Collin Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, during roll call vote No. 52 on H. Con. Res. 24, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry and a representative from northwestern Minnesota, I have been acutely aware of the downturn in many sectors of the farm economy. In particular, the U.S. livestock industry has been hard-hit with sustained low prices. Beef and lamb markets have been depressed for several years and, more recently, historically low prices have plagued the pork market. The economic explanation for low prices is a complicated mix of supply, demand and other factors such as trade. Legislative proposals have been pursued in an effort to return viability to the industry. However, I believe that we must be cautious in our approach. Whatever legislative actions are taken should not impede or wrongly dampen one aspect of the industry to benefit another. We need to ensure that we move carefully toward the combined goal of a stable and viable livestock industry. To this end, I believe that H.R. 169 is a prudent use of our authority. Building on last fall's effort to initiate a pilot study of comprehensive mandatory price reporting for beef and lamb, the bill simply seeks to add pork to that study. One of the unknown factors in the low price story is the impact of price information. It is unclear whether or not a full and open price reporting system operated through the Federal Government would allow producers to operate more effectively to market their products. A complete study of the impacts of price reporting with a quick turnaround on the results would help direct any future action in this area. Obviously, the passage of this bill and the resulting study will not cure the ills that are facing the livestock industry at this time. But it is a small piece that can answer an important question: Can greater price information aid livestock producers? The information obtained from the study should help us proceed in a logical and effective manner. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues join me in support of our livestock producers and support H.R. 169. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I also rise to oppose all four articles of impeachment. From the outset, I believed that any action the Congress chose to take to punish the President had to be bipartisan. If Republicans and Democrats could put the best interests of the country ahead of their personal political viewpoints, we could solve this problem honorably and get on with the nation's business. We had the opportunity, but we didn't take advantage of it. I've been one of the people working for a bipartisan solution, trying to build consensus for a fitting punishment, but this process has degenerated into a purely partisan battle. In some ways, this process has been unfair from the outset. No other President in American history has been continuously investigated by a Special Prosecutor throughout his terms of office. The President's enemies have misused this process to undo the decision that the American people made in two elections. The office of the Special Prosecutor was not established to settle political differences, but that is how it has been used in this case, and it sets a very bad precedent for the future. When I joined with 30 other Democrats to support the Republicans' outline for inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee, I did so because I thought Chairman Henry Hyde would conduct a thoughtful and honest examination of the facts, with testimony from witnesses, and a chance for cross-examination--but he chose not to take that course, and I have been profoundly disappointed by what he did do. Instead of conducting an investigation in the cooperative, bipartisan tradition of the Watergate hearings, the Chairman directed hearings that were unfocused, largely without any substantive examination of the facts or witnesses, and designed to deliver a pre-ordained outcome. When the Watergate-era Judiciary Committee considered the evidence against President Nixon, it was clear that he had submitted false tax returns, and broken the law by doing so. Nonetheless, Republicans and Democrats on the Committee voted 12 to 26 against bringing Articles of Impeachment based on this charge. They determined, together that this did not rise to the constitutional level of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' While I am deeply disappointed with the President's personal behavior, in my view these charges do not rise to the constitutional standard of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' The process conducted by the current House Judiciary Committee has been politically driven from the outset, and in the end, the course they decided to pursue will not serve the country. For their own political purposes, they have decided to lower the constitutional standard so that it can be used as a weapon in a political disagreement. The obvious course of action--supported by both Republicans and Democrats--is that of censure. The President should be censured, fined and be subject to prosecution when he is out of office. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership refused to allow the House-- Republicans and Democrats--to debate and vote on this option. Instead of allowing an honest vote of conscience, on a rational middle ground solution, they decided to say to all of us, ``our way or no way.'' There was no room for discussion, and no effort to work with conservative Democrats like myself. Furthermore, it is clear that the Senate will not vote to remove the President from office. From a practical standpoint, it serves no useful purpose to put the country through more weeks and months, and maybe even years, of this process. The smudge on this President's place in history is already established. What we are about to do will spread that same smudge to all of us, and it will not serve the country. In the end, by choosing to pursue impeachment, the Republicans may actually let the President off the hook all together. By pursuing impeachment even though the Senate will not convict or remove the President from office, and disdaining any effort to censure and fine him, he may escape without paying any substantive price for his actions. I do not believe it is legitimate to settle political differences by using the constitutional process designed to protect our country from crimes that endanger the existence of this nation. In truth, none of the President's reprehensible behavior threatens the nation, or our individual freedom and liberty. We're setting a very dangerous precedent for the future, and I shudder to think how this will come back to haunt us. I know that this has been a very difficult process to listen to and raises unpleasant issues for the people I represent in Minnesota's 7th District. I know that they will not all agree with me this day, but having listened to their collective counsel, I believe that most of them would do as I will do--support a resolution of censure, but vote no on this tragic and obsessive effort to impeach the President.