Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, as one of the former cochairs and leaders of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the largest, bipartisan, bicameral caucus in this Congress, I reluctantly rise in strong opposition to this Interior appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, this bill falls short on so many different levels-- especially our responsibility to future generations to be good stewards of the public lands, the vital natural resources, and the wildlife that we have within our borders. But don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. We have had a tradition in this place for many years of having strong, bipartisan support for reasonable, sensible, land and water conservation programs. That's why earlier this month, a coalition of over 640 outdoor recreation entities sent a letter to each of our offices, including the Congressional leadership, expressing their deep concern and dismay over the funding cuts proposed in this appropriation bill. This letter was signed by entities such as the Boone and Crockett Club, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, National Wild Turkey Foundation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout Unlimited, and it was also signed by the president of The Wilderness Society, Bill Meadows, and a board member of the Civil War Trust, John Nau. I would like to read that letter at this time. ``We are a broad coalition of organizations representing millions of members with very diverse political backgrounds and areas of interest united behind a shared belief that natural resource conservation, outdoor recreation, and historic preservation, and investments in them, are vital to the future of our great Nation. ``Like you, we are concerned about our Nation's fiscal health. The Nation faces unsustainable future fiscal deficits, which must be addressed. As part of the overall solution to our deficit challenges, we know that conservation, recreation, and historic preservation programs will not and should not be exempted from scrutiny. We are willing to engage in a process to find further savings in spending and review the economic and budgetary benefits of critical conservation, outdoor recreation, and historic preservation programs. ``The Federal budget cannot and should not be balanced disproportionately on the backs of conservation, outdoor recreation, and preservation. Doing so will impose on the future generations whose well-being depends on the conservation and preservation of our common natural and historic resources. ``As a diverse community of taxpayers and voters who care about natural resource conservation, outdoor recreation, and historic preservation, we stand ready to work with you on serious efforts to address our Nation's economic and fiscal challenges, as they relate to investments in, and tough choices about, the programs we care about. We urge this Congress to address the Federal deficit while still investing in critical conservation, recreation, and historic preservation programs in 2012.'' Mr. Chairman, these groups realize, as many of us realize too, this is more than just being good stewards of the land and doing right by future generations. Investment in these vital programs is crucial for economic development and job creation in this country. The Outdoor Industry Foundation has issued a survey from year to year showing the economic impact of many of these conservation programs on outdoor recreation activities. They found that outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy, supports 6\1/2\ million private sector jobs, one out of every 20 jobs, and stimulates 8 percent of consumer spending. In Wisconsin, my home State, hunting and fishing alone supports 57,000 jobs, and $400 million in State revenue. Sportsmen spend $3.1 billion annually, which helps stimulate the Wisconsin economy and other States. Mr. Chairman, the irony in all this is that these organizations and these programs have been giving at the idol of deficit reduction for some time. In fact, over the last 30 years, American investment in parks, wildlife, clean water, and clean air has fallen from 1.7 percent of overall Federal budget to less than 0.6 percent. So throughout the years, there has been a continual reduction in funding for these programs. The irony is that for many of these programs, for every public dollar used, it is leveraged to draw in more private sector dollars. This too will be in great jeopardy with the dismantling of these programs. These aren't programs you can just turn on and off with a spigot. You need a continuity of care to keep them going. With funding reductions of this magnitude, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain that continuity of care. Whether it is to clean water, clean air, to wildlife preservation and enhancement, all of these programs are under a direct assault with this Interior appropriations bill. With the Land and Water Conservation Fund, an 80 percent proposed cut, the irony with this program is that it is funded by oil royalties. It has been a grand bargain that has been used in the past to allow development of oil on public lands. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this appropriations bill. We can do better than this. We have to do better. July 6, 2011. Hon. Harry M. Reid, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. John A. Boehner, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner: We are a broad coalition of organizations representing millions of members with very diverse political backgrounds and areas of interest united behind a shared belief that natural resource conservation, outdoor recreation, and historic preservation, and investments in them, are vital to the future of our great nation. Like you, we are concerned about our nation's fiscal health. The nation faces unsustainable future fiscal deficits, which must be addressed. As part of the overall solution to our deficit challenges, we know that conservation, recreation, and historic preservation programs will not and should not be exempt from scrutiny. We are willing to engage in a process to find further savings in spending, and review the economic and budgetary benefits of critical conservation, outdoor recreation, and historic preservation programs. The Federal budget cannot and should not be balanced disproportionately on the backs of conservation, outdoor recreation and preservation. Doing so will impose on the future generations whose well-being depends on the conservation and preservation of our common natural and historic resources. As a diverse community of taxpayers and voters who care about natural resource conservation, outdoor recreation, and historic preservation, we stand ready to work with you on serious efforts to address our nation's economic and fiscal challenges, as they relate to investments in, and tough choices about, the programs we care about. We urge this Congress to address the federal deficit while still investing in critical conservation, recreation and historic preservation programs in 2012. Please see attached for list of signers as of 7/6/11. Thank you. Bill Meadows, President, The Wilderness Society. John Nau, Board Member, Civil War Trust.