Floor Statements

Thank you, Congressman Latham.

This is the first day we've actually talked, except for election night when I called to say congratulations. Our little conversation we had a few moments ago before this started was kindly, and I think I appreciated you coming to me and saying what you did in this event that took place last November. So I wish you well, and I appreciate the cordial treatment you have given me today.

Some suggest to me, You may not want to do this; he was your opponent. I said, No. We're from Iowa. We don't do things like that. That's protocol. You made me proud today, and I thank you for it.

I've said this on other occasions, as you've heard me, I have a regret. I'm sorry my mother couldn't have heard this discussion today.

I owe a lot of appreciation to those of you left in the room. I realize most people had to flee for the airport, as we normally all do. Thank you for staying and doing this.

I do want to pay tribute to my wife, Dody. I think she's probably watching.

Sweetheart, I hope you have enjoyed this, as well as my children-- Terri, Diana, Cindy, and Joe--and their families and many friends. I hadn't planned on this all coming to this kind of a closure, but it's caused me to reflect back over life, and I feel very blessed.

Tom, you heard it too many times. I started out in a tented farmhouse. You did hear that a time or two, I'm sure, in days past. But look what I've gotten to do, as you've heard about here today, when we talk about the American Dream and the opportunities that exist in America. It's been very rewarding to me. I can't say enough about that, but enough has been probably said.

I realize as I reflect back on what's happened over the last years that I couldn't have done it without the help of great staff. And some names--I shouldn't do this--but just to hit a few of them. A gentleman named John Norris--I think you knew him, Tom, at one time--we started out together. He's on the FERC Board now, and doing a good job.

I think back over many others. Sandy Carter, you're probably watching over there in our cube. Sandy, thank you for your service and your dedication to the people of Iowa in the Third District. I could go on and on. Back in Iowa, there's Jay Byers, Sally Bowzer, Grant Woodard, and all the rest. Frequently, I would stand before a group and invite Ted Tran to come and stand with me as a surrogate son from Vung Tau, Vietnam. He was one of those refugees, and what he went through to get to be an American and have the American Dream is very special. So the list is long, and I will stop. It's getting long for some of you. I know you've got travels to do.

But those here in the room, Bruce, thank you for your attributes. Jim Nussle, it's great to see you again. Tim, thank you for your remarks and the service we've had together. Tom, I wish you continued success. I know that you'll give your heart to what you believe in for our State. We both kind of come from the soil, really. That's probably a good thing.

So with that, I want to say a fond farewell. I will continue to respond to our constituents until we finally close this down, if no sooner, at least by the 2nd of January, when we change from the 112th to the 113th.

I'll just say it's been my pleasure and my good fortune to live this much of my life in the United States of America and to serve our country. It's the right thing to do. We've got lots on our plate, but we can do this because that's who we are. We can, and I'm sure we will.

Thank you and God Bless.

Mr. Speaker, today is Thursday, September 20. And tomorrow, I understand, the House is set to adjourn until after the election. Tomorrow, the House is set to leave town without finishing the work that the American people sent us here to do.

Now, I have no objection to increasing domestic energy production, and I think an all-of-the-above approach is a rational approach to take. However, I rise against this rule. I rise in opposition to this rule because two amendments that I had offered to the bill were not made in order by the Rules Committee. The amendments I offered were on substantive policy that my constituents are calling for, and I am here to stand up for and represent my constituents in Iowa--and, I might add, across the Nation.

One amendment would extend the wind production tax credit. Wind energy plays a significant role in electricity generation in the State of Iowa and many other States--for us about 20 percent--and the manufacturing of wind turbine components in Iowa has brought high-tech manufacturing jobs to my district. The fact that the House is set to adjourn until after the election while this industry is being forced to lay off workers because of Congress' inaction is shameful. It's something we should not do. Yesterday, it was announced we would be laying off 400, and more to come.

