Collin Peterson

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), chairman of the committee.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, I rise to support this repeal. Mr. Chair, I just want to caution people that I am worried about us getting this through the Senate. I spent a lot of time trying to work this thing before, had a number of meetings with Gina McCarthy. The underlying problem with this is that we have four different agencies that have jurisdiction over what a wetland is. We passed in 1985 the wetland, the swampbuster bill in the farm bill. We still, to this day, cannot define what a wetland is. And what I am worried about when they do this new regulation, which they are probably going to have to do to replace the old one, they are not going to be able to come up with a definition because we haven't been able to do it in 20-some years.

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

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish my friends on the Ways and Means Committee would actually do something about the illegal subsidization that is going on in the sugar industry in the world instead of coming here and complaining about a program that actually works. I have the biggest sugar district in the country. The people who grow sugar in my district are small farmers. They use their own money to build the plant. It is probably 25 percent of the economy in the north part of my district. All this amendment would do is give these jobs and this market away to other countries that are subsidizing their people more than we are in the United States. And they are working these plants with child labor, slave labor, in these other places. Is that what you want to do? Give away our jobs to places where there are no environmental regulations? You go down to Brazil. They are making sugar out of sugarcane. They are burning it with gas. It goes right into the atmosphere. There is no EPA. There are no regulations whatsoever. They are putting this vinasse, which is like oil, right into the river. And we are going to get rid of an industry in the United States that is doing a good job? It is the lowest cost producer in the world, and we are going to give it up because other people are cheating? Now, people say that this thing costs money. It only cost money 1 year, and the reason is because the Mexicans dumped in our market and our government didn't do anything about it. When we finally got the suspension agreement in place, then we were able to get this thing stabilized. So this is an amendment that is not needed. This is a program that works. The reason we have this program is to protect ourselves from all these other countries that are subsidizing their industries more than we are in the United States. We are the lowest cost producer in my district. We are the lowest cost producer of anyplace in the world. We can compete, but we can't compete against governments that are dumping money in and not following environmental regulations and not following child labor laws. We can't compete against that. So please vote down this amendment. It is something that is not necessary and is not needed.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, this is common sense, and I support this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I oppose this amendment. I was here in 1996 when we tried something similar to this. It wasn't as extreme, but it was supposed to save us a little bit of money. Does the gentleman remember? It ended up costing us five times more than what we saved because it didn't work. This is a fantasy that is out there for some people. People have no clue how much it costs to farm nowadays, what kind of risks you take in farming. And if you want to make sure that we have a few people farm this whole country, this is the way to do it, because, without crop insurance, without these other backstops, young people and ordinary people will not be able to farm. The people who will farm are people with deep pockets, and that is not what we want in this country. I oppose this amendment.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I don't oppose the amendment.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have been to Alaska with Mr. Young a number of times and know the culture up there and what is going on. This is a good amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense for Alaska, and I support it. So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran), a member of the committee.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who is the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

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

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I just remind the gentleman that the nutrition program is permanently authorized. It doesn't even need to be in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the leader of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time we have on our side.

Mr. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018. H.R. 2 is not a work product that I am proud of because it is not one that I or my Democratic colleagues had much of a role in producing. More than that though, I am opposed to H.R. 2 today because it is simply not good enough for American farmers, consumers, or rural advocates. H.R. 2 fails our farmers. The bill does not improve the safety-net programs farmers need to manage a troubled farm economy. It fails to make needed increases to reference prices under the PLC program to address the 52 percent drop in national farm income. It neglects repeated requests to increase funding for trade promotion to help strengthen overseas markets in response to this administration's actions on trade and renewable fuels. H.R. 2 fails our Nation's hungry. While I agree that there are changes that need to be made in the SNAP program, this is so clearly not the way to do it. The bill cuts more than $23 billion in SNAP benefits and will result in an estimated 2 million Americans being unable to get help that they need. Within the nutrition title, the bill turns around and wastes billions that the majority cut from SNAP benefits to create a massive, untested workforce training bureaucracy. H.R. 2 fails our conservation goals by reducing the Federal funding for our voluntary conservation programs by almost $800 million. It fails our next generation. It lacks mandatory funding for scholarships at 1890 land grants. It underfunds our programs for beginning farmers, and outreach to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. H.R. 2, also fails our energy independence goals. Aside from eliminating the entire energy title, the bill hobbles renewable energy and energy efficiency efforts in rural communities by eliminating funding for the Rural Energy for America Program. H.R. 2 fails the farmers, rural advocates, and consumers that we are here to represent on all of these fronts. But what is so incredibly frustrating for me is, the failure of this process. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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