Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise with great concern about the proposed budget and how sustainable it is or it is not.

I would express it concerns me a great deal when I see the fact that 115

million taxpayers would see their taxes increase on average by almost $1,800 in 2011. I think this discussion can be healthy, and I appreciate the fact that the majority does want to keep some of the tax relief, but it needs a budget that comports with that intent.

It concerns me a great deal when I look at the long term when we see absolutely no change in direction from prior spending. We hear that there has been borrowing that has taken place. It has. There is no denying that. But now it seem that the option is to take more tax dollars from the taxpayers, and that is what I think will be damaging to the economy as a whole and certainly the economy of households all across America. When I look at what I see as very damaging to seniors with the dividends tax relief plan that would be cut off, that concerns me a great deal, and when I look at the impact to my State of Nebraska in the increases in taxes, I just don't see where this new budget sets a new direction.

We were told in the Budget Committee several times that we need fundamental reforms in entitlements, and yet this budget presents absolutely no reforms in entitlements.

Mr. Chairman, those are my concerns and they are concerns about the future.

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling). It is good to be here this evening as we discuss, I believe, an important aspect of our future.

Later this week we will begin debating the majority party's budget resolution. It promises to balance the budget by 2012 without raising taxes and with significant increases in both discretionary and mandatory spending. Basic math tells me this is impossible.

The majority party's budget assumes the expiration of all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts by adding those revenues into the budget over time to bring it into balance. Chasing higher spending with higher taxes, Mr. Speaker, will fail to address the unsustainable growth of government and will undo everything our economy has accomplished.

Even as our Nation faced tremendous challenges over the past few years, the strategy of economic growth through tax relief has delivered significant deficit reductions, including job growth.

If we are to raise taxes to balance the budget, entitlements would quickly drive us right back into the deficit, just at a higher level of taxing and spending.

With the retirement of the massive baby-boom generation looming, this situation will grow more serious, not less so. Most importantly, however, from an agricultural point of view, the majority party's budget promises more than $110 billion in increased mandatory spending in selected issue areas. They address this by creating 10 so-called reserve funds for specific items like health care, education and the farm bill. Agriculture gets a $20 billion ``reserve'' fund to be released at the discretion of the Budget Committee chairman. Sounds like a good deal, well, until you read the details.

This farm bill reserve fund can only be made available if the farm bill would not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus through 2017. In other words, to get the $20 billion, it must be offset by spending cuts or tax increases. This is either a shell game to give the impression of increased funding with no substance, or it is part of a larger plan leading to tax hikes, and I believe it is a part of a larger plan that would lead to the largest tax increase in American history.

It is interesting to note that in Nebraska this tax hike would cost the average Nebraskan, with over 656,000 taxpayers in Nebraska, an average of over $2,800 per taxpayer. My friends in Wyoming, almost $3,200 per taxpayer. My neighbors in Colorado over $3,000; Kansas, almost $2,900; South Dakota, almost $2,600 per taxpayer.

What concerns me the most, Mr. Speaker, is that sitting through several long hearings in the Budget Committee because it is certainly an important topic, we heard from the experts, and I would say the experts of the experts, who gave us clear warnings that we must reform entitlements.

The Federal Reserve Chairman, Mr. Bernanke, in the Budget Committee on February 28, 2007, said, ``Without early and meaningful action to address the rapid growth of entitlements, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.''

The Comptroller General, Mr. David Walker, also in a Budget Committee hearing, on January 23 stated, ``Health care is the number one fiscal challenge for the Federal and State governments. It is the number one competitiveness challenge for American business, and it is a growing challenge for American families. If there is one thing that can bankrupt America, it is health care. We need dramatic and fundamental reforms.''

Mr. Walker went on to say on ``60 Minutes'' that the rising cost of government entitlements are a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.

Even the Democrat chairman of the Senate Budget Committee has acknowledged, ``It is always easier to defer, to kick the can down the road to avoid making choices.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great concern about our future. I am concerned that when it comes to fiscal policies we have ignored the past, we haven't learned our lessons, and that we expect spending into prosperity, taxing into prosperity, and there is a law of diminishing returns. We know that is not a sustainable situation, and we have to practice fiscal responsibility because what concerns me the most is that the more we delay the decision, the tougher the decision becomes.

I know as we look at this budget and the revenues it necessitates are not sustainable with those policies. I rise out of great concern and look forward to a good, hearty debate as we address these issues that are so important to middle-class America.

Madam Speaker, today is National Agriculture Day. National Agriculture Day occurs every year on the first day of Spring. This is a week when we honor agriculture for providing safe, abundant and affordable products, a strong economy, a source of renewable energy, and a world of job opportunities.

It goes without saying that agriculture is tremendously important to my district and the nation as a whole, and I hope you join me in celebrating everyone who works so hard to provide for the world.

The Third District of Nebraska is one of the largest agricultural districts in the country. Our district ranks first in the value of sales of grains and oilseeds, second in total value of agricultural products sold, and first in cattle and calve inventory.

