to recognize the Speaker of the House for 1 minute. And I want to recognize her for her outstanding leadership helping this committee get to where it's at with this farm bill.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentlewoman, and I want to commend her for her leadership on this issue. It is something I am concerned about. So I agree to work with the gentlewoman to accomplish the objectives of this legislation.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the esteemed Chair of the House Small Business Committee.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentlewoman's leadership. I think we can solve this problem with a letter to USDA. So if the gentlewoman will work with me, we will do that. I think we can get this resolved. I support you on this.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I understand what you are saying, but the reality is, if the argument is that wealthy farmers should somehow be limited to title I payments, then from my perspective, if you got enough money to build a great big huge factory farm or if you got enough money to go out and buy 5 million acres, I don't know why the government needs to help if you've got that much money to do that. What we're doing here is we're seeing that this is spread across everybody. What it will do is it will make this available to a lot more people. It will make it available to smaller farmers. Frankly, if you have big operations, I think you can pick up this cost and make it part of the cost of doing business. I understand what you are saying, but I just disagree, given the amount of money we have. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend, Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon, for the balance of the time.