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Eau Claire South Middle School Odyssey of the Mind Team that took fifth place at the 2011 World Finals held at the University of Maryland. Odyssey of the Mind is an educational program that challenges students to creative problem-solving challenges. The competition takes place first at the local level and moves onto a state and world competition for groups that succeed. The Eau Claire team was the only group from Wisconsin to make it to the worldwide competition where they placed fifth overall. They were one of only two teams to place in the entire Midwest division. The team competed in a challenge entitled ``Full Circle,'' which required the team to create a humorous skit while completing numerous challenges. The first challenge was having something change form three times during the presentation before returning to its original form. The skit also had to include a funny character, a serious character, a song and dance, and a surprising ending. All of this had to be worked together into one presentation. Not only did the team have to prepare a challenge in advance, but they had to compete in a spontaneous challenge that they were presented with immediately before their performance. After competing in both the main challenge entitled ``Full Circle,'' and the spontaneous challenge, they came in fifth place among schools from all over the world. I am proud of the Eau Claire South Middle School team and their accomplishment. Hopefully, it will be the first of many successes in these young students' lives.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment in the deep cuts made to conservation programs in H.R. 2112, the Agricultural Appropriations Bill. I represent one of the most productive farming regions in the country, and these cuts will have lasting consequences in my district. As the father of two young children, I am extremely concerned about passing an undue financial burden on to future generations. It is clear to all that sacrifices must be made, but conservation programs that play a vital role in protecting our Nation's lands and waters must be protected, and should not be disproportionately undermined as they have been through the appropriations process. Conservation programs have in recent years suffered a number of devastating financial blows, which will profoundly affect the ability of farmers to reach our stewardship goals. The 2008 Farm Bill as well as H.R. 1 in the 112th Congress included drastic cuts to flagship programs like CRP and WRP without proportionate cuts to Title I programs. This effectively puts the interests of large agribusiness in front of nutrition and conservation, rather than realizing the need for equal sacrifice by all stakeholders. Increases in commodity prices have led to farmers feeling pressure to bring sensitive lands 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 land out of CRP and putting it back into production. The real, measurable consequences of these actions will be felt in my district and across the country. Fishing, hunting and other types of outdoor recreation generate millions of jobs, primarily in rural counties. Managing farms, ranches and forest lands to create habitat for wildlife--and protecting farmland from sprawl--is critical to rural economic development based upon hunting and fishing. It is estimated that one-third of America's river miles, 45 percent of America's lakes, and 44 percent of America's bays still fail to meet water quality standards. Conservation programs play an important role in alleviating these problems by reducing soil erosion and bolstering natural water filtration, and are in many ways the last defense against over- exploitation of land and water pollution. In this bill, the Conservation Stewardship Program, which pays growers to farm more sustainably, is slated to be cut by 171 million dollars. This visionary program rewards past stewardship, but also incentivizes improvements that bring about additional environmental benefits. It is a shining example of the kind of programmatic innovation and forward thinking that should be rewarded by Congress, which makes this reduction in funding particularly disappointing. Funds for The Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) are also being cut. This program has played a critical role in conserving our Nation's wetlands, and the environmental and economic benefits associated with them. The United States has already lost over half its native wetlands, and continues to lose these crucial habitats at an alarming rate. WRP provides an avenue for farmers to take wetlands, which are normally considered underproductive for farming anyway, out of production so that they may continue to provide habitat and ecosystem services. Finally, the cuts to conservation programs will be damaging to agriculture and food security. Cutting funds to conservation will put millions of acres of farmland at risk to unplanned development. I have made conserving our natural heritage one of the hallmarks of my work in Congress, and I cannot stand by and watch these cuts without making my voice heard. While I am concerned about passing on a financial burden to my children, I am also concerned about passing on an environmental burden. Cutting these programs will only cause problems for future generations.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012. This bill cuts the Woman, Infant, and Children (WIC) Program by more than $650 million. With the country in the midst of a fragile recovery, my Republican colleagues have decided to prevent up to 350,000 women and children from receiving benefits from this highly successful program. In Wisconsin alone, up to 4,800 women and children would not be able to enroll. For years, WIC has provided mothers and children with healthy foods, counseling on breast feeding, nutrition guidance, and health care referrals. At a time of economic uncertainty, particularly for lower and middle income individuals, these cuts don't make sense. These cuts are especially alarming because they break a 15 year commitment by members of both parties to allow anyone that qualifies to receive WIC benefits. Not only would the majority cut funding for WIC, they would also seek to underfund programs tailored to provide American children with nutrition education and more nutritious school lunches. Currently, one in three American children is considered overweight or obese. The number of children who are considered severely obese has more than tripled over a 25 year period. Providing America's children with healthy alternatives like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and school lunches is a small price to pay to help alleviate this epidemic. In fact, it will provide more long term deficit reduction and put us on a better fiscal path than anything the majority has proposed. The long term medical, financial, and societal costs posed by childhood obesity are a far greater threat to our fiscal stability than healthy foods in schools. Instead of putting deficit reduction on the backs of the country's most vulnerable citizens, I believe we should target true waste and fraud. For this appropriations bill, the country's outdated agriculture subsidy program is a good place to start.

