Collin Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The conference committee is close to wrapping up work on the bill and we will have significant reform in the final package that comes out of the conference committee. I can assure people of that. Apparently the issue that is before us today is one small part of that whole package. Frankly, the discussion has not really focused that much on this part of the payment limit issue. It has been more on the AGI issue. But just so folks understand what happened here, we in our bill that passed the House made the most significant reform in this area that has been made in a long time, and that is to get rid of the triple entity rule and to require direct attribution. If you had told people 2 years ago that you were going to accomplish that, they would have thought you were crazy. So we did that in our bill. We are going to do that in the conference report. The reality of how this all works, with the limits, the internal limits that we have in the House-passed bill, $60,000 on direct payments, $65,000 on countercyclical, it keeps the direct payment level for folks that had a triple entity at the same amount that it is under the previous system. So I will agree that we did in certain cases keep the direct payment limits the same as what they were in the past before we eliminated triple entity. And there are other factors in here, like limitations on countercyclical payments and so forth. So there is a lot of disagreement about how this should be done and so forth. There are a lot of statistics put out about who is getting what and what percentage they are of farmers. I would just like people to know that according to USDA, we have 2.1 million farmers in the country. But people would be surprised to find out what it takes to qualify as a farmer under USDA rules. It says that all you have to do is have $1,000 of income from farming. Well, it doesn't even say that. It just says you have to be able to have had $1,000 of income. So you don't even have to sell $1,000. If you could have sold $1,000, you would qualify as a farmer. So all of these statistics are based off of 2.1 million farmers, when the reality is the true commercial farmers that produce 90 percent of the food in this country amount to 350,000. So you have a lot of folks in this system that really aren't farmers. You have got a lot of people that are hobby farmers, that farm on the weekend, and they are all being counted and they are all being used in these statistics that people like Mr. Flake and others use. That is fine. But what we have tried to do in the Agriculture Committee is focus on the real farmers, the people that farm every day, that are commercial farmers that produce 85 to 90 percent of the food in this country, and to provide them a safety net where they can get a loan from the bank in the spring and they can survive the bad years and keep farming. And that is not an easy thing. It is a very risky business, and it costs a lot of money to be in this business on a commercial scale. So we have, unfortunately in my opinion, and others will disagree with this, we got this system put on us in 1996 under a thing called Freedom to Farm, which I opposed as a member of the Agriculture Committee. The idea was we were going to have direct payments that were not tied to any production and that were based on past history because prices were good and the WTO wanted us to do this, and this was ideology run amuck. I said at the time that this is not going to work, this is a bad idea, that these prices are going to go down and we are going to have to rescue farmers, and that is exactly what happened. We spent $30 billion 2 years in a row to bail out farmers. That is more than the entire cost of these direct payments over 5 years. We spent that every year for 2 or 3 years to bail farmers out in 1998, 1999 and 2000. So we get to the 2002 bill and people figured out, well, we have to put the safety net back. And they kept the direct payments. So now we went back to the old system, but we kept the direct payments. Well, if I had to do it, I would do it different. But that is the system we have, and that is the system that people want, especially in the South, because it is in their financial structure and it is how they organize everything. If I had my way, we would take those direct payments, we would raise the loan rates, we would raise the countercyclical target prices, we would have a stronger safety net. But the consensus is that we do some of each. So these direct payments serve as a base for farmers to go get a loan at the bank. For those folks that are concerned about food prices going up, the folks that have been pushing payment limits, what the effect of that will be is to raise food prices. So if that is what you want to do, you know, that is probably not going to be real popular. But whenever you get the government mucking around and deciding how big a farm should be, which is what you are doing, you are going to make the farms more inefficient and you are going to drive up the cost of farming. That is what you are going to do. And it is going to increase the cost of goods to consumers. So we have considered this. The committee had looked at it. We are looking at the limitation on direct payments, and there will be some changes in that area. But we have had this debate on the floor of the House. They have had it in the Senate. We appreciate Mr. Flake's input, but we think that what we are doing here now in the conference committee will be a better outcome that will provide a better situation for our farmers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Neugebauer from Texas, a member of my committee.