Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I rise today again with disappointment at the fact that these two bills are nonsense and completely unnecessary. One is doing what the Obama administration has already said they would do, and that is to delay the employer reporting requirements because of the feedback they got from businesses large and small and from associations who said not that they can't do it; they just need a little bit more time in implementing it. The other would do away with the individual responsibility component. But the real story today, Madam Speaker, is not what's happening on the House floor or the votes that these two bills are going to get. It was what announcement came out of the State of New York and was reported in The New York Times: ``Health plan costs for New Yorkers set to fall 50 percent.'' This is because of the creation of the health insurance exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. Individual policy rates are going to be at least 50 percent less than what individuals are currently paying today because the exchanges are doing what they were meant to do, increase competition and transparency, making it more affordable for uninsured Americans to go out and obtain affordable coverage. My father gave me some pretty good advice early on in my life when he said, Son, you are going to encounter two forms of critics in your life: one who criticizes you because they want to see you fail, and the other is going to criticize you because they want to see you succeed, and being able to differentiate between the two is going to determine how successful you are in life. That has been the problem with the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning. We have a major political party who does not want to see this succeed, and they're doing everything they can to undermine it, even if it brings increased pain and difficulty to more businesses, families, and individuals throughout the country. Today's demonstration with these two bills just reaffirms that proposition. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2668.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Ho-Chunk Nation's sovereignty. The people of the Ho- Chunk Nation trace their origins to a time before the arrival of Columbus to lands throughout Wisconsin and surrounding states. In these lands, the Ho-Chunk people provided for themselves through hunting, gathering, and farming. Their rich cultural heritage is defined by a reverence for the land along with a pride and strength that has persevered through tremendous hardships. In 1634, the French explorer Jean Nicolet became the first European to make contact with the Ho-Chunk people. Welcoming Nicolet, the Ho- Chunk began trade with the French who referred to them as the Winnebago, a name that became their official title in the United States until 1993. Though the United States government initially recognized the Ho-Chunk as a sovereign nation holding title to several million acres of farmland, this position was reversed in the midst of westward expansion in the early 19th century. As lead miners began taking over the choice land of southern Wisconsin, the Ho-Chunk were forced to sell their remaining territory for a fraction of its worth. Beginning in 1836, the Ho-Chunk were subjected to a series of forced relocations pushing them westward onto small desolate plots of land. In spite of the continuing, often violent, efforts by authorities to expel the Ho-Chunk from their native land, many continued to return to Wisconsin. Through persistence and perseverance, the Wisconsin Ho-Chunk prevailed and was eventually given 40 acre homestead plots to farm. In 1962, the first Wisconsin Winnebago Tribal Constitution was drafted and redrafted. On March 19, 1963, the Constitution and Bylaws of the Wisconsin Winnebago Tribe was approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Interior marking the beginning of the sovereign government known today as the Ho-Chunk Nation. Known as ``People of the Big Voice,'' or ``People of the Sacred Language,'' the Ho-Chunk Nation are a people rich with culture and a resolute spirit. It is with great pride that I rise today to recognize them for 50 years of self-governance and thank them for their contributions to communities in Wisconsin and beyond.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me this time. I thought his summary was very accurate on what our amendment would do. What Mr. Gibbs didn't point out, though, is this would also save $12 billion over 10 years by a more fiscally responsible approach, one that we feel is market-based, and one that we think is economically feasible, one that also maintains an important safety net for farmers if commodity prices do drop. But, listen, the supporters of the Price Loss Coverage program, as currently drafted, will claim the program is necessary to ensure farmers have a safety net for when the market collapses. But, instead, the program in the FARRM Bill before us sets target prices so high that some commodities are guaranteed an 8 percent profit. We don't guarantee any other business in the country that type of a profit margin other than crop insurance companies that are guaranteed a 14 percent profit under this bill. By setting the target prices for programs at this historically high level, it will all but ensure a much higher likelihood of government payouts in the future. In fact, implementation of the Price Loss Coverage program will already require government payouts for the five top commodity crops. Rice alone would pay out $14 per hundred while the current price is at $10.50 today. So it's outrageous that while we're cutting over $20 billion in the nutrition title of the FARRM Bill, we're adding on this additional high target price with additional taxpayer subsidies in an area where it's not economically needed or feasible. And since farmers receive these payouts on their planted acres, we are encouraging them to overplant and to plant marginal lands that probably wouldn't be brought into production anyway because their losses would be covered and the profit margin would be assured. Also, given the fact that we're still trying to work our way out of the WTO complaint from Brazil on the cotton subsidy program, this program sets up another potential WTO trade case against us. I encourage our colleagues to keep working with us to improve the program.