Simply put: Agriculture matters. National Agriculture Week is about celebrating the impact the industry has on our State, our Nation, and our everyday lives. I'm proud to represent the Third District of Nebraska, a district that truly embodies the spirit of this celebration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our Nation's agricultural producers. U.S. agriculture is innovative, adaptive and certainly responsive. I am here today to celebrate National Ag Week which ends tomorrow, as well as celebrate National Ag Day, which we celebrated on Wednesday.

It goes without saying that agriculture is tremendously important to my district and the Nation as a whole. I hope you join me in celebrating everyone who works so hard to provide nutrition for the world.

I represent one of the largest agriculture districts in the country. My district ranks first in the value of sales of grains and oil seeds, second in total value of agricultural products sold, and first in cattle and calf inventory. According to the Nebraska Department of Agriculture, my State ranks first in the Nation in commercial red meat production as well.

In 2005, agriculture industry cash receipts contributed more than $11 billion to Nebraska's economy. Over 20 percent of all Nebraskans are employed in farm or farm-related jobs. Every dollar in agriculture exports generates $1.48 in additional economic activity such as transportation, financing, warehousing and production. Cash receipts from farm marketings contributed more than $11 billion to Nebraska's economy in 2005.

As impressive as those facts are, I do want to make sure that the rural way of life is enhanced and certainly encouraged to grow. As a member of the House Agriculture Committee, I look forward to helping draft the reauthorization of the next farm bill before it expires in September. My goal is to create a workable, comprehensive package which will strengthen American agriculture and provide long-term stability for our Nation's producers. Any attempt to make major reforms of the current farm program must be in the long-term interests of American agriculture. We know that we need good, sustainable policy. Taxpayers appreciate that, markets appreciate that, and we can achieve that with a good, hearty discussion. We must also aggressively pursue new markets and break down barriers to trade with other countries.

In doing so, we must remain mindful of other aspects of rural life, and that is, the shrinking communities throughout Nebraska and other rural areas. I serve as a member of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Rural Development, as well as the House Rural Caucus, and I know we must do all we can to strengthen and protect our rural communities, the backbone of our values and way of life. I look forward to helping create strong, sustainable world economies and responsible tax policies to encourage economic development for these areas.

As a member of the House Science and Technology Committee, I am also putting a priority on expanding modern technology in our district to support new and existing businesses, attract new employers and make our rural communities more competitive in the modern economy.

So what are we really celebrating this week? National Ag Day is a day to recognize and celebrate the abundance provided by agriculture and our Nation's agriculture industry. Every year, producers, agriculture associations, corporations, universities, government agencies and countless others across America join together to recognize the contributions of agriculture during this week.

This year, National Ag Day was celebrated on March 21, 2007, the first day of spring, and National Ag Week of course runs through the rest of the week. Ag Day was first celebrated in 1973, and this is the 34th year of celebrating Ag Day on the first day of spring. I am proud to have this opportunity to make these remarks to take part in this celebration.

The Agriculture Council of America hosts the campaign on a national level; however, awareness efforts in communities across America are as influential, if not more, than the broad scale effort. If you are interested, I recommend checking out www.agday.org, once again www.agday.org. The Web site has a tremendous amount of information, and I thank the ACA for letting me use their information here today.

Ag Day is about recognizing and certainly celebrating the contribution of agriculture in our everyday lives. The National Ag Day program encourages every American to understand how food and fiber products are produced, to value the essential role of agriculture in maintaining a strong economy, appreciate the role that agriculture plays in providing safe, abundant and affordable products.

Why do we celebrate agriculture? Certainly, agriculture provides almost everything we eat, use and wear on a daily basis, but too few people truly understand this contribution and certainly may not appreciate it as we should.

This is particularly the case in our schools where students may only be exposed to agriculture if they enroll in the very specific and related vocational training. By building awareness, the Agriculture Council of America is encouraging young people to consider career opportunities in agriculture.

Each American farmer feeds nearly 130 people, a dramatic increase from 25 people in the 1960s. Let me repeat that: each American farmer feeds nearly 130 people and certainly a dramatic increase from the 25 people that each American farmer fed in the 1960s. Quite simply, American agriculture is doing more and doing it better; and as the world population soars, there is an even greater demand for the food and fiber produced in the United States.

From a team of horses in the early 1900s to tractors with the power of 40 to 300 horses today, American farmers provide consumers with more and certainly better quality food than ever before. In fact, one farmer now supplies food, as I mentioned earlier, for about 129 people very specifically in the U.S. and abroad, compared to just 25.8 people in 1960.

The efficiency of the American farmer pays off in the price American consumers pay for food as well. The United States consumers spend roughly 9 percent of their income on food, compared with 11 percent in the United Kingdom, 17 percent in Japan, 27 percent in South Africa, and 53 percent in India. That is a pretty good deal.

This great value is due in large part to improved equipment efficiency, enhanced crop and livestock genetics through biotechnology and conventional breeding, and advances in information management.

All Americans are asked to enjoy and admire the wonders of American agriculture as National Agriculture Day is celebrated on the first day of spring as it was this last week.