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I have no more speakers, so if they're ready to wrap up, I am, I guess.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, I would just like folks to know that these prices that everybody talks about, if you are a real farmer out there and goes to your elevator, you cannot get a contract at these prices. And if you really want to do something here on this floor that will do some good, it would be to keep this Wall Street hedge fund money out of the commodity market, which has run these prices up and created a bubble. People need to remember that these direct payments came about because of high prices, quote, back in 1996. We heard the same speeches. That is how we got these direct payments in the first place. And what happened? It collapsed. And I will tell you one thing that I know about farming, is that whenever you have good prices, farmers are very good at creating low prices, and they will do it again. And that is why we need a safety net. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas such time as he may consume.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank Mr. Goodlatte for his kind words. I would just make one final comment, that we are extending this bill for 1 week at this point because we feel that's sufficient time to come to resolution. I do want to warn people that we fully expect to have these things wrapped up by the 25th in terms of having the policy differences in the Ag Committee and the funding differences resolved. But everybody needs to understand that after that, we're going to need an additional extension probably of 2 weeks in order, this is a very complex, huge bill. It's going to take us time to pull together to enroll to get passed through the House and the Senate and get to the President in time for him to read it before he signs it. So people can expect that we're going to have to have another couple of weeks after next Friday, provided we get everything resolved, which I expect we will. Again I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), all the other people that have worked with us, and encourage my colleagues to support the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5813) to amend Public Law 110-196 to provide for a temporary extension of programs authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2008 beyond April 18, 2008.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 5813, a bill to temporarily extend the current farm programs until April 25, 2008. Madam Speaker, since the House conferees were appointed last week, the conference committee has been meeting to try to work out the remaining unresolved issues between the House and Senate version of the farm bill. I'm pleased to report that on the core farm bill issues we have reached agreement, and there are only a few Member-level issues that must be resolved. I want to take this moment right now to thank Chairman Rangel, who has devoted a great deal of his time and his staff's time to helping us to come to resolution with the Senate about how to fund the additional $10 billion of new spending for farm bill priorities. Without his leadership and that of Speaker Pelosi and the leaders on the Republican side, we would not be so close to finalizing this bill. The farm bill maintains and strengthens the safety net that helps farmers and ranchers stay productive and competitive. It also includes important new investments including $9.5 billion for nutrition programs that are even more important today as food prices continue to climb. It contains $4 billion for conservation programs that will help protect our land, even as crop reduction soars; $1.2 billion for renewable energy programs that will help us address the rising cost of gasoline and help us get independent of foreign oil; and $1.3 billion for new initiatives and programs to support fruit and vegetable producers, including new programs to help socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers and ranchers. All these important investments will be lost if we don't have time to finish this conference. This short extension will allow us to finish our work and bring back to the House a conference report that meets the needs of all of American agriculture and the consumers. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to report that I've been in conversations with Chairman Rangel and others that have been involved in the effort to identify the offsets, and can report that they have made significant progress, that we have been able to, apparently, convince the Senate to jettison the extraneous items, and so now we're talking about $10 billion instead of $12.5 billion, which is a major accomplishment and victory, and we are getting very close to being able to resolve the differences in the offsets because, where we've been at is the House has put out one set of offsets and the Senate has put out another, and we're trying to reconcile that. I also, last night, had discussions with the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Goodlatte and others, asking that the Secretary and the White House be brought into this negotiation to help us finish up. And from what I can tell, there appears to be an effort to get that engaged. So I think we're very close to having this offset issue resolved, hopefully, in a way that will have the bipartisan support in this body, as well as in the other body, and also hopefully have the support, at the end of the day, of the White House. And that is what Mr. Goodlatte and I have been struggling to accomplish since last July. We've made a lot of progress. We're not there yet, but we feel we've made huge progress in the last