Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from Virginia, he really is an expert on these programs, but he knows as well as anyone the reason commodity spending is down is because commodity prices are up. Two of the three subsidy programs are based on the amount farmers are getting in the marketplace. But that can all return in a heartbeat, and he knows it. The fact is that you need a few Members of Congress here today to stand up and say the emperor has no clothes. As I said from the beginning, where's the beef, where's the real reform? When you still allow taxpayer subsidies going to a farm couple with an adjusted gross of $2.5 million, that's not reform. When you lift the income limits under the LDP and the countercyclical program, that's not reform. When you increased the loan rate and the target price, it's not reform. You have marginal reform with the crop insurance. Instead of having a farm bill today that has reasonable reform for taxpayers throughout the country, and has the great conservation title for the 21st century, or the healthy food bill of the 21st century, it's more status quo. It's more wait for 5 years, we will do it then. Well, those 5 years never come. The time has never been better today, and the President is right. We should not be spending taxpayer subsidies for wealthy individuals at a time of record prices in the marketplace. When people are facing increased food and fuel costs, let us not do this to the American taxpayer and use their money needlessly. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' We can do better. I know we can do better in producing a bill that provides a safety net for family farmers but is also responsible to the American taxpayer.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, it's planting season back home in Wisconsin. I still represent one of the largest agricultural producing districts in the entire Nation. Our farmers need a new farm bill. They need to know what the rules are that they have to work and live under. But we need to do a farm bill the right way, not the wrong way, one that maintains an important safety net for family farmers across the country and is also responsible to the American taxpayer. Unfortunately, I kind of feel like Paul Harvey here in the well today about to give the rest of the story. This farm bill could be summed up in simple words, it's a missed opportunity. In fact, it could be summarized by the phrase: Where's the beef? Where's the real reform? Why do I say that? Let's take a look for a second at the so-called reforms under the commodity subsidy programs. By the time you include off-farm and on-farm income and allow double entities, dual entities on the same farm, and their adjusted gross income, you have adjusted gross income up to $2.5 million and you still qualify for taxpayer subsidies. That would constitute approximately two-tenths of 1 percent of farm entities throughout the country that might be affected by these so- called reforms under the direct payments. Now let's remind ourselves, these direct payments are $25 billion, that go out over the next 5 years, regardless of price, regardless of production. It's not a safety net. It's an entitlement program that each and every one of us will have to go home and look our taxpayers in the eyes and try to explain to them why some of their tax dollars are going to go to a farm entity with an adjusted gross income of $2.5 million. If you look at the loan deficiency program and the countercyclical, the two other subsidy programs that currently exist, we went in the wrong direction rather than the right direction with reform. There will still be allowed double dipping under the loan deficiency program. And the loan rates are being increased rather than decreased. And under the countercyclical, the target prices are going to be increased. What does that mean? It means that they will be triggered much earlier and will cost the taxpayer much more if prices start to decline. One of the reasons there is less funding under the commodity title is because we're at a record time of commodity prices throughout the country. In fact, since the last time the farm bill was on the floor last year for consideration, you look at the five major commodity titles, and they have gone up tremendously since that time: Wheat, an additional 126 percent; soybeans up 57 percent; corn up 45 percent; cotton, 32 percent; and rice, 31 percent. Those are the main subsidized crops that we have throughout the country. Yet, instead of going forward with some reasonable and imminently justifiable reform to tighten up these programs so it is more justifiable to the taxpayer, they're going in the opposite direction. I always believed that we had the capability, in light of current market prices, to produce a farm bill that maintains an important safety net for our family farmers but in a way that's less market and less trade distorting and is also justifiable to the American taxpayer.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I thank my friend for yielding. He and I and others have tried to introduce the concept of more reform in this next farm bill. But I didn't intend to speak on this motion; I just want to point out a little bit of irony in what this motion would do. It's my understanding that by using the 2008 numbers, it would result in a lower baseline for the commodity subsidy programs by about $11 billion, which I don't have a problem with because we have introduced a 10-point option plan to find over $10 billion of reasonable savings under these commodity programs already. So it's consistent with that. But it would also call for an increase of the baseline under the conservation title of close to $2 billion and under the nutrition title of close to $35 billion because of increased food costs and eligibility under these nutrition programs. If the nutrition groups knew what the practical effect of this motion to instruct would be, they will be doing cartwheels all over this town for the next week. I just wanted to point out the irony of today's baseline versus last year's baseline.

