Collin Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit, on behalf of my colleagues in the Blue Dog Coalition, that provides tax relief to mainstream America, small businesses, farmers, and working families, and does all of that in a fiscally responsible way. First of all, I want to thank our leadership for allowing us to offer this. I also want to thank my Blue Dog colleagues for their hard work and determination in developing this alternative tax bill. And finally, I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] and his staff for all of their assistance. First of all, Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear about a chart that I just received when I walked in from Joint Tax that says we are $4.7 billion over in the first 5 years. This is the first I have seen of this. We do not agree with this, and we cannot really respond because we do not know the basis for these numbers. Clearly, this can fit within the $85 billion. It also says we are at $230 billion over the 10 years. So I just want to make that clear, and this will fit within the terms of the budget agreement. A lot of Democrats in this body, Mr. Speaker, support tax cuts, and we always have, just as President Clinton has supported tax relief for American families. But if we are going to provide tax relief and balance the budget at the same time, tax relief must be well- constructed and targeted to working families and it must not bust the budget. Mr. Speaker, the tax bill before us today is deficient in many respects and should be defeated. It is overly complicated. It is not targeted. It may send the budget deficit up once again outside the 10- year budget window. The capital gains provisions in this bill are overly complicated. It will be difficult to use in the real world, and the indexation of capital gains will require so much record keeping that it is going to cause taxpayers out there a real problem to use. And this is probably going to cause us more fiscal problems in the future because of indexation. The children's tax credit is more costly than we need to do because it includes families going up to $110,000 income. The estate tax relief income in this bill is phased in over too long a period and is less than many of us on both sides of the aisle want to do. And the backloaded IRAs in the committee bill are a bad idea that cost over $13 billion in 10 years and explode the deficit out into the future. The alternative minimum tax provisions in the committee bill that will cost $40 billion over 10 years are also troublesome to many of us and, like other provisions in this bill, are likely to send the deficit up in the future. What we did in this motion is really very simple. We are recommending that the Committee on Ways and Means develop a better, fairer tax bill that rewards the people who make our country work. Small businesses create 85 percent of the new jobs in this country, farmers and the working people that work on those farms and small businesses. This bill contains a capital gains tax provision that is simple, that provides for capital gains relief like the old way we did it, that rewards long-term investment, economic growth, and job development. Our capital gains provision is simple. It provides for an exclusion from income of 10 percent per year, up to 50 percent at 5 years. So you get 10 percent; at 5 years you get a 50-percent exclusion from income. The motion also contains immediate estate tax relief for small businesses and farmers. An exemption for closely held businesses and ranches and family farms is immediately increased to $1 million next year. It also increases the unified credit to $1 million in 2002 and $1.2 million in 2004, the first increase in this unified credit since 1976. My motion to recommit also includes a family tax credit that provides a $500 credit for children under 17 because we believe that this will strengthen families, and this is phased out between $60,000 and $75,000 of income, not $110,000 like the committee bill. The motion also includes the President's $1,500 HOPE scholarship, $10,000 tuition tax deductions, tax breaks that the President proposed. It is that simple: Real capital gains relief that rewards long-term investment, immediate estate tax relief, a family tax credit, and education tax breaks for American families, real sustained immediate tax relief for American families, farms, and businesses. Mr. Speaker, we provide these tax breaks without breaking the bank because we do not backload our provisions. This motion will not explode the deficit. This motion is responsible tax policy. And what is more, this motion provides more capital gains relief, more estate tax relief, a better, more family-friendly children's tax cut, and the important education tax breaks that most of us support. Mr. Speaker, if this motion passes the Committee on Ways and Means, then the Committee on the Budget, can quickly return to the floor with a better tax bill, a tax bill that reflects our values, that is fair, that is good for families, good for farms, good for small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this conference report because it has the needed resources that we need in our community. I would also like to thank my friends in the majority for putting this bill together and making this a priority coming out and seeing our area. I represent the city of East Grand Forks and some other communities that have been damaged by this flood and, believe it or not, we have I think more damage to homes and more damage to businesses in our community than they have had in Grand Forks. We are a smaller community, a community of 9,000 people. We do not have the resources of some of the bigger communities, and we really need this legislation to help us put this community back together. We have to move probably 40 percent of this community. We have to rebuild the entire downtown area. We have got a lot of work ahead of us. We very much need this legislation. One thing that really disturbs me and disturbs the people of our area is that we have got these extraneous items that are attached to this bill. The mayor was here yesterday. They are very frustrated that we are getting partisan political issues added to this bill that