Collin Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the gentleman's motion. Earlier this year the House passed a bill to provide for a moratorium on new regulations pending the enactment of other regulatory reform bills that provide for cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment. I worked closely with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], the chairman of our subcommittee, and I supported this bill. I became convinced that we needed a time out on regulations and we needed a change in the way we deal with the regulatory process in this Government. Subsequently, Mr. Speaker, the Senate passed its version of the moratorium legislation providing for a different approach, which is not all bad, which asks for a congressional review period for new regulations. In passing the bill, the Senate did not take its version and attach it to the House bill. Therefore, today's action is required as a first step towards trying to reach a compromise between the two versions. As I reviewed regulations during the committee consideration of the bill, I found that in fact there are many regulations which Congress should look at more closely, and I think the moratorium bill would, in my opinion, force agencies to think twice before writing new regulations and to begin to do the cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment that the House has already passed and is pending in the Senate. I do not think there is really a whole lot of need to repeat the debate in the House over this bill, since the motion of the gentleman today merely takes the House position and attaches it to the Senate bill. This is a standard procedure in the House for linking these two bills after the final passage in the House. I support the gentleman's motion and hope that we are successful in bringing some sense to the other body and getting some consideration of our position. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I would just like a further explanation.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so in order that the gentleman may explain his unanimous consent request. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I was just trying to figure it out, but apparently this is the normal procedure in the House, to link these two bills together. So, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. That is exactly right.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think that is the right way to go.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Yes, I can. What we do is we basically start with the Domenici budget but what we do is we eliminate the tax cut. We take that money and reallocate it to Medicare. We add $109 billion back to Medicare. We add $54 billion back to the Medicaid from the Kasich budget. We add back $5.6 billion in agriculture cuts. We restore the student loan cuts. We add $35 billion into the education area and, I believe, $11 billion into the area of health research.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I represent an area that has a lot of wetlands, and I have been involved with this issue all of my political career in the State legislature, and now since I have been in Congress to some extent, and I think people ought to read what is in this bill. The gentleman says they have 75 percent of what is in the Shuster bill, but you have to look at what the content is and realize some of things that have been left out. First of all, there is no risk assessment at all in this bill, No. 1. No. 2, in the wetlands area, you know in our country we have been trying to simplify this process. What is driving people crazy is they have got to go to all of these agencies and they overrule each other and they do not talk to each other and they do not agree on things, and cause an untold amount of problems for my constituents. What this bill is going to do if you take it out and read it, it is going to create a new wetlands coordinating commission that is going to be appointed by the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, which we have been trying to get out of this process because frankly they do not belong in the process in the farm country, and they are going to create a coordinating committee that is going to have 18 Federal agencies trying to coordinate some kind of wetlands policy. And if I could just read some of the things that this new committee is supposed to do, I think that folks when they start taking a look at what is in this bill are going to have some different ideas. They are going to help coordinate Federal, State, local wetland planning, regulatory restoration programs on an ongoing basis to reduce duplication, resolve potential conflicts, and efficiently allocate manpower. But let me tell Members what the problem is in my county, it is not the law that is the problem so much, it is the people that are trying to implement the law. I have a county, two counties right next to each other, and in one county where the people used some common sense and worked together they resolved all of the wetlands problems without a single ripple. You go to the next county where you had some people that were rigid and did not want to work with each other, and you have the biggest hornets' nest and the biggest mess you have ever seen, and I submit any change in the law is not going to solve that kind of problem. And clearly setting up a coordinating committee with 18 Federal agencies is not going to make this situation better. It is going to make it worse. Last of all, I also heard this story that the wetlands are so important, a public treasure, and they are important to all of us in this country and we agree with that. But there is this point of view and mostly I think by urban folks, they somehow or another think we out in the country ought to pay that entire burden. Well, I submit that if wetlands are that important, and I think we agree that they are, then we all, as a nation, need to pay for the cost of this, and that is what we are trying to do with some of the changes that were in the private property rights bill, and also some of the changes that are in 961, by taking that, recognizing that wetlands are important and something that we want to maintain, but spreading that cost across all of the people in this country, not just the people upon which the wetlands happen, their property where the wetlands happen to reside. Mr. Chairman, last of all, I have been working on the conservation reserve program in the Committee on Agriculture. When that program was set up, wetlands were excluded from the Conservation Reserve program. We created another program called the wetlands reserve which was never funded and does not have public support. What we need to do, rather than take this regulatory approach to wetlands, we need to take and change the Conservation Reserve so the No. 1 priority to go into the CRP is wetlands, a voluntary program, a 10-year program. We are going to preserve way more wetlands in that kind of an approach than we are setting up some kind of a committee with 18 agencies involved and some kind of bureaucracy. That is the last thing we need to do.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Just to close this off, I have a letter here from just about every agriculture group, soil-water conservation groups that I know of in my State, they are opposed to this substitute. They support the chairman's bill, 961. I would urge defeat of the Boehlert substitute.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Just to answer the question, why do we need a coordinating committee with all of these agencies, if we are going to give the power to the Secretary of Agriculture? I mean, the trouble that I have had out there is that we get everybody else involved in these permits but you cannot get an answer half of the time from these agencies. If we get agencies involved, and the EPA is in charge; even if you give it to the Secretary of Agriculture, I do not think it is going to work.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. The Federal law is a problem, too.

