Collin Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, thank you. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I am pleased today to rise in support of H.R. 6. Rural America is already leading the way towards reducing our dependence on foreign oil and generating electricity from renewable resources. To encourage the growth of renewable energy production, the Agriculture Committee will be including an energy title in the farm bill that we will write this year; however, we currently have no baseline money to write that energy title. The funds created in the energy reserve in H.R. 6 will help us establish farm bill policies that will move us closer to energy independence. One of my top priorities for renewable energy in the farm bill will be funding for additional research and development on cellulosic ethanol, which I believe is the real key to achieving energy independence. To begin the transition to cellulosic ethanol, we need to start growing cellulosic feedstocks so that we are ready to get the industry off the ground when the technology and infrastructure are in place to begin producing it. To make this happen, we are going to propose a new farm bill program that will pay farmers and ranchers to begin growing cellulosic feedstocks, such as switch grass, sweet sorghum, miscanthus and other crops in actual, real-world settings. This will help us identify the best feedstocks that each region of the country can grow and supply to this new cellulosic ethanol industry. While we are learning how to grow the feedstocks that will fuel the cellulosic ethanol industry, we must also help get the first generation of cellulosic ethanol plants up and running. We hoped that the Department of Energy would issue the loan guarantees to start that process, but the unfinished appropriation process left over from the last Congress, it appears, makes that unlikely. So I am going to work with the other committees of relevance to determine what we need to do to help these first cellulosic ethanol plants to be built and to be operational. Although I am most interested in finding ways to encourage the move to cellulosic ethanol, we will also be looking for ways to make our current starch ethanol industry more efficient by supporting research on better use of by-products and better corn yields. As we build on the success of the starch ethanol industry and as a value-added agriculture product, we need to continue to support one of our most important value-added industries in agriculture, our livestock industry. This industry has been one of the greatest value-added success stories in recent years, boosting income in our farming communities. We need to ensure that any renewable fuels policies that we pursue do not damage this important sector. We must also continue to grow our domestic biodiesel industry, so the Agriculture Committee will continue the CCC Bioenergy program, a farm bill program that can also provide incentives for the cellulosic ethanol production. Beyond the renewable fuel production, there are other policies that the Agriculture Committee will support to help our Nation's farmers and ranchers both conserve and produce more energy. For example, in the 2002 farm bill, we included a program to help farmers and ranchers make their operations more energy efficient. That program, known as the Section 9006 Program, also helps agriculture producers install methane digesters or wind turbines on their land to produce renewable energy. As we continue to consider the future of the energy production in the United States, we need to be sure that we can provide the technical expertise needed to plan and test all kinds of bio-based products, not just fuels, such as shirts made from corn fiber, which are produced in my district, and fast-food containers made from corn starch. Mr. Speaker, my home State of Minnesota has been a leader in renewable energy, recognizing the growing needs for a growing industry. Many of our rural communities are coming alive with the excitement and the new investment that renewable energy has brought. I want to be sure that the rest of the country can benefit from this great experience that we have had in Minnesota. Rural America stands ready to plant, grow and harvest the future of energy independence for our Nation. I encourage the support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, some of us that have big huge districts use our airplanes to fly around the district to get to meetings just like some people use their automobiles, and there is concern amongst the few of us that do this about a provision in here. So, Mr. Hastings, could you clarify for me that it is not the intent of section 207 of House Resolution 6 to prohibit a Member to use his or her own airplane; specifically, that is not intended to apply to the use of the Members' representational allowance to reimburse a Member for mileage on his or her own airplane?

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to honor Chip Conley's service to his country, to this House, and to our Nation's farmers and ranchers. Chip will retire from the staff of the House Agriculture Committee at the end of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, Chip was hired as the Agriculture Committee's economist by Chairman E. (Kika) de la Garza in 1985. By all accounts, from the moment he got there, Chip was the go-to guy on nearly every bit of work in the Committee's jurisdiction. This was so much the case that on his birthday one year, Chairman de la Garza handed out buttons printed with the commonly uttered phrase: ``Where's Chips?'' Mr. Speaker, the Agriculture Committee's big task that comes along periodically is the writing of a Farm Bill. Chip played an integral role in four farm bills--each one of which proved to be a more monumental undertaking than the last. In addition to casting policy for the production of food and fiber, the Farm Bill also includes provisions to update the food stamp program and other programs that are so important to the daily needs of our most vulnerable citizens. In addition to the tremendous expertise Chip displayed regarding the economics of these programs, he always demonstrated a thorough command of programmatic details. His diligence and abundant creativity through many sleepless nights have had an enormous impact, and he will be sorely missed. Mr. Speaker, you don't have to work with Chip for too long to realize that his efforts are inspired by an enduring, true desire to improve the lives of others. Before he began his professional career, Chip served in India as a Peace Corps volunteer. He spent 2 years in Hissar from 1970-1972, providing extension services to dairy farmers. Mr. Speaker, I should also express the gratitude of the House to Chip's wife--Jan Rovecamp. Jan herself served as a staff member and was working for the House when she and Chip met and they discovered their mutual interests in hiking and other outdoor pursuits. Jan also aided the Committee by her constant support of Chip and her tolerance for his long hours. They both have hearts of gold, and for nearly 15 years they have volunteered their time to Food and Friends. Each Friday, they spend the middle of their day delivering food and providing companionship to people living with life-challenging illnesses. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to see Chip go. Through his work on legislation, he has touched the lives of many Americans. In the city of Washington, he has gained the respect and admiration of countless colleagues from all philosophical backgrounds. To the Members and staff of the Committee, he is a true friend. On behalf of the Agriculture Committee, I extend to Chip and Jan my deepest appreciation for their service, and wish them much happiness in retirement.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 96. Congresswoman Foxx's resolution recognizes the success and importance of the live-cut Christmas tree industry in the United States, and the economic strength and cultural contribution of this industry makes this resolution worthy of congressional support. Mr. Speaker, before I recognize other Members, I would like to take a minute to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who has served with distinction as chairman of the Agriculture Committee over these last few years. The Agriculture Committee has always enjoyed a reputation as one of the most bipartisan committees in the Congress, and Chairman Goodlatte has continued that great tradition of cooperation. Under his direction, the committee has accomplished important things. His leadership led to the passage of historic measures to protect our national forests. He took a strong stand for American agriculture in the face of unreasonable proposals from our trade partners, making it clear that we would prefer no deal to a bad deal. He started the process of writing the new farm bill with a series of field hearings across the Nation and ensured that the many voices of agriculture were heard. Mr. Speaker, anybody who cares about American agriculture, or for that matter, anybody who eats in this country, should give Bob Goodlatte their thanks for the outstanding job he has done on the committee. I look forward to working with him as we continue this process on the farm bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a good friend of mine and a good friend of American agriculture, Congresswoman Darlene Hooley from Oregon.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. 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. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 5103. Mr. Boucher's bill will convey about 6 acres of land within Jefferson National Forest back to the Lutheran Church to allow them to restore and preserve the historic Konnarock Lutheran Girls School in Smyth County, Virginia. The Lutheran Evangelical Coalition for Missions in the Appalachias has developed a thoughtful plan for the site that includes the restoration and preservation of the building, a retreat center, and an environmental learning center that will work in conjunction with local schools. This is a worthwhile use of Federal forest land and an excellent project which deserves congressional support. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the author of the bill. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

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

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, the farmland protection program is an important program that helps farmers preserve their land for the future and to combat urban sprawl. The program works with State and local groups to purchase conservation easements to ensure farmland is kept continually in agricultural use for future generations. I want to thank the chairman for recognizing the importance of preserving open space and hope that we can continue to work together to strengthen the Federal program in the next farm bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4559. Mr. Green's bill would allow the towns of Laona and Wabeno in Wisconsin to purchase two parcels of marginal Forest Service land for development. Those towns, as was noted, suffer from low timber prices and a limited tax base, and this bill is an effort to provide economic development in these communities. This bill allows the Forest Service to use the proceeds of the sale to buy land with greater environmental value which will improve the forest. This project is a sensible transfer of Federal forest land, and it deserves congressional support. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this amendment. This bill displaces 90,000 horses a year, 90,000. In spite of what my good friend Mr. Sweeney says, that is a lot of horses. Currently the horse facilities are already full. They can only take approximately 6,000 horses a year. What do we do, Mr. Sweeney, with those other 84,000 horses? This bill should not pass until the Secretary of Agriculture can certify to this Congress that there is enough space in these rescue facilities to accommodate all of these unwanted horses that have no place to go, no funds to care for them and no humane end-of-life option left for them. So I support this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As has been said very ably by the Dean of the House, Mr. Dingell, this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There have been a lot of assertions made out here that I think are a little bit suspect. But one of the things that I want to point out, the previous speaker, Mr. Farr, my good friend from California, claims that they have done this, and there are no problems, well, there was a peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Agribusiness which highlights the lack of enforcement in California of their law, anecdotal evidence of increased horse abandonment, malnutrition, greater numbers of thin and crippled horses at auction in California. So this is a peer-reviewed article that refutes that assertion that was made by Mr. Farr. This is a bill that on the merits is a bad bill. It was defeated in the Agriculture Committee by a vote of 37-3 because those of us on the Agriculture Committee represent rural America, represent the areas that have horses and use horses every day. The American Quarter Horse Association, the American Paint Horse Association, the biggest horse associations in the country oppose this bill. There are a lot of good reasons; but the main reason, in my opinion, is that this is just absolutely the wrong way to do business in the House of Representatives. As has been pointed out by Mr. Hoyer and by others, we have many more priorities that we ought to be working on in this Congress other than this bill. That is, you know, obvious. But, you know, it really offends me to take the work of the committee, and this can be any issue, and overturn it and put a bill on the floor that is completely opposed to what the committee decided. I think it is absolutely the wrong way to run this institution and probably is the best reason for us not to pass this legislation. I just have to say one other thing. I just was up in Hallock, Minnesota, the other day, and one of the main things that we ought to be doing in this Congress, that we haven't done, that we have been trying to do since last December, is get disaster legislation passed to help those people that got wiped out in 2005 and to help the people that have been wiped out here in 2006. That would be a much better use of the Agriculture Committee's time on the floor of the House of Representatives than dealing with this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and send this bill where it belongs, that is, back to the committee. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Chairman, I just wanted to say, unless I don't know something here, I don't believe it is illegal to consume horse meat in the United States. If you want to shoot your horse and butcher it and eat it, you can do it. So people need to understand that, number one. Number two, I am in receipt of a letter here from Ron DeHaven, who is the administrator of APHIS, and I would just like to make folks aware of this, that contrary to what has been said, they have enforcement going on in terms of the transport of horses. There are 187 cases that have been opened since 2002. They have issued 69 warnings. Eighty-one cases remain open. Three of those are being investigated. Seventy-eight are on final review. Twenty-one cases included stipulations. There have been fines anywhere from several hundred dollars to $60,000 for violation of humane transport requirements. One case is currently being adjudicated by an administrative law judge requesting that the violator submit $85,000 in penalties. APHIS says that they take very seriously their responsibility to ensure safe and humane transport of horses to slaughter. So they have been trying to enforce this law; and if there is problems going on, you ought to get a hold of APHIS and do what they should do.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the Dean of the House, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my good friend, John Dingell. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Well, they are hauling them to Texas because there is a processing facility. The only point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that some of these issues they are claiming they are going to solve with this bill are not going to be solved. They are actually going to create more problems.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I am not sure that is the case, because you are going to have 90,000 horses, and you are going to have people rescuing them basically under duress because they are not going to know what to do with them. In my part of the world, we already have people letting horses out, out in the country, just like dogs and cats, because we don't have a processing facility close enough to us. It is a huge problem.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 more minute. But, you know, nothing will change under this bill.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I would point out that the two largest horse associations in the United States, the American Quarter Horse Association and the American Paint Horse Association, are opposed to this bill, and they represent the biggest number of horse owners in the country. So people need to understand that. I wondered if Mr. Sweeney would yield on the points he was making. I wanted to ask him a question. You know, you keep talking about the way they are treated as they are hauled to slaughter. As I understand it, in this bill, there are no requirements put on so that, if you are hauling these animals to a rescue facility, there is no regulation or any kind of requirements put on anybody to haul them to those rescue facilities. So what have you accomplished?

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), a real rancher, horse owner and outstanding member of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill that is before us. When we all look at all of the important issues waiting for Congress to act on, I cannot understand why we are here wasting so much of our time on an issue that really has nothing to do with the pressing problems that are facing people in this country. But here we are today considering a bill that would effectively shut down three horse-processing facilities and eliminate a reasonable option for horse owners who can no longer afford to care for their animals that are no longer productive. I understand that this issue is an emotional one for many people. But what other options are there for people who own aging horses that are no longer productive? It costs anywhere from, people tell me, $1,200 to $1,800 a year, some people say $2,300 a year. That is a lot of money for most people to care for an animal that has outlived its productive years. Some of these aging horses are sent to horse rescue facilities. While those facilities can provide a good home for aging horses, there are no Federal guarantees or standards of care that must be met. There is no guarantee that the horses at these facilities will be treated humanely. And this bill does not provide any money to help rescue facilities cover the additional costs that they will incur, and there is no way that we can accommodate all of the horses that will be abandoned if we pass this bill. While H.R. 503 outlaws slaughter for human consumption, the bill does not prohibit horses from being killed. Some supporters of this bill support euthanasia as an alternative to processing. However, euthanizing a horse is not cheap; it can cost anywhere from $300 to $2,000 an animal depending on the local rules for carcass disposal. Processing provides a cost effective and a humane alternative to neglect and abandonment when horse owners are unable to find another buyer. Caring for a horse properly is expensive, and it is time consuming. The real question of animal welfare lies in what will happen if the slaughter ban is imposed. These unwanted horses are often sick, unfit or problem animals. Many of them are already living in pain or discomfort, and tens of thousands more could be neglected, starved or abandoned if their owners no longer have processing available as an end-of-life option. If we pass this bill, we will ignore the fate of these animals who find their lives extended but without the necessary standards of care that they need and deserve. So at the end of the day, this bill is not about protecting horses from an untimely death; all it will do is limit the option of horse owners and burden them with additional costs of care and disposal. The House Agriculture Committee recognized the many weaknesses in this bill and voted to recommend that the House not pass this bill by a vote of 37-3. The Members of our committee represent agricultural areas around the country, areas where people own and use horses every day. We passed several amendments to this bill during our committee mark-up, but they are not included in the bill that we are considering here today. This shows a complete lack of respect for the expertise and the effort that the Agriculture Committee has contributed to this subject. At the end of the day, this debate is about defining what is humane when we are dealing with unwanted horses. Are we going to pass legislation that truly addresses the health and well being of animals, or are we going to pursue bills that amount to little more than window dressing in the name of animal welfare? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to set aside this emotionally charged issue and oppose this legislation that will tie the hands of horse owners around this country. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry