Collin Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize the gentlelady from South Dakota, a great member of our committee, Ms. Herseth Sandlin, for 1 minute.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentlelady from California.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes on this amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Yes.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I want to thank Ms. Kaptur for bringing up this issue. As chairman of the Agriculture Committee and representative of the largest turkey-producing industry in the United States, I share your concern and interest in making sure that we are not putting poultry farmers at a disadvantage. We have worked hard on the committee to have an open process, and earlier this year the Subcommittee on Livestock held a hearing on issues similar to this one. Now as we continue to move forward in the farm bill process, we will keep this issue in mind and look forward to working with the gentlewoman to address her concerns in the conference committee. Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, who has one of the amendments included in the en bloc amendment.

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

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I recognize the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I was explaining that these en bloc amendments have been agreed to between yourself and myself and the members of the committee and we recommend their adoption.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, this amendment includes a number of amendments that have been worked out with the minority, and they are amendments that we were not able to get into the manager's amendment, so I would yield to the ranking member for his take on these amendments.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I want to assure the gentlewoman from California I agree with her on the point and appreciate her intention in raising this issue. And I want to assure the gentlewoman that, as the bill moves forward, we will be mindful of this issue and work with her and her staff to accommodate this provision.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for 1 minute.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda), one of our new members of the committee, a great Member of the House, for 1 minute.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize my good friend, the distinguished member from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for 1 minute.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I recognize myself for 1 minute. This so-called reform bill, we just got the CBO score. First of all, it changes the payment limits based on the 2002 bill. So, the effect of this bill is to have no limitation on payments at all, number one. We are writing a 10-year baseline, not a 5-year bill. This bill cuts conservation 37\1/2\ percent below our baseline over 10 years. It actually takes less out of crop insurance by 13.5 percent compared to our bill over 10 years. And this is what happens when people aren't on the Agriculture Committee and get involved in this very complex area. If this is a reform bill, if this is freedom to farm, we would have a heck of a mess in farm country. So we just got this score. We wish we could have got this out earlier. We got it about 2 hours ago, and I just want people to know what this bill actually does. It does not do what some people have been saying. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I recognize Chairman Etheridge for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), a great member of our committee.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), another of our great subcommittee chairmen, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel from New York. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, today we have a bill before us that is known as the farm bill, but this bill is much more than about farms. It is about the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and, increasingly, the fuel that we will use. The farm bill assures that we will have a safe, strong food supply now and for years to come. It funds nutrition programs and ensures that working families have enough to eat. It provides conservation programs to protect the environment. It funds rural development programs in support of our rural communities nationwide. You can see that this farm bill is certainly about more than just farms. In addition to these important priorities, this farm bill also provides the safety net that allows our Nation's farmers and ranchers to continue to provide the food, fiber, and fuel that meet the needs of Americans and people around the world. America is still the world's breadbasket, and that is something we should be proud of. Over the past year, my colleagues and I have traveled across the country from New York to Alabama, to my neck of the woods in Minnesota, and all the way to California. We heard from folks who are out there every day working the land, producing a diverse range of agriculture products. The farm bill is a product of agreements that we have reached by consulting everyone interested in this process. In addition to hearings across the country, we have worked with nutrition advocates, conservation and environmental organizations, renewable energy groups, and representatives from all parts of the fruit and vegetable industry, in addition to the farm groups traditionally involved in the farm bill. At the end of that process, we now have more than 100 organizations representing conservation, nutrition, rural development, renewable energy, labor and farm groups that have signed on in support of this bill. I think that this unprecedented support is a direct result of our efforts to be inclusive in this farm bill process. There are very few issues that the National Farmers Union and the American Farm Bureau Federation can agree on, but at the end of the day, they both support this bill. The members of these groups who support our farm bill are the real experts on farm policy because it is a reality that they live each day of their lives. They are the ones on the land planting the crops, managing the livestock and taking the risk inherent in the industry of farming. They are the ones who represent the people using the farm bill's nutrition programs. They are the ones working to implement good conservation practices in the communities across this country. If they support our bill, then I know that we're doing the right thing. This farm bill also includes significant reforms. Of course, some people think we went too far. Others think we didn't go far enough. But everybody seems to agree that they never thought that we could get an agreement that went as far as it has. That is what this farm bill is about. We got the different groups into the room and produced an agreement that everyone feels like they've been part of the process, even if they didn't get exactly what they wanted. This bill does make significant changes, including a hard cap on subsidies for the first time ever. We've taken the $2.5 million adjusted gross income cap down to $500,000. And we have put a hard cap on of $1 million so that anybody over $1 million of adjusted gross income will not receive farm payments after this bill passes. We have also cut the soft cap that I mentioned on adjusted gross income to $500,000. We also, in this bill, required direct attribution for the first time of farm program payments so that people won't be able to get around the payment limits by receiving payments through different business entities. These are not insignificant by any means, and these changes will affect thousands of farmers nationwide. In the area of conservation, too, we have made significant changes as well as new investments. One thing we've done, we have included the same kind of payment limits on conservation programs that we have had for farm programs. That way, there's more money available to more farmers to participate in these popular programs. The bill also includes $3.8 billion in new spending for conservation programs over the next 5 years. These programs help farmers protect the environment with programs that reduce erosion, enhance water supply, improve water quality, increase wildlife habitat, and reduce damage caused by floods and other natural disasters. This farm bill provides new resources to protect and preserve the Chesapeake Bay and other high-priority areas, and it encourages private land owners to provide public access for hunting, fishing and other recreational activities. In the area of renewable energy, this farm bill invests in programs that will help encourage the development of cellulosic ethanol in this country. In my opinion, this represents the future for American agriculture. Once we can establish the first facilities that can make ethanol from agricultural waste and other biomass products, we will take a huge step in a new direction for agriculture and for rural America. Many of the best feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol will also provide benefits for wildlife and for the environment. Renewable fuels have brought new investment and new jobs for rural America, and this is one of the most exciting things that's happened in my life and in American agriculture. We have also proposed increases in the farm bill's nutrition title. This has been a source of some controversy this week, but not because people disagree with the idea that we should be increasing these benefits which have been stagnant for many years and making sure that benefits keep pace with inflation, Instead, the controversy has involved the proposal that the Ways and Means Committee has proposed to offset the cost of these changes. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize that there is a difference between closing a loophole in current tax law and increasing taxes. This proposal won't raise taxes, but it will hold some foreign companies who should be paying taxes accountable for what they owe. The Agriculture Committee agreed, on a bipartisan basis, that these changes in the nutrition program were important to help working Americans access these nutrition programs, and we have found a reasonable, fiscally responsible way to do this. Another area where this farm bill makes great strides is in funding for programs that strengthen the fruit and vegetable industry. We have worked with this industry and have included $1.5 billion in new mandatory money for them in this farm bill. That's the first time that we've done this. The Specialty Crop Alliance, United Fresh, and many other fruit and vegetable groups strongly support this bill as passed by the Agriculture Committee. We also worked with several caucuses in crafting this bill, including the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Native American Caucus. With the Congressional Black Caucus, we have worked to address important issues, including a program in the manager's amendment that will help black farmers who did not get their day in court due to inadequate notice and an arbitrary deadline established after the Pigford case was settled. This provision will allow farmers who filed their claims after the national deadline to have their cases heard. We have also included other provisions to make USDA programs more accessible to minority, socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers and ranchers. This includes provisions to expand access to land, credit, conservation and rural development programs. One of the most important compromises reached in this farm bill was an agreement to finally, after a long delay, implement mandatory country of origin labeling. We put both sides in the room; we told them to come out with a compromise, and they delivered. As a result, with this farm bill, consumers in this country will finally be able to tell where their fruit and vegetables and meat products in their grocery stores are coming from, and we think it's about time. We accomplished all of this under an open process where everyone was included. All members of our committee were engaged in this process, and I'm proud to say that some of our newest freshman Members, including colleagues that have been there for years, really brought a lot of constructive ideas and a spirit of bipartisan cooperation to the table and helped us come up with a bill that we are all very proud of. There is something in this bill for everybody to like. There's probably something in this bill for everybody not to like. But it's a step in the right direction and has broad support, as I said, from many organizations. And I encourage my colleagues to support this farm bill which supports all of us with food, fiber and fuel. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) we have enjoyed working with you and your Members, but I don't agree with you. I don't believe there is a tax increase in this bill. I have looked at it. I am a CPA, and I think you can say it either way, but I don't believe it is a tax increase. The $60 billion did come out of baseline not because anybody cut it, but because the program worked the way it is supposed to. Prices are up and spending went down. We are missing the money, but it wasn't because anybody cut it. We have a good bill, and I encourage all Members to support it.

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

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), one of our great committee members and a great friend of mine.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield for purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), the subcommittee chairman of the Subcommittee of Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, one of our outstanding Members, who has done a great job. (Mr. CARDOZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2419.