Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I was unable to have my vote recorded on the House floor on Thursday, June 12, 2008, having returned to my district to assist my constituents with the severe flooding that recently struck Wisconsin. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H. Res. 1257 (Roll No. 405 and No. 406), H. Res. 1265 (Roll No. 407 and No. 408), H.R. 1553 (Roll No. 409), H.R. 5749 (Roll No. 410 and No. 412), and S. 2146 (Roll No. 413). I would have voted against the motion to recommit H.R. 5749 (Roll No. 411).

Madam Speaker, I was unable to have my vote recorded on the House floor on Wednesday, June 11, 2008, having returned to my district to assist my constituents with the severe flooding that recently struck Wisconsin. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H. Res. 977 (Roll No. 404).

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding individual, and an excellent public servant: La Crosse educator, Larry Myhra.

The end of every school year brings the retirement of many terrific school leaders, teachers and staff members who provide a quality education for our children and replacing their professionalism and dedication is an annual challenge.

One such individual this year is Larry Myhra, who is retiring as principal of Lincoln Middle School after a distinguished 35-year career as principal, science teacher, and football coach in the La Crosse School District.

In 1973, Larry graduated from the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and began his teaching career in the science department at old Logan High School. Throughout his 31 years at Logan High School, Larry served as the head football and track coach, assistant basketball coach, athletic director, activities director, dean of students, and associate principal. While serving as athletic director, Larry helped to broaden the program by adding various sports, including hockey and soccer, but later decided to become the activities director in order to better serve the entire student body. Larry was also an advocate for the creation of the La Crossroads charter school, which helps students that are in danger of dropping out of school stay in school and graduate. This program has helped many students improve both their attendance and their grades.

When I was in high school, I had the pleasure of playing for Coach Myhra for 3 years at Logan. He instilled in his players and students a desire for dedication and determination both in and out of the classroom. I owe much of who I became in life to Coach Myhra and the educational system that was provided to me in La Crosse.

In 2004 Larry took up the position of principal at Lincoln Middle School, where he remained until now.

It has been said that great teachers and coaches enjoy a special immortality because their influence never stops radiating. That is certainly true for Larry Myhra. I wish him and our retiring educators a well-deserved and happy retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

I would like to start by commending the outstanding service provided by our men and women in the armed forces and thanking them for the terrific job they do for us across the globe each and every day, often in very difficult and dangerous circumstances. In return, I believe it is our duty as Congress to provide our troops with the support and resources they need to do their job as safely and effectively as possible. It is a credit to Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter that we have been able to fulfill this important obligation with strong bipartisan support.

I especially thank the committee for addressing an issue of particular importance to me and one of my constituents in this legislation. During a 15-month deployment in Afghanistan, U.S. Army Sergeant Jeff Frawley endured extremely harsh conditions in the mountains near Pakistan. Despite these hardships, he selflessly re- enlisted to serve his country for another 4 years.

Upon his return to the United States, Sergeant Frawley's company was forced to live in barracks at Fort Bragg that were infested with mold, suffered from decrepit plumbing, and

were structurally unsound. While visiting his son, Sergeant Frawley's father took pictures of the barracks and eventually posted a video of them on the internet.

The appalling conditions to which soldiers such as Sergeant Frawley have been subjected upon their return to the United States are an embarrassment. The improvement of these facilities must be of the highest priority for this country. Our returning troops deserve better. That is why I am proud to support H.R. 5658, which increases the Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization account for the Department of Defense by $650 million. This additional funding is directly targeted at modernizing and fixing existing barracks, and will go a long way in ensuring that Sergeant Frawley and other soldiers are provided with the resources and facilities they deserve.

I thank Armed Services Committee Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for their leadership on this critical issue. I applaud their work and urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. As a member of the Ways & Means Committee, I am proud to have helped craft this very important tax bill that will give much needed relief to millions of American taxpayers while also moving forward on our agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stimulate our economy.

Unfortunately, over the last several years we have seen tax bills pushed through Congress and signed by the President under the guise of ``relief' for the middle class and the poorest in the country. I think many in this chamber have now come to recognize that many of these measures presented as tax relief for the middle class were in fact more tax breaks for the richest in society. Today we finally have before us a bill that will give real relief to millions of taxpayers, many of whom are hardworking middle class families struggling with rising energy and food bills.

First, H.R. 6049 addresses the need for more clean energy production in our country by providing long-term extensions of the renewable energy production tax credit and the solar energy and fuel cell investment tax credit, while amending them to increase accessibility. These long-term extensions will give utilities and investors the predictability they need to move forward with new generation projects in the years to come. The bill also addresses energy use and carbon emissions by extending multiple energy-efficient credits for homes and businesses, creating incentives for carbon capture and sequestration demonstration projects, and calling for carbon audit of the tax code to determine what policies are encouraging wasteful energy use and unnecessary carbon emissions. The Act also addresses our dependence on dirty foreign oil by extending and improving tax credits for the production of cellulosic biofuels and plug-in electric vehicles.

Most exciting of all, however, are the innovative qualified energy conservation bonds this bill creates. The qualified energy conservation bonds give states and local governments the resources needed to invest in green programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Giving local authorities the power to choose what green energies to implement in their backyard is good public policy, because I know the energy needs of western Wisconsin are vastly different than those of Queens. By not picking the winners and losers in Washington, we are allowing exciting technological changes, advancements, and the market--not Congress--drive the green energy revolution.

In the area of tax relief, H.R. 6049 extends several popular expiring tax provisions. In particular, the bill will provide property tax relief for 30 million Americans, help for more than 12 million children through an expanded child tax credit, tax relief for more than 11 million families through state and local sales tax deduction, help for more than 4.5 million families to cover the cost of education through the tuition deduction, and relief for more than 3.5 million teachers who will be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses for their classrooms.

Finally, this bill is fully offset and complies with pay-go rules. Under the leadership of Chairman Rangel and Speaker Pelosi, we are demonstrating that we can provide tax relief without sending the debt on to our children. After years of fiscal recklessness--deficit- financed tax cuts for the wealthy and out-of-control government spending--this bill sets a precedent of fiscally responsible tax reform.

Again, .Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support this sensible and fair tax bill before us today. Offering some tax relief in uncertain economic times and meeting the challenge of climate change with innovative and constructive solutions are exactly the issues this Congress should be focused on. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6049.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we do need a farm bill. It's planting season throughout the country. The farm economy is crucial in regards to the health and well-being of our Nation. It's an integral part of the economic well- being of my home State in Wisconsin. But I always believed that we should have the right type of farm bill, not the wrong type of farm bill before us today.

Merely because the President is not the most popular person in the country today doesn't mean that he is always wrong. I think he is right when he is sending back a veto message telling the Congress today: We can do better. We should do better. We ought not be giving large taxpayer subsidies to wealthy individuals at a time of record commodity prices.

The modicum of reform that is being hailed under the commodity title is barely the illusion of reform. In fact, if you look at the three main subsidy programs that still exist and still continue on this farm bill, the loan deficiency program, the countercyclical, and the direct payment all of them are going up, in practice. They are increasing the loan rates under the LDP program, increasing the target price under the countercyclical, they are expanding the maximum amount allotted under the direct payments from $40,000 to $45,000.

While the gentleman from Virginia is correct that there is a little tightening of the adjusted gross payment limit to farm entities, it doesn't come anywhere close to the type of reform that is eminently justifiable in light of farm income and debt to asset ratio.

By the time you allow two entities on the same farm to qualify for these same direct payments, you can have a farm entity with an adjusted gross income of up to $2.5 million still receiving taxpayer subsidies. What does this mean in regards to production agriculture? It means that based on last year's schedule F tax returns that farmers file to report their income, these so-called reforms under the commodity title might affect two-tenths of 1 percent of producers around the country today. Hardly the type of reform that we should be talking about. Hardly the justification that we can take home and tell the taxpayers that we are doing right by them.

I believed from the beginning that we can still have a farm bill that maintains an important safety net for family farmers throughout the country in case the bottom drops out, in case they run into hard times. And we know how cyclical farm economy is. We can find savings under those subsidy programs through the reforms that are justifiable to have a strong conservation title coming out of this, strong nutrition title, research and marketing for specialty crops, and having a strong rural economic development program, not to mention the energy title that was alluded to.

In talking to one of my colleagues earlier this afternoon, he says he is reminded by an old Clint Eastwood film: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. There's plenty of good that you can point to in this farm bill. Certainly the increase in nutrition is justifiable in light of rising costs and eligibility and to combat hunger that is rising throughout the country.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

The bad is the fact that last year when we passed the farm bill out, they were talking about an increase of $5.7 billion of funding under the conservation title. Today, coming back, it's less than a $4 billion increase.

Why is this important? It's important because the increase of commodity prices, there's great pressure on sensitive lands to bring them back into production, and that means it's going to affect wildlife habitat, highly erodible land with sediment and nutrient flows flowing off and contaminating our water and drinking supply. We are seeing already that CRP enrollment is dropping because farmers are choosing to take that out of CRP and putting it back into production. Instead of recognizing market forces and having the strongest possible conservation title, that was one area where they went for further savings in order to protect these large subsidies.

Finally, the Washington Post reported in an article today, Farm Bill Subsidy Costs May Rise. Billions More Could Be Paid Through Little- Notice Provisions. This is that new revenue-based countercyclical program the gentleman from Virginia just alluded to.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

This is based on a 2-year rolling average of commodity prices rather than 5 years that the administration was proposing. But even 2 years ago, commodity prices were at or near record lows. What this means is that it will take very little for the prices to drop today for this program to get triggered and for tens of billions of dollars to be flowing out in further subsidy programs because of the way this is structured, and that is wrong. And we should be more honest, not only with the Members of this Congress of how it's going to work, but with the American taxpayer.

One farm economist called this new ACRE program, and I quote, ``lucrative beyond expectations.'' That is what has been created. So instead of reform, we are heading in the opposite direction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a strong advocate of reform and conservation in this farm bill, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, under of the commodity title of the current bill, we still have loan deficiency programs in place, countercyclical programs, another $25 billion of direct payments that will go out over the next 5 years regardless of price or production. A new revenue-based countercyclical program has been added to it. And then the granddaddy of all earmarks, a disaster relief fund has been created, all of which have been reformed upwards rather than down, rather than restricting it.

I think the gentleman I talked to earlier is right. This can be described as the good, the bad, and the ugly farm bill. Unfortunately, the ugly outweighs the good here today. But, of course, whenever you go $10.5 billion above current baseline and put enough money around and enough groups with enough individuals, you're going to get a strong vote. We understand that.

But someone needs to stand up here today on behalf of the American taxpayer. Someone needs to stand here in the Chamber and say the emperor has no clothes. This farm bill will continue to distort the marketplace. It will continue to paint a bull's-eye on the back of our farmers through trade-distorting policies. And I would encourage my colleagues, if they took another look, a closer look at what's being proposed here today, they would understand that we can and should do a better job.