Today's farmers work nearly 3\1/2\ times more land than their predecessors from the 1900s. Their needs are different, the crops are different, and the rules governing production practices are different. Most American farms are still family farms. Today, almost 99 percent of all U.S. farms are owned by individuals, family partnerships, or family corporations. Less than 1 percent of America's farms and ranches are owned by non-family corporations according to the Census of Agriculture.

Biotechnology certainly increases capacity and product quality. It is another factor in efficiency of American farmers in their ability to provide more and certainly higher quality food and livestock. Biotechnology provides benefits similar to traditional plant and livestock breeding but does so in a more controlled environment and with faster results.

Advancements made in plant biotechnology provide consumers with better quality products in many areas, and those benefits are just beginning.

There are many products in the biotechnology research pipeline that will provide better livestock feeding, resulting in leaner meat for consumers. Many of these same products will lessen the environmental impact of livestock production by reducing waste and/or the chemicals found in animal waste.

Pharmaceutical companies are actively working with farmers to develop crops that can go directly from the field to pharmaceutical production, eliminating some of the processing steps that occur in today's operations. This research will significantly reduce the costs required to produce many life-saving drugs.

Research and technology advancements have also resulted in new uses for commodity crops like corn, soybeans and various grains. Use of products like ethanol and soy diesel will reduce American dependence on fossil fuels and improve air quality throughout the United States and the world. Ethanol is the largest industrial use of these commodity crops, but soy diesel and other uses are emerging every year.

When it comes to ethanol, America's farmers do not just produce fuel for our bodies. Crops such as corn and soybeans are used to produce fuel for our vehicles. Renewable fuels contribute to a cleaner environment, reduce pollution and reliance on foreign oil and contribute to the stability of the world farm economy by creating commercial markets for crops.

With the record production of 2.81 billion gallons of ethanol in 2003, 1 billion bushels of corn and 12 percent of the grain soybean crop were used to produce fuel for our vehicles. In 2003, 73 ethanol plants were in operation in the United States, several in my district and in Nebraska. In fact, according to the USDA, one in every 10 rows of corn went into ethanol production in 2003. In both his 2006 and 2007 State of the Union addresses, President George Bush called for making renewable energy sources a national priority.

His recent call for 35 billion gallons of renewable fuels, including ethanol and biodiesel, has led to crop producers and customers alike asking how we will meet the challenge without disrupting traditional markets.

The demand for corn, for ethanol production grew rapidly in 2006, and it will grow rapidly again this year. That has caused concern among corn and other end users, including the livestock industry and importers, like Japan. There is no question that a big transition is taking place. As producers will have to react more quickly to the market, so will our customers, the livestock industry, importers and ethanol industry.

There are new markets for ethanol 85, or E85, as we call it. Ethanol today is largely a blend component with gasoline. E85 is a mix of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. The ethanol blend adds octane and displaces toxics, which helps refiners meet Clean Air Act specifications. There are about 600 E85 refueling stations across the country. New market opportunities include E85 and ethanol fuel cells. Today there are millions of flexible fuel vehicles capable of using E85, but they make up less than 3 percent of the total U.S. motor vehicle fleet.

A valuable coproduct of ethanol is dried distillers grain solubles, a high-protein feedstock. A bushel of corn used in the dry-grind ethanol process yields 2.8 gallons of ethanol, 17 pounds of carbon dioxide and 16 pounds of distillers grains. Wet grains go to dairy and cattle rations; dry goes to hog and poultry, or when it is shipped. A majority of DDGs is fed to beef and dairy; however, swine and poultry consumption is increasing, although a very small percentage can be used now as the feed industry gains a better understanding of how best to utilize that product in those rations.

According to commodity specialist companies, dairy accounted for 45 percent of 2005 distillers grains consumption in North America, while beef accounted for 37 percent. Swine accounted for 13 percent of the North American distillers grains use, while poultry made up 5 percent.

In the 2005-2006 marketing year, 8.35 million metric tons of distillers grains were produced. In 2006 and 2007, more than 10.8 million metric tons will be produced. By 2011 and 2012, the industry is expected to produce more than 20 million metric tons.

The supply of distillers grains has a displacement on the corn feed market. In 2005 and 2006, distillers grains displaced an estimated 3.89 million bushels of corn from feed markets, making that corn available for other uses.

Ethanol and biodiesel are just the beginning. Research continues to find new uses for agriculture commodities and waste. For example, livestock manure is being used to create electricity. Commodities such as soybean and canola are being developed as lubricants to replace petroleum-based products. Corn starch is replacing petroleum-based plastics. It's exciting to see these advancements.

American agriculture can also be celebrated for its effort in environmental conservation. Farmers and ranchers provide food and habitat for approximately 75 percent of this Nation's wildlife. The current farm bill has provisions for farmers to create environmental habitats that will ensure protection of the land and water resources of this country.

Farmers use computer and satellite technology to map the fields for production inputs. This increases yields and reduces crop inputs like fertilizer and crop-protection chemicals. With today's technology, farmers are better able to match seed production characteristics and production practices to soil type and climate conditions. The result is higher yields with lower input costs for more efficient use of chemicals, fertilizers and tillage. Ultimately, that results in more food at a lower cost for consumers.

