Collin Peterson

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), my good friend and the clean-up hitter on our side.

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, in closing, I would just reiterate that we, in sugar-producing areas, we, who are in the sugar production business, would happily give up the sugar program if everybody else in the world gave up their sugar programs. That is the problem; and as I said in my opening statement, as President Reagan said, when you unilaterally disarm, you are asking for trouble. We are bringing in 15 percent of our market in imports that we don't need to do. We could easily produce that in the United States. So I would say to these other countries, you give up all of your support for your sugar industry, you bring in 15 percent in Brazil and Thailand and these other big sugar-producing areas, and we would be happy to compete because we will run them out of business. The problem is, that is not the real world. So if you want to maintain these jobs and this industry in the country, the way to do it is with this current program. That is why it was put in in '08. That is why it was supported on both sides, in both the House and the Senate in 2013. And it works. One of the speakers had said that we have these high consumer prices in the United States. That is not true. We have the cheapest, most affordable, most abundant, and safest food supply in the world in the United States, including sugar. And one of the reasons is because of the policies we have in place. One of those policies is the sugar policy. So I would encourage my colleagues to oppose this resolution. As it was stated, it is unnecessary. It is not something that is going to be considered by the conference committee anyway. I don't know why we are doing it, but it should be defeated in spite of that. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a friend and colleague, long time Minnesota Senator Rod Grams, who passed away Tuesday night losing his fight against colon cancer. Rod Grams and I came to Washington at roughly the same time. He served on the Banking and Finance committees while I served on the Agriculture and Government Operations committees. Everyone knew Senator Grams as being a conservative member of the Republican Party. He was often times juxtaposed against the other Minnesota Senator, Paul Wellstone on the extreme left. Early on we discovered that we were both fiscal conservatives and almost immediately found common ground on economic issues. Although conservative, Senator Grams was always searching for common ground and had a willingness to discuss his position with folks. Known for his humble demeanor, Rod Grams quickly became known for one of his greatest achievements, the passage of a $500-per-child income tax credit that he shepherded through Congress and into law in 1997. I was struck by his dedication to serving others even in remote parts of the State. I remember during the 1997 floods in the Red River Valley, although he showed up in a finely pressed suit and dress shoes, Senator Grams quickly threw himself into the East Grand Forks flood recovery, mud and all. From that day on he had a constant presence in my District and also realized he doesn't need to wear a suit everywhere. Senator Grams was a distinguished public servant and a true model of what serving means. He knew when to hold the line and when to work with others. He is a true example of leadership. Senator Grams will be missed in Minnesota politics and I extend my deepest sympathies to the Senator's family and friends.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great Minnesotan, the Honorable Edward James Devitt, and support my legislation, H.R. 2251. The Federal court's presence in Fergus Falls continues to be an integral part of our Nation's unwavering principles: providing equal access to justice. The Federal court that resides in the Federal building in Fergus Falls serves the needs of the citizens of west central Minnesota and the surrounding region. It serves a population of over 610,000 people and covers over 25,000 square miles. It serves the cities of Fergus Falls, Moorhead, East Grand Forks, and Bemidji, as well as the Red Lake and White Earth Reservations. Naming the building the Edward J. Devitt United States Courthouse and Federal Building will give a great honor to distinguished jurist Judge Devitt as a much-deserved recognition. Before he was judge, he served one term in Congress, as was noted. He was elected in 1946. As a freshman in the 80th Congress, his classmates included John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. He was also defeated the end of that term by another famous Minnesotan, Eugene McCarthy. No judge in the recent past is more closely linked to the history of the Fergus Falls courthouse than Judge Devitt. During his many years of service on the Federal bench, he presided over numerous cases in the Fergus Falls courthouse. Judge Devitt was appointed by President Eisenhower to the U.S. District Court of Minnesota in 1955. Then, in 1959, he was named chief judge for the Minnesota district, where he held that position until 1981. He served on the Federal bench for 38 years. I would like to submit the following statement for the Record, written by Mr. Thomas Boyd, who wrote this brief but detailed biography of the Honorable Edward J. Devitt. Again, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to support it as well. The Honorable Edward J. Devitt United States Courthouse, Fergus Falls,