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

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. If I could just respond to the question, you know, with all due respect, you ought to come and see what is going on in Minnesota. It is the State of Minnesota that has created the bigger hornet's nest than the Federal Government. From my standpoint, if you see what has been happening with these State laws, they are causing more problems than we are, and as I understand it, it is the wetlands managers in the States that support this, not the Governors and elected officials.

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

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of misinformation floating around about this bill. I just want to briefly touch on a couple of them. I represent a prairie pothole region up in the northern part of the United States, and there is letter that has been put out by a wildlife group that claims that there are going to be, in this bill, changes that are going to devastate these prairie pothole regions. That is absolutely not the case. The swampbuster, which is what governs most of our problems, is not even included in this bill. Second, there is an exemption for the prairie pothole region, so clearly, this letter was written by somebody who has not read the bill and does not understand what the situation is. The other thing that is thrown around about this bill is this is somehow or another going to allow industry to pollute. If we believe that, then we are going to believe that the EPA or the State Environmental Protection Agency is going to allow this to happen, because in this bill, they have to sign off for these changes. I just hope that people would read the bill before they engage in all of this rhetoric that really, in my judgment, misses the point. I ask support for the bill.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time. Again I urge my colleagues to support S. 244. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for S. 244, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This legislation received broad bipartisan support in both houses, and the conference committee has reported a stronger bill. Mr. Speaker, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 reflects the sentiment that sometimes, Federal agencies ask for too much paperwork from large and small businesses alike. Agency officials, often highly specialized in the programs they administer, require information, surveys, and questionnaires that place a substantial burden on companies while providing benefits that are not always apparent. The Paperwork Reduction Act sets up a check by reauthorizing the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget to review all information collection requests before they are approved. It is OIRA's job to approve information requests only if the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility. OIRA must also ensure that the requests have been open for public comment and that legitimate concerns are addressed. These requirements stem from the recognition that information requests are often time consuming and costly to comply with. The Paperwork Reduction Act also authorizes another important function, that of providing Government information to the public. The bill charges OIRA with overseeing the dissemination of information to the public by agencies, as well as providing central guidance for public access to that information. It must oversee agency efforts to provide privacy, confidentiality, security, disclosure, and the sharing of Government information. These are very important policies that cannot be left to the whims of individual agencies. Mr. Speaker, the conferees made substantial improvements to the bill as reported by the House. Let me briefly describe those changes. First, the House bill had made the Office of Information and Regulatory and Affairs within OMB a permanent office with permanent authorization. That would have given away Congress' ability to regularly review OIRA by not requiring OIRA to justify and defend its operations during reauthorization hearings. OIRA, because of its pivotal role in the regulatory process, has been at the center of controversy since its inception in 1980. Reauthorization hearings allow Congress to closely examine how this Office is working, whether you believe it has too much influence or not enough control over agency regulations. To give permanent authorization would have resulted in ceding a key congressional function to the executive branch, which I know is something the 104th Congress is fond of doing. Fortunately, the conference committee recognized the need for regular review of this Office, and agreed to a 6-year authorization. Second, the conferees dropped a provision in the House bill authorizing the head of OIRA to waive statutory requirements that agencies not charge more than their marginal copying costs for making Government information publicly available. This world have been a sharp departure from the policy that while agencies are allowed to charge the actual cost of copying Federal records, they cannot subsidize their operating budgets through higher fees. This would have resulted in far higher costs for public libraries, the public interest community, and the information industry, and therefore the conference committee wisely rejected this change. In addition, the Senate bill contained two provisions eliminating hundreds of statutorily required reports. The conference committee dropped these provisions. Mr. Speaker, both houses included a provision requiring workplace safety notifications required by Federal regulatory agencies to be submitted for OMB clearance. This provision, which overturns a Supreme Court decision, leaves workers at the mercy of politicians instead of safety experts. I would have preferred that his new provision be dropped, but because it was included in both bills, it was retained. I would hope that OMB would use its new authority only with a view toward paperwork, and not as a mechanism to overturn statutory requirements for full disclosure of safety hazards at the workplace. I would like to commend Chairmen Clinger and Roth, Senator Glenn, and all the other conferees for quickly resolving all of these issues and reporting back a bill that all of us can support.