Mr. KIND. Will the gentleman yield an additional 30 seconds?

Mr. KIND. I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. As the former past Farm Bureau president in the State of Ohio and someone who is intimately familiar with these commodity programs, his lead has been crucial. He knows how the market works. And I think this program is setting up a lot of market distortions, unnecessary taxpayer subsidies that aren't economically justifiable. Our Amendment is a way of providing a safety net in a fiscally responsible manner. I hope we can continue working with the leadership of this committee to make this right.

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer this bipartisan amendment with my friend and colleague, Representative Petri from Wisconsin, that would call for further reforms in tightening of the crop insurance program. By the steps we take with this reform amendment, we would save the American taxpayer over $11 billion over the next 10 years. It was based on bipartisan legislation that Representative Petri and I offered earlier this year that was supported by Representatives McGovern, Sensenbrenner, DeLauro, Radel, Blumenauer, Conyers, Cooper, DeFazio, Connolly, and Waxman, and supported by a variety of outside groups. What we're trying to do is maintain an element of risk in farming, again, in a fiscally responsible manner, by tightening up crop insurance programs that we feel have become too excessive with the shifting of title I commodity money and direct payments into the crop insurance category. We'd save over $11 billion over the next 10 years by doing the following: We'd call for a limit of Federal crop insurance subsidies to $50,000 per farmer per year. Currently, there are no limits, no cap on the amount of taxpayer subsidies going to farm entities. Last year alone, over 26 entities received over $1 million in taxpayer premium subsidies alone. We think that's wrong, and we're trying to correct it with this amendment. We'd also extend the adjusted gross income limit of $250,000 per farm entity to apply to crop insurance programs. The concept there is simple. If you're a farm entity with a gross profit of over a quarter of a million dollars, you really ought not be receiving taxpayer subsidies. This is after you back out the operating expenses of doing business. We're talking a quarter of a million dollars worth of profit. It would promote crop insurance company efficiency by ending the 100 percent government subsidy of the administrative and operating costs that the private insurance companies currently enjoy today. Last year we spent over $1.3 billion on these insurance companies just for their A&O expenses alone. We're asking them to live with the total spending of $900 million, which is consistent with what the Obama administration is offering in its budget. This would also guarantee that the crop insurance companies do not pass along the riskiest policies back to the American taxpayer, which is currently the practice. It would lower the profit guaranteed to these private insurance companies from 14 percent to 12 percent. We don't offer that type of guarantee for any other business anywhere else in the country, and yet now they're guaranteed a 14 percent profit. We're saying can you at least live with a 12 percent profit for the sake of some savings within this program. And it would also promote transparency to help the taxpayer know where the money is going and who's benefiting from it. It opens the sunshine up so we have greater disclosure of these programs and, therefore, greater scrutiny. So we think this is commonsense reform. We think this is something that maintains the risk management tool of crop insurance. We're not proposing eliminating it, but we're just trying to propose making it more market sensitive and maintaining that element of risk. Finally, one of the reasons we feel that this is so important is because of current commodity prices. There is great pressure on farmers now to plant everywhere, in the most fallow, highly sensitive, highly erodible land because they know if they experience any loss, their loss is covered. Therefore, the risk is taken out of it. That is leading to bad stewardship practices throughout our country. With this reform, we're trying to introduce that element of some second guessing, some risk in the most fallow, unproductive land that's right now being brought back into production. So I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Unless my good friend wants to include the National Taxpayer Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform, Committee for Responsible Taxation, American Commitment for the Center for Individual Liberty, ``R'' Street Competitive Enterprise Institute in that category of radical environmental groups, they've all come out in support, endorsing this legislation. But we're not taking the private insurance companies out. We're just asking them to carry some risk and to reduce their guaranteed profit margin from 14 to 12. With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Representative Petri.