Mr. KIND

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward, and in a second I'm going to explain it in more detail. For many, many years now, I and a group of bipartisan Members of this Congress have formed a coalition in an attempt to move farm bill reform forward, to try to end these large taxpayer subsidies that are going to a few, but very large, agribusinesses, subsidies that are not in fact helping family farmers, leading to greater consolidation in production of agriculture, driving up land values, making it more difficult for new beginning farmers to enter agriculture, and subsidies that are not fiscally responsible. In light of the budget deficits that we're wrestling with, what better time to continue to move in the area of reform under the farm bill with this Agriculture appropriation bill, rather than waiting for the promise or hope that in a year or two in the reauthorization of another farm bill that this institution might finally come around and start making the long overdue changes. Just to show you how perverted these farm programs have gotten, recently Brazil challenged our own domestic cotton subsidy program and prevailed in the WTO court. Now you would expect our rational response would be to reform our cotton subsidy program, to come into compliance with that WTO decision, to end these subsidies that you really can't justify here to our cotton producers, and we would solve this problem. But that's not the approach that was taken. In fact, the administration recently set up a new subsidy program that is now going to subsidize Brazil cotton producers. Let me repeat that. We are spending $147 million a year in order to bribe the Brazilian Government so that they don't enforce the sanctions that they're entitled to now because of our unwillingness to reform our own cotton subsidy program. That is wrong, and that is what my amendment would address. It would prohibit the use of funds through this Agriculture appropriation bill going to this new subsidy program to subsidize the Brazil cotton industry. It just shows you what a pretzel our farm programs have turned this Congress into because of yet again the unwillingness for us to reform our own domestic title I subsidy programs. The answer to this is not to funnel out another $147 million a year until maybe we address this in the next farm bill, which could end up costing the American taxpayer over a half a billion dollars, when we can make that correction now, reform the domestic program, get out from under the WTO decision, start saving money by not sending $147 million a year to Brazil, and also start saving some money by reforming our own cotton domestic subsidy program. That's the solution to this. That's something that we can fix tonight, rather than continuing this facade of maintaining these programs that many of us warned in the last farm bill would be challenged, and sure enough they did, and they're prevailing, and now they can apply economic sanctions against us. So the time to act is now, not waiting for a year or two or whenever we're going to get around to reauthorizing another farm bill; and the time to start saving some real money is this night, by passing the amendment that we're offering. We can save $147 million, we can reform the cotton subsidy program and save more taxpayer dollars, and we have that ability to be fiscally responsible and start making changes tonight. I know what the argument on the other side will be: wait for the next farm bill; we'll take care of it then. Well, there is a lot that we are moving forward on this year on deficit reduction, and I for one think that the farm bill should also be open for scrutiny for potential savings to reduce our deficit. But that's not what's being offered tonight in reforming the title I subsidy programs. Instead, most of the deep cuts are coming under the conservation title, the nutrition programs, certain key investments that we have to make to empower our farmers to be good stewards of the land, to reduce sediment and nutrient flows and the impact it has on the quality water supply that we need in this country, the protection of wildlife habitat. In fact, three out of every four farmers applying for conservation funding assistance today are turned away because of inadequacy of funds. That number will only explode because of the deep cuts coming in these other titles of the farm bill. We have an opportunity to start making some changes under title I, the subsidy program, first by stopping the additional layer of subsidy that's been created where we're starting to subsidize other countries' farmers. Let's start making that change tonight. I would encourage my colleagues to look closely at this amendment. This is the reasonable response that we should be taking. Let's not defer this decision any further. We can do that. And instead of encouraging any type of trade war or sanctions with Brazil, we should move forward in reforming the cotton subsidy program starting tonight. With that, I yield back the balance of my time and ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KIND. Well, I thank my good friend from Oregon for his support of the amendment and for his support throughout the years in trying to lead the effort for meaningful farm bill reform. Mr. Chairman, there is another solution to this that's going to be offered by our good friend and colleague from Arizona in just a little bit, Mr. Flake. He goes to the heart of the WTO decision to find out what changes we should be making in the cotton subsidy program to get out from under the thumb of Brazil, and I would support that amendment, and I hope my colleagues support his amendment as well because that is the ultimate solution to this: Instead of just cutting off the funding to Brazil right now, coming up with the cotton subsidy reform. Now, let's remember the context in which we find ourselves this evening. Cotton payments are almost at a world record high price right now, yet these subsidies are still going out. There's just very little relationship right now with the subsidies under title I to the grain producers and cotton producers of our country and the price they receive in the marketplace. And in a time of tough budgets, when everyone else is being asked to take a haircut, whether you're a supporter of conservation programs or vital nutrition programs for our children and seniors, for us to not even look and consider the title I programs in the context of this agriculture appropriation, it's beyond the pale. There's just no justification to it. These programs are outdated. They are impossible to justify with the American taxpayer, especially with the deficit reduction that all of us are interested in participating in this year. This is a small, but I think significant, step down the road of reform with the farm bill finding savings that can be applied to either other programs or for deficit reduction. That's why I commend my colleague from Arizona for the amendment he's about to offer, but my friend from Oregon, too, will have some important amendments for us to consider, a payment limitation limiting the overall amount of subsidies that go to our producers. And folks, this is going to agribusiness, many of whom have mailing addresses in Manhattan, in Chicago, in San Francisco. These aren't even family farmers working the land, and they're some of the primary recipients of these agriculture subsidies. Mr. Blumenauer's amendments address that, along with Mr. Flake's AGI cutoff at $250,000 a year. That's 250 thousand dollars of profit, and if you're an entity making a profit of over a quarter-million dollars a year, should you really still be receiving taxpayer subsidies for the business that you're running? I think not, and we'll have another opportunity to consider that later tonight. So I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time and further explaining what this amendment is all about. And if we are serious about deficit reduction, if we are serious about reining in some of these programs that are tough to justify, then we should be serious about supporting this amendment tonight.