Another amendment I offered would have allowed the House to finally vote on a farm bill. But once again the Republican leadership of the House stopped the House from voting on a farm bill. Let me say that again: The House Republican leadership is preventing this House from working its will on a farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, apparently some House Republicans believe standing up for our farmers and ranchers across the country is not worthy of this House. This is a disgrace. Inaction on a farm bill is creating the market uncertainty that the House Republicans so often decry, and this uncertainty will only get more complicated as the House continues to kick the can down the road.

So, once again, I rise in opposition to this rule. And I call on my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can amend the rule and proceed to a debate that will result in the House actually doing the work our constituents sent us here to do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a great colleague, a wonderful Member of this House, and a very dear friend, Congressman Jerry Costello.

I have had the great privilege of serving with Jerry Costello on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee since I've been in Congress. Over the years, I have learned so much from Jerry and have enjoyed our partnership on the Committee.

During his twenty-four years in Congress, Jerry has been a passionate advocate for his constituents and improving the transportation infrastructure in the Illinois 12th Congressional District. As the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Aviation Subcommittee, he has been a tireless champion of general aviation and modernizing our aviation system. His effective leadership and extensive knowledge of these issues have led to countless infrastructure improvements in his district and state.

Jerry's commitment to service extended beyond Illinois. When visiting my home state of Iowa, Jerry took the time to meet with some of my constituents to understand the transportation needs of our state and see how potential investments would affect our communities. He took the concerns of Iowans as seriously as those of his own constituents and made certain that these concerns were addressed in Washington.

I will greatly miss working with him, but I wish him and his family my very best wishes for a very bright future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of farmers and producers in Iowa and in my district and across the country. And I want to thank you, Chairman Lucas, and you, Ranking Member Peterson, for working together to try to resolve the need for the farm bill. As you know, we are suffering because of the drought that continues to beat down on our land and our livestock.

While I'm not 100 percent pleased with this bill, I will vote today to move it forward on behalf of my producers in need. And for those who have been grappling for hay and have begun to liquidate cattle, I will support this disaster aid bill. However, I do it with a heavy heart, yet with the eternal optimist of a farmer, as you are, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Peterson.

As a cow-calf producer myself, I can tell you exactly what our farmers and ranchers across America want. They want a farm bill, a 5- year farm bill that will provide long-term certainty in a changing market with an uncontrollable climate.

Producers in my State want a farm bill that invests in expansions and research for insurance programs, like the provisions we worked on in the House committee for livestock insurance and for specialty crops. They want to see a bill that will help them beyond 2012 and 2013, a bill that shows what we know: not only must we react to this drought, but we must prepare for the future.

Since July 11, I have expressed my support for a farm bill every chance I have had. I hope for a conference the same way I hope for rain. However, the Republican leadership has taken every chance they get to block debate on the 5-year farm bill.

It is clear this is not a perfect bill; but these happen to be imperfect times, and I believe we must respond to the drought that is impacting more than half of our Nation, as was depicted by the chairman a few moments ago.

I have reservations regarding the cuts to conservation, particularly since conservation programs have been one option to help feed the cattle under our current drought. Furthermore, if we could bring the farm bill to the floor, we could respond to drought issues, we could debate issues that are critical to all Americans, and we could advance a bill that saves tens of billions of dollars.

It is imperative that we pass a comprehensive, long-term farm bill. Farmers and ranchers always face decisions that carry very serious financial ramifications, such as planting a crop, buying land, upgrading machinery, building a herd. And we know that if we don't have a farm bill, that there are going to be a lot of ramifications on those out there that depend on the agriculture economy for a lot more than producing cattle or corn and beans or wheat or whatever. The machinery is a big part of it.

Both the Senate and the House Agriculture Committees have produced reform-minded, bipartisan bills that address plenty of the core principles that are important, such as strengthening crop insurance and ensuring strong agricultural research and development.

We have heard time and again in this House how uncertainty in the marketplace hinders job creation and economic growth. Not passing a long-term farm bill is bringing uncertainty to family farmers across Iowa, across the Nation, and this uncertainty must end.

We must pass a 5-year farm bill as soon as possible. Therefore, I remain hopeful--my eternal optimism, as I stated--that after providing relief to our producers impacted by this drought, that when we return from the August work period, that Speaker Boehner will welcome us back with a farm bill on the floor.