Mr. KIND. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a champion for family farmers and for the nutrition program in the farm bill.

Mr. KIND. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. KIND. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. KIND. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in response. To my good friend in Minnesota, my average dairy herd size in western Wisconsin is 125 cows. I don't have the mega-dairy operations and that. So we'll have plenty of time to debate the federally run supply management program that he's been advocating for in the FARRM Bill, which I think will be a disaster and won't work. But to my friend from Iowa, we're not talking about eliminating the crop insurance program. This risk-management tool will be in place. It won't touch 96 percent of the producers out there. The last time I checked, we're running some record budget deficits, and there are areas in this farm program, especially in crop insurance, that we can go to for sensible, commonsense savings that's economically justifiable while maintaining risk within the program today. It's a little ironic that we have such defenders of this crop insurance program when last year alone, the typical insurance company received $1.46 in taxpayer subsidies to every dollar that went into the pocket of our farmers. And five of the 10 biggest insurance companies offering these programs are foreign-owned entities. As the gentlelady from Connecticut just pointed out, many of them are using tax havens on the taxpayer dime. And how they can get up here and justify this program with a straight face is really beyond me. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I'd like to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. KIND. I believe the chairman has the right to close.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying that, listen, I understand there's a lot of hard work that goes into the committee in producing a farm bill. I get that. But there are areas of cost savings that we can justify to the American taxpayer without jeopardizing the risk-management tools. Crop insurance is ripe for that type of reform. And, again, what we're offering and what we're setting out is very commonsense, economically justifiable, and would save the American taxpayer over $11 billion over the next 10 years. If the average taxpayer knew just how this crop insurance program is set up today, they'd be aghast in horror. It's not right. We're trying to correct that right now while maintaining the safety net in a viable crop insurance program that can work. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my strong support for the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2013, H.R. 1206. I want to thank my coauthor and friend, Rob Wittman, for his dedication to getting this important legislation passed. In the 109th Congress, I authored legislation that created a pilot program for selling duck stamps electronically. The legislation passed with wide bipartisan support and the Electronic Duck Stamp program went on to become one of the most successful conservation programs in our history. Since the beginning of duck stamp sales in 1934, the stamps have generated more than $750 million used to purchase more than 5.3 million acres of waterfowl habitat. In Wisconsin alone, 6.78 million duck stamps have been sold thereby conserving numerous acres for waterfowl, birds, reptiles, mammals, fish, and amphibians. In addition to the benefits of conservation for wildlife, the habitats preserved give hunters and nature enthusiasts places to enjoy hiking, hunting, and animals watching. Additionally, these wetlands naturally purify water supplies, keep flood lands, and help decrease soil erosion. The Electronic Duck Stamp is terribly important to the district I represent in Wisconsin, which is home to three wildlife refuges. Almost the entire west side of my district is a refuge--the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife & Fish Refuge which is visited by 4 million people every year, more than Yellowstone. I want to urge my colleagues to support this commonsense yet vital legislation. I look forward to working toward getting this bill through the Senate and signed into law this year.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize May as Exercise is Medicine Month. Physical inactivity is a fast-growing public health problem and contributes to a variety of chronic diseases and health complications, including obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, depression and anxiety, arthritis, and osteoporosis. The Exercise is Medicine program seeks to reverse that trend. In addition to improving a patient's overall health, increasing physical activity has been shown to be effective in the treatment and prevention of chronic diseases. Beyond the benefits to individual health and quality of life, increased levels of physical activity are associated with lower health care costs, reduced environmental impact and other co-benefits. Exercise is Medicine is an initiative focused on encouraging primary care physicians and other health care providers to include exercise when designing treatment plans for patients. Exercise is Medicine is committed to the belief that exercise and physical activity are integral to the prevention and treatment of chronic disease and should be regularly assessed as part of medical care. The U.S. Federal Physical Guidelines and many studies show that 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity physical activity is required to achieve these health benefits. During May, communities throughout the U.S. will hold activities that recognize physical activity and exercise--shown to help prevent and treat more than 40 chronic diseases--should be part of everyone's health care plan. Since 2010, Exercise is Medicine Month has been proclaimed by mayors, governors, Congress and the President. Individuals and organizations of all kinds, from youth groups to universities, churches, fitness centers, corporations and hospitals, hold events aimed at keeping people active and healthy. I urge all Americans to recognize Exercise is Medicine month this May to build, support and advocate for physical activity as essential for global health and wellbeing by committing to action.