Collin Peterson

Mr. PETERSON

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

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester), a member of the committee.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), a member of the committee.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta), a member of the committee.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans), a member of the committee.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto), a member of the committee.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lawson), a member of the committee.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I thank everybody who was involved in this, the committee members and their staff. It was a bumpy road, but we figured out how to get through it and came to a bipartisan conclusion. That is the important thing. This is a good bill for my district. I think it is a good bill for agriculture, in general, around the country, and it is a good bill for America. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. I have to say, in my 28 years in this body, I have never seen so much nonsense, misinformation, and propaganda put out on a bill as is being put out on this one. We followed the Endangered Species Act. We did what was said. The scientists said that we have recovered, and they delisted the wolves. These were scientists who did it; it wasn't any politician. The politics on this, you had a group out there, these extreme environmentalists and others who have captured our party, that went to a judge in Washington, D.C., who has no idea what is going on at all, and convinced that judge that the wolves had not recovered because they had not been reestablished all the way to Des Moines, Iowa. Do you want some wolves in Des Moines, Iowa? I don't think so. There were never any wolves in Des Moines, Iowa, in the first place. So we followed the law. The Fish and Wildlife Service is on our side. They delisted these wolves. The DNR in Minnesota was managing the wolves and doing a good job before the court intervened politically. I don't agree with the DNR. I have very seldom got along with the DNR in Minnesota. This is one time where they were doing the right thing. They did a good job, and the court stopped them. It was politics; it wasn't science. So this nonsense that somehow or another that we are politically doing this is not true. We have more wolves in my district than any other district in the United States. We have twice as many wolves as was required to get the wolves delisted. But that wasn't good enough. So I say to all you folks who think this is such a great idea: We have a lot of extra wolves. We will send them to your district. We will let them eat some of your fancy little dogs and see how long that will go before your constituents demand that you do something about it. My neighbor has had four of his cattle killed in the last 2 years. They killed his German shepherd dog and ripped it apart. Are you telling me that this is not a problem? When we had the population under control, we didn't have these kinds of problems. So this idea that somehow or another you are on the righteous side of science and all that stuff is complete nonsense. I will have the gentleman come up to my district, and he can see what is going on. So we followed the law. We have the Federal agencies that are responsible for this that are on our side. It wasn't us who screwed this up; it was that court in D.C., and that judge has no clue about what is going on. Mr. Speaker, I tell Members to support this bill.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize my colleague and friend, Leonard Boswell. Leonard and I served together as members of the Agriculture Committee throughout his time in Washington, and he served as Subcommittee Chair for Livestock and Foreign Agriculture. We worked together through good times and bad, and I always respected his upfront and straightforward approach to his work. Leonard was about getting stuff done, which is what I liked so much about him. He was relentlessly bipartisan and always looking for a middle ground. He had a gruff exterior--and if you were on the wrong side of an issue, he'd let you know--but beneath it all was a person who understood and deeply cared not only about the issues, but even more about the people he represented. Leonard fought for those people as passionately as anyone I've ever worked with. He is a man who answered the call to serve in every aspect of his life. After college, he was drafted into the Army where he earned an officer's commission and flew hundreds of missions as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam. When that service ended, he served his southern Iowa community in the state Senate for more than a decade. Always one to keep pushing, Leonard went on to serve Iowa's Third District for 16 years in Washington. He left in 2013, but at almost 79, he still wasn't done. Then-governor Terry Branstad appointed him to serve on the Iowa Transportation Commission. He also served on the commission for the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial, which will open next spring. Leonard's was a life lived for others--for his wife Dody, for his family, for his community and state, and for farmers across this country. One of my fondest memories of Leonard was deer hunting with muzzleloaders in Centerville, Iowa in the rain. We missed the deer but had a great time and it was the beginning of a great friendship. There were so many things that made Leonard a great public servant, and there were many more that made Leonard and I friends, and I will miss dearly what he brought to this body.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a group of four adults and eight students from Hutchinson, Minnesota, who traveled to Haiti and volunteered a week of their time to build and upgrade a new church office and teach kids at an Orphanage through a missionary program through Peace Lutheran Church. These men and women rolled up their sleeves to help as much as possible at Good Shepherd Orphanage. The first day at the Orphanage they worked with kids on arts and crafts projects and helped the local pastor with construction on his new office in the church. After a week of work, the group was scheduled to fly back to Minnesota. However, civil unrest in Port-au-Prince forced the State Department to issue a shelter-in-place warning to Americans staying near the capital. The Orphanage was very helpful in making sure they had enough food and water for the additional three days they stayed. At the Orphanage, the group felt safe as rock blockades and fires prevented their movement. While civil unrest continued to paralyze Port-au-Prince, my office stayed in close contact with the Hutchinson church group. Over the three days, they experienced more of Haitian culture and spent extra time working with the kids. Once most of the road blockades were secure and local authorities deemed it safe to move, the group was escorted to the airport and boarded a flight home. I am thankful for the aptly- named Good Shepherd Orphanage who provided shelter, food, and water to a group of Minnesotans who needed it unexpectedly. I look forward to meeting with the Hutchinson church group to learn more about their incredible experiences in Haiti.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct conferees at the desk.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of anxiety out in the countryside because of trade, because of RFS, because of low prices, and because of weather in my area. What we are trying to do here is avoid another potential problem, and that is what can happen with an animal disease outbreak in this country. In Minnesota, we suffered the biggest animal disease outbreak we have ever seen in this country when we got avian influenza in our turkey flock. It was devastating. The producers lost $113 million. We lost $3 billion in the country, and we saw the effect of not being prepared. This isn't just a poultry problem. This also relates to foot-and- mouth disease, to PEDv, to cattle fever tick that Congressman Vela has informed me about, and to other diseases that present a serious threat for the viability of the livestock operations in the communities and supply chains across the country that depend on them. In the House bill, we have a provision for $450 million of permanent funding over 5 years for programs, including the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, the National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program, and the National Animal Vaccine Bank. The Senate provides an authorization for appropriations, but there is no permanent funding in the Senate bill. While the appropriations committees deserve credit because they have put some funding into these programs over the years, the problem is that APHIS and the people who deal with this at the State level can't depend on it because you never know what it is going to be from year to year because the appropriators are the ones who have to decide. We want to make this permanent, and we are hoping that the Senate will accede to our ideas. Animal disease programs are important investments in the health of our Nation's animals, our people, and the security of our food supply. As part of their work on the farm bill, conferees should insist on 10- year mandatory funding for animal disease preparedness and response programs to provide the certainty for both the farmers, for the consumers, and for the people who deal with this at the regulatory level. Mr. Speaker, I include my full statement in the Record. The mood in farm country is bad. It's bad because of the Administration's trade war; it's bad because of declines in farm income; and it's bad because of volatile weather like the floods in the southern part of my district. Farmers and ranchers are staring a historically bad year in the face, and another hit would mean devastation for many of them. And that's exactly what an animal disease outbreak would cause. Minnesota is the nation's largest producer of turkeys. Following an outbreak of avian influenza in 2013 and 2014, it is estimated that poultry producers in my state lost $113 million in existing production, approximately $3 billion nationally, and it cost taxpayers almost $1 billion. Hungry consumers are affected too. The price of a dozen eggs in 2015 was double what it was before the outbreak. This isn't just a poultry problem. Foot and Mouth Disease, PEDv, Cattle Fever Tick and other diseases present a serious threat to the viability of livestock operations and the communities and supply chains across the country that depend on them. Outbreaks mean culling animals and suspending production, and because fewer animals come into processing facilities, layoffs in local communities. Disease outbreaks also impact farmers who grow feed. One study estimates that a future outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease could cost corn growers $44 billion and soybean growers nearly $25 billion. And there's a national security aspect to animal disease preparedness. The bipartisan Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense found that our current commitment to animal disease outbreaks leaves us vulnerable to attack on our food supply. If we are serious about addressing these outbreaks, we must invest in preparation and response tools to tackle these diseases early. That level of effort is impossible without long-term funding certainty. Currently, the House bill provides $450 million in mandatory funding over five years for programs including the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, the National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program, and the National Animal Vaccine Bank. The Senate provides an authorization for appropriations, but no mandatory funding. While the Appropriations Committees deserve credit for providing some funding for these programs in their bills, animal health is not a short-term issue or an issue we should short change. APHIS, state officials, and producers need to know that adequate funding for these programs is going to be available for their work to pay off. Animal disease programs are important investments in the health of our nation's animals, our people, and the security of our food supply. As part of their work on the farm bill, conferees should insist on ten- year, mandatory funding for Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Programs to provide the certainty that both farmers and consumers need. I am submitting for the Record a letter in support of these provisions from the Animal Agriculture Coalition, which represents livestock producers and animal health professionals nationwide. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment that the House failed to consider H.R. 4079, the RESTORE Act of 2017, both this and last week. Further, Republican Leadership refused to allow debate or a vote on my bipartisan amendment to attach the legislation to H.R. 6, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. Two years ago, the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2015 passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate and was signed into law. Members were led to believe that the measure was non-controversial and would help patients secure pain medications. Instead, a joint investigation by ``60 Minutes'' and the Washington Post appears to confirm that the legislation has limited the DEA's ability to suspend a pharmaceutical distributor's license and shipments if they pose an imminent danger to public health and safety. The RESTORE Act of 2017 would fully repeal the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2015 and restore the DEA's authority to carry out needed enforcement actions to combat the opioid epidemic. Although many of the bills recently passed by the House were bipartisan and took incremental steps toward addressing substance abuse, they did not equip the DEA with the authority that it needs to keep our communities safe and healthy. I urge Republican Leadership to reconsider this issue and allow the Restore Act of 2017 to be brought to the floor as soon as possible.