I support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Crawford, I believe that you pretty much covered the details of this. And I see the gentleman sitting beside you there and I'm sure he's going to add to it, so I don't think I'll spend a lot of time repeating what you said. But I want you to know that as a hands-on farmer producer, I appreciate the efforts you put into this to bring this forward because there are just too many times we see where the farmers in your State, my State, and across the country are burdened with these extra expenses and criteria that they don't really need. Because you know, I know, and I think those of us that are familiar with the farming industry, we are stewards of the land. We don't want to ruin the land; we certainly don't want to ruin the water.

So this is a good thing to come forth with this piece of legislation, to put a practical sense, practical application to the situation. It's been delayed and delayed and delayed.

It refers to American farmers. American farmers are very much dedicated to what they represent. And again, those that, as I do and as I'm sure you do and others, when we have fuel on the farm for whatever reason--to run the tractors, the combines, the irrigation pumps, or whatever--we're very careful. The cost of the fuel and the exposure of it being stolen or something is something we don't have a lot of excess sitting around these days anyway. Those that are large operators, seems to me like quite a few of them have got a tank wagon.

So I appreciate what you've offered up here, and I'm very supportive of it.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have no other speakers.

In closing, I feel like we've defined what the need is. This will be very helpful to the Nation's producers, and it's a step in the right direction. So I will urge agreement and support of H.R. 3158. And thank you again for bringing this forth.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I appreciate this opportunity.

I rise in support of H.R. 4157, Preserving America's Family Farms, or I should say farm family traditions. Passing this legislation today will codify our successful effort to prevent the Department of Labor from undercutting the structure of our Nation's family farms.

For generations, the contributions of young people have led to family success and bright futures on household farms. However, late last year, our family farmers faced a sweeping regulation that would have prevented children and grandchildren from participating in the very important lessons and traditions that have stabilized not only our families but also our economy.

The short-sighted ruling proposed by the Department of Labor would have affected a wide variety of subsectors within agriculture, work with livestock and grain production, commodity transportation, youth agriculture education, and a number of other sectors that train and educate our youth in family-farm settings with hands-on experience.

Not only did this ruling admit in its own text that there was little or no data available to back the proposal being made, it would, as stated by Future Farmers of America--our youth--limit, if not eliminate, opportunities to effectively teach students to be safe when working in agriculture.

I'm proud that many of us join in a bipartisan effort to tell the Secretary of Labor through multiple letters that this ruling is wrong. Fortunately, the Department did rescind this ruling, as it was stated a little while ago, so that the youth in our districts could continue to learn important lessons taking place in the most successful sector of our economy.

I support H.R. 4157 because it will codify this effort. This bill will clarify the intention of Congress with respect to youth education on farms, and it will prevent the Department of Labor from implementing or enforcing this very specific proposal. In codifying our intention and passing this bill, we ensure that all farmers have access to education and retain their family's traditions, two things that are critical in our changing society.

I often think back when I returned home from the Army to the farm and realized the changes that had taken place in farm technology while I was away. The farmers we are nurturing now will acquire even more skills and adjust to faster changes than ever before. Young people today, and even some of us who aren't too young, are maintaining high- tech GPS programs, aerial mapping, and biotechnology that create greater efficiencies in farming, increase output, and reduce the cost of food at our local grocery store. These young farmers are taking their experience on the farm to study and create the software that improves farming and acquire the financial skills it takes to run a farm, and they are gaining the entrepreneurial spirit that is needed to be part of one of America's greatest economic sectors. These youth, backed by their experience on the farm, are not just farmers. They're agronomists, engineers, economists, and international liaisons.

We must ensure these young farmers have access to the education they deserve, to the traditions and lessons that so many of us hold dear and have treasured our entire lives.

However, I not only call on my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation today, to ensure our young farmers have access to the education they need, but I also call on us to demand that the farm bill, passed with 35 ayes out of the House Agriculture Committee, be brought to the House floor for debate.

