Collin Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, A Prairie Home Companion is more than just a good radio program. It's a good radio program that has been around for twenty-five years. When it debuted on July 6, 1974, before a live audience of twelve at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, no one would have suspected that twenty-five years later it would delight a national weekly radio audience of 2.8 million listeners, and many thousands of international fans across the globe from Edinborough to Tokyo. Over the past quarter century, A Prairie Home Companion has broadcast over 2,600 hours of programming, and has toured to forty-four of the fifty states. Close to one million people have attended live broadcasts. It's now heard on more than 470 public radio stations from coast to coast. The program, with origins in the American Midwest, has made a successful leap overseas. In 1985, Minnesota Public Radio started sending reel-to-reel tapes of the shows to Australia and Sweden. In 1990, digital audiotapes were sent to Taiwan. Since 1996, the show goes directly by satellite for broadcast worldwide. Now, it can be heard in dozens of European cities including Amsterdam, Berlin, Brussels, Bonn, Vienna, Geneva and London. In twenty-five years, A Prairie Home Companion has become a true national treasure with international appeal. The origin of the name, A Prairie Home Companion, is the Prairie Home Cemetery in Moorhead, Minnesota, near Concordia College, all of which are located in my home district back in Northwestern Minnesota. Mr. Garrison Keillor, a fellow Minnesotan and the program's host, inventor, chief writer, and heart and soul, has stated, ``You can't name a show Prairie Home Cemetery, so I substituted Companion for Cemetery.'' His legions of fans are glad he did. Every week the two-hour live variety show is packed with musical guests, comedy sketches and Mr. Keillor's commentary about small-town life in his fictional hamlet of Lake Wobegone. Many people in this country and around the world identify Minnesota with the image of Lake Wobegone, a town ``where all the women are strong, the men are good- looking, and all the children are above average.'' Though there are other ways to pass the time Saturday evenings, fans of A Prairie Home Companion often plan their weekends around the show. Nutritionist Leslie Cordella-Simon has said, ``It's a little respite at the end of the week.'' Here in Washington, Ruth Harkin, the wife of Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, has commented that they rarely miss the program. She echoes the sentiments of many when she says, ``Lake Wobegone is the town we both grew up in.'' NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw denies the rumor that he will not admit dinner guests to his house during the Lake Wobegone segment of the show. ``I just don't pay much attention to them,'' he explains. The first road trip of A Prairie Home Companion was to Fargo, North Dakota, and to Moorhead, Minnesota, in October 1974. Now, they routinely travel farther down the road to places like Edinborough, Scotland, and Dublin, Ireland. In the last twenty-five years, the show's truck has traveled over 230,000 miles, and personnel have flown or driven over 385,000 miles. The traveling shows are so popular that a sponsoring station manager in Peoria, Illinois, made the following remark after A Prairie Home Companion visited his town: ``I could've run for mayor and gotten elected.'' In 1985, Time magazine discovered A Prairie Home Companion and put Mr. Keillor on its cover. Over a span of twenty-five years there have been 941 live performances and 864 live broadcasts of A Prairie Home Companion. From February to June in 1987, A Prairie Home Companion made the jump to television, running in an un- edited time-delayed version on the Disney Channel. Since October 5, 1996, the show's audio has been delivered live over the Internet to anyone with a computer and a modem. A Prairie Home Companion and Mr. Keillor have already received a silo-full of well-deserved national recognition, including a Grammy Award, two ACE Awards for cable television, and a George Foster Peabody Award. In 1994, Mr. Keillor was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame at Chicago's Museum of Broadcast Communication. In 1999, he was awarded the National Humanities Medal by President Clinton at the White House. Mr. William R. Ferris, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, said, ``The 1999 National Humanities Medalists are distinguished individuals who have set the highest standards for American cultural achievement.'' Mr. Keillor likes to describe Lake Wobegone as a place ``that time forgot and the decades cannot improve.'' The same could be said about his radio show. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Minnesota Public Radio, the staff of A Prairie Home Companion, and Garrison Keillor on the occasion of the notable achievement of twenty-five years of proud representation of the art, culture and people of Minnesota.