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and the bill made in order on this rule, H.R. 3102, which is just another example of the Republican majority's misplaced priorities. I have been working on this farm bill for nearly 4 years. From the beginning, I've said that I think it is possible to find some middle ground and to make reasonable, responsible reforms in nutrition programs. Unfortunately, this bill is neither reasonable nor responsible. The House failed to pass the Agriculture Committee's bipartisan farm bill because it was hijacked with partisan amendments on the floor, amendments that are included in this bill that we are considering here today. This bill goes even further by eliminating State-requested waivers to exempt able-bodied adults without dependents in high unemployment areas from SNAP's current work requirements. To be clear, these waivers are granted only at the request of the States. They are under no requirement to apply and may choose to opt out in the future. There is a lot of hypocrisy coming from the other side of the aisle here, because these waivers have been requested by both Republican and Democratic Governors. In fact, a majority of the Republican Governors have asked to waive these current work requirements. This notion that we have to pass this bill, as Mr. McGovern said, to go to conference is not true. The House passed H.R. 2642, which can be conferenced with the Senate, and there's no reason to pass this bill here today other than to placate some people that want to make a point. This bill isn't going anyplace in the Senate, the President wouldn't sign it, so I don't know what we are doing. In July, a broad coalition of more than 500 organizations expressed their opposition to splitting this farm bill. Senator Bob Dole expressed his opposition recently to doing it. In a letter to House Members, the American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman said: We are quite concerned that without a workable nutrition title, it will prove to be nearly impossible to adopt a bill that can be successfully conferenced with the Senate's version, approved by both the House and Senate, and signed by the President. All this bill is going to do is make our job harder, if not impossible, to pass a new farm bill. I strongly oppose this rule and the bill and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill--and I'm sorry that I have to do that because I started, as the chairman said, having hearings on this bill April 21 of 2010--and I do it for two reasons. First and foremost, I believe the strategy of splitting the farm bill is a mistake. It jeopardizes the chances of it ever becoming law. And I think that repealing permanent law all but ensures that we will never write a farm bill again in this House. I'm not alone in my belief that this is a flawed strategy. Last week, a broad coalition of 532 agriculture, conservation, rural development, finance, forestry, energy, and crop insurance groups expressed their opposition to splitting the farm bill and urged House leaders to pass a 5-year farm bill. When such a large group of organizations--most with different, if not conflicting, priorities--can come together and agree on something, we should listen to them. Doing the exact opposite of what everyone with a stake in this bill urges us to do in my opinion does not make sense and is not the way to achieve success. I don't see a clear path forward from here. There is no assurance from the Republican leadership that passing this bill will allow us to begin a conference with the Senate in a timely manner. In fact, the Republican leadership has told agriculture groups to support this bill as a way to go to conference, while also telling Republican Members, fearful of the wrath of conservative groups' opposition, that there will be no conference, or at least not without first getting concessions from the Senate--concessions that the Senate will never agree to. There is a very real chance that we could end up in a situation like we have with the Federal budget, where the House majority claim that they want something, but instead disregard regular order and demand preconditions before appointing conferees, leaving the bill hanging with nothing getting done. Maybe the chairman has received assurances from his leadership that, should this bill pass, that they're going to let this move forward to conference and appoint conferees. I have received no assurance to that end. And given the majority's past performance, frankly, I don't have a lot of confidence that they're going to move in that direction. I have repeatedly said that if they only would leave us alone, the Agriculture Committee could put together a good bill with good policy, and we did in the committee. But last month, the Republican leaders interfered by pushing into the farm bill poison pill amendments, amendments that the chairman and I both said could bring the bill down. And even if the House passes this bill today, I fear the leadership's continued interference will doom any prospects of getting a bill that the President can sign. The other fatal flaw with this bill is the repeal of permanent law from 1938 and 1949 and replacing it by making the commodity title in this bill permanent. If you want to ensure that Congress never considers another farm bill and the farm programs, as written, are going to remain forever, then vote for this bill. In every farm bill there are some people that like things and some people that don't. The beauty of the '38 and '49 laws is that they force both groups to work together on a new farm bill. And because nobody really wants to go back to the old commodity programs, people will get to a point where they don't necessarily like it, but everybody can live with it. So if you make the new farm safety net programs the new permanent law, then what you've got is you've got permanent authorization of food stamps, you've got permanent authorization of crop insurance, and then you have permanent authorization of the title I programs. So I'll guarantee you, what that means is, if you're concerned about conservation, fruits and vegetables, research, these other areas, there's never going to be a farm bill if we do this. Another reason that I'm concerned about this is the Goodlatte amendment to the Dairy Security Act that was passed on the floor here. I lost that argument--big time. But if I'm proven right in what I said about that, and if this bill makes permanent law out of that dairy provision, I will guarantee you that this dairy provision that you're going to enact will cost more money than what you're going to save in this bill here that's being considered on the floor today. We had a bipartisan bill out of the committee. We were able to work together. We had 13 of the 21 Democrats on the committee support that bill. We were doing fine until we got here to the floor and the leadership screwed this up. We have the votes to do this bill on a bipartisan basis if we just take out those amendments that were a poison pill. I'll give you the names of the people that will vote for this bill if we do that. You can call them up yourself and ask them; you don't have to rely on me. We can do that. But no, you've got to make this a partisan bill. You know, some people on that side have been trying to make this a partisan bill for 4 months, and they finally succeeded. I told my caucus something I never thought would happen. You have now managed to make me a partisan. And that's a darn hard thing to do, but you accomplished it. This is a bad bill; it should be defeated. We should go back and do a bipartisan bill like we worked in the first place. I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Fudge).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gallego).