Farming in America requires a great deal of capital for major investments, access to land and credit, the ability to hire and purchase. American farmers create jobs and make investments in communities that keep jobs. The primary and perhaps only difference between a farmer and a businessman is that the farmer's revenue and profits are more subject to the whims of the climate, such as the drought that is devastating our Nation this summer.

I thank the gentlewoman from California.

So if we care about the future of our farmers and our young farmers, we must pass a 5-year farm bill, and we must do it before the August work period. So let's pass this bill today, and let's move on to the farm bill next.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I rise to offer an amendment with my good friend from Washington (Mr. McDermott) to provide greater funding for suicide prevention outreach for our troops on Active Duty. This amendment would add $10 million for suicide prevention outreach in the Defense Health Program of the Operations and Maintenance Account in title IX of the bill. It would pay for this by transferring $22 million from the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. This amendment is fully paid for, fiscally responsible, and incredibly timely.

This is the most recent issue of Time magazine, reporting that military and veteran suicide is a tragic epidemic that has only gotten worse. We are currently losing one U.S. soldier every day to suicide. I know my colleague, Dr. McDermott, comes to this issue as an expert in the field. I come as a Vietnam veteran and someone very passionate about providing our heroes with the care and the support they deserve.

In 2007, I wrote the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act to honor the memory of a young veteran from Iowa who, tragically, took his life in front of his mother. To make sure veterans have 24/7 access to a crisis hotline and other mental health resources, we passed that bill. Since then, the Veterans Crisis hotline has answered more than 600,000 calls and reportedly made more than 21,000 lifesaving rescues. Tragically, we still lose a veteran to suicide every 80 minutes. So we have much more to do.

I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on this issue. You worked tirelessly to combat suicide rates amongst our servicemembers and our veterans. I hope you will join me in supporting this amendment. We are losing too many of our heroes. It's up to us to act.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Washington, Dr. McDermott.

I yield back the balance of my time and ask for everyone's support.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to thank you again for your attention and your dedication to this cause, Mr. Chairman. I've noticed that for years you and the ranking member have worked together, and you're doing the right thing. Thank you very much.

I would just like to give my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Rahall, and to you, Peter, and everybody that's worked so hard on this.

Just one comment. We're moving forward. We're going to have jobs. We've done the right thing. It's a good first step. We've got more to do, as was just said. Everybody gives up something.

We've got this control box, if you want to call it, the black box; the recorder that's going to be in all trucks. The Mexican trucks get theirs paid for.

This happens to be a commercial driver's license. I don't know how many of you have got one, but if you want to see one, come look at it sometime. It's a little doing to get one. Owner-operators have to pay for their own. They're making $50,000, $60,000 a year if they're doing a good operation. That's prevalent in trucks running across this country. They're doing a good job. They're keeping commerce moving. We ought to just keep in mind we ought to give those middle class, hardworking, patriotic Americans the consideration they deserve.

But I'm glad we got the bill. I will go out there and work with all of you to try to get it better and get more done, but we've got a good first step.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say, at the onset, that this, again, is perhaps considered the final amendment to the bill, will not kill the bill. If we pass it, it will send it back to committee. If not, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

What this amendment will do is provide $31 million in increased resources for disaster flood protections, as well as $1 million in targeted resources towards nonmilitary energy cooperation assistance with our closest ally in the Middle East, and one of the closest allies across the globe that we have, Israel.

I've noticed, and I've said before, and I think I'll say it again, for more than a year I've waited patiently for the majority to stop the slash-and-burn legislation and revitalize the Nation and empower employers to create jobs. Well, we're still waiting on those millionaire job creators to show us the jobs, and we're still waiting for the majority to pass an actual jobs bill.

But while we sit here and wait, Mother Nature does not. In fact, Mother Nature waits for no one. Mother Nature

did not wait for the majority to pass a bill to send massive amounts of snow and rain to parts of Montana, triggering the Missouri River flood of 2011, leaving homes, businesses, farms, and towns devastated.

Mother Nature did not wait for the majority to pass the jobs bill to send Hurricane Irene barreling across the Eastern Seaboard, causing billions of dollars in damage.