have no business being included, they have nothing to do with this bill, and it is really unfortunate that we are in this situation. This bill is going to be vetoed, and we are going to have to go through this process. The other thing I would say is am really disappointed that we are not going to be here tomorrow and we are not going to be here Monday. We were planning on being here and I think we ought to be here. That way we could have the President veto the bill and we could have this thing shuttle back and forth and we could get it passed. Every week that we lose is more of a problem for us. We are in a very cold climate. We have a very short window of opportunity to rebuild this community. If we have to wait until Tuesday and we have got more vetoes and more going back and forth, it is going to put us in a bigger problem. I reluctantly support this agreement in its current form and hope that we can get through this process, get to a clean bill and get the money to the people of the area that need it.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I support the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. I want to commend the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Kasich, and the ranking member, Mr. Spratt, Members on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in putting together this bipartisan agreement, and especially my ``Blue Dog'' colleagues in the coalition. Most everyone around here knows that this legislation couldn't have been developed without the centrist foundation we provided in the Blue Dogs' commonsense balanced budget plan. Mr. Chairman, the American people want this to get done, and I intend to lend my support to passing this resolution through the process. A balanced budget is long overdue. I'm not happy with all of the details, but the moment is at hand and we need to pass this now. I would rather be supporting the Blue Dog budget, but nobody got everything they wanted in this process, and I understand that. However, I am very disappointed by the Republican leadership's refusal to allow the coalition Democrats to offer the alternative resolution we wanted to offer, which was the Republican bill plus strong budget enforcement language. As it is, I am concerned that this resolution lacks the strong budget enforcement language necessary to ensure that the spending caps and deficit targets are met and that we do in fact reach balance by the year 2002. It's one thing to say you will balance the budget by 2002--it is clearly another thing to actually do it. A strong enforcement mechanism is necessary to require the Congress and the President to take action if this plan goes off course, and the budget fails to meet its targets for spending and revenues. We should have had the opportunity to strengthen the enforcement provisions of the resolution we are now supporting. I am sure a majority of Members would have voted for stronger enforcement if they had been given the chance. Hopefully, this shortcoming can be remedied by the conference committee. Two years ago when the Blue Dogs first offered their own alternative budget, I told people it was the sensible, middle ground and the foundation for a bipartisan agreement. Two years later, after a lot of hard work by all the Blue Dogs, as well as other Members and the President, we have essentially arrived right were the Blue Dogs started--on the sensible, middle ground, where compromise and bipartisanship have finally delivered what the American people have wanted for a long time--a balanced Federal budget. Again, I wish this Congress was going to get a chance to vote on the Blue Dog budget, but I recognize that democracy requires compromise, and that's what it will take from all of us to keep this process moving in the right direction. This budget resolution is only a broad outline, and I know the Blue Dogs will continue working with Members on both sides of the aisle when the real work begins on a Medicare bill, a Medicaid bill, a tax bill, a possible budget reconciliation bill, and all of the 13 appropriations bills.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Sportsmen's Bill of Rights. As an avid hunter and fisherman, I believe that the hunting and angling community serve as the backbone for the preservation, enhancement, and protection of natural and wildlife resources, Hunters and anglers are the foremost supporters of sound wildlife management and conservation practices in Minnesota and the rest of the United States. Funds raised through license, permit, and stamp purchases, as well as excise taxes on goods used by hunters and anglers have generated over $6,000,000,000 for wildlife research and management. Many wildlife opportunities would not exist today if these conservation efforts had not been created by hunters and anglers. The right to hunt and fish is increasingly coming under attack. We are seeing broad based challenges to hunting and fishing, and hopefully this bill will set the standards for such challenges much higher. Traditional rights of hunters and anglers are continually attacked by various organizations whose sole aim it to outlaw these outdoor activities. This legislation is necessary to fend off opponents of hunting and fishing. Minnesota has about 450,000 deer hunters--probably the largest per capita in the Nation, 100,000 small game and waterfowl, grouse and pheasant hunters, and 1.6 million licensed anglers in the State each year. Thus, hunting and fishing is a significant part of both the Minnesota tradition and this Nation's tradition. This type of legislation is also being proposed and advocated in many States. For example, in 1996, the Minnesota State Senate approved a proposed amendment to the State constitution giving Minnesota residents a constitutional right to hunt and fish in the State. Hunter-funded land acquisition efforts of State wildlife agencies support a broad spectrum of public recreation. With fishing and hunting generated moneys. States have secured millions of acres of land for wildlife conservation. Fishing and hunting expenditures in Minnesota alone generate millions of dollars toward conservation efforts. Hunting also provides a mechanism to control wildlife in areas where human tolerance is