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here today, along with my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), bringing this bill forward. This is something that I have been for for a long time. I used to do tax returns for a living, and saw firsthand the impact this had on people. This is something that probably made sense back in the thirties, but its time has past. It is time for us to get rid of this penalty, which causes these people to pay some of the highest marginal tax rates in this country. My district is a very rural district. We are having a lot of trouble out in the farm part of the district. In the cities, St. Cloud is a big city, and Moorhead, which is a middle-sized city, or Aurora, which is a small city, the problems we are having is getting enough workers to fill the jobs that we have out there. In this pool of workers that are being penalized, we have a lot of people that have talent that want to work, and this is going to free up a lot of folks to do what they want to do. It makes sense. One other thing I want to focus on. One of the things this will solve is, part of the problem our farmers are having is with their being taxed on the rent that they are charging for their farmland. The IRS, because apparently one word was left out of a statute, are forcing farmers to pay self-employment tax on their rent. These are the only businesspeople in America that are doing this. If you are in the real estate business, if you are a CPA, if you rent a building or land to your kids or to anybody else, you do not pay self-employment tax, but farmers do. If they pay this self-employment tax, they can also be subject to the self-employment tax penalty that we are getting rid of here today, so this is going to solve part of the problem. We appreciate the chairman's leadership on this issue, and we hope the gentleman would look at the other part of the problem, because it really is crazy, what we are doing to farmers. They have tremendous pressure on them now. In my district, none of them are making any money. The last thing they need is to have another tax put on them. So we would appreciate a look at that.

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

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to today associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). This is no way to do the process and the work of the House. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out, we have nine authorizations in this bill. I would like to focus on one of them. I have had the misfortune, I guess you might call it, of serving on the Livestock and Horticulture Subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture the last 4 years and went through the process when Steve Gunderson and myself, as ranking member, and tried to bring some legislation to the floor. At that time, we were told that this was too complicated; we could not legislate it; so we had to give this to the Department and set up a process to figure out how we are going to untangle this convoluted system that puts one part of the country against another. So we went through that process. The results did not please the people that put this forward, so now they have turned around 180 degrees and they say, well, now it is not appropriate to do this by rule; now we are going to legislate it. But what people need to understand, in addition to that, the fact that we are legislating 1(a), which is basically the current fluid milk differentials, we are also legislating the Northeast Compact again in this bill, we are taking probably the most important part of the dairy provision and suspending it until December 1, 2000. And that is the new manufacturing price maneuver that was established under this rule that USDA put forward. Now, those of my colleagues that have dairy farms in their district should understand this. I represent a district that in some places we have more cows than we have people. I have one county that has 63,000 cows. I have more cows in my district than they have in the whole entire Northeast Dairy Compact. And so, we are very concerned about this. But the people that represent dairy farmers understand that the basic formula price that we have got in place has caused some tremendous volatility in the prices for dairy farmers. We have seen a drop of $6 a hundredweight a few months ago. We just saw another big drop recently. We are not going to fix this by stalling this whole process and legislating, basically, the status quo on dairy.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to oppose this conference report. And I do that reluctantly. I want to commend the chairman. He has been very fair and works hard on this. But I represent a part of America that has had disasters. Some of these people have lost their crops 6 years out of the last 7. And this bill does not address their problems. Frankly, I do not know what we are going to do if we do not get some help for these people up in this area. There is a disaster component in this bill. In my judgment, it is not enough money to cover all of the things that have gone wrong with this country. I also do not think that it is structured in a way that is going to get at what people really need. Also, we have got a price problem in this country, as everybody knows, in agriculture. Some of us that oppose Freedom to Farm said that we thought this was going to happen eventually, and it is here right now. And we all want to address that. But I do not know how I can go home and tell the people in Roseau County or Kittson County that it is more important that we put out money to people that have not been damaged by disaster, that have had bumper crops year after year after year and have sold those bumper crops, received the AMPTA payments and then we are going to give them additional AMPTA payments, and we are not going to go out and help the people that have lost crops 5 or 6 or 7 years out of the last 7 years. I do not know how I can go home and tell the people that this is a good bill, that this is something we should support. I do not know how my colleagues can do that. I wish they could come up and look in the eyes of these people and see what they are up against. We are not dealing with this the way we should. We are spending this money the wrong way. We are not spending enough money. I would just implore my colleagues to defeat this bill, give us a chance to go back to the committee, and address these issues. As I understand it, this was basically taken away from the subcommittee, and there was not even a chance for people to debate these multiple-year problems, to debate these other disaster problems. Defeat this conference report.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time we have remaining on our side?