The additional $31 million in funding that my amendment provides for funds planning, training, and other measures that ensure the readiness of the Corps of Engineers to respond to floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters, and to support emergency operations in response to such disasters, including but not limited to advance measures, flood fighting, and emergency operations.

These additional resources may not seem significant to some people, but to the family farm that is saved because of adequate farm protection relief, or to the small business which is saved, or to the family home that's saved, or the community that is saved, these additional resources are not only significant, but they can mean the difference between living a dream or living in desolation. But these additional resources of flood protection are only but one reason why you should support this amendment.

Another reason that you should support this amendment is that, in supporting this amendment, you vote to support greater cooperation efforts on energy efficiency and renewable energy with Israel.

Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East, without question, and one of our strongest allies across the globe. And, as such, our ability to work together to advance the interests of both our nations is crucial. One area where I believe we can work even closer together is the realm of energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Coming from my State of Iowa, I know a little bit about renewable energy. Iowa is a national leader in the production of wind power, biodiesel, ethanol, and we take great pride in our ability to advance technology that leads to cleaner, more sustainable energy production.

However, in order to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, we must take an all-of-the-above approach to energy, including greater domestic production of fossil fuels, and yes, renewable, clean green sources of energy. With greater cooperation with our ally, Israel, we can advance the energy security needs of both of our nations, which are vital to greater economic prosperity and growth for years to come.

So therefore, I urge, Mr. Speaker, all my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc for a couple of reasons I think are very important to all of us. As we know, the amendment that I'm concerned with and talking about has to do with the issue of multiple deployments and to add to the Armed Forces Breast Cancer Research Act of 2012 to the underlying legislation.

Amendment No. 85 requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the effects that multiple deployments have on the well-being of our military personnel. I, along with some of you, have some appreciation for multiple deployments. We used to call them tours, but we understand that the deployments and the impact on our troops in uniform and our families is severe. We need to know more about it.

The other is I had a former staffer that went to a 5-year reunion, a female staffer. She's an Iraq war veteran, and she returned to tell me that six of the 70 women in her battalion, ages 25 to 35, had been diagnosed with breast cancer and others had noncancerous masses. This startled me, as did a study that indicates breast cancer is more prevalent in military women than civilian.

The women are not the only ones that need this study. At last count, at least 78 men who served at Camp Lejeune between 1950 and 1985 have been diagnosed with breast cancer. These marines and their families deserve more information. Last Congress, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and the VFW supported conducting this study.

More troops are returning from duty only to face a new battle--breast cancer. So I urge my colleagues to get them answers. Support this en bloc amendment and the other good features of it.

Thank you, I appreciate the correction. We grow corn in Iowa, and we grow potatoes in Idaho. A little bit of fun.

I rise to speak in support of this bill today. I look across at Chairman Rogers and here at Ranking Member Ruppersberger, and I have great confidence. I know these men. I know their staff. They've come to this very serious matter that lays before our country that we need to understand. We must take action.

I'm encouraged by the process to involve key stakeholders from private industry and privacy groups during this drafting. This transparent engagement shaped many of the bipartisan constructive amendments being considered today that will improve the bill, and it's a good thing.

The threat from malicious actors in cyberspace is real. You've heard it said over and over already by those who have spoken ahead of me. I concur with what they say. It's an absolutely real thing. You only need to pick up the newspaper or turn on the TV to see the threats facing our networks. These networks include those that power our homes, our factories, and our small businesses, allow our banking system to function and provide the very backbone to our current American way of life, and we rely on these networks every day.

The bill under consideration today is a very narrow piece, but what we can agree on is it's a critical one to helping secure our networks and, therefore, the way of life as we know it today.

There are continuing debates on how to implement the bill, but the debate isn't over what needs to be done; it must be done. Information we ask our intelligence community to use and that protects our government networks should, in a secure way, be shared to protect the many other critical networks we rely on.

I believe companies are doing what they can to protect their networks to the extent they can today, but there is more that must be done.

We cannot be in a situation where the government had information to prevent or mitigate a catastrophic cyberattack, and yet we did not have the procedure in place to share this information. Our American way of life includes a great respect for privacy and our civil liberties. We make no mistake about that.