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. This is a closed rule that is not going to allow any amendments or improvements to this process that could have, in my opinion, increased support for this bill. Yesterday, I presented an amendment before the Committee on Rules that would have made this a better situation, but because of this rule, it will not be considered. Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I drafted would provide tremendous benefits for our Nation's farmers in future trade negotiations by moving the Committee on Agriculture and agriculture to the table in our international trade agreements. The Committee on Agriculture in the House and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in the Senate would be given enhanced authority and jurisdiction for agricultural trade. The amendment would allow these agriculture committees the opportunity to approve further fast track authority or to disallow further authority if the process or consultation are flawed or weak. At this time, these committees have no authority to stop or continue the process. In fact, until a recent agreement with the Committee on Ways and Means was reached, there was not even language allowing the Committee on Agriculture to be consulted. The U.S. is a major player in the world market. In fact international trade is absolutely critical to the future success of our farmers. However, those of us from farm country, and those of us who have set out to protect American agriculture on the committee, have no methods to safeguard farmers' interests during the trade talks. In the last couple of trade agreements, in the GATT agreement, we gave access to the multinationals in banking and insurance and a lot of those kinds of issues. In exchange, we let the European farmers keep subsidies that are more than my people get from their entire crop. In the NAFTA agreement that we agreed to, we opened up the borders. But in the case of their supply management systems in dairy and poultry and eggs, we allowed them to keep their system and we cannot export dairy into their country. That is the kind of problems that those of us in agriculture are concerned about. I believe that the fast track mechanism is outdated and a flawed tool that cannot adequately protect our farmers. The fast track authority that was originally granted was used for the Tokyo Round. This was the entire Tokyo Round. It is 50 pages. Then we had the NAFTA. This is one-third of the NAFTA agreement. We changed all kinds of United States laws through this process. This is the GATT agreement. This is one sixth of the GATT agreement. I submit that we have to have another process where we can bring more people in, especially in the agriculture area, so that we can have a look at these laws that are changed in our jurisdiction, that we can make sure that these agreements are going to protect our farmers, and that we are going to come back with agreements that are going to be good for American agriculture and, therefore, good for the country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and defeat this fast track vote.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), I sympathize with a lot of what he is saying. But I would like to point out again that we do not have a budget at this point, and that is frankly one of the problems. Mr. Speaker, I come from an area, and I just spent last weekend out talking to farmers again, where they are telling me up in the north part of my district that 70 percent of the producers are not going to be able to get money to get in the field next year. We are in an absolute crisis situation. I think all of us would like to pay for all of these additional appropriations, and I hope that we could find some way to pay for this. But my concern is that we might get into a situation where we cannot find the money and then nothing happens. We have an absolute desperate situation because of things beyond our control, because of disease problems, to some extent because of weather problems, but mostly disease problems. We need some kind of an immediate response. Should have been one 2 years ago. Mr. Speaker, while the rest of the country has been experiencing pretty good crops in most of the areas, and the prices have been a lot better than they are now, we were experiencing a situation where we did not have anything to sell. During the time when the prices for wheat and corn were considerably higher than they are now back in 1996, we did not have a crop because it was wiped out by scab and Vomitoxin and floods. So now this year we have a fairly decent crop in some of the areas, but it is not worth anything. What has happened is the farmers have lost their equity. Next year, the situation does not cash flow because of the prices that we got. We need some kind of response if we are going to keep these folks in business. Mr. Speaker, if this is not an emergency, I do not know what is. I think that I am going to support this motion because it is a step in the right direction, but I do not think it is enough money to deal with the problem. I think that we need to look at solutions such as the administration is working on right now, as I understand it. They are looking at a proposal where if farmers had a crop insurance loss 3 years out of 5, that they would pay 25 percent of the crop insurance that farmers receive during that time as a direct payment. That would be a step in the right direction. I also would encourage the Members in this body and the administration to look at a proposal that has been put forward by some folks in our area where we could set up a land diversion program where we would turn this land black for 3 years and try to get this disease out of the system. That would be something that would be very helpful to us. Again, there would be some cost to that proposal. But, again to reemphasize, we have gone through a situation where we have some farmers that have not had a crop for 5 or 6 years, have not had a thing to sell, and have eaten up their equity. If we are going to keep the fabric of that part of the country together, we have to have some kind of a response. Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues to support us in coming up with something yet before we adjourn this session, so that we can go back to those people with some kind of hope that they can farm next year.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this bill and commend the chairman and the ranking member and others for bringing this forward. But I want to bring a little bit different perspective to the situation. I fully understand that those areas of the country where they are now experiencing a disaster, whether it be drought or other things, this will be a big help because it will move up the cash flow situation and put them in a little better shape. However, in our part of the world, in northwestern Minnesota and North Dakota, we have had a disaster for 4 or 5 or 6 years, depending on the individual farmers, where this disease problem that we had, primarily scab, has caused us to lose crops 4 or 5 or 6 years in a row, and I am not so sure for those people that are in that situation whether this is going to make a whole lot of a difference to them just because of the situation that they are in. So I am here today supporting this. This will help people that have gotten into this situation recently. It will help farmers that are experiencing the problem with low commodity prices and the resultant cash flow problems. But we need in our part of the world, and the chairman knows this, we need in addition some help with making crop insurance, making it whole for that period of time where it was not covering people, trying to get the CRP program changed so that those people that have experienced these losses for 4 or 5 years can potentially get that land into CRP. One of the things that people need to understand, we have got this scab disease that lives in the soil and in the residue. One of the reasons we have got this problem, in my opinion, is because we have given up mould board plowing and we have been using no-tail which allows this stuff to live even longer and better, and if we could put this land into CRP, get it out of production, get it out of wheat production for a while, we might be able to do some good in this area.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the bill.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I said manufacturing milk that goes into cheese and powder and manufacturing purposes. One of the reasons that we have a problem with the compact and why we are into this 1-A, 1-B debate is that in Minnesota, 86 percent of our milk goes into manufacturing. Only 14 percent goes into fluid. A compact does not help us. We do not have enough fluid milk to make any difference in material effect for our farmers. The Northeast Compact, if you took Boston out of the Northeast Compact, it would not work. The only reason it works is you have jacked up the price in Boston where you have a big market, and you are shipping the money out to Vermont. And it works because you have got a way that you can artificially set this price. The only thing that I am saying about this, what we are concerned about is, if you artificially jack up the price of fluid milk over and above the class 1 differentials, which you are doing with these compacts, what you are going to do is you are going to invariably create more milk that is going to have to go into manufacturing. What that does in the end is, it reduces the prices in Minnesota and in Wisconsin. That is why we are concerned about this. If you would keep all of your milk up there in the Northeast and if you would not impact the rest of our market, we would not care what you did. The problem is that you are right now taking comments in the Northeast to figure out how to get that extra milk that would go into manufacturing, that is lowering your manufacturing prices into other parts of the country, and that is why we have a concern about it. I just wanted Members to understand that to have a debate about fluid milk misses the whole point. The problem in this country is the way we price manufacturing milk. We have not had a debate about that up to this point.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak, but I just think it needs to be pointed out that a lot of this debate is centered on something that really is not at the heart of the problem. Everything we are talking about here today basically has to do with fluid milk. Fluid milk is only 40 percent of the milk that is produced and consumed in this country. So this debate really does not get at the heart of the problem that we have with dairy. I think it just needs to be pointed out. Up in the Northeast where they have the compact, as I understand it, 60 percent of the milk up there goes into fluid and 40 percent goes into manufacturing. And I further understand that they are right now taking comments up in the Northeast Compact to talk about exporting their excess milk that has been created by this compact because it is hurting the premiums that they are getting for their manufactured milk. That points out the whole fallacy of this whole situation, where we are trying to somehow or another legislate dairy policy by impacting fluid milk. I think the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) made a good point when he said that we cannot really repeal economics.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. That is correct. The point I was making is any individual can only give under current law, and Shays-Meehan does not touch that. And we also have a limit that any individual can only give $25,000 to 435 people. He can only give to $25,000, if he gives them the limit.