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I just would say to my colleagues one more time, we have got a pretty good debate here today, but for those of my colleagues that have supported free trade, that believe in the free market, I just say to them, how can they defend a system where we are benefiting one farmer in America over another farmer? We are setting up barriers in this country where we are saying we should take them down in the world. So I would say, how can they defend a program that does that? The second thing I would say, we have had a lot of talk today about how we are losing family farmers. And that is true. We are leaving them in every area of this country. But we need to understand that we have been losing those farmers under the existing program which House File 1402 continues. So how in the world are we going to save family farmers if we are going to keep the same program that has caused us to lose them up to this point?

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the dean of the Minnesota delegation and a leader on dairy issues. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a member of the committee. (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), a member of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), a member of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture, and a real leader on this issue.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who has also been a leader in dairy policy.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who has been a leader on this issue.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, following the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), I am one of those that has been down on the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture working on this issue over the last number of years, and it has been frustrating, to say the least. I would just like to say to my colleagues, I understand they are getting a lot of pressure from farmers and co-ops and so forth, but for those that believe in the free market and believe in free trade and pushed the GATT and NAFTA, I would just say to them, how can they continue to defend a system whose time has passed. There was a good reason back in 1937 why we set up the system we have now, because we wanted to keep fluid milk close to the population centers, but times have changed. We have interstate highways, we have refrigeration, we have a lot of things that we did not have back in 1937, and because of that, it is time to change this policy. The Department has done a good job, they have gone out across the country, listened to everybody, put together a program that I do not like completely because it does not go far enough, but it is a step in the right direction, and that is what we asked them to do back in 1996. So we ought to follow through on that commitment, and we ought to not pass this bill and let the work that the Department put together become the law of the land. The other thing that people ask me all the time is why is it that it looks like Minnesota and Wisconsin against the rest of the country on this. Well, people need to understand that this bill focuses on the class 1 differentials, which are just part of the picture in dairy farming. In the Midwest, 85 percent of the milk that we produce goes into manufacturing. The reason that we are concerned about this current policy is that it is not based on economics. The current Class I differentials were put in place when Tony Coelho, who was the head of the Dairy Subcommittee, legislated them and basically locked all of the dairy industry in a room in 1985 and forced them to come up with these legislative Class I differentials that are in the statute. What we are trying to do here is to change those differentials so that they require more what the economics of the dairy industry are. What our concern in the Midwest is that we are a manufacturing market and when the government pushes people to produce more because of government policies, that excess milk gets dumped into our manufacturing market and it affects our price, and that is why we are concerned about this. The other thing that is an issue in all of this is that California has had their own system, which is similar to a compact that was set up in the northeast area, and they have entered into this because this new system is going to make the manufacturing price of milk closer to what their price is, and they have been using this as an advantage to lure some of the manufacturing industry to their State because of the way the Federal policies have been set up in the past, and they are outside of that Federal system. So what we are trying to do with this is get the whole industry more on a level playing field, get it to more mirror economics, and it is the right direction to go. I understand where some of the co-ops and farmers are coming from because the economics of the current situation favors their business structure, but it is not the right thing for the country. Again, I say to people, if they are supporting this, if they believe in the free market and free trade, how can we set up a system where we are going to put up barriers within this country and favor one farmer over another, or price milk based on how it is going to be used at one price or another. This is what the Soviet Union tried, it did not work, and it is not the best thing for this country. So I urge that we defeat this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time previously controlled by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a new Member who has been a real leader on this issue.