I would encourage my colleagues to sustain the President's veto and do the farm bill the right way, not the wrong way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6081, the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax (HEART) Act of 2008. This bill provides a number of much needed and deserved tax benefits to members of the military, their families, and veterans. Specifically, I am proud that the Qualified Veterans' Mortgage Bonds (QVMB) program, which impacts my home State of Wisconsin, was renewed and reformed so that the dream of home ownership will continue to be a reality for thousands of veterans.

Under the HEART Act, the QVMB program will be expanded to allow $100 million annually in tax exempt bonding for the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs (WDVA) State veterans home loan program--enough funding to aid about 600 State veterans in obtaining low interest rate home loans. This program is more important now than ever before with the ongoing credit crisis in this country, and I am proud we were able to expand it. In Wisconsin alone, the WDVA has made over 54,000 home loans to veterans through this program.

Other important provisions in this bill include allowing combat pay for troops to count as earned income for the Earned Income Tax Credit and making permanent the Internal Revenue Code provision that allows active duty reservists to make penalty-free withdrawals from their retirement plans.

Our military service men and women have sacrificed a great deal to protect the freedoms that we so deeply cherish in this country. Their sacrifices and extended tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, have placed greater economic hardships on their families here at home. The bill before us today will help alleviate some of those hardships by giving military families much needed and deserved tax relief and making permanent some of the temporary provisions that Congress has previously enacted.

The HEART Act is one simple but significant way we can thank our troops for their service to our country. I thank Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member McCrery for their bipartisan leadership on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support our men and women in the military by passing this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the city of La Crosse's Board of Park Commissioners for their 100 years of dedication to beautifying the largest city in western Wisconsin. Through their unrelenting hard work, a comprehensive park system consisting of 13 parks throughout the city was developed. Over the past century, countless families have benefited from the opportunities these parks have provided.

The Board of Park Commissioners was established through an ordinance passed by the Common Council in May of 1908. Mayor Wendell A. Anderson, a spirited advocate for park services, appointed Joseph M. Hixon, Edward L. Colman, Lucien F. Easton, and Henry Gund to the Board of Park Commissions. All 4 men were dedicated to public service and guided by a grand vision for the city of La Crosse. This vision was made into reality after the city hired landscape architect John Nolen, an understudy of the legendary Frederick Law Olmstead.

For 100 years, La Crosse's residents and visitors have enjoyed the comfort and recreation these parks offer. Having grown up on the north side of La Crosse, I know that the park system is an essential part of the community. Badger Park offered my friends and me a safe place to shoot hoops, play softball, and go ice skating. These parks are not only a way for families and friends to enjoy one another's company, but are also a means of creating lasting memories.

I applaud the La Crosse Common Council and the Board of Park Commissioners for their inspiration and dedication over the past 100 years. Their gift to the city of La Crosse will undoubtedly be enjoyed by many generations to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my friend and colleague for yielding me a little bit of time to speak on his motion.

There is one, I think, serious concern that many of us who have been advocating reform under the commodity title, the so-called commodity subsidy programs, and that is what was done with the two subsidy programs now where funding currently isn't going out. And the reason it is not going out under the loan deficiency program and the counter cyclical program is because market prices are high.

That's a good thing, because farm income is good, debt to asset ratio has never been better in farm country.

But what this bill proposes to do, instead of holding those programs constant, they are actually increasing the loan rate under the loan deficiency program and the target price under the countercyclical program, which means that if things do turn south in farm country, if prices do drop--and we know how cyclical agriculture can be, and these are safety net programs--those programs will trigger much sooner and at a much greater expense than what I fear is being accounted for right now in this bill.

That, I think, speaks to the unfunded mandate concern that the gentleman from Arizona and myself, and others included, have in regards to the so-called reforms that we are just not seeing under the commodity title, not when they go in the opposite direction with the LDP and the countercyclical programs by dialing up the loan rate and the target prices of those two programs and triggering them at a much earlier time and at a much greater expense for the taxpayers of this country.

There is a whole lot of other reform that we felt were justifiable and reasonable under the commodity title.

Quite frankly, we don't get there. In fact, if you look at the payment limitation caps that exist under the direct payments, it would only affect two-tenths of 1 percent of farmers in this country, hardly the type of reform we would like to see.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I realize how difficult it is to put a farm bill together in this place, but this truly represents a missed opportunity. The so-called reforms that are being advocated under the commodity subsidy title would only affect, at best, two-tenth's of 1 percent of farm entities throughout the country.

With an adjusted gross income limit of $2.5 million, these income limits don't even apply to the loan deficiency program or the countercyclical program, two of the three subsidy programs that exist today. At the end of the day we should produce a farm bill that's less market and less trade distorting and more responsible to the American taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it's planting season back home in Wisconsin. I still represent one of the largest agricultural producing districts in the entire Nation. Our farmers need a new farm bill. They need to know what the rules are that they have to work and live under.

But we need to do a farm bill the right way, not the wrong way, one that maintains an important safety net for family farmers across the country and is also responsible to the American taxpayer.

Unfortunately, I kind of feel like Paul Harvey here in the well today about to give the rest of the story. This farm bill could be summed up in simple words, it's a missed opportunity. In fact, it could be summarized by the phrase: Where's the beef? Where's the real reform?

Why do I say that? Let's take a look for a second at the so-called reforms under the commodity subsidy programs. By the time you include off-farm and on-farm income and allow double entities, dual entities on the same farm, and their adjusted gross income, you have adjusted gross income up to $2.5 million and you still qualify for taxpayer subsidies. That would constitute approximately two-tenths of 1 percent of farm entities throughout the country that might be affected by these so- called reforms under the direct payments.