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Tax Code Termination Act. I have been in favor of scrapping this code and starting over for a long time. I am one of the few Members of this body that is a certified public accountant that has actually done tax returns for a living and have lived with this code for a long time. This Congress, under both parties, has contributed to this problem. The people on my side of the aisle might have a good point. I say to them that if they do not like this method of trying to get at this problem, then put something else forward. I think it makes sense for us to come up with a date certain. We did that when we balanced the budget and it helped us focus our attention. We have a date certain on when we are going to overhaul this Tax Code. I think it helps us. But, as I have said, I have been for reforming this system ever since 1986 when, under the guise of tax simplification, we passed a bill which I think was arguably the worst piece of legislation that has ever been passed in this Congress. We made it worse in 1990, and we made it worse last year when they passed the 1997 tax act to the point where my partner, who is still doing tax returns, told me this weekend that this is so complicated that he does not think he can any longer do a tax return by hand. The only way he can do a tax return is if he has a computer to be able to make all these computations and go back and forth. Mr. Speaker, this code has gotten completely out of hand. It needs to be simplified. It is not happening under the current process. I am not sure this is the best process in the world but it is the only thing we have in front of us today. I am in favor of overhauling the code. I think the way we do that is we start from scratch, with a clean slate, and then try to build up something that is simpler and makes more sense. I support this bill and encourage everybody's support.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this statement is to demonstrate the clear legislative intent for federal funding to ``Reconstruct SE Main Avenue and Related Improvements, completing 34th St. Corridor Project, Moorhead, Minnesota'' contained in H.R. 2400, The Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1998 or ``BESTEA.'' The intent of this federal allocation is based upon an agreement reached between the City of Moorhead Township. To clarify the legislative intent of the current federal allocation to the City of Moorhead, Minnesota under H.R. 2400 as understood and agreed to by both the City of Moorhead, and Moorhead Township, the following description applies: First, no railroad relocation can take place under this project regardless of the source of funding for that relocation unless the Moorhead Township agrees with the City of Moorhead on all aspects of the railroad relocation. Second, $250,000 of this funding will be used to study the interchange and rail relocation alternatives and will be conducted jointly and with a coequal status between the City of Moorhead and Moorhead Township: These funds shall be made available for a local commission called The Commission to Study Alternatives of Rail Relocation in the Moorhead Region. This commission shall consist of three members representing the Township of Moorhead and three members representing the City of Moorhead. The commission shall also consist of a seventh member agreed to by both the City of Moorhead and Moorhead Township. No funds for rail relocation can be made available until agreement is reached by this commission for alternative sites or plans. Intended funding for this project shall be used only for those phases of the 34th Street Corridor Project as outlined in the attached information.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 2515, the Forest Recovery and Protection Act. This bill is the product of seven hearings in the Agriculture Committee on forest conditions in the United States, which included witnesses from the administration, scientists, academics, lawmakers, state foresters, land managers, local elected officials, environmentalists and the forest products industry. This bill provides a bipartisan plan for restoring and protecting damaged forest resources in all regions of the country. H.R. 2515 requires priority recovery of forest resources at greatest risk using prescribed burning, insect disease control, riparian and other habitat improvement, reforestation and other appropriate recovery activities. It operates in strict compliance with all environmental laws and forest plans and prohibits entry into wilderness, roadless areas, old growth stands or riparian areas and other areas currently protected by law, court order or forest plan. Additionally, this bill establishes an independent interdisciplinary panel of scientists to advise the Secretary on how to identify and prioritize appropriate reforestation priorities for forest resources that are either damaged or at risk. It gives priority to recovery projects conducted in areas where thorough scientific assessments have been completed. I think the Forest Recovery and Protection Act is a sensible bipartisan approach to improving and protecting our country's most endangered forest resources. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2515.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support today of the Agriculture Research Extension and Education Reauthorization Act of 1997. As has been said by others, we are moving into a new era in agriculture, and research is going to be a more and more important component of our agriculture policy in this country. We in the upper Midwest and particularly in the northern part which I represent are very concerned about some specific issues with scab on wheat and barley where we have a cooperative effort in this bill to start putting more of a focus on that particular issue, and that is something we are very interested in, along with all of the other parts of this legislation. I, too, want to commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley], the ranking member of the subcommittee, and also the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], the chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], the ranking member of the full committee, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that we can move it ahead and see if we can get a conference on this and pass this into law.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 1566 and of H.R. 600.