Today's farmers understand the importance of improving the quality and quantity of food available to the world. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, it is estimated that there will be 7.5 billion people in the world by the year 2020. We currently are at 6.2 billion. It's agriculture's job to find a way to feed those people.

Advancements in crop technology, equipment technology and information management will make that possible. American farmers and others involved in the agriculture industry have met and will continue to meet this challenge again and again. World population growth is creating needs for food and fiber, obviously. World population is at 6.2 billion today, and expected again to reach 7.5 billion by the year 2020. There will be millions of new mouths to feed, many of whom rely on the United States' food production to meet this need.

The United States is best positioned to meet this growing need, as agriculture is America's number one export. Again, agriculture is America's number one export. About 17 percent of raw U.S. agriculture products are exported yearly.

U.S. farmers and ranchers produce more than 200 raw commodities yearly for domestic and export markets. One-fourth of the world's beef and nearly one-fifth of the world's grain, milk and eggs are produced in the U.S.

Through research and changes in production practices, today's food producers are providing Americans with the widest variety of foods ever. Research and advancements in biotechnology are now in the marketplace with tastier fruits and vegetables that stay fresh longer and are not damaged by insects. Consumers derive health benefits from changes in farm production, including less fat in meat, longer-lasting fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as tofu, a soybean product which has been shown to reduce the risk of some cancer and heart disease.

Certainly technology leads the way in today's agriculture protection. Precision farming boosts crop yields and reduces waste by using satellite maps and computers to match seed, fertilizer and crop- protection applications to local soil conditions. Sophisticated global positioning systems, as we call GPS, can be specifically designed for spraying herbicides and pesticides. A weed detector equipped with infrared light identifies specific plants by the different rays of light they reflect and then sends a signal to a pump to spray a preset amount of herbicide onto the weed.

Biogenetics is another technology that is being utilized in crop production. A particular trait is implanted directly into the seed to protect the seed against certain pests. Artificial insemination of livestock is producing more and certainly better meat supplies.

Farmers are utilizing four-wheel-drive tractors with up to 300 horsepower, requiring fewer passes across fields, saving energy and time. Huge combines are speeding the time it takes to harvest crops. That leads to more efficient use of energy.

With modern methods, 1 acre of land in the U.S. about the size of a football field can produce 42,000 pounds of strawberries, 11,000 heads of lettuce, 25,400 pounds of potatoes, 8,900 pounds of sweet corn, or 640 pounds of cotton lint. America is producing not only more food, but certainly higher quality and lower costs.

Two out of every three bushels of corn in the world originate in the United States. In 2001, 45 percent of the world's soybeans were grown in the United States. American consumers spend the lowest percentage of their annual income on food, just 9.3 percent. Nearly 19 billion pounds of pork, the most widely eaten meat, were processed in 2001. Cotton is by far the most dominant fiber produced in the United States, and, as you know, is used for apparel, home fabrics, as well as industrial uses.

Fertilizer and pesticides contribute to increases in production, as crop-production products have tripled the output of resource-intensive food like cooking oil, meat, fruits and vegetables. Crop-production products have doubled the production of world food calories since 1960. Without synthetic crop-production chemicals, American farmers certainly cannot feed the world.

Farmers are good stewards of the land's environment as well. Farmers and ranchers are the first environmentalists, maintaining and improving the soil and natural resources to pass on to the future generations. Farmers use reduced tillage practices on more than 72 million acres to prevent erosion. Farmers maintain over 1.3 million acres of grass waterways, allowing water to flow naturally from crops without eroding soil. Contour farming, planting crops, which is planting crops on hillsides instead of up and down, keeps soil from washing away. About 26 million acres in the United States are managed this way. Cattle ranchers and others control water run-off with sod waterways and diversions, erosion-control structures and catch basins.

Just as urban families recycle grass, newspaper and aluminum, farm families have practiced recycling for a long time by applying manure to fields to replace nutrients in the soil. Food service food scraps are used to make animal feed. Agriculture land provides habitat, again, for 75 percent of the Nation's wildlife.

Let's discuss the profile of the farmer. More than 3 million people farm or ranch in the United States. Individuals, family partnerships or family corporations operate almost 99 percent of U.S. farms. Over 22 million people are employed in farm or farm-related jobs, including production agriculture, farm inputs, processing and marketing, and wholesale and retail sales.

According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, 50 percent of the farmers are 55 years of age or older, up only 3 percent from 1997. The average age of the principal operator is 55.3 years. Forty-one percent of U.S. total land area is farmland. In 1900, the average farm size was 147 acres, compared to 441 acres today.

The top five agriculture commodities are cattle and calves, dairy products, broilers, corn and soybeans. U.S. farmers produce 46 percent of the world's soybeans, 41 percent of the world's corn, 20.5 percent of the world's cotton and 13 percent of the world's wheat.