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to recognize the Northwestern Wisconsin Regional Law Enforcement Memorial Ceremony. For over two decades law enforcement agencies from across Northwestern Wisconsin have held an annual ceremony during National Police Week to honor and remember those officers that were killed in the line of duty while serving their local communities. This year's ceremony commemorates 45 law enforcement officers from 20 Wisconsin counties whose names are among the over 19,000 inscribed in marble at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, DC. Each one of these officers made the ultimate sacrifice for the safety and protection of our citizens. The ceremony, which includes a vehicle procession, formal honor guard presentation, wreath laying, rifle salute, speakers, and music, will also be accompanied by a public screening of the documentary film, Heroes Behind the Badge. The film highlights the selfless acts of bravery committed by the men and women of law enforcement in the line of duty. The event will provide an opportunity for law enforcement officers to come together and interact with the public in order to heighten awareness of the dangers police officers face each day and the sacrifices they make to protect our communities. Proceeds from the event will go to benefit the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, Concerns of Police Survivors (C.O.P.S), and the Northwest Regional Law Enforcement Memorial. As a former prosecutor in western Wisconsin, I've had the honor of working closely with law enforcement officers. I am greatly humbled by the selfless service and bravery exemplified by these individuals, and it is with my deepest appreciation that I stand today to honor those who have given their lives to ensure the safety of our communities.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I, too, rise in opposition to the Pay China First Act. Madam Speaker, I, for the life of me, do not understand why we are even seriously considering this legislation which would call for the default on our Nation's financial obligations for the very first time in our Nation's history, completely jeopardize the full faith and credit of the United States of America, jeopardize the economic recovery, which still needs help right now, and it would be the greatest unforced, self-inflicted wound that this body can commit against the U.S. economy in our Nation's history. But let's be clear. This has very little to do about true fiscal responsibility. This issue, this legislation is being driven by a very narrow bunch on the other side with a radical governing philosophy which basically says, I hate my government so much that I'm willing to jeopardize the full faith and credit of the United States and bring this economy down until we get our way. That's what's driving this legislation right now. That's the jeopardy that we face with it. And I doubt that this has a serious chance of passing. But what the answer to this is is for us to go to conference on the budget resolutions that have now passed the House and Senate and start talking and listening to each other to find the common ground we need to reach a long-term deficit reduction agreement. But defaulting on some of our obligations will mean putting great doubt in the rest of the investors in the United States in regards to who will be next. And that's what this legislation is promising: a default with some, a payment of China and others at the expense of the U.S. economy. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived legislation.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Great River Road; one of our Nation's most historic and extensive scenic byways. Spanning nearly 3,000 miles from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, the Great River Road traces its origins back to a time when Franklin Roosevelt was President and the automatic transmission was the cutting edge of automotive technology. In 1938, governors from 10 States came together to form the planning commission for what was initially envisioned as a continuous national parkway extending along the entire length of the Mississippi River. Over the next two years the U.S House of Representatives Committee on Public Lands held hearings to authorize a feasibility study of the parkway concept. While popular, the idea was soon overshadowed in the wake of the Second World War. More than a decade passed before a feasibility study was finally completed by the Bureau of Public Roads in 1951. Finding the construction of an entirely new parkway to be too expensive, the study offered an alternative proposition; the development of a scenic route built from the existing network of rural roads and highways that meandered and crisscrossed the Mississippi River. This route, now known as the Great River Road, is a testament to the cooperative effort of States and the Federal Government working together with local communities to preserve the many historic features and natural beauties of the Mississippi River Valley. Today the Great River Road offers travelers not just a leisurely scenic drive but a unique and lasting journey through diverse communities and landscapes; from charming river towns to lush forests, from bluffs to the delta, from big city to sprawling rural vistas. The Great River Road is truly a national treasure. It is with great pride that I rise today to commemorate the 75 years of hard work and dedication that have gone into developing and preserving the Greater River Road so that it will continue to serve as a gateway to the rich heritage of the Mississippi River for future generations.