Now let's remind ourselves, these direct payments are $25 billion, that go out over the next 5 years, regardless of price, regardless of production. It's not a safety net. It's an entitlement program that each and every one of us will have to go home and look our taxpayers in the eyes and try to explain to them why some of their tax dollars are going to go to a farm entity with an adjusted gross income of $2.5 million.

If you look at the loan deficiency program and the countercyclical, the two other subsidy programs that currently exist, we went in the wrong direction rather than the right direction with reform.

There will still be allowed double dipping under the loan deficiency program. And the loan rates are being increased rather than decreased. And under the countercyclical, the target prices are going to be increased. What does that mean? It means that they will be triggered much earlier and will cost the taxpayer much more if prices start to decline.

One of the reasons there is less funding under the commodity title is because we're at a record time of commodity prices throughout the country. In fact, since the last time the farm bill was on the floor last year for consideration, you look at the five major commodity titles, and they have gone up tremendously since that time: Wheat, an additional 126 percent; soybeans up 57 percent; corn up 45 percent; cotton, 32 percent; and rice, 31 percent. Those are the main subsidized crops that we have throughout the country. Yet, instead of going forward with some reasonable and imminently justifiable reform to tighten up these programs so it is more justifiable to the taxpayer, they're going in the opposite direction.

I always believed that we had the capability, in light of current market prices, to produce a farm bill that maintains an important safety net for our family farmers but in a way that's less market and less trade distorting and is also justifiable to the American taxpayer.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Unfortunately, this farm bill falls short on that worthwhile goal. And unfortunately it's the American taxpayer who is currently facing increased costs of food and fuel that will be paying more over the next 5 to 6 or 7 years by the time we get a chance to look at the next farm bill and talk about the reforms that may be needed.

I led an effort 5 years ago under the last farm bill for some commonsense reforms. People back then said wait for the next one, it's coming. Well, I've been here long enough to understand that tomorrow never comes, and today is the opportunity we have, in light of current market prices, to do the right thing.

I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I represent one of the largest agriculture districts in the Nation, western Wisconsin. We do a lot of corn, a lot of soybeans, a lot of beef cattle, obviously a lot of dairy. I've got a 200-acre farm myself, and we rotate corn and soybeans, have some beef cattle on it. One

of the additional concerns I have with the subsidy programs is how skewed it is to the very biggest entities.

Over two-thirds of these commodity subsidy programs are going to the 10 percent largest entities in agriculture today. Why is this a problem where I'm from? Well, a lot of these big entities are using the additional subsidy money to gobble up the family farms that exist around them. It's driving up land prices in Wisconsin and making it virtually impossible for new beginning farmers to enter agriculture.

If you look at the reforms that are being touted in this farm bill before us today, they just don't meet the test of time. The income limits that apply currently to direct payments, by the time you count dual incomes on the same farm go as high as 2.5 million in adjusted gross income. That's after expenses. That's after all the cost of doing business is deducted out. And according to last year's tax returns, for those who filed a Schedule F Farm Income Report for tax purposes, these reforms that are being touted today might affect two-tenths of 1 percent of farm entities throughout the country, two-tenths of 1 percent. Give me a break. And the income limits have been lifted for the other two subsidy programs, the loan deficiency program and the countercyclical program.

And to top it all off, they've created the granddaddy of all earmarks in this Permanent Disaster Fund, which we all know, based on past history, is going to be a very targeted, very regional dispersion of this new Disaster Relief Fund.

Now, when you think about the fact you've got three existing subsidy programs already, LDP, counter-cyclical, the direct payments, you throw on top of that the crop insurance subsidization that goes on in the farm bill, why do we need to add another layer of entitlement funding with this new disaster relief program? But we all understand how these farm bills come together. They usually go above baseline. They have to come to the Ways and Means Committee to find offsets in order to pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

They come up with enough money to throw at enough groups, at enough individuals, at enough programs in order to buy people off around here. And it's the reform effort that's the first casualty in this entire process. We saw it 5 years ago. We're seeing it today. My fear is we're going to see it 6 or 7 years from now when the next farm bill is up for consideration.

It is a missed opportunity. The President is right. We ought not be giving taxpayer subsidies to wealthy individuals at a time of record- high commodity prices in the marketplace.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to a strong advocate of reform and for a strong conservation title in this farm bill, my good friend from Oregon, Earl Blumenauer.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from Virginia, he really is an expert on these programs, but he knows as well as anyone the reason commodity spending is down is because commodity prices are up.

Two of the three subsidy programs are based on the amount farmers are getting in the marketplace. But that can all return in a heartbeat, and he knows it.

The fact is that you need a few Members of Congress here today to stand up and say the emperor has no clothes. As I said from the beginning, where's the beef, where's the real reform?

When you still allow taxpayer subsidies going to a farm couple with an adjusted gross of $2.5 million, that's not reform. When you lift the income limits under the LDP and the countercyclical program, that's not reform. When you increased the loan rate and the target price, it's not reform.

You have marginal reform with the crop insurance. Instead of having a farm bill today that has reasonable reform for taxpayers throughout the country, and has the great conservation title for the 21st century, or the healthy food bill of the 21st century, it's more status quo. It's more wait for 5 years, we will do it then.

Well, those 5 years never come. The time has never been better today, and the President is right. We should not be spending taxpayer subsidies for wealthy individuals at a time of record prices in the marketplace. When people are facing increased food and fuel costs, let us not do this to the American taxpayer and use their money needlessly.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' We can do better. I know we can do better in producing a bill that provides a safety net for family farmers but is also responsible to the American taxpayer.

I thank my friend for yielding.

He and I and others have tried to introduce the concept of more reform in this next farm bill. But I didn't intend to speak on this motion; I just want to point out a little bit of irony in what this motion would do.