Let me repeat that, because I believe that we are losing sight of how important these markets are. U.S. farmers produce 46 percent of the world's soybeans, 41 percent of the world's corn, 20.5 percent of the world's cotton and 13 percent of the world's wheat.

Farmers and ranchers are independent business people who provide for their families by growing and producing food and fiber. Farmers and ranchers are producing meat lower in fat and cholesterol. This has resulted in retail cuts that are 15 percent leaner, giving consumers better value for their dollar. For example, a pork tenderloin now has only one more gram of fat than a skinless chicken breast, one of the true fat lightweights, so to speak. Also much leaner beef cuts are being produced much more now than 20 years ago, resulting in 27 percent less fat reaching the retail case than in 1985.

Research and advancements in biotechnology are now in the marketplace with better fruit and vegetables that stay fresh longer and are not damaged by insects. A new technology called precision farming boosts the crop yields and reduces waste by using satellite maps in computers to match seed, fertilizer and crop-protection applications to local soil conditions.

As the amount of mechanization and horsepower and farm machinery has increased, the time needed to complete tasks has decreased. Combines, these huge machines used to harvest grains such as corn, soybeans and wheat, have dramatically changed agriculture. In the 1930s, before the machines were available, a farmer could harvest an average of 100 bushels of corn by hand in a 9-hour day. Today's combines can harvest 900 bushels of corn per hour, or 100 bushels of corn in under 7 minutes.

The efficiency of U.S. farmers benefits the United States consumer in the pocketbook. Americans spend less on food than any other developed Nation in the world. On average, again, in 2004, Americans spent only 2 percent of their disposable income on meat and poultry compared to 4.1 percent in 1970.

I think it's important, as we reflect on all of these numbers, it can be a little overwhelming. But it's important to reflect the importance of agriculture, as we look at National Agriculture Week, and certainly as we look to the future. Hopefully we can learn from our past, the policies that, perhaps, discourage trade or policies that come down in a Draconian manner on farmers and ranchers. I will get to more of that in a few minutes.

Meanwhile, I would like to yield to my friend from Iowa, as he would like to discuss American agriculture as well.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King). I appreciate the fact that you speak to the future. As we look at so many of the aspects of agriculture, I think sometimes we forget about the future and how far we have come.

We have water challenges in Nebraska. And it is interesting, in the middle of about a 7-year drought, I don't think enough credit is given to the better practices that have been engaged in Nebraska relating to irrigation, that we are seeing record amounts of yields, record yields amidst about 50 percent reduction in irrigation.

Now, there are also those critics out there, they tend to be critical of the fact that there aren't return flows from the former flowing of irrigation perhaps that many would consider waste. But it is interesting that as farmers become more and more efficient, they are also criticized along the way, and I think that that is unfortunate. When you talk about energy, it is absolutely vital that we realize that, even amidst corn prices that are strong, we have unprecedented costs of inputs especially related to energy, whether it is the fertilizer or whether it is the diesel for the tractor.

And that is what makes me nervous about these urges to regulate industry even more, that it will drive up the cost. And not only electricity for the consumer in their residence, but it will drive up the cost of energy, as we see it on farms and ranches. And that will drive up the cost of food, plain and simple. And as I stated earlier, we have come a long way in terms of producing food in an affordable format.

I was reading through, and I noticed part of the essay contest winner from the Ag Council of America, and this is the 2007 winner, LaTasha Cote, a 12th grader from Myrtle, Missouri Couch High School. And students from 7th to 12th grade submitted original essays of 450 words about the importance of agriculture in the United States. Under the theme, ``American Agriculture in 2025,'' students were encouraged to focus their essays on the potential landscape of American agriculture in 2025 based on where we are today and the opportunities that lie ahead. And Ms. Cote read her essay to industry representatives, Members of Congress, Federal agency representatives, media and others in a celebration of agriculture; and let me share with you just an excerpt:

``The alarm sounds off at about 8:00 a.m. A young man reaches over to turn it off, gets up, jumps in the shower, eats his breakfast, and then heads out the door toward the milk barn. There is no rush to get to the cows because they have already been milked.

``He begins to check the computer system to see the amount of milk produced from the third milking of the day. Immediately, a very precise chart pops up and gives the percentage of milk given per second, the amount of butter fat, and accurately tells the farmer the exact weight of the milk.

``Wait, where is the reality check? Well, there isn't one. This is only one example of how far the industry in all farms has come since the year of 2007.''

And I haven't had a chance to read the entire piece, but I wanted to take this opportunity to congratulate Ms. Cote and every student who submitted an essay in the contest. I think that it may be even sooner than 2025 when we see these things come about, but it is great to see young people looking to the future.

As we look at the big picture of agriculture, certainly globally we always think of trade, and I think the unfortunate situation with the closure of our beef, the rejection of our beef in many cases to Asia, but it does I think send a message to the larger issue of where we are at with livestock in America. It is interesting that we do find ourselves with a bit of a shortage of grain to feed our livestock.