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I too want to commend the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] and the others for putting together this bill, and I rise in strong support of the Deal substitute. In responding to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, you know, one of the problems that I have with the Republican bill--and I intend to oppose it--is there are a lot of areas that are not working and have not been thought through. I think, in the case of food stamps, that is one of the areas where we have a lot of fraud and problems with the food stamp system. What we have done in the Deal bill is we have worked through those problems. We have 19 specific areas where we have addressed the problems in the Deal substitute. The Republicans have not done this. They have punted it to the States. So I think we ought to be clear about what has happened here. We have a bill that has worked together with the AFDC system, it is all integrated, we make sure it flows together, and we have addressed problems. It is the toughest bill dealing with the fraud and abuse and other problems that we have in the food stamp system. I ask you to support the Deal substitute.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to support H.R. 938, the Individual Responsibility Act of 1995. I am proud to be a cosponsor and want to commend the coalition, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal], the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], and others that worked so hard to put this legislation together. We have a bill here that I think responsibly reforms the welfare system and, more importantly, coordinates the welfare system with food stamps and other aspects. When it comes to welfare reform, I think we all agree that the system is broke and needs to be fixed. I think we all agree that in some respects we need to get tough. But we also need to reform the system with a package that makes sense. I think the Republican bill in some areas is too extreme and does not fix the problems. In fact, I think in some areas it actually probably causes some problems. We have a bill that we have put together that makes work pay. The Deal substitute would ensure that welfare recipients will be better off economically by taking a job than by remaining on welfare. Our bill emphasizes work first. It has a definite end to benefits, time limits, and it gets tough on deadbeat dads and does a number of things that we have been asking for for years. I think one of the things that we are proud of in the coalition is that we have done a considerable amount of work in the food stamp area, and we want to commend the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] and others for the work they have done in this area. But I think we have done some things that are going to make the bill somewhat better. Mr. Chairman, I, along with the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Baesler], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], and the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman], have done considerable work on this bill, trying to coordinate the food stamp program with the changes that we have made in the AFDC program in the Deal bill. In fact, this bill includes 19 specific provisions to bring the food stamps and the AFDC programs together on applications, deductions, eligibilities, income, resources, and certification. I heard earlier the Honorable chairman talk about the fact that their bill is going to give the States the opportunity to coordinate in these areas. We have a bill here where we have done the work, we have already coordinated it, and I think it makes the Deal bill a stronger bill. In the end, I think the Deal substitute is going to be very close to what happens in this Congress. Our bill in the food stamp area we believe is also tougher than the Republican bill on fraud and abuse. We think we have done a better job to get at those issues. We recognize that there is a lot of good provisions in the Republican bill as well. Mr. Chairman, I again strongly support the Deal substitute, and look forward to having a vote on that in the near future.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering property rights legislation, one of the most important pieces of legislation we will vote on this year. The right to own property is one of the basic doctrines of our Constitution. The fifth amendment requires the Government to provide just compensation for property taken for public purposes. Property rights has come to the forefront of debate in rural America. This debate is vital to every landowner in this country, specially to the American farmer. Over the past three decades, there has been an enormous expansion in Government regulation of private property. The intent of these regulations is for the most part positive. However, the rigidity of the regulations is completely unnecessary and over burdensome and often defeats the purpose of the objective of the regulation. The Federal Government makes it a practice to spell out step by step the method each person should use to accomplish the goal of a regulation. This rigidity is costly and actually creates more obstacles. These regulation restrictions are out of control, specifically in regard to wetlands. For example, a farmer