Mr. KIND. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I appreciate his support of this amendment and the leadership that he's shown not only in committee but throughout the years when it comes to sensible farm bill reform. The easiest way for us to come into trade compliance isn't by bribing the Brazilian government to get them to not enforce the sanctions that it can under WTO; it's fixing this domestic program, and doing it now rather than waiting years from now, as my colleague just pointed out, for the next farm bill. I know this isn't easy, and I know the committees wrestles with a lot of different constituent problems. I used to serve on the committee. I'm not asking anyone here tonight to do anything differently than what I'm asking my producers to do in my district of Wisconsin and in my State, and that's taking a haircut. The reforms that I've been proposing through the years would require my district to take a haircut on these agriculture subsidies. It's not always easy standing up to groups that are getting something from the government and saying we can't afford it, nor can we justify it, with the market and with the deficit. But that is what it's going to take for this body to come together if we are going to be serious about deficit reduction and getting the spending under control. I know that the Agriculture Committee has their hands full, and I know they would rather just defer this next decision until the next farm bill and put it off. But we don't know when that's going to be. But the thing we do know for certain is there is $147 million going out the door every year right now that we can stop doing tonight with the passage of this amendment.

Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for his comments in support of this amendment. And just one final point to my colleagues who have been supportive of trade agreements in the past. Let's be honest with ourselves. If we're going to be a part of this WTO organization to establish rules of trade across borders, then let's not turn our back on an adverse decision that affects us. Let's, instead, comply and bring the cotton subsidy program into compliance. That is the answer to this. And let's end this nonsense of stacking subsidy program on top of subsidy program to just buy off and blackmail other governments who have a WTO decision in their hands. And I cannot believe that this evening, when we're asking for huge, unprecedented cuts in conservation programs that will affect thousands of farmers throughout the country and unprecedented cuts with nutrition programs that will affect thousands of low-income families with their children, and seniors, saying, ``Tough luck. We're operating under tough budget times. You're just going to have to do without,'' when it comes to a simple amendment like this to save $147 million a year to bribe Brazil cotton producers and an unwillingness to go into the title I subsidy programs for cost savings, then what the heck are we doing around here? It is just beyond the pale that we're willing to take the deep cuts-- and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee claimed a 12 percent cut in the farm bill, but he didn't say where those cuts were coming from. I'll tell you where it's not coming from. It's not coming from these subsidy programs. It's not coming from the cotton subsidy program that has gotten us into this problem. A handful of powerful cotton families are holding this institution hostage in order to maintain these subsidy programs that have benefited them for too long. Talk about benefiting the few at the expense of the many; this is the classic example of this Agriculture appropriation bill before us this evening. We can do a heck of a lot better.