Mr. PETERSON

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

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. You are 840 times more likely to get a disease or have a problem by drinking unpasteurized milk. And 60 percent of the people who are impacted by this are kids under 20 years old who have not bought the milk; their parents bought it. This is not something we should be doing. All of the folks who are involved in this, veterinarians, the CDC, FDA, all of them oppose this. The International Dairy Foods Association and the National Milk Producers, who don't always agree with each other, both oppose this because they are concerned that, if something happens and people say it is milk, they are not going to know the difference between raw milk or pasteurized milk or whatever it is. This is not a good situation for maintaining our markets in the dairy product area. Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chair, this is maybe not a bad idea, but I just want to point out that the Secretary can already do this. I don't know exactly why we are doing this, but I guess that is a decision between the authors and the Secretary. They can already do it. The thing that I am little bit concerned about is that this might help a little bit with beginning farmers, but, frankly, we are not doing enough in the underlying bill to put the money in there that would actually do some good for beginning farmers and ranchers. That would be more important than naming a coordinator if we don't have enough money to do what we want to do. I am not going to oppose the amendment, but I just want to point out that this is good intentions, but this is something that could be done anyway. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chair, I have no further speakers or discussion, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, I am going to claim the time in opposition so that I can support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not sure I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to raise some issues. We have got problems in a number of different areas, not just with black vultures, caused by the Migratory Bird Treaty with Mexico and Canada that we signed in 1973. Apparently, black birds are sacred in Mexico. Because of that, we are in this situation. That is why you need this bill. It eliminated crow hunting for a while, until we were able to define it in the States. It says in the treaty that if they are about to do damage, then you can take them. So, in Minnesota, we passed a law that says that crows are always about to do damage so that we could have a season. I have still got a big problem with cormorants. We can get depredation permits for cormorants, but it is not adequate. We had a hunting season that we got through here. We got the Fish and Wildlife Service to supposedly do this, and then they screwed it up. So we have got cormorants out there eating fish in my neck of the woods and other places causing a big problem. I have got wolves, which is a little bit different situation, but that is the Endangered Species Act, in which it was claimed there was no problem with. Well, I can tell you, there is a problem with the Endangered Species Act in terms of wolves. We need to fix that. Four different times I have been promised to get that fixed, and we haven't been able to do it. I am frustrated with this whole process. I am going to support your amendment, but I would like to get some further clarity on cormorants and timber wolves, if we could. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.