This bill, with the addition of many of the amendments which were drafted in concert with privacy groups, addresses many of those concerns.

In addition, the annual unclassified report required by the statutory intelligence community inspector general will inform whether there are additional adjustments needed to be made.

So, in closing, I want to say this: Congress cannot wait to act. Network security hasn't kept up with network speed. This is the fundamental purpose of this bill. I encourage Members to begin to secure our networks through sharing information about the threats. Please vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, today I stand before the 112th Congress to recognize and honor Mr. Stanley E. Peterson for his 40 years of service to the United States as an officer in the United States Navy, and as a supervisor in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and as the chief of police in Youngstown, Ohio.

My intention is to enter into the Congressional Record the true history of this great American patriot and dismiss the lies and innuendoes told by an expelled former Member, dismissed by the 107th Congress for his conviction in Federal court of taking bribes and kickbacks.

Stanley E. Peterson was the youngest recruit to the Federal Bureau of Investigation under Director J. Edgar Hoover in 1947. Like his fellow special agents, he lived his life according to the motto of the FBI: ``Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity,'' and its core values: rigorous obedience to the Constitution of the United States; respect for the dignity of those protected; compassion; fairness; uncompromising personal integrity and institutional integrity; accountability by accepting responsibility for his actions and decisions, as well as consequences for his actions

and decisions; leadership, both personal and professional.

Stan Peterson--he was often called Stan--was an intelligent, disciplined, legendary investigator renowned for his likability and tenacity in his work. When organized crime and its surrogates attacked him, he did not compromise; instead, he protected ongoing investigations, remaining loyal to the core values of the FBI up to the day he died, December 31, 2001, in Des Moines, Iowa.

Stanley Ellsworth Peterson was born July 24, 1923, to Eben Caleb and Lutie Strandquist Peterson in Glencoe, Minnesota. His grandparents and their cousins emigrated from Sweden before the turn of the century, looking for opportunities in the United States. Like so many others, the Peterson family struggled during the Great Depression in southern Minnesota. His father, an honored combat veteran of World War I, farmed and drove a delivery truck to keep his family from receiving welfare. His mother taught him humility, honesty, faithfulness, and to always do his best, work hard, never quit, and to be charitable.

Stan was brilliant in his studies, graduated from Glencoe High School at the age of 16, and adventurous, working for a traveling circus as a bookkeeper during the summer months. He attended and received his diploma from Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesota. But after the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy and was sent to Columbia University for midshipman training, earning the rank of Ensign. He served in the U.S. Navy during World War II in the Pacific aboard LST 711. By the end of the war, he was the youngest Ensign to captain LST 911.

After World War II, Stan Peterson was selected to join the FBI, and he married Kathryn Rose Thomas. His first assignment as a special agent was Richland, Washington, the home of the ``Manhattan Project'' facility. In 1947, Richland was a federally controlled atomic energy, top-secret community with restricted access. Remarkably, even their mail was postmarked ``Seattle'' to avoid identification.

After 1 year, he was transferred to Chicago, then Cleveland, and eventually Youngstown, Ohio, the bedlam of organized crime and famous for gangland slayings, illegal gambling, and corruption throughout the city government and the judicial system.

In 1961, the United States Attorney General, Robert Kennedy, directed J. Edgar Hoover and the Department of Justice to take action, initiating the war on organized crime. Stan Peterson became the agent in charge of the expanding regional FBI office with direct communication with the Director and the Attorney General. During his assignment, he received several letters of commendation for his crime- fighting achievements.

After an unprecedented 20 years at the same assignment, he was transferred to Memphis, Tennessee, a few years before his retirement from the FBI in 1975. A few years later, Youngstown Mayor Phillip Richley asked Stanley E. Peterson to become chief of police. This was the first time in the city's history that a chief would be appointed from outside of the department. As a matter of fact, the succeeding mayor, based upon Peterson's record, asked him to remain as chief, charging him to stamp out corruption both on city streets and within city hall.