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of my friend, my colleague from Oregon's amendment this evening. I am not sure if a $125,000 payment limitation is the right amount, but this isn't a new concept. There has been a lot of discussion about payment limitations under title I, and the gentleman is correct. The time to start doing this is now. We can pretend that there aren't major policy changes being made under this agricultural appropriations bill, but there are. There are deep cuts in the conservation title. We just had a large consortium, a coalition of outdoor sporting groups, write a letter expressing their concern about the deep cuts in the voluntary and incentive-based land and water conservation programs and the impact that is going to have on quality water and habitat protection or the ability of our farmers to be good stewards of their land. There is a huge demand for these programs which will be dramatically affected with the deep spending reductions that are contained in this appropriation bill. The same goes for the nutrition programs. The huge funding reductions will have an impact on tens of thousands of families throughout the Nation, low-income children that rely on these programs, the Women, Infants, and Children program in particular, seniors on these nutrition programs. They are going to feel the effects of the decisions that we are making in this Agriculture appropriation bill. Now, for so many of my colleagues to stand up this evening and claim we can't mess with title I program funding, we should wait for the next farm bill, I think, is disingenuous at best. I ask my colleagues tonight, mohair subsidies? Is that the best we are going to be able to do? And I would submit to my colleagues that the reason why mohair was picked on is because they are not a particularly well-organized, sophisticated, politically-connected entity out there, so it was easy to go after them, as my colleague from Utah showed with his amendment. But we have known for a long time now that these subsidy programs under title I do distort the marketplace. They do distort our trade policy, as my Brazil cotton subsidy amendment highlighted a little earlier this evening. And we are long past time to start making these revisions in light of the huge budget deficits that we are facing. When 80 percent of the producers in our Nation get nothing under title I subsidies--not a dime--that leaves a very small group of entities that is receiving the bulk of these taxpayer subsidies, and we all know who they are. They're the big five grain-producing entities of this country--corn, soybeans, cotton, rice, and wheat. They're the ones who are receiving the bulk of these title I subsidy programs. Under the farm bill, there are multiple programs which they can be eligible for: from the LDP Program, to Countercyclical, to the new ACRE Program under the last farm bill, to the Direct Payment Program. Many of us were arguing in the last farm bill whether it was necessary to go forward with direct payments that bear no relationship to current market prices--all based on past production history. Today, we are facing world record commodity prices in these categories. Not only did we continue them, but we increased the direct payments, and we're allowing double entities on the same fund to qualify for the direct payments. Yet none of that is being discussed in the context of this Agriculture appropriations bill. As to my original point, I'm not sure if 125 is the right level, but the concept isn't new, and it's definitely a step in the right direction. I think it's trying to bring more sanity to the title I subsidy programs, which we shouldn't be delaying until the next farm bill which may or may not happen next year. We know it's tough to get major pieces of legislation through during an election year, let alone a Presidential election year. It could be years from now before we have the next farm bill ready to go with any potential change. So I commend my colleague for offering this amendment and for continuing the discussion, and I encourage my colleagues to seriously consider supporting it. I'm sure the Senate will have some ideas, too, on things that they recommend. This, I think, is appropriate and it's not new; and to claim that we shouldn't touch title I, yet we're eviscerating virtually the rest of the farm bill in what we're doing with this appropriations bill, I think is disingenuous. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Oregon.

Mr. KIND. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Norb Aschom for 50 years of excellence in radio broadcasting. Norb has been news director of WPRE-AM and WQPC-FM radio stations since 1962. Throughout his time at the station, Norb has served a critical role by providing this tight knit town with the news each day, installing a sense of community through the airwaves. Norb is a fixture in the Prairie du Chien community, a town in southwestern Wisconsin on the banks of the Mississippi River. At 71 years of age, Norb has worked in the same building every day for 50 years. While his broadcasting home on St. Feriole Island in Prairie du Chien was recently flooded, he was forced, along with the rest of the station staff, out of their office and into a temporary workspace in the local Police Department. After a two week hiatus, Norb was able to return to his normal office on April 23. Throughout his time working out of the police department he never veered from his commitment to bring the news to the people of Prairie du Chien. In his 50 years, Norb has interviewed everyone from former First Ladies Johnson and Carter, to fellow radio personality Paul Harvey. He has covered every major local event including the record floods of 1965, the 1981 closing of the Hwy. 18 bridge and the flooding of more recent years. Norb embodies what every rural community needs, a friendly and thoughtful voice to bring them the events of the day. With no plans to retire anytime soon, Norb plans to continue making a difference in the lives of the residents of Prairie du Chien. I am proud to know Norb and believe that his work not only impacts his community but serves as an example to the rest of the country.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KIND. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, the bill that we are debating today just goes too far. It repeals a scientific finding and represents an aggressive assault on the Clean Air Act, a bipartisan law originally implemented by President Nixon that has successfully protected the public health for over 40 years. I represent a rural district in western Wisconsin that has approximately 180,000 rural electric co-op members that are concerned about possible new EPA regulations and their impact on them. I share their concerns, and I agree that we have to approach this issue reasonably. Still, the approach under H.R. 910 isn't the right one. There is a middle ground that can be found, which is why I, along with my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. Owens), am offering, really, an amendment in the nature of a substitute today. This amendment would permanently protect farms, small businesses and small- and medium-sized stationary sources from greenhouse gas regulation by codifying the Environmental Protection Agency's Tailoring Rule. The Tailoring Rule, itself, represents a compromise. Despite being court-ordered to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA took into account our fragile economy, and proposed a narrow rule that would exempt the vast majority of stationary sources from any regulation. Through the rule, the EPA takes the appropriate approach to regulating greenhouse gases by only requiring very large, new and expanded emitters to seek permits. My friends on the other side of the aisle, however, believe that the EPA intends to go even further than the Tailoring Rule, and will ultimately implement a tax on energy just as China is beginning to today; but voting for this amendment will prevent the EPA from doing this. Some fear that farms or businesses will be regulated under this rule. Our amendment prevents this from ever occurring. Under the Tailoring Rule, the EPA has not identified even one farm that would meet the regulation threshold. That's because you'd have to have over 116,000 beef cattle or 152 million broiler chickens on a single farm to trigger the regulation. There isn't a farm in the United States, let alone western Wisconsin, that fits that definition. Further, this amendment will provide the utility industry with the certainty that they have requested. Industry will know precisely what will trigger permit requirements, and will be able to plan accordingly. H.R. 910 takes an extreme approach to the EPA regulation of these carbon emissions by repealing a scientific finding so compelling that even the Bush administration determined that they were unable to ignore it. The science is clear: Climate change is real, and greenhouse gases pose a serious threat to human health. I think we can all agree that we'd rather have Congress act to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and I would certainly prefer that approach, but we haven't been able to get our act together in this body. What we can do is protect public health and local economies by codifying the Tailoring Rule. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it is a commonsense solution that accepts the scientific evidence that greenhouse gases are dangerous to human health, and it enacts a workable solution that will protect human health and that will ensure clean air while shielding the vast majority of sources from any regulatory requirements. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the coauthor of this amendment, my friend from New York (Mr. Owens).

Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to record my vote on the House floor during the vote on H.R. 1246 on Monday, April 4, 2011 because of family commitments in Wisconsin. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 1246 (Roll no. 225).

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor on Tuesday, April 5, 2011 due to a flight delay caused by mechanical difficulties. Had I been present, I would have voted in against the previous question motion on H. Res. 200 (Roll no. 226), against H. Res. 200 (Roll no. 227), and in favor of approving the Journal (Roll no. 228).

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure my good friend and colleague, the previous speaker from Texas, also realizes that this money that they will owe on this hidden tax is something they never see to begin with. This is a tax credit that goes directly to the private health insurance companies. And this bill would be better titled the Republican Tax Trap of 2014, 2015, 2016, and on and on and on, because that's exactly what's going to happen. There's this hidden tax trap that's going to affect hundreds of thousands of working class, middle class families through no fault of their own. I think my colleague and friend from New York explained very succinctly what would happen here with the cliff. If you're at 400 percent poverty level, a family of four at roughly $88,000 a year, and you receive a little bit of extra income, you receive a little bit of a bonus that might put you just over the edge, you're going to be hit with a $4,600 tax liability at the end of the year. Now they're not going to be in a position to deal with that. So either they're going to have to find a way to come up with the money to pay the Republican tax that they didn't expect, or it's going to discourage work and they're not going to try to earn as much income because they don't want to go over that 400 percent level, or they're not going to participate in a health insurance exchange to begin with. We've got a score on that as well: that over 266,000 families will choose not to participate in a health insurance exchange for fear of this hidden Republican tax trap that we have before us today. And what's ironic about this is this insurance exchange that's part of the Affordable Care Act is a bill that I and others have worked on for years in a bipartisan fashion, called the SHOP Act. Republicans were in favor of creating these health insurance exchanges, coupled with tax credits, so that small businesses, family farmers, individuals, finally had a place where they could go and shop for affordable health care coverage with competing private health plans finally competing for their business for a change, so that they had the same type of leverage that large corporations do. This has been proven in models and pilot projects throughout the Nation that have shown how effective these health insurance exchanges work. What they're doing now with this legislation, with the offset that they're proposing, hitting the middle class, is doing things to undermine, once again, the health insurance exchanges and the ability for small businesses and individuals to go out and obtain affordable coverage. That's unfortunate, but it's consistent with the zeal on the other side of doing everything they can to undermine the Affordable Care Act, regardless of who it hurts, regardless of the additional tax burden. As my friend from Michigan indicated, we fixed this problem last December in a bipartisan fashion, so instead of creating a cliff, which was a mistake in the original bill, there would be a gradual phaseout of these tax credits; so it wouldn't be a hidden tax trap as my Republican colleagues are calling for today. But at some point we're going to have to come to grips that a lot of what's in the Affordable Care Act is necessary and long overdue, not least of which, and I think this is going to be the key to health care reform and its final verdict, is the ability for us to change the way we pay for health care in this country, changing the fee for service that exists in Medicare today to a fee for value or a quality-based reimbursement system. We can start by doing that with Medicare, and the tools are in place under health care reform to do that. This will extend then to the private health insurance industry. This, too, is a bipartisan issue. Newt Gingrich has been talking about it; Dr. Bill Frist; Tommy Thompson, my former Governor and former Secretary of HHS, has been talking about changing the reimbursement system in health care so we reward value and quality and outcome of care as opposed to the volume-based payments which is literally bankrupting our Nation today. Health care costs are the largest and fastest growing expense that we have at all levels, Federal, State and local level, and for businesses and families alike. It's one of the reasons why I've got folks in Wisconsin at each other's throats right now talking about public employee benefits, and the biggest cost driver in State budgets today are rising health care costs. So why not embrace the reforms that we have in health care reform that will lead us to a value-based reimbursement system, which many people on a bipartisan basis have been talking about for years. We were finally able to get those tools in place under the Affordable Care Act. We just can't do it overnight. You don't change the way you pay for one-fifth of the entire U.S. economy overnight. We've got accountable care organizations, medical homes, bundling programs to incent value-based payments. But we also have the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine, doing a 2-year study right now to change the fee for service under Medicare to a fee for value system and they will present an actionable plan to the administration to implement it, which gives us, I think, the best hope of changing the outdated and perverse incentive system that we have in the delivery of health care today. It's leading to overutilization in health care. And studies have shown that close to one out of every three health care dollars, or about $800 billion a year, are going to tests and procedures that don't work.