And as we try to address this shortage, certainly, I think it can be best if the government stays out of the way. But when I hear concerns of this and the livestock industry, perhaps, getting a little worried, it worries me, too, because the livestock industry has been absolutely crucial to economies of rural America. And the fact that these economies are not, I think, appreciated like they should be, it is interesting to note how further regulations of the recent past have led to many livestock operations having to become much, much larger. And as they become much larger, certainly, others become concerned about the livestock waste.

And it was encouraging to me last year to finally see some understanding that we don't want policies that force the producer to get larger. We want them to have the options of getting larger should they pursue that. Should they feel comfortable with their current status, that is fine, too.

It is interesting, though, as we see large operators, small operators, middle-size, medium-size operators, we have to realize that I believe our fundamental responsibility is to create opportunities. Government can create opportunities, not through a check necessarily, but we can create policy opportunities so that the little guy has the option of getting larger and can prosper and pursue the economic dreams that they wish to.

And the gentleman from Iowa certainly pointed out the fact that there are a lot of promising scenarios out there. As I go across the Third District of Nebraska and I visit operators, whether they are small or large, it is so encouraging to see people engaged in the economy. And as they are engaged, whether it is at a beef cattle processing plant or a pork processing plant, or an ethanol plant, or whether they are even creating biodiesel in their garage, I think there is just tremendous opportunity, and that I believe it is my responsibility to maybe not protect that opportunity, but to expand that and to make sure that every producer, every taxpayer has that opportunity to grow and, hopefully, make a greater living, and the government won't take it all away from them, and they can reapply that through available capital back into the economy.

And if the gentleman from Iowa would like to participate, go ahead.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa. As I wrap this up, I certainly want to thank the gentleman for really focusing on the future, and I think the sky is the limit when we can focus on the benefits of agriculture and perhaps the things we take for granted.

But as we talk about the future and younger generations engaging in agriculture, I find it unconscionable that the so-called death tax, or, in a more technical sense, the estate tax, would go back up to 55 percent, and that a subsequent generation on a farm or ranch would have to come up with cash to inherit that farm or ranch. That is sad. That is un-American. I think it is insensitive to taxpayers, and I think it has an immense disregard for the future and economic impact that that would have.

I think too many people think that only certain departments of the grocery store really come from agriculture, as we would think of it. But the fact is it is involved in health care, whether it is pharmaceutical, surgical sutures, ointments, X-ray film, latex gloves, gelatin for capsules and heart valves, or with construction, lumber, paint, brushes, tar paper, other things. And I could go on a list that would take much more time than I can consume here today.

But the fact is, we have come a long way, and we can go a lot further as we focus on opportunities, as we look at the fact that we need each other. Farmers need consumers. Consumers need farmers. And in between those entities, there is opportunity, whether it is processing, whether it is research. I think we can go a lot further than we have already come as we look to the future.

Again I would like to thank the Agriculture Council of America for providing a lot of this information and the very hands-on approach that they take and certainly look forward to working with them as I serve the people of the Third District of Nebraska and as farmers of the Third District of Nebraska and farmers and ranchers continue to feed the world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you to the gentleman from Iowa. It's great to be here. I take this responsibility, not only this evening, very seriously, but being elected as a Member of the United States House of Representatives very seriously.

My primary responsibility, I believe, is to protect the freedoms that so many Americans enjoy and, perhaps, have taken for granted for a time. I think back to the terrorist acts leveled on our country, and that is a constant reminder that we cannot sit idly by, that we cannot let division sway us from our goal. I believe that one of the fundamental sources of our freedom is through economic freedom, and that is why I requested a spot on the Budget Committee.

Incidentally, last night, we had a long markup of the budget. It was very enlightening to me as a new Member, and it was very enlightening to me, I think, some of the rhetoric and the objectives of a budget. We know that so often we want to tell people, yes, in terms of the of new programs, of new spending. There comes a time, though, when we are going to have to pay for that.

There was a lot of rhetoric exchanged in terms of what tax relief has done for our economy, some would say what it hasn't done for the budget. But I don't know if it's just coincidence that the economy turned around with tax relief. I don't think it's coincidence, to be quite honest with you. But it is interesting how the allegations are leveled that the Bush administration tax relief or the Reagan tax relief or, quite honestly, the President John F. Kennedy tax relief had nothing to do with a rebounding economy subsequently.

It was very enlightening to me, in fact, when I was visiting the JFK Library in Boston, or outside of Boston. This is not the Ronald Reagan Library; this is not the Bush 41 or the Bush 43 library. This is the John F. Kennedy Library that has an entire exhibit devoted to the economic policies of tax relief leading to economic prosperity.

I believe that it has to do with the very basics of economic freedom that individuals, families, you name it, when they have those dollars in their hands, they can spend it more wisely on the economy, rather than paying it into the government, and then the government doling it out as a redistribution of wealth or whatever the case might be.

But it does amaze me that we are here listening to the need for so much more spending. In fact, a high level of spending wasn't enough to get enough support, so they made it even higher to bring on more support. That concerns me, and I know that it concerns many Americans as well.

