Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6275, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008. As a member of the Ways and 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. 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. Specifically, H.R. 6275 provides for a 1-year patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was developed in the 1970s to ensure that America's wealthiest could not take advantage of the tax code in a way that would allow them to avoid paying taxes altogether. The AMT was not indexed for inflation, however, and without this legislation it will reach into the pocketbooks of middle-class families it was never intended to hit. In my district alone, the AMT could affect 50,000 additional western Wisconsin families this year, many of whom have no idea they face a tax increase. Without this legislation, it is estimated that the AMT will hit an additional 538,970 taxpayers in Wisconsin and 25 million nationally. It is hard for me to think of something more important than protecting 25 million Americans from a tax that was never intended for them. Most importantly, this bill is fully offset and complies with pay-go rules that the Democratic majority restored at the beginning of this Congress. The legislation provides 1-year relief from the AMT without adding to the deficit by closing loopholes in the tax code, encouraging tax compliance, and repealing excessive government subsidies given to oil companies. These changes establish fairness in the tax code and show 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. Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Rangel for putting together this common sense bill that is not only fair but does the right thing by paying for the bill and fixing some inequities in the tax code. I look forward to working with him to reform the tax code and for once and for all put an end to the AMT and Congress having to do a yearly patch. Again, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support this sensible and fair tax bill before us today. Protecting millions of taxpayers from being caught by the AMT is of the utmost importance. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6275.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the centennial anniversary of the completion of the Mindoro ``Cut'' and its addition to the National Register of HIstoric Places. The Mindoro Cut is a perfect example of the ingenuity of rural Wisconsin residents. When the need arose to market perishable dairy products from the countryside to the local creamery, neighbors and families came together and surveyed a route through the region's rugged terrain. From 1907 and into 1908, workers dug and hacked through hard rock with little technology outside of wheelbarrows and hand tools and a good strong back. Digging 74 feet deep, 25 feet wide and 86 feet long, the Mindoro Cut is the deepest of its kind still remaining in America. Eventually, about 14,000 cubic feet of rock would be removed. Although they initially assumed that the hilltop ridge was made of sandstone and dirt, cutters found hard rock just under the surface. The Mindoro Cut is still in use today. From its creation in 1908, the ``Cut'' has more than served its original purpose. Today, tourists and visitors travel from across the country to marvel at the scenic views while they drive the winding highway through this man-made historical landmark. Today I pay tribute to the workers who undertook this great endeavor and to the community of Mindoro for honoring their efforts. With its natural beauty and continued usefulness, the Mindoro Cut is a link to our region's history and people.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I was unable to have my vote recorded on the House floor on Monday, June 23, 2008, having remained in 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. 1242 (roll No. 438), H. Con. Res. 372 (roll No. 439), and H. Res. 1051 (roll No. 440).

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I was unable to have my vote recorded on the House floor on Tuesday, June 17, 2008, having remained in 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.R. 2964 (Roll no. 414), H.R. 3702 (Roll no. 415), and H. Res. 1275 (Roll no. 416).

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. 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).

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. 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).

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. 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. KIND

Mr. KIND. 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. KIND

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

Mr. KIND. 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. KIND. 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.

Mr. KIND. 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. KIND. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. KIND. 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.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. 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. KIND

Mr. KIND. 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.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. 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.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. 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. KIND. 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.

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

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. 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.

Mr. KIND. 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.