Mr. KIND

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

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

Mr. KIND. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple motion. I understand we are in the waning, perhaps minutes of conclusion of the farm bill. But, nevertheless, I think it's important that we get the policies right. We do need a farm bill. We need it as soon as possible. It's planting season back home. Our farmers need some predictability. They need to know what rules they are being to be operating under, one way or another. But we need a good farm bill, not a bad farm bill; one that tries to get the policy right, not the wrong way. I still believe there's more room for reform under the commodity programs in light of record high commodity prices. It's tough to justify to the average taxpayer that what is still being considered under the current farm bill is close to $25 billion of direct payments to go out over the next 5 years, bearing no relationship to price or production. It's not a safety net. These are entitlement funding, automatic payments that go to large producers, primarily merely due to their existence and not because of market. But there's another important feature of this farm bill and that is the conservation title. This farm bill offers this Nation the greatest public investment in private land ownership in regards to anything else we do around here. For a very long time, we have had important land and water conservation programs set up on a voluntary and incentive basis to help our producers be good stewards of the land; good manure management practices so they are not running off and polluting our rivers and streams and lakes and tributaries, making sure we have got buffer strips in place, making sure we have got the ability to absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere so we don't lose ground on the global warming battle that we are confronting. This is something that also benefits the American farmer, family farmers in every region. But it also benefits the community at large through enhanced water quality programs, through habitat protection, and wildlife, which is also vital to our own local and regional economies. Yet what is being considered right now in the conference is a dramatic reduction in the level of funding that came out of the House. The House had an historic passage of conservation funding last year, calling for another over $5 billion in these conservation programs. This, I think, in part, is to address the backlog of demand because today, under current funding, close to two out of every three farmers applying for conversation funding assistance are turned because of the inadequacy of funds. So the demand is there. But what makes these programs especially attractive is their so- called ``green box payments.'' They are nonmarket, nontrade-distorting, still a way to help our family farmers manage their own land, but in a way that doesn't distort the marketplace. What's being considered now is a dramatic reduction in the level of funding that came out of the House originally. Our motion to instruct today would merely ask the conferees to try to get back to that House level of funding rather than going even below where the Senate took it. The Senate was proposing a $4.2 billion increase. We were over $5 billion. It's my understanding, and I haven't been privy to the ongoing negotiations, but they are talking about just a $4 billion increase under conservation, substantially below where the House went. More specifically, this motion would instruct conferees to maintain the House funding for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program. That is the main program that helps with manure management projects throughout the Nation, especially beneficial to large animal feedlots that have to control that and prevent the spillage into the environment. It would also maintain the allotment for the Grassland Reserve Program. There is more pressure being put on these highly sensitive and highly erodible lands because of the increase in commodity prices. It would also maintain House funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program. That, of course, is a great filter that exists throughout our communities to enhance quality water supplies but also crucial to water fowl populations in North America. It would also accept the Senate Sod Saver Provision so that the Federal Government doesn't incentivize the conversion of sensitive virgin prairie land back into crop production. Again, given the pressure that exists with these historically high commodity prices, it's a real concern that more of this virgin prairie land that has been vital for conservation efforts, especially in the Great Plains, are going to be brought back into production with the consequent adverse environmental and conservation effects that would result. So that is merely what this motion to instruct would do; get back to what the House passed last year under conservation, give the farmers throughout the country the tools they need to be good stewards of the land, and do it in a nonmarket, nontrade-distorting fashion, especially in the tremendous increase in commodity prices today and the pressure that producers are under to bring the land that has been conserved for many years back into production and resulting with a lot more sediment and nutrient runoffs that will be a consequence of that action. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. I do appreciate the hard work that our friends from Pennsylvania and Oklahoma have done and the strong support they have shown throughout the years under these important conservation programs under the conservation title, and now that we are getting into closure of this farm bill, I hope that voice of advocacy will rise again in defense of these programs, especially in light of the pressure that exists to bring this land back into production. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments of my good friend from Oklahoma and the hard work that he has done. But these are two individuals who serve on the Agriculture Committee. In fact, my friend from Pennsylvania is the Chair of the subcommittee in charge of this conservation title. My friend from Oklahoma is the ranking member of the subcommittee in charge of the conservation title. All we are asking them and the conferees from the House to do is to protect their programs and to protect their funding level, that which was contained in the House-passed version of the farm bill last year. That is a simple request, and it received good support in the House when it left last year. But there is an additional wrinkle that was just introduced, to my knowledge, within the last 24 hours, and that is the consideration to start capping payments under the conservation title. I think that would result in bad policy. I think it is going to result in a lot of unintended consequences, because these conservation practices aren't marketable, unlike the subsidies going to commodity crop producers, where they grow something and they can sell it in the marketplace. To get a farmer to have a good manure management system in place or to have buffer strips and that, they can't take that outside then and sell it to the private marketplace. So these incentives are important to partner with the individual landowner to get them to do the right thing on their own land. And they want to do the right thing on their own land. That is why two out of every three of them are being denied funding right now, because of the inadequacy of funds. The demand is exceeding the supply. We are saying let's try to catch up to that demand right now, which brings huge societal benefits at the same time, to enhance quality water supply throughout our country. And I still believe that is going to be one of the major challenges we face, not only in this country, but throughout the world in this century. How are we going to maintain a quality water supply? And if we can't partner to the level they expect in farm country, it is going to make that challenge all the more difficult. So I would hope the conferees in their discussion and last minute deliberations of where they are going to find a nickel or dime in order to pay for things don't go down that road of trying to cap these conservation payments, like many of us have been proposing under the commodity title. I think we can pay for what we are requesting in this motion through some more commonsense reasonable reforms under the title I commodity program, starting at another look at these so-called direct payments. They are slated to go for another $25 billion over the next 5 years alone. In fact, unfortunately Mr. Flake's motion to instruct failed a little bit earlier, but all he was asking is, let's just keeping those direct payments at the current funding level, a maximum of $40,000 instead of increasing it at a time of high commodity prices. Not an unreasonable request. But what is being considered now going from $40,000 up to $50,000 for these direct payments and having dual entities on the same farm to qualify for it. I also believe it is reasonable to take another look, as the President and the administration is asking, for us to have a stricter means test under the commodity programs. Let's face it, a $950,000 adjusted gross income cutoff is in the stratosphere for most individuals in this country. We are talking adjusted gross now, not just gross income. This is after you back out your expenses and all the costs of operating that farm. That is close to $1 million of profit we are talking about that an individual would receive, and still receive these commodity subsidy payments under what is being proposed in the conference. So I think there is plenty of savings that can still be had without cutting the legs off of our producers while maintaining an important safety net in case things do turn bad in farm country. And Lord knows we have seen that cycle come and go in the past. But let's do it in a more fiscally responsible manner and maximize the scarce resources that we have for the benefit of the community at large, and that includes funding under the conservation title. A few groups have already weighed in on this motion to instruct and have expressed their support, from the Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, the World Wildlife Fund, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Working Group, American Rivers, those who have been actively engaged in participating and trying to shape this next farm bill. We still have an opportunity because the conference has not closed, no report has been filed yet. There is going to be some last- minute negotiations. But ultimately, at the end of the day, if my colleagues are serious about having a farm bill concluded and implemented into law, the President has to be comfortable in doing it, and clearly he is not there yet, the administration is not there. And they are pressing the conference to do more in reforming these commodity programs. We can choose to ignore that, but at the end of the day the President has got to sign something into law, or we have to try to override a veto, which I think is going to be very, very difficult. So I think there is still a way of working with the administration, trying to produce a product that they feel comfortable with, that the President feels comfortable with. And one of the ways to do it is more reform under commodity, and have a strong conservation title at the end of the day. The President has consistently expressed his support for a strong conservation title. I don't think they would object to the requests that we are making here in this motion to instruct. And let's remind ourselves, this is another way of providing help and assistance to those who are working the land in our country. This isn't separate from the help in other areas that we try to provide to family farmers; it is in addition to it, it is a supplement. And it is something that benefits every farmer in every region, and including all people throughout the country, instead of the concentrated payments that we see under the current title I commodity program. With that, I reserve the balance of my time. For my colleagues' information, I have no further speakers. I believe I have the right to close. I am prepared to do that if they are ready to close, too.