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, not to further muddy the waters but in this last speech by the distinguished ranking member he brought up an issue that I do not think has been talked about enough today and that is that we have a new way of establishing the manufacturing price of milk in the current rule that will go into effect on October 1. What a lot of people have not focused on is in this bill we actually change what USDA recommended for the new manufacturing price. We legislate a make-allowance that was done just in the committee, and then we ask them to go back to rulemaking and take another look at the manufacturing price. One of the reasons that some of us have argued that this is a better system is because it is not just the Class I differential; it is a combination of this whole system. I have here the prices for Class I milk that are going to be announced by the Department as determined by the rule that is going to go into effect October 1 if this Congress does not change that rule prior to that time. In every order area, there is an increase in Class I milk over the current system. So those of my colleagues that are going to vote for 1402, they ought to take a look at this because the price of Class I milk, which is what everybody is concerned about, and I will admit that it is based on the new manufacturing price, but what the prices are going to be in southeastern Florida, for example, they are going to get $1.32 more per hundred-weight. All through this system there is more money that is going to be available for farmers. And people ought to look at this before they vote on 1402.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, I will admit that the distinguished chairman has done a good job in terms of providing us with opportunities to offer amendments and to debate this bill. However, we need to go back to what happened when we passed the last farm bill and review that a little bit. Madam Speaker, I am a member of the committee who has dealt with this all through the process. If Members will remember, back in 1995-1996 we tried to overhaul legislatively the dairy system in this country. We were told at that time that it is too complicated, that we did not have enough input for the public, so we should put this over to the Department and let them go through a process so everybody in the country could be heard. That is what ended up happening. Since that time, the Department has gone out and held hearings all over this country, taken thousands of pages of testimony, taken letters and e-mails and telephone calls from all over the country, listened to lots of folks, studied the best economists in the country, and have ended up with this rule which we in the Midwest think moves us in the right direction, but we would like to see go frankly even further towards a more market-oriented, sensible dairy policy. So we feel like the bargain that we struck to have this go through the process within the Department is now being violated by bringing this rule forward and by bringing this bill forward, because we entered into this in good faith, and we feel like now we are being a little bit blind-sided. People need to understand, as I said, that the Department put a lot of time into this. They did not come up with this out of thin air. They took the Cornell model, which is, by all of the dairy folks, determined to be one that best understands how this milk pricing system works in this country. They have tried to set up a system whereby we do not use the Federal Government's power to distort the way milk is produced in this country. Members have to remember that we are operating under a system on the fluid milk side that was developed by Tony Coelho in this body in 1985, which is basically a legislative, political fix that was put in place, and there never was any real economics put into that. What we are trying to do today is more closely mirror the economics of the dairy industry. In this rule, they took into account how much it takes, how much money it takes to move milk from one area of the country to the other. They have tried to establish a system that does not price fluid milk above what it is actually worth, so those parts of the country that have these higher differentials end up producing more milk that gets dumped into manufacturing markets like Minnesota and other parts of the country. Probably a lot of people do not even realize that in this rule is a new Class III and Class IV milk pricing system which, in my opinion, is more important than the fluid milk part of this bill, but hardly anybody talks about it. This bill that is before us only addresses the Class I fluid milk part of that rule. It is the thing that we have been concerned about. Again, in summarizing, we feel that people have gone back on their word. I would encourage us to not support this rule and not support this bill.