But as we were marking up the budget last night in committee well into the night, it was interesting how we heard that the majority wants to maintain the tax relief relating to the marriage penalty, tax relief relating to the child tax credit, but yet the budget doesn't show that. The budget does not show that. And it just spoke volumes, I guess, in terms of sound budgeting according to the principles I think of economic freedoms that should be instilled there.

But when we talk about something, we politicians kind of get a bad name now and then, or maybe more often than that, for saying one thing and doing another. That is unfortunate, because this budget says one thing and does another, and that is my concern.

It is interesting that there were amendments proposed for the budget resolution last night that would have solidified the tax relief one measure at a time. So there was the option of cherry-picking, if you will, good parts, bad parts, whatever the case might have been for others wanting to support these amendments. If they like the child tax credit, but didn't like the dividends reduction in taxes, they have the option to choose one without the other. Every single amendment was rejected. Every single amendment. That concerns me a great deal because, like I said, it eats away at what I believe is a fundamental freedom that we should enjoy in America, that being economic freedom.

I did not sense that commitment. It would be hard for me to speak or to speculate. And I am not here to beat up on those with whom I disagree. That is not my job.

I do believe, though, that this supplemental spending bill, and I don't want to take up all of your time, but I do want to touch briefly on the fact that this supplemental spending bill with the caveats that many would call micromanaging the war is the wrong thing to do. I don't think we want to give our enemy any hint of what our plans are. A date certain withdrawal is the wrong thing to do. Certainly that was not discussed, especially in the spending context that we have heard so much here today about and well into the future.

There is a lot we can worry about in the past, but if we don't focus on the future, we are not doing our jobs. And as we look at protecting the freedom, I can't help but think how productive we could be with a more unified approach. And I believe that military generals are trained highly, and that we should entrust in their abilities the objective of doing what they need to do so that we can see success overseas. And I cannot say that enough, but I truly believe that turning a spending bill into a bill to micromanage the war is the wrong thing to do.

Constitutionally the President is the Commander in Chief. No one else is the Commander in Chief. And the Commander in Chief makes the tough decisions. And we can again look at the past and perhaps learn from the past and apply those lessons to the future, which we must do and can do. And if we pay attention to really look at the information and the facts and the data, we can do the right thing, and that is availing the resources to our military, to those most highly trained, those closest to the situation, and allow those folks to make the right decision.

I yield back, but I certainly appreciate this opportunity and would certainly encourage my friend from Iowa to continue his pursuits here, because I think it is helpful, and I hope to join again. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do what is right and pass a clean supplemental.

The bill unveiled yesterday would tie our military leaders' hands at the very time they need our support the most. Some want to set a date certain. The reality is the only certain part of this plan is that President Bush has threatened to veto the bill, and critical funding for our troops would be needlessly delayed.

This plan is dangerous, and I would urge all of my colleagues to oppose this war funding proposal. Even Members of the majority party are reacting negatively to the proposal, as well they should.

Everyone agrees that we must make progress in Iraq. We also agree the Iraqi Government must step up and improve the situation. What the Republicans are going to stand against is tying the funds our soldiers need to do their jobs to benchmarks thought up by special interest groups.

Our men and women in uniform deserve the best, and a haphazard approach is not it. We can do better. We must do better.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The feedback I get from individual workers in my district, they believe that stronger laws are needed to protect the secret ballot election process in the workplace. H.R. 800 would strip away this right from workers, and this is simply unfair.

Removing secret ballot elections is unfair to individual workers because it opens them up to retaliation. By having to publicly express support for or against any measure, this legislation would leave workers vulnerable to coercion and intimidation, and I cannot in good conscience support it.

Secret ballots actually enhance collective bargaining. Because I believe a worker's right to a secret ballot should be protected, I am cosponsoring the Secret Ballot Protection Act. This legislation would guarantee individual workers the right to secret ballot elections and ensure them the right to freely choose whether or not to join a union.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for individual worker's rights, to protect the secret ballot, and to vote against H.R. 800.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of House Resolution 99, congratulating the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Women's Volleyball team on winning the 2006 NCAA Division I Women's Volleyball Championship. December 16, 2006 marked the completion of a phenomenal year that resulted in a 33-1 record and the program's third national title, not to mention the largest audience ever for a woman's college volleyball game.

The hard work and determination of this team exudes the spirit of achievement that is reflected within the people of the great State of Nebraska. Junior Sarah Pavan has continued a Husker tradition of achievement in athletics and academics by being named the ESPN the Magazine Academic All-American of the Year. This honor brings the university's all-time total of Academic All-Americans to 234 and 29 for the program. These totals lead the nation in both categories.

Head coach John Cook, along with the entire coaching staff, should be commended for their training and dedication to a team that became only the third team in NCAA history to be ranked number one in the American Volleyball Coaches Association poll for an entire season. Also to the credit of Coach Cook, this is the second title that the team has earned under his direction.

Therefore, I ask my colleagues to consider the great honor that the University of Nebraska Volleyball team has brought to themselves, their families, their university, and the State of Nebraska and vote for House Resolution 99.