It's my understanding that by using the 2008 numbers, it would result in a lower baseline for the commodity subsidy programs by about $11 billion, which I don't have a problem with because we have introduced a 10-point option plan to find over $10 billion of reasonable savings under these commodity programs already. So it's consistent with that.

But it would also call for an increase of the baseline under the conservation title of close to $2 billion and under the nutrition title of close to $35 billion because of increased food costs and eligibility under these nutrition programs. If the nutrition groups knew what the practical effect of this motion to instruct would be, they will be doing cartwheels all over this town for the next week.

I just wanted to point out the irony of today's baseline versus last year's baseline.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple motion. I understand we are in the waning, perhaps minutes of conclusion of the farm bill. But, nevertheless, I think it's important that we get the policies right. We do need a farm bill. We need it as soon as possible. It's planting season back home. Our farmers need some predictability. They need to know what rules they are being to be operating under, one way or another. But we need a good farm bill, not a bad farm bill; one that tries to get the policy right, not the wrong way.

I still believe there's more room for reform under the commodity programs in light of record high commodity prices. It's tough to justify to the average taxpayer that what is still being considered under the current farm bill is close to $25 billion of direct payments to go out over the next 5 years, bearing no relationship to price or production. It's not a safety net. These are entitlement funding, automatic payments that go to large producers, primarily merely due to their existence and not because of market.

But there's another important feature of this farm bill and that is the conservation title. This farm bill offers this Nation the greatest public investment in private land ownership in regards to anything else we do around here. For a very long time, we have had important land and water conservation programs set up on a voluntary and incentive basis to help our producers be good stewards of the land; good manure management practices so they are not running off and polluting our rivers and streams and lakes and tributaries, making sure we have got buffer strips in place, making sure we have got the ability to absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere so we don't lose ground on the global warming battle that we are confronting.

This is something that also benefits the American farmer, family farmers in every region. But it also benefits the community at large through enhanced water quality programs, through habitat protection, and wildlife, which is also vital to our own local and regional economies. Yet what is being considered right now in the conference is a dramatic reduction in the level of funding that came out of the House.

The House had an historic passage of conservation funding last year, calling for another over $5 billion in these conservation programs. This, I think, in part, is to address the backlog of demand because today, under current funding, close to two out of every three farmers applying for conversation funding assistance are turned because of the inadequacy of funds. So the demand is there.

But what makes these programs especially attractive is their so- called ``green box payments.'' They are nonmarket, nontrade-distorting, still a way to help our family farmers manage their own land, but in a way that doesn't distort the marketplace. What's being considered now is a dramatic reduction in the level of funding that came out of the House originally.

Our motion to instruct today would merely ask the conferees to try to get back to that House level of funding rather than going even below where the Senate took it. The Senate was proposing a $4.2 billion increase. We were over $5 billion. It's my understanding, and I haven't been privy to the ongoing negotiations, but they are talking about just a $4 billion increase under conservation, substantially below where the House went.

More specifically, this motion would instruct conferees to maintain the House funding for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program. That is the main program that helps with manure management projects throughout the Nation, especially beneficial to large animal feedlots that have to control that and prevent the spillage into the environment.

It would also maintain the allotment for the Grassland Reserve Program. There is more pressure being put on these highly sensitive and highly erodible lands because of the increase in commodity prices. It would also maintain House funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program. That, of course, is a great filter that exists throughout our communities to enhance quality water supplies but also crucial to water fowl populations in North America.

It would also accept the Senate Sod Saver Provision so that the Federal Government doesn't incentivize the conversion of sensitive virgin prairie land back into crop production. Again, given the pressure that exists with these historically high commodity prices, it's a real concern that more of this virgin prairie land that has been vital for conservation efforts, especially in the Great Plains, are going to be brought back into production with the consequent adverse environmental and conservation effects that would result.

So that is merely what this motion to instruct would do; get back to what the House passed last year under conservation, give the farmers throughout the country the tools they need to be good stewards of the land, and do it in a nonmarket, nontrade-distorting fashion, especially in the tremendous increase in commodity prices today and the pressure that producers are under to bring the land that has been conserved for many years back into production and resulting with a lot more sediment and nutrient runoffs that will be a consequence of that action.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. I do appreciate the hard work that our friends from Pennsylvania and Oklahoma have done and the strong support they have shown throughout the years under these important conservation programs under the conservation title, and now that we are getting into closure of this farm bill, I hope that voice of advocacy will rise again in defense of these programs, especially in light of the pressure that exists to bring this land back into production.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments of my good friend from Oklahoma and the hard work that he has done. But these are two individuals who serve on the Agriculture Committee. In fact, my friend from Pennsylvania is the Chair of the subcommittee in charge of this conservation title. My friend from Oklahoma is the ranking member of the subcommittee in charge of the conservation title.

All we are asking them and the conferees from the House to do is to protect their programs and to protect their funding level, that which was contained in the House-passed version of the farm bill last year. That is a simple request, and it received good support in the House when it left last year.

But there is an additional wrinkle that was just introduced, to my knowledge, within the last 24 hours, and that is the consideration to start capping payments under the conservation title. I think that would result in bad policy. I think it is going to result in a lot of unintended consequences, because these conservation practices aren't marketable, unlike the subsidies going to commodity crop producers, where they grow something and they can sell it in the marketplace.

To get a farmer to have a good manure management system in place or to have buffer strips and that, they can't take that outside then and sell it to the private marketplace. So these incentives are important to partner with the individual landowner to get them to do the right thing on their own land. And they want to do the right thing on their own land.