few days, enough to warrant another 1-week extension of the farm bill so that we can finish up our work. I want to commend Congressman Goodlatte for his outstanding leadership in this effort, his outstanding leadership when he was chairman of the committee last session, and getting this farm bill process started. And I can tell you that, without a doubt, that we would not be at this point without him being willing to work with us and help us make some tough decisions to get to where we are. So I just appreciate very much he and his staff and the leadership that they've shown because, over in the House, what we're trying to do here is not only have a bill that we can be proud of, but also have a bill we can pass. And I think we're heading in that direction. Madam Speaker, I urge passage of the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5813.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, April 9, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to be present for rollcall vote No. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2745, a bill to extend current farm programs until April 18, 2008. Mr. Speaker, our farm policies ensure that all Americans have access to safe, secure and abundant food supply while providing a safety net for American farmers and ranchers. It also authorizes important nutrition programs for our country's neediest citizens, encourages vital conservation programs and supports the development of agriculturally based renewable energy. Mr. Speaker, all of us on the Agriculture Committee would rather have a new farm bill signed into law rather than be here today asking for an extension. After hearing about the popularity of the 2002 farm bill from farmers and ranchers nationwide in a series of field hearings our committee held in 2006, we set out last year to build on a strong farm safety net while making new investments in rural America and for our Nation's neediest citizens who depend on Federal food programs for a square meal. The new farm bill that this House passed last July makes those investments in nutrition, fruits and vegetable production and farm- based renewable energy. It reforms our farm programs and reinforces the strong farm safety net. It includes an agreement between industry and consumer groups on mandatory country-of-origin labeling for meat. All that progress will be lost if we do not get this bill finished and signed into law. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we are taking steps toward a bipartisan, bicameral bill that Members can support. And I believe we have made enough progress in that endeavor to support a 1-month extension. So, in closing, I would like to thank my friend and the ranking member, Mr. Goodlatte from Virginia, for his work over the last few months and for standing alongside me in working with the Senate and the administration in order to get this farm bill to a conclusion. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2745, a bill to extend current farm programs until April 18, 2008. Mr. Speaker, our farm policies ensure that all Americans have access to a safe, secure and abundant food supply while providing a safety net for America's farmers and ranchers. Farm bills also authorize important nutrition programs for our country's neediest citizens, encourage vital conservation programs, and increasingly support the development of agriculturally based renewable energy, which will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Mr. Speaker, all of us on the Agriculture Committee would rather have a new Farm Bill signed into law rather than to be here today to ask for an extension. When the House Agriculture Committee kicked off the Farm Bill process in 2006 with Farm Bill field hearings all across America, we hoped a new Farm Bill for American agriculture would have been signed into law by now. Even though the farmers and ranchers we heard from in those hearings were strongly supportive of the farm safety net of the 2002 law, we knew passing a new Farm Bill would not be easy in this kind of budget environment. Mr. Speaker, the Farm Bill has been a victim of its own success. The 2002 law saved taxpayers billions but resulted in a 60 percent cut in budget authority for traditional farm programs when budget baselines were released a year ago. Nevertheless, the Agriculture Committee wrote a Farm Bill from the ground up; a new Farm Bill that makes historic investments in fruit and vegetable production, conservation, nutrition, and renewable energy while reinforcing the strong safety net for America's farmers. The House-passed bill institutes mandatory country-of-origin labeling for meat. And despite what is said by editorial boards in big cities, this Farm Bill contains significant reforms that just a few years ago many people thought would be impossible to pass. We have eliminated the three-entity rule. We have implemented direct attribution of payments for transparency. And thanks to a hard cap on eligibility, millionaires will no longer be receiving farm payments. The Senate passed their Farm Bill in late December, and staffs have been working hard ever since the New Year to work out many of the policy issues we will face once an overall funding level is reached. Mr. Speaker, we are taking gradual steps to reaching a bipartisan, bicameral bill that everyone can support, and I believe we have made enough progress to support a 1-month extension. Many people would like to see different things with this Farm Bill, but the truth is, Mr. Speaker, that all of the advances we have made in fruit and vegetable production, nutrition, conservation, reforming farm programs, and encouraging farm-based renewable energy will go out the window if we do not get this bill done and signed into law. The forward progress we have made over the last few weeks lead me to believe that we can get this done. Our farmers and ranchers expect us to finish a new farm bill for a new age of agriculture. In closing, I would like to thank my friend and Ranking Member Mr. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia for his work over the last few months and for standing alongside me in working with the Senate and the Administration in order to get this Farm Bill to a conclusion. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2745) to extend agricultural programs beyond March 15, 2008, to suspend permanent price support authorities beyond that date, and for other purposes.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials thereon on S. 2745.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 293, 110th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman. First of all, I want to rise to commend Chairman Dingell for the outstanding work that he did on this legislation. He, once again, produced a good bill that can be signed, as he always does. I also want to commend the Speaker, the rest of our leadership; the Speaker, especially, for her focus, or we wouldn't probably be here today. As chairman of the Ag Committee, the most important part of this bill is the renewable fuel standard. I want to thank the chairman for putting a 9-billion-gallon standard in for next year on ethanol. We have gotten to the point of 7 billion gallons of production right now. The RFS is 5 billion. In order to keep this industry going, we need this 9-billion RFS next year. So this is going to get us back on track. We have a 36-billion-gallon number in the overall bill. What this RFS does with the 9 billion for ethanol, and 500 million, up to a billion for biodiesel, it will set the stage for the next generation of ethanol, which is going to be cellulosic, and for new feedstocks for biodiesel. So when you take this bill and put it together with what we have put in the farm bill, this is going to set the stage for us to be able to produce at least 30 percent of our fuel from agriculture down the road. We are not going to be the total solution to this problem, though we are going to be a big part of the solution, and we are excited about being involved in this process and making this happen. So this is a historic day. This is going to be a tremendous boost for us in agriculture. We just want to thank the chairman and all the members that worked on this. It's a good piece of legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of H.R. 3454. This bill, sponsored by Mr. Boucher from Virginia, would convey property in the George Washington National Forest to the Central Advent Christian Church of Alleghany County, Virginia. The parcel will consist of no more than 8 acres, and included in this parcel will be a cemetery encompassing approximately 6 acres. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3454 requires that the church accept the property at the time of the conveyance in an ``as is'' condition. The exact acreage and legal description of the properly to be conveyed will be determined in a survey of USDA's approval. USDA will also set additional terms and conditions in connection with the conveyance of the property. The United States Forest Service has acknowledged that this particular tract of forest land is difficult to manage. Owning a cemetery tract is inconsistent with the Forest Service mission, which is why they have attempted to sell this property several times without success. I understand the Central Advent Christian Church has already been doing basic maintenance on the cemetery grounds. Conveying this land to the church would enable them to make more significant repairs to the property. This effort deserves congressional support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1374) to amend the Florida National Forest Land Management Act of 2003 to authorize the conveyance of an additional tract of National Forest System land under that Act, and for other purposes.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1374. H.R. 1374, introduced by Representatives Allen Boyd of Florida and Ander Crenshaw of Florida, would amend the Florida National Forest Land Management Act of 2003 and permit a land conveyance in Leon County. This bill would allow the United States Forest Service to sell a 114-acre parcel in the Apalachicola National Forest known as the ``Flea Market Tract.'' The parcel is surrounded by commercial development, including a major highway to the north, a power line easement to the south, and private land primarily developed to the east and west. The configuration and development makes adequate land management difficult and the tract unsuitable as managed forest land. H.R. 1374 specifies that the proceeds of the sale of the tract be used for the purpose of acquiring private lands within the Apalachicola National Forest. H.R. 1374 is supported by the United States Forest Service, the City of Tallahassee, and Leon County, as well as by local businesses, church and civic groups. It is a project that is worthy of congressional support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I now would yield such time as he may consume to the author of the bill, Mr. Boyd from Florida. (Mr. BOYD of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 15.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just considered.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I also yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 15) recognizing the contributions of the Christmas tree industry to the United States economy.