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and this bill, and I would hope that we could cut back a little bit on the rhetoric. First of all, people need to understand this talk about this study. There is no study that is going on. All that is happening is it is going to be a compilation of a bunch of studies that have already been done. So we need to get that clear. Second thing I think that people need to understand is that it would help if somebody would have talked to the people in the department that are actually working on this. I have met with Secretary Jeffers more than once and talked to him about this proposed rule that they are looking at. They have been working on it a long time. There is a lot of science that has gone into this. I do not think a lot of people that are talking on this floor have actually looked into what this is about. This only applies to manufacturing and manual lifting businesses, where 60 percent of these injuries take place. If you do not have an injury, this is not going to apply to you. It only applies when you have an injury where there is ergonomics involved, and at that point, you have to come up with a way to deal with it. If you have got a situation where it is only one injury and you are a small employer, they have something called a quick fix where you can go in and work on this without having to put a plan together. So they have listened to small business, they have tried to make this workable, and if anybody sat down and read this, they would understand that. The other thing is that businesses that have gone out and actually worked on this have found it to be cost effective. It saves money for their company, and it is good for their employees. This afternoon I talked to 3M. They have an ergonomist on their staff. That person has saved them money. It is better for the company and better for the workers. This is something that clearly works. So I hope that people will focus on what is really going on here. Back in October of 1998, then appropriations Chairman Livingston and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) sent a letter to Alexis Herman saying we are funding this NAS study and it is in no way our intent to block or delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on ergonomics. Well, it looks to me today like what is going on here is delay, and is contrary to what was said. So I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and reject this bill.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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. 604, the Oconee Land Exchange Act. The companion bill in the House is H.R. 1135. The Oconee Land Exchange Act would require the Secretary of Agriculture to complete a land exchange with the Georgia Power Company. Provisions of S. 604 allow the National Forest Service to acquire five tracts of land in a single transfer, while conveying four tracts of land of equal value to the Georgia Power Company. This bill eliminates the need to preserve and maintain over 20 miles of boundary line and seven property corners, saving the National Forest Service $10,160 over a 10-year period. This bill requires the Federal Government to pay $23,250 to the Georgia Power Company, which is the difference between the appraised value of the Forest Service transfer to Georgia Power and the appraised value of the 1,175 acres of land being conveyed by Georgia Power Company to the Forest Service. S. 604 gives full consideration to the opportunity to achieve better management of National Forest lands and resources by consolidation of split estates. Under this transfer, the Forest Service will be acquiring from Georgia Power Company 50.71 acres of land, less flood rights. Presently, the Forest Service and Georgia Power manage a meandering boundary that separates the National Forest from the shoreline of the lake owned by Georgia Power Company. The exchange under consideration would eliminate 20.3 miles of boundary lines and seven property corners. By acquiring this specific tract of land, the Nation's forest lands would be extended to the water's edge, instead of following a meandering boundary around the flood pool of the lake. According to the National Forest Service, this meandering contour area has been a management problem since the lake's inception. Federal acquisition of these 50.7 acres of land less flood rights will allow the Forest Service to manage to the edge of the lake without interfering with the rights of Georgia Power. Under this exchange, the National Forest Service would acquire a 625 acre tract wedged between the Oconee National Forest and the Piedmont National Wildlife Management Area, and an additional 157-acre property would become part of the Oconee National Forest. These lands would add approximately 179 acres of wetlands and provide recovery habitat for the red cockaded woodpecker, an endangered species. Furthermore, the Forest Service would acquire from Georgia Power a 173.4 acre tract within a congressionally designated wilderness area located in the middle of Rich Mountain Wilderness, and totally surrounded by other National Forest land. The Georgia Power Company will acquire 1275.8 acres of land owned by the National Forest Service, along with an easement right to flood 240.84 acres of National Forest in the flood pool of Lake Oconee. This conveyance includes a small unmanageable remnant, a 1.6 acre tract, and a second tract that adds land lines and boundary corners while serving only minimal National Forest purposes. This transfer will permit the public lands to be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resources and archeological values. 