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Just to wrap up my remarks, let me just reiterate. I truly do appreciate the hard work my colleagues here today on the Agriculture Committee have been doing to try to craft a farm bill that can get accomplished yet this year. It is one of the most difficult things that Members are asked to do in any Congress, is to piece together the parochial and the different interests that span this great country to find an acceptable farm bill that can get signed into law. But we still have a little ways to go. And I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, as far as the feed factor with dairy production, there is no question that fixed costs are going up right now in agricultural production driven by a variety of factors, not the least of which is the energy debacle that we find ourselves in right now. But I think once we start going down to that feed route, we are going to get a lot of other groups now chiming in saying: What about us? What about us? How come dairy is being taken care of? What about poultry? What about beef? What about the others that are experiencing the same type of cost increases? And then you are really talking about blowing the lid off of some of these other programs. But all that I and others who are in support of this motion to instruct are asking is for the members of the committee to defend their work, defend the programs that passed the House last year, defend the funding level that came out of the House last year because of the vital importance that these programs have, not only to the individual land producers, but to the resources that are so precious to all of us in this country. Now we see disturbing trends; because of the high commodity prices, great pressure to bring more highly erodible sensitive land back into production. And there will be adverse consequences from that, unless we can maintain a viable incentive based system with these conservation programs to deal with that additional pressure that producers are facing throughout the Nation. I think there is a better way of dealing with the abuses that my friend from Pennsylvania highlighted under the conservation program. Certainly we can do more oversight and get more information with regards to whether individuals are milking the system. No one is in support of that. We want to clamp down on it. But let's work with USDA and NRCS and those agencies in charge of implementing it, rather than calling for a blanket payment limitation cap with crucial conservation funding. Because, again, I am afraid that without these incentives in place, I don't care how wealthy you are, there won't be much incentive for you to engage in these type of programs, which just doesn't benefit the landowner but the community and the watershed area and the wildlife at large. So we need to be careful what road we are going to go down. And, hopefully, this isn't just a response to some of us who have been asking for meaningful payment limitations and means testing under the commodity program just to get back at those who have been very supportive of conservation funding. I think there are reasonable means tests we can apply to the commodity title. The fact that LDP and countercyclical payments aren't going up today I think is a good thing. That means farm income is up and commodity prices are up. Back home in Wisconsin, in the agriculture district that I represent, farmers for years have come up to me and said: You know, I'm not a big fan of these subsidy programs, but I just wish the market would give us a decent price so we wouldn't have to rely on them. Well, that day has come. Now today I have got producers in corn and soybean coming up to me and saying: Ron, why are we still receiving these direct subsidy payments when we are getting such a good price in the marketplace? And they are right. Farmers know how these programs are working. I think we can be a little bolder and more courageous in the reforms that some of us have been advocating, find those savings, so we can deal with conservation, nutrition, world development, speciality crops, and having a good energy title to this farm bill, too. This can happen, and it can happen in a way that the President feels comfortable in signing. And that will truly be a good bipartisan day then in the United States Congress. I encourage my friends to support this motion to instruct the conferees.