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2493, the Forage Improvement Act of 1997. As the other vice chairmen of the sportsmen's caucus, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague. Grazing on public lands has been a contentious issue, as we know, for the last 20 years. The laws regulating grazing as administered by the Forest Service and the BLM have evolved to the point where it has become very hard to make a living as a public lands rancher. Our ranchers legitimately need this legislation. The way fees are currently structured, ranchers simply are not able to plan financially from year to year. It is important to point out that this bill is much more moderate and narrow than past grazing reform proposals. I think the chairman, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] should be commended for the way they have reached out to make this bill more acceptable to people. It is time to support this modest bill which takes us in a small but extremely important step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Rohrabacher motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, this motion is opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the AFL-CIO, and all by itself, bringing those organizations together, that should be enough to make Members realize that there is merit in this 245(i) program. I do not claim to be an expert on this issue, but to me it just seems logical and practical to approach a complex problem within the immigration code in this manner. Once the United States has decided a person is eligible for a green card so they can legally work in this country, it does not make much sense to me to send them all the way back to their home country in order to pick up that status. What sense does it make to force qualified workers to spend their money and time on travel for what amounts to little more than bureaucratic nonsense? What business do we have disrupting the workplace? The only thing the Rohrabacher motion would seem to accomplish is more paperwork, more cost, and more red tape. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the Rohrabacher motion. General Leave

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. I do not claim to know as much as some of the previous speakers, but from what I can tell, this has been a successful program that has encouraged conservation and has actually reduced poaching and improved the situation in Zimbabwe. As I understand it, in Kenya what they have done is, they have eliminated this type of hunting and the poaching has increased and conservation efforts have decreased. And really, Members need to understand what this is about. This is really about eliminating hunting. It would be the same thing if we said in the United States that we are going to take the Pittman-Robertson money and we are going to take the Dingell-Johnson money and we are going to say that it cannot be used for anything that has to do with hunting. And what would happen if we did that? Those programs would fall apart. They have been some of the most successful programs that we have ever put together in this country. Everybody understands that without hunters, without their contribution to conservation in this country, we would not have the kind of wildlife that we have at the present time. If we eliminate hunting in Zimbabwe, which is what we will do with this program, we will have the results that we have seen in Kenya. I think we should be very clear about what this is about. This is about eliminating hunting. And if Members are for that, I guess they want to vote for this amendment. But if they believe in conservation, if they believe in approaching this the right way and they believe hunting is a good way to manage our natural resources, they will oppose this amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to correct my good friend from Florida in his original statement. He said a couple of things that are just flat wrong. First of all, we changed the sugar program in the last Congress, and that needs to be understood. Second of all, this does not just affect processors. This affects farmers because in my district the plants are owned by the farmers. These are people that have 500, 600 acres. They have a cooperative. They own this plant. They have put tremendous investments into these plants. We have made a commitment with them in this farm bill last year that we were going to leave this alone for 7 years. It is not fair to do what they are doing to these farmers. I just wish that we would be honest about what we are doing here. What we are trying to do, legislate on an appropriations bill. We are trying to do what could not be done last time. It is not fair to the farmers in my district and the farmers of this country. We need to defeat the Miller-Schumer amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an angel. As you are aware, my district in Minnesota has been devastated by blizzards and floods for several months this past spring. The worst damage has occurred in East Grand Forks, the little city in the big flood. I was there when the dikes were breaking and we have been there ever since trying to help this brave community come back from this disastrous event. The physical damage was an awesome sight and the water refused to recede for day after endless day. Mr. Speaker, I cannot begin to tell you the sadness we felt as we watched their hearts breaking, or the pride as we watched them struggle not to fall into despair. And when circumstances were still at their bleakest, there appeared an angel. An anonymous donor of such generosity that all of us were astounded by her actions. A gentlewoman from another state gave the citizens of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks a total of $15 million, to be given out in the sum of $2,000 to each household that was evacuated by air raid sirens and lost property to the raging Red River. No other criteria. No strings attached. No delay allowed. She asked only that there be no redtape to the process and to remain anonymous. I will always honor her wishes. So I use this forum to tell our angel, thank you. The impact was beautiful and immediate. The families were and remain moved to tears by your selfless actions. The community itself rose to a new level of courage and strength of purpose because of you. You fed their spirits and restored their souls. This city will rise again, recover and rebuild and become a finer, stronger community. Of this there is no doubt in my mind. But it will not be because of a new downtown, or a new housing development, rebuilt schools, or a revitalized business sector. East Grand Forks will become a stronger community because you opened your heart to them in their darkest hour. You believed them worthy of a future. They will now believe it themselves. And they have learned from you, angel, they have learned that there is no shame in receiving help, and great joy in giving it. They will remember you for all their lives. As will I. You have made a difference in our lives, and perhaps that is the highest achievement a person can attain on this earth. So I join the citizens of East Grand Forks in heartfelt thanks to you, our angel. We will never forget you.

Ms. PETERSON of Minnesota

Ms. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I am opposed to the bill in its current form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.