That is why two out of every three of them are being denied funding right now, because of the inadequacy of funds. The demand is exceeding the supply. We are saying let's try to catch up to that demand right now, which brings huge societal benefits at the same time, to enhance quality water supply throughout our country. And I still believe that is going to be one of the major challenges we face, not only in this country, but throughout the world in this century. How are we going to maintain a quality water supply? And if we can't partner to the level they expect in farm country, it is going to make that challenge all the more difficult.

So I would hope the conferees in their discussion and last minute deliberations of where they are going to find a nickel or dime in order to pay for things don't go down that road of trying to cap these conservation payments, like many of us have been proposing under the commodity title.

I think we can pay for what we are requesting in this motion through some more commonsense reasonable reforms under the title I commodity program, starting at another look at these so-called direct payments. They are slated to go for another $25 billion over the next 5 years alone. In fact, unfortunately Mr. Flake's motion to instruct failed a little bit earlier, but all he was asking is, let's just keeping those direct payments at the current funding level, a maximum of $40,000 instead of increasing it at a time of high commodity prices. Not an unreasonable request.

But what is being considered now going from $40,000 up to $50,000 for these direct payments and having dual entities on the same farm to qualify for it.

I also believe it is reasonable to take another look, as the President and the administration is asking, for us to have a stricter means test under the commodity programs. Let's face it, a $950,000 adjusted gross income cutoff is in the stratosphere for most individuals in this country. We are talking adjusted gross now, not just gross income. This is after you back out your expenses and all the costs of operating that farm. That is close to $1 million of profit we are talking about that an individual would receive, and still receive these commodity subsidy payments under what is being proposed in the conference.

So I think there is plenty of savings that can still be had without cutting the legs off of our producers while maintaining an important safety net in case things do turn bad in farm country. And Lord knows we have seen that cycle come and go in the past. But let's

do it in a more fiscally responsible manner and maximize the scarce resources that we have for the benefit of the community at large, and that includes funding under the conservation title.

A few groups have already weighed in on this motion to instruct and have expressed their support, from the Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, the World Wildlife Fund, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Working Group, American Rivers, those who have been actively engaged in participating and trying to shape this next farm bill. We still have an opportunity because the conference has not closed, no report has been filed yet. There is going to be some last- minute negotiations. But ultimately, at the end of the day, if my colleagues are serious about having a farm bill concluded and implemented into law, the President has to be comfortable in doing it, and clearly he is not there yet, the administration is not there. And they are pressing the conference to do more in reforming these commodity programs.

We can choose to ignore that, but at the end of the day the President has got to sign something into law, or we have to try to override a veto, which I think is going to be very, very difficult. So I think there is still a way of working with the administration, trying to produce a product that they feel comfortable with, that the President feels comfortable with. And one of the ways to do it is more reform under commodity, and have a strong conservation title at the end of the day. The President has consistently expressed his support for a strong conservation title. I don't think they would object to the requests that we are making here in this motion to instruct.

And let's remind ourselves, this is another way of providing help and assistance to those who are working the land in our country. This isn't separate from the help in other areas that we try to provide to family farmers; it is in addition to it, it is a supplement. And it is something that benefits every farmer in every region, and including all people throughout the country, instead of the concentrated payments that we see under the current title I commodity program.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

For my colleagues' information, I have no further speakers. I believe I have the right to close. I am prepared to do that if they are ready to close, too.

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

Just to wrap up my remarks, let me just reiterate. I truly do appreciate the hard work my colleagues here today on the Agriculture Committee have been doing to try to craft a farm bill that can get accomplished yet this year. It is one of the most difficult things that Members are asked to do in any Congress, is to piece together the parochial and the different interests that span this great country to find an acceptable farm bill that can get signed into law. But we still have a little ways to go.

And I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, as far as the feed factor with dairy production, there is no question that fixed costs are going up right now in agricultural production driven by a variety of factors, not the least of which is the energy debacle that we find ourselves in right now.

But I think once we start going down to that feed route, we are going to get a lot of other groups now chiming in saying: What about us? What about us? How come dairy is being taken care of? What about poultry? What about beef? What about the others that are experiencing the same type of cost increases? And then you are really talking about blowing the lid off of some of these other programs.

But all that I and others who are in support of this motion to instruct are asking is for the members of the committee to defend their work, defend the programs that passed the House last year, defend the funding level that came out of the House last year because of the vital importance that these programs have, not only to the individual land producers, but to the resources that are so precious to all of us in this country.

Now we see disturbing trends; because of the high commodity prices, great pressure to bring more highly erodible sensitive land back into production. And there will be adverse consequences from that, unless we can maintain a viable incentive based system with these conservation programs to deal with that additional pressure that producers are facing throughout the Nation.

I think there is a better way of dealing with the abuses that my friend from Pennsylvania highlighted under the conservation program. Certainly we can do more oversight and get more information with regards to whether individuals are milking the system. No one is in support of that. We want to clamp down on it. But let's work with USDA and NRCS and those agencies in charge of implementing it, rather than calling for a blanket payment limitation cap with crucial conservation funding. Because, again, I am afraid that without these incentives in place, I don't care how wealthy you are, there won't be much incentive for you to engage in these type of programs, which just doesn't benefit the landowner but the community and the watershed area and the wildlife at large. So we need to be careful what road we are going to go down.

And, hopefully, this isn't just a response to some of us who have been asking for meaningful payment limitations and means testing under the commodity program just to get back at those who have been very supportive of conservation funding.

I think there are reasonable means tests we can apply to the commodity title. The fact that LDP and countercyclical payments aren't going up today I think is a good thing. That means farm income is up and commodity prices are up.