Stan Peterson withstood police strikes, vigilantism, and personal attacks from all sides as the former G-man fought crime. As a result of Peterson's actions, the county sheriff signed a confession for taking bribes, and city workers, judges, and politicians were convicted of Federal crimes. In the midst of these events, the local newspaper did not recognize the achievements nor investigate but, rather, chose to parrot cacophony from organized crime figures and their surrogates.

After 8 years, Stanley E. Peterson retired as chief of police and eventually was asked to join an investigation with a former U.S. attorney into monopolies involving the railroads and trucking industry.

At his funeral, he was remembered for his living example as a man who prioritized his life by his dedication and relationship with God, his wife and family. He is remembered today for his integrity and service to our Nation.

In closing, I am pleased to note that Stan's son, Dr. Gregory Peterson, and his beautiful wife, Ramona, are in the gallery. I am happy that Dr. Peterson is present as we honor and enter into the Record the memory and history of this great American patriot, Stanley E. Peterson.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. The passage of this amendment will add protections for America's seniors to the bill. It will not, I repeat, it will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. If it's adopted, the amendment will be incorporated in the bill, and the bill will be immediately voted upon.

My motion to recommit will protect Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries and repair, yes, repair the trust between seniors and this body.

The Republican leadership has, for more than a year, promised that slash-and-burn legislation would revitalize this Nation and empower employers. Well, we're still waiting on millionaire job creators to show us the jobs.

To date, we have seen nothing from the Republican Party that would encourage job growth, stabilize the American family, or help seniors pay for their Medicare. Instead, the policies we have seen attempt to take from hardworking Americans the assistance they have been promised and that they have paid into their entire working careers, throughout their lives.

Last year we were promised legislation that would fuel job growth. We ended up with a budget that would pay for a tax break for the wealthy by dismantling Medicare. Instead of providing the benefits these workers had earned, the Republican budget attempted to charge seniors higher premium costs for fewer benefits.

Seniors were let down when this plan had enough Republican support to pass the Chamber. Like me, again, seniors will be disheartened once more when the Republican budget on the floor next month again attempts to end Medicare.

Seniors have a right to know when their benefits are being cut or when their Social Security trust funds are being drained. They should not have to fear each day what this Chamber's leadership is going to do to their benefits.

American seniors have the right to know. That is why we are offering this amendment today, to ensure that Iowa's 450,000-plus seniors know when legislation could tamper with their hard-earned benefits. This amendment will side with our seniors by requiring an assessment of each bill to show how it will affect the programs our seniors rely on.

Voting for this amendment will prove to the American seniors that you are on their side and that you care about the programs that made this country great. The greatest success of Medicare and Social Security is that, in a time of need, these programs brought Americans over the age of 60 out of poverty and ensured their access to care. These programs honor America's work ethic and the communities that we build together.

This amendment would provide peace of mind by ensuring that any attempt to change Social Security, Medicare, and the Medicare trust fund will be reported to Congress and the public. Should a bill harm the solvency of the trust fund, lessen the benefits owed to American workers, or command seniors to pay more in premium costs, our seniors will know.

Americans who are enrolled in Social Security and Medicare have paid into these programs throughout their entire careers, and they have helped to make this country what it is today. It is our responsibility--our responsibility--to work together and preserve the structure of Medicare.

We must provide America's seniors with a viable safety net and insurance plan for their future. So I will fight to--continue to fight for proposals that strengthen Medicare and the benefits that American retirees have worked for throughout their lives.

I hope, again, I hope you will join me, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act.

As a farmer, and an original cosponsor of this legislation, I appreciate the opportunity to this discuss this bill and speak in support of its common sense approach to rural dust regulations.

I have traveled the rural parts of my district and I have farmed my own fields. I know that when I'm harvesting my crops in the combine that I'm going to stir up some dust. Whether I am planting, tiling, or transferring crop to the grain bin, I cannot control the fact that there will be dust.

A one size fits all approach to regulating particulate matter, does not take into consideration that there are many sources of dust.

This legislation allows the flexibility for our states and municipalities to manage dust in rural areas, so that local residents and workers can determine which types may be harmful, and what is simply the result of hardworking Americans of doing their jobs.