limited, regarding damage to agricultural crops and vegetation, nuisance problems, and vehicle collisions. Wildlife-caused environmental problems and human conflicts can be decreased with animal damage management techniques subsidized by hunters and anglers. The economic value of hunting and angling is indispensable in Minnesota, as well as other State's economies. Fishing and hunting expenditures in Minnesota total over $1.3 billion. Furthermore, close to half a million jobs are directly and indirectly supported by hunting. The purpose of this legislation is to leave a legacy for future generations to enjoy the same rights to hunt and fish that the current generation enjoys today. With the trend towards increased urbanization, there is less and less access for people to really enjoy the outdoors. Recreational hunting and fishing strengthens family bonds and personal relationships. These sporting activities often bring parents and children together. The Sportsmen's Bill of Rights Act is crucial to ensure future generations of sportsmen, women, and children the opportunity to enjoy the same wildlife benefits and educational opportunities that have previously been enjoyed.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] for yielding to me. I want to be brief. I want to associate myself with the remarks from the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] and the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune]. I just wanted to relay, I just got off the phone with the mayor and city leaders of East Grand Forks, which was entirely under water, and they are in the process of trying to figure out what to do. They are under tremendous pressure from the homeowners that want to be moved. They want answers today about what they are going to do. Are they going to have their houses bought out? Are they going to be able to buy another house? And this is a real frustration for them, not having these answers and possibly us going home tonight without having passed a bill. If I could just make a suggestion. It appears, from everything I can tell, that the $500 million for CDBG money is in both bills and that is pretty much a given. What really is a bigger problem, and maybe those of you that are working on this, if we can come to some specifics of how we are going to put the CDBG money out to the States so we can start the process, so that when this does get done in 2 weeks we will be ready to hit the ground running, that will help us a lot. So if there is some way that that part of it could get resolved so we could tell our people this is how it is going to work, so we could talk to our Governor and other folks and set up a process so that when this does happen, we will be ready to go. That will be very helpful if we are not able to move on this this evening.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1469, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, because it contains very important money for our region for the disaster that we just went through, a disaster like we have never seen in 500 years in Minnesota. In East Grand Forks, pictured here, in Breckenridge, in Ada, in Warren, and all the rural communities along the Red River, we were under water. Nobody can remember anything like this. We had snowstorms, ice storms, and then, last, the flood of 1997. There is the city of East Grand Forks, a town of 9,000 people, that got hit probably the hardest of any community in this flood. Everyone, the entire town was under water. It had to be evacuated because the water kept rising. In the end it just could not be stopped. Every street, every home, every business went under water, and the water did not go down for 2 weeks. In true Minnesota style, the people of Crookston, Thief River Falls, Red Lake Falls, Bemidji, and many other communities opened their doors and provided shelter and people to help us get through, and to help the people driven out by the floods. Now, although the water has receded, the damage and desolation that is everywhere is reminiscent of a nuclear blast. There are no children playing, and life is now just returning to normal. There is garbage and debris every place you look. People's entire lives are sitting on the berms waiting to be scooped up by payloaders. East Grand Forks has lost four of their six schools, their city hall, their library, and neighborhood after neighborhood. Thirty-five to forty percent of this community is going to have to be rebuilt and moved to another part of the area so we do not do this again. Mr. Chairman, in all of the flood-ravaged communities in the Red River Valley, the challenge now is to rebuild. On behalf of all of the Minnesotans in the Seventh District, I want to thank the President, the Vice President, the Speaker, the majority leader and other Members who came out to look at the damage for themselves, and thank them for all the help they have given us to get to this point. The work of FEMA and the director, James Lee Witt, have been outstanding. I want to thank each and every one of the agency personnel who have been out in the Seventh District helping our people and communities get back on their feet. I also want to thank the National Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and the mayors. I thank them and I encourage everyone to support this bill.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, our entire town of East Grand Forks has been under water. This is the residential area, where it shows the devastation and all the belongings out on the berm. I would also like to talk about the business situation. One of the reasons we need this through an amendment is so we can have some flexibility to deal with the problems we have in the business community. The entire business community of East Grand Forks was under water, some of it for 2 weeks. Under the current FEMA program there is really no way to deal with this situation because it is all loans, and these people, loans are not going to work for them. I can tell my colleagues of business person after business person where their inventory, their equipment has been wiped out, they have got debt. There is no way, putting more debt on top of that, that it is going to solve their situation. We need this CDBG money so we can have the flexibility to rebuild these communities. I very much encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad], the Speaker, the chairman and everybody else for helping on this.