Back home in Wisconsin, in the agriculture district that I represent, farmers for years have come up to me and said: You know, I'm not a big fan of these subsidy programs, but I just wish the market would give us a decent price so we wouldn't have to rely on them. Well, that day has come. Now today I have got producers in corn and soybean coming up to me and saying: Ron, why are we still receiving these direct subsidy payments when we are getting such a good price in the marketplace? And they are right. Farmers know how these programs are working.

I think we can be a little bolder and more courageous in the reforms that some of us have been advocating, find those savings, so we can deal with conservation, nutrition, world development, speciality crops, and having a good energy title to this farm bill, too. This can happen, and it can happen in a way that the President feels comfortable in signing. And that will truly be a good bipartisan day then in the United States Congress. I encourage my friends to support this motion to instruct the conferees.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 2419.

The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Kind moves that the managers on the part of the House

at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses

on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2419 (an Act to

provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through

fiscal year 2012) be instructed to--

(1) insist on the amendment contained in section 2401(d) of

the House bill (relating to funding for the environmental

quality incentive program);

(2) insist on the amendments contained in section 2104 of

the House bill (relating to the grassland reserve program)

and reject the amendment contained in section 2401(2) of the

Senate amendment (relating to funding for the grassland

reserve program);

(3) insist on the amendments contained in section 2102 of

the House bill (relating to the wetland reserve program); and

(4) insist on the amendments contained in section 2608 of

the Senate bill (relating to crop insurance ineligibility

relating to crop production on native sod).

I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me this time, and I commend him for this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: We need a farm bill, and we need one as soon as possible. It is planting season back home in the upper Midwest and the district I represent in western Wisconsin, and our farmers need some predictability. They need to know what the rules are that they are going to be operating under and producing under in the coming fiscal year and in the coming 5 years.

But we also need a good farm bill, not a bad farm bill, one that is responsible to the American taxpayer and one that does well by the American farmer. And those of us who have been talking about much overdue and needed reforms under the commodity title, these subsidy payments to a handful of commodity producers in this country, have been saying, let's give farmers help when they need it but let's not when they don't.

And the market conditions today are something we have never seen before. They are talking about $10 corn by this summer. Soybean, wheat, rice at an all-time high in the marketplace. Yet instead of trying to tighten up these subsidy programs and rein them in for some possible savings so we can address the other priorities in the farm bill, what is being proposed, to our understanding, and we haven't been privy to the conference negotiations that have been going on, is actually expanding direct payments from the current maximum level of $40,000 up to $60,000, and allowing dual entities operating on the same farm to qualify for the same amount of these direct payments.

And to be clear, the direct payments bear no relationship to commodity prices, no relationship to production. They are something that go out automatically regardless of the marketplace. And, quite frankly, it is the least justifiable aspect of this farm bill today in light of the record commodity prices that exist.

But we also need a farm bill that this President is comfortable in signing, and the administration has been clear from the beginning that they feel there is more room for reform under these commodity programs. We are not talking about the two other subsidy programs, the loan deficiency program or the countercyclical program, although there too they are ramping up the target price and the loan rates under those programs. We are only talking about the direct payments right now, that which goes out automatically to only five principal commodity crops at the expense of everything else that we are trying to accomplish in this farm bill, having a strong conservation title in light of the increased pressure that crop production is placing on sensitive and highly erodible land. And we are seeing that now with a lot of CRP acreage being taken out of CRP and put back into production.

And what does that mean to the average person? That is going to affect quality water supplies throughout the Nation, it's going to affect habitat, wildlife populations, all of which depend on good land stewardship of these lands and knowing what land is highly erodible and what isn't. And that was the whole basis behind CRP to begin with, and yet that now is in jeopardy because of increased commodity prices.

I don't begrudge, and I don't think anyone here begrudges family farmers getting a decent price finally in the marketplace. But where I am from in Wisconsin and talking to my producers, for years they kept saying: We don't like these subsidy programs, either. We wish we didn't have to rely on it. And if we could only get a decent price in the marketplace, we wouldn't have to. Well, guess what. That day has come. And now is an opportunity, never better in the history of the Congress, to start reforming these commodities subsidy programs right now so that at the end of the day we are not painting this big bull's eye on the back of our farmers with more subsidy payments that are going to be challenged through the WTO and possibly taken away through the WTO challenges, just as Brazil has done with the cotton challenge that they successfully prevailed on. And this is only the beginning.

Instead, we could redirect funding for what are called green box payments, conservation payments that also go to family farmers to help them be good land stewards but do not distort the marketplace and they do not distort trade policy, and it doesn't get us into trouble by these outside challenges that we may be facing in the future.

So that is why I think this gentleman's motion to instruct is important. We understand it is in the 11th hour. I appreciate the hard work that the chairman and everyone involved in the conference has been doing. Putting together a farm bill is probably one of the toughest things to do in this place given the parochial interests, given the different ideas and opinions that go into deliberations. But we have an opportunity right now of maintaining an important safety net for family farmers in case things do go south in the commodity market, but at the same time starting to reform these subsidy programs so we are more responsible to the taxpayer but also helping our farmers modernize so they can be more competitive both domestically and abroad. Otherwise, again, we are setting them up for future challenges by loading up these subsidy programs to the extent that they have been occurring.

I would be happy to yield to my friend from Arizona.

I probably won't need that much time. But, again, hard negotiations. We are getting into the final details of it. There is still an opportunity of producing a bill that the President feels comfortable with in signing, and that way the farmers know what they are operating under.