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have great respect for the gentleman from Minnesota, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and my friend from Arkansas and their depth of knowledge when it comes to farm policy in this country. They have invested their careers in trying to understand these programs and how they work. But I have as much respect and admiration for my family farmers back home in Wisconsin, too. The gentleman from Arkansas is exactly right; these are hardworking individuals playing by the rules in a market that is set out for them. But when I have producers in my district in western Wisconsin coming up to me and saying, Ron, why are we still receiving these direct payments when the market prices are so good right now? I say, You know, you're right. We should be looking at this anew. The gentleman from Minnesota pointed out that the first time direct payments were introduced in a farm bill was back in 1996 as a transitional program to get away from these direct subsidy payments to the farmers. Now we are into the third farm bill, and instead of at least holding them constant, as the gentleman's motion would have us do, we are talking about increasing the reliance on these direct payments over the next 5 to 10 years. In my conversations with farm experts from Australia and New Zealand, they said they heard the same arguments down there when they weaned their producers off direct government subsidies for agricultural production, that this would spell disaster for the entire farming community in Australia and New Zealand. And now you would be hard- pressed to go down to either one of those countries and find one farmer who wants to go back to the government-subsidized system that they were operating under all these years. They say that with a change of those subsidy programs, it has made them more efficient and more competitive, especially in the global marketplace. And whether we like it not, that day has arrived for our producers. The world is at our doorstep, and I don't think we are doing them any more favors by propping them up with these artificial subsidy programs with the strong market prices they are receiving, and at the same time telling them that you can go out and compete with everyone else around the globe. There is a better way of doing this while still maintaining a safety net, and I think that is what the gentleman is trying to get at with this motion.

Mr. KIND. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. KIND. One of the things that I have noticed back home in Wisconsin with the direct payments and the overall subsidy programs that exist for these commodity crops is that it is leading to greater consolidation. We know these subsidies have been primarily skewed to the larger entities, and they are using them to gobble up smaller family farms around them. And they are also driving up land values by artificially inflating these land values with the subsidy guarantees that attach to them, and it is making it virtually impossible for newer or beginning farmers to have the capital in order to invest in order to enter this very honorable work and profession. So that is the unintended consequences that these subsidy programs have brought in, putting the squeeze on smaller family farmers throughout America. I think it would be reasonable as well, although we can't address it in this motion, to have some reasonable means testing attaching to these direct subsidy programs. It is tough to justify to the American taxpayer that if someone is earning $900,000 in adjusted gross income, that is profit, that is after you back out the expenses and all of the deductions of doing business, that you would still qualify for subsidy payments. I understand in the course of negotiations there has been some movement, and hopefully that is a good thing; but nevertheless, that is a pretty hefty adjusted gross annual income for anyone. And then to say they still qualify for American-taxpayer subsidies at the end of the day, that is pretty tough to explain back home.

Mr. KIND. I probably won't need that much time. But, again, hard negotiations. We are getting into the final details of it. There is still an opportunity of producing a bill that the President feels comfortable with in signing, and that way the farmers know what they are operating under. But, again, these direct payments are probably the least justifiable program going forward today in light of what the marketplace is producing. And the futures market right now is looking astounding when it comes to these commodity crops, and that is going to be good for farm income and debt-to-asset ratio. For family farms, it has never been better. And that again speaks to what we think is a reasonable and justifiable goal of trying to reform these commodity programs so we can deal with the other priorities and still maintain an important safety net to the family farmer. Again, I thank my friend from Arizona for offering the motion.

Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me this time, and I commend him for this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: We need a farm bill, and we need one as soon as possible. It is planting season back home in the upper Midwest and the district I represent in western Wisconsin, and our farmers need some predictability. They need to know what the rules are that they are going to be operating under and producing under in the coming fiscal year and in the coming 5 years. But we also need a good farm bill, not a bad farm bill, one that is responsible to the American taxpayer and one that does well by the American farmer. And those of us who have been talking about much overdue and needed reforms under the commodity title, these subsidy payments to a handful of commodity producers in this country, have been saying, let's give farmers help when they need it but let's not when they don't. And the market conditions today are something we have never seen before. They are talking about $10 corn by this summer. Soybean, wheat, rice at an all-time high in the marketplace. Yet instead of trying to tighten up these subsidy programs and rein them in for some possible savings so we can address the other priorities in the farm bill, what is being proposed, to our understanding, and we haven't been privy to the conference negotiations that have been going on, is actually expanding direct payments from the current maximum level of $40,000 up to $60,000, and allowing dual entities operating on the same farm to qualify for the same amount of these direct payments. And to be clear, the direct payments bear no relationship to commodity prices, no relationship to production. They are something that go out automatically regardless of the marketplace. And, quite frankly, it is the least justifiable aspect of this farm bill today in light of the record commodity prices that exist. But we also need a farm bill that this President is comfortable in signing, and the administration has been clear from the beginning that they feel there is more room for reform under these commodity programs. We are not talking about the two other subsidy programs, the loan deficiency program or the countercyclical program, although there too they are ramping up the target price and the loan rates under those programs. We are only talking about the direct payments right now, that which goes out automatically to only five principal commodity crops at the expense of everything else that we are trying to accomplish in this farm bill, having a strong conservation title in light of the increased pressure that crop production is placing on sensitive and highly erodible land. And we are seeing that now with a lot of CRP acreage being taken out of CRP and put back into production. And what does that mean to the average person? That is going to affect quality water supplies throughout the Nation, it's going to affect habitat, wildlife populations, all of which depend on good land stewardship of these lands and knowing what land is highly erodible and what isn't. And that was the whole basis behind CRP to begin with, and yet that now is in jeopardy because of increased commodity prices. I don't begrudge, and I don't think anyone here begrudges family farmers getting a decent price finally in the marketplace. But where I am from in Wisconsin and talking to my producers, for years they kept saying: We don't like these subsidy programs, either. We wish we didn't have to rely on it. And if we could only get a decent price in the marketplace, we wouldn't have to. Well, guess what. That day has come. And now is an opportunity, never better in the history of the Congress, to start reforming these commodities subsidy programs right now so that at the end of the day we are not painting this big bull's eye on the back of our farmers with more subsidy payments that are going to be challenged through the WTO and possibly taken away through the WTO challenges, just as Brazil has done with the cotton challenge that they successfully prevailed on. And this is only the beginning. Instead, we could redirect funding for what are called green box payments, conservation payments that also go to family farmers to help them be good land stewards but do not distort the marketplace and they do not distort trade policy, and it doesn't get us into trouble by these outside challenges that we may be facing in the future. So that is why I think this gentleman's motion to instruct is important. We understand it is in the 11th hour. I appreciate the hard work that the chairman and everyone involved in the conference has been doing. Putting together a farm bill is probably one of the toughest things to do in this place given the parochial interests, given the different ideas and opinions that go into deliberations. But we have an opportunity right now of maintaining an important safety net for family farmers in case things do go south in the commodity market, but at the same time starting to reform these subsidy programs so we are more responsible to the taxpayer but also helping our farmers modernize so they can be more competitive both domestically and abroad. Otherwise, again, we are setting them up for future challenges by loading up these subsidy programs to the extent that they have been occurring. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Arizona.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 2419. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Kind moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2419 (an Act to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012) be instructed to-- (1) insist on the amendment contained in section 2401(d) of the House bill (relating to funding for the environmental quality incentive program); (2) insist on the amendments contained in section 2104 of the House bill (relating to the grassland reserve program) and reject the amendment contained in section 2401(2) of the Senate amendment (relating to funding for the grassland reserve program); (3) insist on the amendments contained in section 2102 of the House bill (relating to the wetland reserve program); and (4) insist on the amendments contained in section 2608 of the Senate bill (relating to crop insurance ineligibility relating to crop production on native sod).