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, each year the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and the VFW Ladies Auxiliary conducts the ``Voice of Democracy'' broadcast script writing contest. This years contest theme was ``My Service to America''. It is my pleasure to announce today that Bria Knorr, from Moorhead, Minnesota, is one of fifty-four national scholarship winners. Ms. Knorr reminds us that the spirit of service to our country remains strong among our nation's youth, and that individuals can make a difference. At this point, I'd like to enter Ms. Knorr's essay into the Congressional Record. My Service to America (By Bria Knorr) 3,536,341 square miles, 2,807 miles from sea to shining sea, and populated by 270 million people. It's America and it's big. So large, in fact, that many people find it incomprehensible to think they could serve a country of such vast dimensions. It causes a person to wonder whether or not they can make a difference in a community of so many. However, if we page backwards through the history of our country, we find countless examples of single individuals changing America forever through their dedicated service. One such man, traveling across the country as a doctor for Native Americans and settlers moving west was John Chapman. He is more commonly associated with the trail of apple trees he left where ever he went. To this day we hear of slightly legendized tales of the heroic self-sacrificial acts of a man committed to helping settle this great nation. Not only was he serving America in the eighteenth century, but also the many generations who would come to love his apple trees and his legends. Another guide, traveling south and north rather than east and west, embodied the idea of advocating a principle through the liberation of peoples. Under the cover of darkness Harriet Tubman repeatedly risked her life to bring slaves out of servitude and into freedom. Her development of the underground railroad improved the lives of hundreds of runaway slaves. The powerful motivator and leader, Dr. Martin Luther King Junior, chose to serve his country by speaking out against the hypocritical idea that all men were created equal but should not be treated that way. Through peaceful protest, this passionate man drew the attention of the country to the injustice of segregation. His service did not end when his life did, but goes on through the idea of equality he brought to the United States. Single individuals can and have made a difference throughout the course of our history. But these greats are few and far between. Most of us never have the opportunity to render our services on such a scale. Are we worthless to our country? How can we serve this nation, this body of people? I'd been regulating pumps for six hours and now it was in the dead of night; the purring of the pumps and the swish of water being mopped down the drain droned on monotonously as it had all night. When my family and I had gotten here, this couple had been manning their pumps `round the clock for four days just to keep the rising flood waters from filling their basement. Their cistern would fill and need to be pumped out every fifteen minutes and water was running into the room through cracks in the cement floor. I was tired and uncomfortable and the air was cold. One more hour and my shift would be over. My thoughts drifted upstairs to the exhausted couple who were getting the first real sleep tonight that they'd had in days. I thought that tonight I might have been home in my warm bed. Instead, I was in a clammy basement, fighting off sleep to flip a switch every fifteen minutes and mop up water that would cover the floor just as soon as you finished pushing the last batch down the drain. I thought of Dr. Martin Luther King Junior, of Harriet Tubman, of John Chapman. I wasn't aiding anyone to freedom, I wasn't risking my life for an ideal, I wasn't improving the United States on a grand scale. But maybe this was grand for these people whose home I was protecting. I was doing something grand for some small part of the country. Perhaps that is what defines my service to America. For what is one foot in the 5,280 that make up a mile? Except that it wouldn't be a mile without it . . .''

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I, too, am sorry that my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) cannot support our budget, but I am here today to support a budget that I believe in and I think the American people believe in. This budget does what needs to be done. It gets the social security trust fund off-budget. It starts paying down the debt. It funds the priorities that we need funded in this country. I come from a district that has a lot of problems in agriculture. This budget puts extra money into mandatory spending and into discretionary programs that we need if we are going to have any chance of pulling this agriculture economy out. The thing I want to talk about, I serve on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Some know we have had a real commotion going on down there over the budget. All of the veterans groups came in and asked for $3.3 billion extra to make things work. Some of us tried to get that accomplished. In this budget we have an additional $1.9 billion for veterans, and then we extend that through the whole period. The Republicans only have $900 million for the next year. Then they go back to the same level as the President. We cannot meet our commitments to veterans. We cannot keep our contract with veterans with that kind of a budget. Support the Blue Dog budget.