Mr. KIND. One out of every three health care dollars, or $800 billion we're spending a year that we're not getting a good bang for the buck. It's going to tests and procedures that don't work. And because of the overutilization and the overtreatment that some patients are receiving, they're being left worse off, rather than better off. That's going to be the game-changer when it comes to true fiscal responsibility in this place. It's something that everyone's been ducking. For the last couple of weeks we've been talking about this continuing resolution that only deals with 12 percent of the Federal pie. Unfortunately it goes after the most vulnerable people in our society, especially our kids' education. Yet we all know where the big money lies. It's in the health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid. It's in defense spending. If we don't get serious in turning the cost curve around when it comes to health care, then we're just fooling ourselves with everything else that we're doing with the budget. We've addressed that in the Affordable Care Act with programs that are set up now and payment reform that is moving forward to change how we pay for health care so we can improve the quality of care for all Americans but at a much better bang for the buck for the American taxpayer. That's what we should be coming together on, rather than discouraging people from participating in an exchange which will create true competition with these private insurance companies, which again is long overdue, and instead of offering this legislation today that sets up this Republican tax trap for middle class working families who will be surprised at the end of the year because they put in a little bit more time and they earned a little bit more income or they got that last-minute bonus from their employees, and then suddenly they realize, oh, my God, we're going to owe $4,600 because of what they're doing here today. It's outrageous. It's unfair. There are better offsets. And here's an idea. The retired CEO of Chevron just this past week said: Hey, when oil is above 70 bucks a barrel, let's stop the subsidies, let's stop the tax breaks. This is a retired CEO of a major oil-producing company that's saying that this is nonsense that we're still wasting so much money, around 50 billion dollars per year by subsidizing Big Oil when oil is above 70 bucks a barrel. Today, it's over $100 a barrel. That would be a more appropriate offset. I'm going to hand off to my friend from Oregon to pick it up at that point.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the World Champions, winners of Super Bowl XLV, The Green Bay Packers of Title Town. I ask that this poem penned in honor and remembrance of them by Albert Caswell be placed in the Record. The Pack Is Back, And How! In this game of old, upon these hardened fields of frozen tundras so . . . But came the birth, of one of the NFL's greatest teams to be behold . . . of most hallowed Green and Gold! Were born, The Green Bay Packers of such fame known so, because of their Championships, the name Title Town they now so own! As the only Professional team across this nation, in any sport, who is so owned by. . . ``WE The People'' this fine equation! As The Legend Vince Lombardi, ``so ruled The Lombardi Nation'' . . . and his most hallowed teams, virtually defined . . . the very definition of what the word football means! And from this Title Town so came, the very first two Super Bowls win to claim, as a Starr was born who in The Hall now remains! As it was not too long before, when a man named Brett went Favre . . . and gave to this Title Town again, another Super Bowl win once more! As then later in later years, a new kid in town as so appeared . . . like The Young Man to Montana Man, now Brett to Rogers, both had to stand! Back to Back! Man to Man! Replacing an Icon . . . as Rogers knew, he'd have to go ``The Longest Yard'' to live that dream! And now the stage was set, in Super Bowl XVL so yet . . . clash of the Titans, Pittsburgh and Green Bay, who would survive? Would Steel bend, or Cheese give way? As it was these two early teams, that so helped give the NFL its great name! As the two rode into Texas for the game, for this up and coming war, as a shootout at the OK Corral for sure! But, only one team . . . can so wear that most hallowed crown, that of World Champions of so renown . . . and hold that Lombardi Trophy up high, up so very proud! As it was to be, the young gun versus the proven one . . . Big Ben, and the new Kid Rocket Rogers with cannons, blazing both ones! Who would win, and Be The Best? But, Aaron could not spell the word DOUBT, even if you spotted him the first five letters no less! And still another great question lie here so! Which is greater, Cheese or Steel . . . yo? As so soon, 111,000 viewers would know! As The Pack had something to prove, with so many players on the DL . . . they had their own Special Mash Unit too! While, it did not take long, before Rogers threw strong . . . and hit Jody with a 29 TD . . . As he put a Full Nelson on the Pittsburgh D! Then, in the Nick of time . . . Big money Collins, cashed in his own private Benjamins, intercepting, a 37 yd return crossing the goal line! As on that very same play, Kemoeatu, gave Big Ben ``The Kemo Treatment'', running over him, showing him The Packer Way! Already you could so see, in disbelief . . . as all over those powerful Pittsburgh Steelers, some Rust was starting form, starting to creep! As, Matthews 52 cried out . . . you better get the trainer quick . . . and get some Rustoleum on that, or your all going to be eating cheese! And then after a Steelers field goal, Big Ben was Bushwhacked by Jarrett so, with an interception . . . as man that was cold! Then, using Laser Technology, for a TD to Jennings so sweet . . . as Rogers drilled a rope for 7yds, that exploded oh so very brilliantly! As