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Coast Guard Authorization Act. This bill takes necessary steps to modernize our maritime fleet, enhance security at sea and at port, and reduce pollution. These measures are overdue, and I applaud Chairmen Oberstar, Thompson, and Conyers and their respective ranking members for bringing this bill forward today. I am most proud, however, that this bill finally begins to address the ever-growing scourge of invasive species spreading throughout our coastal and inland waters. These foreign organisms are wreaking havoc on native ecosystems and local economies. The Great Lakes are already home to a whopping 185 invasive species. Zebra mussels have clogged water intakes at power plants and municipal water treatment facilities, adding about $2 billion to the cost of producing electricity and clean drinking water, while also altering the ecosystem and reducing the number of prized fish species. The sea lamprey would have driven Great Lake trout species to extinction if the Federal Government did not spend $15 million per year to combat them. And the lakes face a menacing new threat as Asian carp continue their march up the Illinois River. The ballast water treatment requirements in this bill seek to remedy the lackadaisical attitude that led to the introduction of each of these species into American waters. Rather than continuing to say, ``Come what may,'' this bill states that it is now national policy that the introduction of non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species should be prohibited and establishes a goal of ensuring that by 2015 no ballast water discharged by ships in U.S. waters contains viable living organisms. Furthermore, the bill sets up ballast water treatment requirements for ships entering U.S. waters and methods for enforcement. With these protections in place, State and Federal Governments will have tools in hand to begin to reverse the tide of invasives and restore our own native ecosystems. I have seen the waters of the Mississippi River in my own district be overrun by invasives such as the zebra mussel, which is why I have taken a keen interest in legislation to address the problem. I was proud to join with my colleague Rahm Emanuel, who has been an outspoken proponent for action on this issue, in drafting amendments to H.R. 2380 to strengthen the bill's ballast water treatment section. One of these amendments would have clarified that vessels that do not carry ballast water on board--No Ballast On Board, or NOBOB--are also subject to the treatment provisions. The other would have required that ships make their logs of ballast treatment activities available to the Secretary of Transportation each month. By adding this requirement, the public will be assured access to this information and will be able to track the actions of all ships entering our waters. I thank Chairman Oberstar for his support of these amendments and for including them in the manager's amendment approved today. These simple additions to the bill are important improvements that will strengthen our defenses against invasives and improve transparency and accountability. We greatly appreciate the chairman's willingness to make these changes and his great leadership when it comes to the health and safety of the Great Lakes. On the heels of Earth Day, the time to pass the ballast water provisions in this bill could not be better. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Neighborhood Housing Services, NHS, of Richland County for the 25 years of service this agency has provided to its communities. As America's first Rural NHS, Richland County has partnered with numerous entities in the areas of housing, insurance, and construction, allowing this agency to offer comprehensive services and assistance to area residents. NHS of Richland County is able to revitalize communities and address current needs. Recent initiatives have addressed the mortgage crisis and the August 2007 flood in western Wisconsin. With interest rates rising and property values decreasing, many hardworking families have had an increasingly difficult time making their mortgage payments, thus now more than ever it is especially important that our local communities have the necessary resources to provide affordable housing for those who need it most. NHS of Richland County responded to this need and in 2007 when in spite of this downturn in the housing market they assisted 81 households with loans and maintained a near zero percent foreclosure rate. NHS also created the Responsible Homeownership, R-HOME, initiative. This project is a comprehensive mortgage loan program created to better serve the needs of consumers with little or no credit history. In addition to the above endeavors, when the flood of August 2007 hit, NHS was part of local flood recovery effort in providing critical assistance to families. Foreclosure prevention, homeownership seminars, flood recovery assistance and establishing renewable energy systems are just a few of the programs contributing to the success of Richland County's Neighborhood Housing Services. Since 1983, NHS of Richland County has responded and assisted over 3,000 households by building 39 affordable, energy-efficient homes, repairing more than 40 homes in the tornado stricken town of Viola, Wisconsin and constructing a 25-unit apartment complex for low-income seniors. I applaud Neighborhood Housing Services of Richland County for providing invaluable support for homeowners in western Wisconsin, being a leader to housing services around the country and most importantly, upholding their motto of ``Neighbors Helping Neighbors.