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to rise in support of this amendment because I also think that some of the rhetoric on this piece of legislation has been overblown. I think that the other side of the aisle is to be commended, in that they have moved in our direction and included some amendments and some ideas that we have suggested. I think we have a workable piece of legislation. If the problems that some people see are there, I think it will be solved by this amendment. We will have a chance to come back and take a look at it. I think this bill will work pretty close to the way it is put together, and I strongly support this amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we went through this with the savings and loan situation. I would like to know, the statement was made earlier this is all self-financing. What do you charge an F minus-minus company to make it a viable situation? How much do you have to charge a company like that? If you went into a bank and had an F minus-minus credit rating, you would not get a loan at all. So I think we need to get the whole facts of this out.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk on this floor about how this program does not cost any money. I would just like to read out of the committee report here, page 11, where it has got the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate. ``For 1997 through 2001, the net budgetary impact of title I is the increased cost by $120 million a year over current law.'' That is just in black and white.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Royce].

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson], one of our newer Members.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, we have a very diverse group that is opposing this bill. I would like to start off today by yielding such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on the Budget.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington, DC [Ms. Norton].

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3505.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, today I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Fosston, MN for being named an All-American City. This is a distinct honor for the state of Minnesota and for all the people of Fosston. It is difficult for a small town to get the attention of National Civic League jurists, but the citizens of Fosston and their community leaders did just that. As 1 of only 10 small towns selected to receive this award, this town of 1,500 people proved that it is All-American, through and through. For example, the Fosston school has established a program to keep young people in Fosston after graduation. Todays small town youth often seek opportunities in larger cities, but Fosston has developed a program to demonstrate to high school students that there can be economic opportunities in the town where you grew up. In addition, school and community leaders have formed a committee to examine both the opportunities and potential problems that could lie ahead for Fosston. This kind of future oriented community program makes Fosston unique among small towns, and a model for others to follow. My Minnesota district is made up of numerous small towns just like Fosston, and you will find the same kind of community pride and involvement in all of them. I will not be surprised if Fosston's award inspires many other small Minnesota communities to prove that they too are All-American Cities. Congratulations to Fosston, MN, and every person in the community who has worked to make the town what it is today.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I call Members' attention to something that we just discovered this afternoon. Those of us that have been working on the Conservation Reserve Program, members of the Sportsmen's Caucus, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Brewster, and others are concerned about some language. I wanted to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman. Mr. Chairman, what we are concerned about is some report language that appeared in the bill that affects the conservation part of this bill, but it was not under that part of the report language. It was under the part that had to do with the farm service agencies. What it does is, it requires that they take a look at the criteria for the Conservation Reserve Program in a specific way. The USDA is right at this time promulgating rules to extend this program. What this report language does is, it provides specific instructions to USDA as to how to proceed. What I am most concerned about is that it says in this report language that the committee directs that all acres are to be rebid and evaluated using the same criteria that was used during the 13th sign-up, a sign-up that was held last fall. My district in northwestern Minnesota has the ninth most conservation reserve acres in the United States. Last year under the 13th sign-up, only 700 acres in my district qualified. If this language goes forward and if we reauthorize the program using this 13th sign-up, what we are going to do is we are going to eliminate all the big tracts of CRP, we are going to eliminate most of the wildlife benefits that we have seen in the Conservation Reserve Program, and I do not believe that that is what we want to do in this House. Mr. Chairman, what I am asking is that the gentleman take another look at this and consider the possibility in conference committee of deleting this language. I do not think it makes any sense for us to be going in and prescribing to the Department what is going to be the criteria when they are in the middle of deciding that. They have not even at this point put forward the proposed rule. There has been no public comment. It just seems to me that we are jumping the gun. I would appreciate it if the gentleman would look at that.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1972.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion to instruct. The previous question was ordered.