Madam Speaker, I think we need to ask ourselves several questions: Does this resolution make America safer? Does this resolution send a message to our allies that draws them closer to us? Does this resolution encourage our troops, or does it discourage our troops?

We heard about de-escalation and when that might be appropriate, when it may not be. But I can tell you that this resolution does not accomplish de-escalation. In fact, it does not even support the troops on their way as we speak. It only supports the troops who have served or are currently serving.

Madam Speaker, in my conversations with constituents, with soldiers, with those closest to the situation, they see hope, they see hope in a change of strategy. We know that the status quo is not what we need to do, and that is why a change in strategy is certainly in order.

I don't pretend to be General Patraeus, and I hope that none of us pretend to know more about the situation than General Patraeus.

I am concerned when we hear that this resolution is the first step for cutting funding. Why don't we just put that resolution up right now? We can save a lot of time; we can send a more direct message. Is that the appropriate thing to do? I hope that you will join me in voting ``no'' on this resolution because I support our troops and their mission.

Madam Speaker, it is with a deep sense of gratitude and a profound sense of sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to the life of a brave man from McCook, NE. Sgt Randy J. Matheny died on Sunday in Iraq in Baghdad by an improvised explosive device.

With his entire life in front of him, Randy chose to risk everything to fight for the values Americans hold close to our hearts, in a land halfway around the world.

My heart goes out to Randy's family. He was known as a dedicated spirit and for his love of our country. All Nebraskans will remember him as a true American. We can take pride in the example he set, bravely fighting to make the world a better place.

My thoughts and prayers go out to Randy's family and friends during this difficult time.

May God grant them strength, peace, and comfort.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the serious situation many of my constituents are facing. Recently, a series of severe winter storms and ice storms, more specifically, hit Nebraska, leaving thousands in the Third District without power.

An expedited major disaster declaration for 57 affected counties in Nebraska, almost all in the Third District, was granted, freeing up Federal funds to assist the utility companies and local governments with the immense recovery efforts.

Due to the severity of the storms, thousands of constituents were without power for days and even weeks. They lost wages, food spoiled and expenses began piling up.

During these trying weeks, neighbors, families, friends and strangers have worked together to aid and assist those in need. Donations were made. Generators, gas, food and shelter have poured in to assist those suffering from the effects of the storm.

Utility linemen have been working long hours and even volunteering to repair the shattered grid system.

This difficult time has brought about great personal sacrifice for many Nebraskans, and I strongly commend the volunteers and donors who have come to the aid of those in need.

I urge my colleagues in the House, whether or not your district has been hurt, to remember these folks as we take up tax issues, the AMT and the farm bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to express concern about what I have heard from both sides of the aisle, and that is the rising cost of postsecondary education. It concerns all of us here, and I know that we all want to work together. I hope to address these costs. My concern is that this resolution will not address this issue.

As we look to the larger issues of that growing cost, we have to look further than what many folks here can agree, that it is not a substantial effect that we can expect with H.R. 5. I hope that you will share my concern, and I hope we can continue to work in a direction of working together, hopefully through a committee process, and come up with something that will address these concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great concern. I rise with great concern about H.R. 4, which actually removes the negotiating process from the private sector and places it in the public sector. I rise with concern because H.R. 4 will not reduce prices. It will reduce choice. I also rise with concern because our current premiums are actually 42 percent lower than expected.

Mr. Speaker, the private sector is doing well in this, and I don't think we should tamper with that. Should one have to forfeit their personal choices to the lowest bidder?

As a representative of the great State of Nebraska, I rise in concern over H.R. 4. There are 208,040 Medicare prescription drug beneficiaries in the third district which I represent. Everyone wants to make sure that seniors get the prescription drugs they need at the lowest possible price. But, H.R. 4 will not reduce their prices, it will reduce their choices. The government should not be choosing one drug over others.

According to estimates by actuaries in the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Health and Human Services, H.R. 4 would not provide substantial savings to the government or Medicare beneficiaries. The reality is that with market based principals governing Medicare Part D, premiums are actually 42 percent lower than expected levels.

I disagree with H.R. 4 in a fundamental philosophical way. H.R. 4 would have the government making decisions for consumers. The government would end up picking one drug over others.

I believe that doctors and patients should consult with each other on what medications will best address patients' needs.

I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4. Constituents of Nebraska's Third District and throughout the United States deserve to have their doctor's choices of prescription medication protected. Should one have to forfeit their personal choices to the lowest bidder?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great friend of this institution, President Gerald Ford. I speak for all of us when I say that our thoughts and our prayers go out to his wife, Betty, and their family.

Born Leslie Lynch King, Jr. in Omaha, Nebraska, President Ford embodied the values and spirit of Nebraska by putting the good of the nation ahead of personal, partisan politics. He was a valued colleague to two branches of our government, who loved and honored our traditions.

A great statesman, he will be hard--if not impossible--to replace. President Ford taught us lessons of unity we will do well to remember as we debate issues that may be divisive.

The flags hang at half-mast throughout our entire nation to remember a good and decent

man. Though I never met him, I am honored to pay my respects to this great.

God bless him and his family.