But, again, these direct payments are probably the least justifiable program going forward today in light of what the marketplace is producing. And the futures market right now is looking astounding when it comes to these commodity crops, and that is going to be good for farm income and debt-to-asset ratio. For family farms, it has never been better. And that again speaks to what we think is a reasonable and justifiable goal of trying to reform these commodity programs so we can deal with the other priorities and still maintain an important safety net to the family farmer.

Again, I thank my friend from Arizona for offering the motion.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have great respect for the gentleman from Minnesota, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and my friend from Arkansas and their depth of knowledge when it comes to farm policy in this country. They have invested their careers in trying to understand these programs and how they work.

But I have as much respect and admiration for my family farmers back home in Wisconsin, too. The gentleman from Arkansas is exactly right; these are hardworking individuals playing by the rules in a market that is set out for them. But when I have producers in my district in western Wisconsin coming up to me and saying, Ron, why are we still receiving these direct payments when the market prices are so good right now?

I say, You know, you're right. We should be looking at this anew.

The gentleman from Minnesota pointed out that the first time direct payments were introduced in a farm bill was back in 1996 as a transitional program to get away from these direct subsidy payments to the farmers.

Now we are into the third farm bill, and instead of at least holding them constant, as the gentleman's motion would have us do, we are talking about increasing the reliance on these direct payments over the next 5 to 10 years.

In my conversations with farm experts from Australia and New Zealand, they said they heard the same arguments down there when they weaned their producers off direct government subsidies for agricultural production, that this would spell disaster for the entire farming community in Australia and New Zealand. And now you would be hard- pressed to go down to either one of those countries and find one farmer who wants to go back to the government-subsidized system that they were operating under all these years. They say that with a change of those subsidy programs, it has made them more efficient and more competitive, especially in the global marketplace.

And whether we like it not, that day has arrived for our producers. The world is at our doorstep, and I don't think we are doing them any more favors by propping them up with these artificial subsidy programs with the strong market prices they are receiving, and at the same time telling them that you can go out and compete with everyone else around the globe.

There is a better way of doing this while still maintaining a safety net, and I think that is what the gentleman is trying to get at with this motion.

Would the gentleman yield?

One of the things that I have noticed back home in Wisconsin with the direct payments and the overall subsidy programs that exist for these commodity crops is that it is leading to greater consolidation. We know these subsidies have been primarily skewed to the larger entities, and they are using them to gobble up smaller family farms around them. And they are also driving up land values by artificially inflating these land values with the subsidy guarantees that attach to them, and it is making it virtually impossible for newer or beginning farmers to have the capital in order to invest in order to enter this very honorable work and profession.

So that is the unintended consequences that these subsidy programs have brought in, putting the squeeze on smaller family farmers throughout America.

I think it would be reasonable as well, although we can't address it in this motion, to have some reasonable means testing attaching to these direct subsidy programs. It is tough to justify to the American taxpayer that if someone is earning $900,000 in adjusted gross income, that is profit, that is after you back out the expenses and all of the deductions of doing business, that you would still qualify for subsidy payments.

I understand in the course of negotiations there has been some movement, and hopefully that is a good thing; but nevertheless, that is a pretty hefty adjusted gross annual income for anyone. And then to say they still qualify for American-taxpayer subsidies at the end of the day, that is pretty tough to explain back home.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Coast Guard Authorization Act. This bill takes necessary steps to modernize our maritime fleet, enhance security at sea and at port, and reduce pollution. These measures are overdue, and I applaud Chairmen Oberstar, Thompson, and Conyers and their respective ranking members for bringing this bill forward today.

I am most proud, however, that this bill finally begins to address the ever-growing scourge of invasive species spreading throughout our coastal and inland waters. These foreign organisms are wreaking havoc on native ecosystems and local economies. The Great Lakes are already home to a whopping 185 invasive species. Zebra mussels have clogged water intakes at power plants and municipal water treatment facilities, adding about $2 billion to the cost of producing electricity and clean drinking water, while also altering the ecosystem and reducing the number of prized fish species. The sea lamprey would have driven Great Lake trout species to extinction if the Federal Government did not spend $15 million per year to combat them. And the lakes face a menacing new threat as Asian carp continue their march up the Illinois River.

The ballast water treatment requirements in this bill seek to remedy the lackadaisical attitude that led to the introduction of each of these species into American waters. Rather than continuing to say, ``Come what may,'' this bill states that it is now national policy that the introduction of non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species should be prohibited and establishes a goal of ensuring that by 2015 no ballast water discharged by ships in U.S. waters contains viable living organisms. Furthermore, the bill sets up ballast water treatment requirements for ships entering U.S. waters and methods for enforcement. With these protections in place, State and Federal Governments will have tools in hand to begin to reverse the tide of invasives and restore our own native ecosystems.

I have seen the waters of the Mississippi River in my own district be overrun by invasives such as the zebra mussel, which is why I have taken a keen interest in legislation to address the problem. I was proud to join with my colleague Rahm Emanuel, who has been an outspoken proponent for action on this issue, in drafting amendments to H.R. 2380 to strengthen the bill's ballast water treatment section. One of these amendments would have clarified that vessels that do not carry ballast water on board--No Ballast On Board, or NOBOB--are also subject to the treatment provisions. The other would have required that ships make their logs of ballast treatment activities available to the Secretary of Transportation each month. By adding this requirement, the public will be assured access to this information and will be able to track the actions of all ships entering our waters.

I thank Chairman Oberstar for his support of these amendments and for including them in the manager's amendment approved today. These simple additions to the bill are important improvements that will strengthen our defenses against invasives and improve transparency and accountability. We greatly appreciate the chairman's willingness to make these changes and his great leadership when it comes to the health and safety of the Great Lakes.

On the heels of Earth Day, the time to pass the ballast water provisions in this bill could not be better. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.