in my district bought 160 acres of land with the intent to farm the 160 acres. After talking to his local soil and conservation service [SCS], and looking at the records from the sight, including soil samples and all inclusive maps, the SCS office confirmed that no wetlands were contained on the land. My constituent then proceeded to purchase the land and begin to make the necessary changes to farm. His local SCS came out again to approve the site, and on the way out noticed some cattails in the field. The SCS then proceeded to discover, new wetlands which affected about 26 acres of land. This farmer would have reconsidered buying the property if he knew he could not farm on a large portion of his land. As a result of this type of common practice by Federal agencies, private property owners repeatedly lose economic use of their property. In situations where the Government regulates to the point that the property owner may not use his property, or the property is substantially devalued, it is only fair and just for the property owner to be compensated. No one argues that we need to regulate certain activities and restrict certain practices on land for the common good and well being of the country. We need clean water, we need clean air. And we need to protect the environment. However, the burden of providing public good should not be on an individual landowner. If the American public benefits from restrictions on land uses, then the public should pay for the costs. Furthermore, as recourse to Federal taking, wealthy people and big corporations have the resources to protect their property rights through the legal process. The average person on the other hand doesn't have the money and should not have to defend his or her property rights in the current lengthy, complicated and expensive legal process. More often than not, the small property owner has no way to combat the expansive authority and resources of Federal agencies. We must set up a process where people don't have to hire a lawyer, spend a lot of their own money, and waste millions of taxpayer dollars to defend their basic property rights. For these reasons, I strongly support H.R. 925, private property rights legislation. H.R. 925 ensures that private property owners are compensated when the use or value of their property is limited. This bill lays out clear and specific guidelines for government officials and property owners in determining when Federal regulations go too far, and result in violate individual property rights. Federal agencies will have to weigh their actions cautiously before issuing regulations and will be required to pay for the imposed regulations. People in this country who purchase and pay taxes on property should not have to endure their rights being stripped away. The Federal Government must be responsible for its actions. Congress must act now to minimize the taking of our constitutionally protected property rights. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 925.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support and am happy to cosponsor this amendment. I want to first of all congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], and all the others that have worked on this legislation for the last number of years to bring it to this point. I would like to point out that there are a lot of Members on our side of the aisle that have been working on this for some time. I also would like to point out that, Mr. Chairman, that I do not agree that we want to undermine some of these statutes. I come from the point of view that the bill that was originally put together by the other side was too extreme. I think this amendment brings us back to where I am more comfortable with. For those of you that, and I do not want them to take this the wrong way, because I am from Minnesota, a State that is controlled by the Democratic Party, and we have takings legislation in front of our legislature right now. I would just like to point out, we have the majority leader of the senate, the speaker of the house, some of the more liberal members of the Minnesota Legislature. And they have a measure I would like to read to my colleagues here. It says that property owners can bring an action against the State for loss of value of 5 percent or more of their property or $1,000. And if the reduction is that amount, it requires the State to purchase the entire property at its fair market value. So you can see that we have in Minnesota something going on, if you want to call it extreme, it is more extreme than what we are talking about here in this legislation. Mr. Chairman, we are not against wetlands. I am someone who has had a long history in conservation. I support wetlands legislation. The problem is, we have a system that is kind of run amok, that has too much power, in my opinion, on the side of the Government, that has left ordinary folks in a position to have to hire lawyers and go through the court process to protect their private property rights, which is something that we ought not to be doing in this country. What we are doing here is bringing this back to the areas where the problems are. And that is, with the Clean Water Act 404 permit area, the wetlands area, the farm bill and the Endangered Species Act and the water rights issues out in the West. I think that this amendment, although if I had a chance to write this the way that I would do it, it would not be exactly the way this amendment is put together, but I think that we can live with this. I think that it will be workable, and it will give us a chance to get started to change the way that we deal with what is happening out there in terms of putting these regulations on private property.

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

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