Our farmers, ranchers, and rural business leaders are facing the same economic uncertainties as the rest of the country and they cannot afford additional, costly regulations on dust.

Particularly, those producers who are in areas where natural disasters have created new challenges for tilling soil that has been harmed by drought, fire and flood. For these individuals, many of the challenges remain unknown. Additional regulations will only increase their burdens and limit their ability to return to their job and contribute to the economy of rural America.

I know that Administrator Jackson has stated that the agency plans to maintain current standards. I thank her for that. I appreciate her intention to work with Congress and our farmers and ranchers.

However, her statement alone does not protect the farm operations across our nation and it does not prevent this body from legislating on behalf of our producers.

This legislation provides the protections needed for rural Americans to continue to do their day to day work without the threat of new regulation interfering with their mission to grow safe, plentiful, and affordable food for our nation.

We all have a vested interest to ensure that farmers and ranchers can provide for their families and all Americans.

I encourage my colleagues to support his legislation

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed in its current form.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My motion to recommit will provide both parties with the opportunity to come together to save hundreds of millions of dollars, rein in Federal spending, and support America's seniors, America's troops, and America's veterans.

Let me be clear. The passage of this amendment will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. If it's adopted, my amendment will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon.

The amendment is direct and incredibly important. Simply put, it will prevent the underlying bill from creating regulatory hurdles for low- cost drugs. Day in and day out, we talk about spending in this country and, particularly, in this Congress. Well, my amendment gives the Chamber the chance to rein in one of the greatest culprits of our out- of-control spending--health care.

Today, health care spending is more than 17 percent of our Nation's GDP, a number so massive that a 5-point reduction would save Americans $870 billion. Medicare part D covers 29.5 million Medicare beneficiaries. So how do we pay for prescription drugs? Eighty-three percent of Medicare part D funds come from our Nation's general revenue, and CBO has estimated that America's Medicare part D spending will total approximately $53 billion in 2012. That's quite an incentive to pay for drugs wisely and efficiently. This amendment helps us do just that.

First, it protects current and future regulations that lower the cost of pharmaceuticals from being hindered by the underlying bill. We have done too much to support America's seniors and improve health care today to let regulations increase costs on our citizens or jeopardize their access to care.

Nationwide, we have provided greater access to health services for Medicare beneficiaries and reduced their costs by allowing access to discounted drugs in Medicare part D. We sent checks to seniors this year who hit the part D doughnut hole, and we made a commitment to close it by 2020. We must continue to aid our seniors and reduce the cost of their medicine, but we must also reduce this cost for our Nation.

The second part of the amendment ensures that this bill will not prevent the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, or Health and Human Services from negotiating for lower drug prices. Military health care covers the needs of more than 9 million individuals, ranging from Active Duty, their families, and veterans. Fortunately, the Secretaries of the Department of Defense and the VA have the authority to negotiate with companies on the price of drugs. We must protect their ability to serve the millions of needs of military members--Active Duty and retired--and their families who have served our Nation.

Not only will this amendment defend the right of these agencies to ensure the best prices for our veterans and military families, it will protect any future provision that would provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services that same power to serve nearly 30 million Medicare part D beneficiaries and make medicine more affordable.

Our constituents know what a driving force health costs are in our Nation's spending crisis. They feel it every day in their own homes and do all they can to get by.

My own constituent, Jan, in Des Moines, recently wrote to tell me that she is ``concerned about the prices of medicine in our country, as it's often the biggest part of most citizens' out-of-pocket health care costs.''

Echoing her concerns in a small town, Donna wrote, ``Countless Americans can't afford to buy medications in the U.S. and yet cannot afford to go without them.''

These constituents and many more told me that if we could pass legislation to lower the cost of medicine that ``it would be extremely popular with your constituents, and it would be easy to garner bipartisan support.''

I agree with my constituents. We should do this. I hope that you will support this, bring it back, and let's pass it, and let's be sure that we do the best we can to help our seniors, our military with military families, and our veterans.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.