it looked like Polamalu number 43, and all of the entire Steelers football team, were having a bad hair day indeed, yea it was not looking very pretty! When, suddenly before the half time, Hines Ward, had something else in mind . . . a great TD, reinforcing The Steel you see! As it was at the end of a 77yd drive, once again Big Ben came alive, because the great one earlier, Woodson, got hurt breaking up a play as he dived! But Pittsburgh apparently, liked what they served at the halftime show, helping them grow those Black Eyed Peas so! Scoring a touchdown on five consecutive runs, from the 50yd line where it all begun . . . as Mendenhall scored with an 8yd TD, this one! The Steelers were bent, but not yet broken . . . until Matthews, molded Mendenhall into human Clay, with his fumble so, Captain Crunch had spoken! And with the game on the line, Rocket Rogers say ``Roger That'', yea one more time! Living Large, with a 55yd drive into a TD! As once again, on Jennings looked so splendidly, with an 8yd throw . . . the man's got speed, telling all of those Terrible Towels . . . to eat cheese! As somehow again, The Tower of Big Ben . . . struck one more time, in the end zone to Wallace . . . who is too, was built for speed! But, the coolest of cool . . . as Rogers nerves of steel ruled! Driving down the field, for a Masonic Moment as he would not yield! With Crosby, on the road to victory . . . As he made the kick, the Steelers were getting sick, and needed a drive, as those terrible towels began to cry! But time ran out on Big Ben, as Rogers cried it's time for the belt my friends . . . feel my disease, as the price of steel began to descend! As The Black and Yellow, turned to jell-O . . . turned to jell-o . . . and The Mighty Packer's D, put their stamp of Wiscousin Cheese . . . on them! While, somewhere up in Heaven, an Angel named Lombardi cries, ``The Pack is Back, we're on Top!'' now with tear in his eye! It was a heck of a game, as records were broken . . . as over 111,000 people watched what was spoken! The word TEAM, what McCarthy was invoking! As he, had a lot legends to live up to . . . and some tough shoes to fill, along the way! But, now he's shown the nation what he can do! It was one heck of year, as against all odds . . . a new World's Champion been named, just like the old Lombardi team's so true! Against all odds, in the way they were led, from The Coach on down . . . what it said, as a new Star who was found, ``Rogers That''! Yea, once again THE PACK IS BACK,

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, my amendment is pretty straightforward and simple. It would eliminate two weapons programs that the Defense Department, Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the bipartisan fiscal commissions all say are not necessary, they are not needed, they don't go to improve military readiness, and they are redundant. It's the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle as well as the Surface Launch Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile System, the SLAMRAAM for short. Now, I am not going to get into the details as to why these weapons programs should be defunded. Those serving on the committee have heard these arguments for years. But what I want to make is a larger point here today; that if we're going to be serious about true deficit reduction, the defense aspect of the Federal budget also has to be on the table. And what better place to start than by listening to our own military leaders who continually tell this Congress: Stop appropriating money for weapons systems we don't want, that we don't want to use, that aren't necessary, they don't enhance military readiness, and they are not going to support our troops in the field. And these two programs fit that bill. Now, we had a previous amendment from Ms. Woolsey in regards to the EFV program. She laid out the reasons behind that, that I don't have to get into. But the fact is defense spending is the second largest spending category in the entire Federal budget after health care costs. And if that is taken off the table, which I hear too often from too many of my colleagues, it's going to make restoring the fiscal health of our Nation that much more difficult. And with just the elimination of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, Secretary Gates estimates it could save the American taxpayer over $12 billion. And then for the SLAMRAAM program, General Chiarelli estimated that would save an additional $1 billion. When the budget is going to be tight and there's inevitably going to be an increasing squeeze on our military and military readiness, what better place to start than these weapon programs that the military is not even asking for and instructing Congress to stop the insanity? But I was also proud in the last session of Congress that the Democratic majority moved forward on another important area of defense reform, and that's the weapons procurement program. A recent General Accounting Office report indicates that current weapons programs in the pipeline today are over $300 billion over budget. So this blank check that defense contractors expect from the American taxpayers has got to end, or we will spend ourselves into oblivion and we won't get a good bang for the taxpayer dollars and we won't be doing right for the American fighting soldier. So the point of my amendment is simple. It's going to be tough making the type of budget decisions that we have to make in a bipartisan fashion to get these structural deficits under control. The defense budget should also be fair game for scrutiny and transparency and cost savings. And what better place to start than where our own military leaders are instructing us to go: weapons programs they don't need, will save money, reduce the redundancy, and help deal with the budget deficits that we're facing. I reserve the balance of my time.