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008, a bill to continue the promise Congress made in 1965 to provide all Americans, regardless of culture or socioeconomic status, greater opportunities to further their education. This bill recognizes the shared benefits to both individual Americans and to the country as a whole of ensuring future generations have the tools necessary to be successful in a vastly competitive 21st century workforce. The opportunity for children to attend institutions of higher education is essential in preparing our future leaders. While the number of students with the academic knowledge, talent, and desire to attend and succeed in college has substantially increased over time, the necessary financial assistance has regrettably not kept pace. We must reverse this trend and uphold the Federal Government's commitment to America's schools and to all of our children. The recent instability in financial markets has hurt more than just homeowners, and many individuals and their families are finding it difficult to secure student loans to attend college. The ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act assists future and current students by increasing unsubsidized loan limits for undergraduate and graduate students, giving parent borrowers more time before they begin paying off their Federal Plus loans and encouraging Federal financial institutions' participation in ensuring continued student loan access. As a former member of the Education and Labor Committee, a representative of 12 institutions of higher education located in the Third Congressional District of Wisconsin, and a father of 2 school- aged boys, I recognize the importance of increased access to post- secondary education and ensuring that everyone who wishes to attend college can afford to do so. The ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act is a step in the right direction, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we need a farm bill, and we need it soon. Planting season is starting throughout the country, but I would hope that at the end of the process we get a good farm bill rather than a bad farm bill, one that recognizes current market prices and the conditions that farmers are experiencing out there. It was a little more bold on reform, especially under those title I commodity programs. The President has made it clear that he won't find a farm bill acceptable that does call for an increase in taxes in order to pay for it. I and others who have been a part of a reform effort, especially with the commodity subsidy programs, believe that we are capable of producing a farm bill that maintains an important safety net for family farmers, but also protects the important priorities that are also a part of the farm bill. It's based on the philosophy of let's help family farmers when they need it, let's not when they don't. Clearly with commodity prices at or near record highs in the marketplace today, part of it driven by the biofuels portion in this country, a large part of it due to the increased global demand, many of us are suspecting that these prices are going to continue. That's been great for the rural economy, and it's been great for farm income. But let us also take this opportunity then of starting to move forward on some commonsense reasonable reforms of these commodity programs, while still maintaining a safety net in the farm bill, but without jeopardizing the conservation title or nutrition or specialty crops, rural economic development programs and renewable fuel investment. I would hope that my colleagues support this motion to instruct. I think it's the right thing to do. I think at the end of the day, if we are going to have a bipartisan bill that the President feels comfortable in doing, one of the goals that we have to strive for is a bill that does not call for an increase in taxes in light of record high market prices. I commend the gentleman for offering this motion and encourage support on the vote.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment by my colleagues, Mr. Altmire and Mr. Carney, which will offer some needed comfort to those of us in the sportsmen's community who seek to protect what access remains to cherished hunting and fishing opportunities on public lands. With the adoption of this amendment, I would urge all of my colleagues on the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus to vote for the underlying bill as well. Without a doubt, the 26 million acres that constitute the National Landscape Conservation system's more than 850 individual units represent some of the very best hunting and fishing opportunities available today. These lands harbor bighorn sheep, elk, pronghorn, mule and white-tailed deer, caribou, salmon, chinook, sockeye, steelhead, redband trout, and so many more game and non-game species, not to mention spectacular landscapes unparalelled in the rest of the bureau of land management. These are the very best places the BLM has to offer, and they are very deserving of the additional recognition and institutional support H.R. 2016 will provide. Opponents of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act, have claimed that it will create a new Federal bureaucracy that will usurp private land rights, divert Federal dollars, and dilute public access. None of these claims is true. By simply codifying in law a designation that has existed through administrative action for the last eight years, H.R. 2016 will change nothing in how the BLM or Department of the Interior manages these lands. What it will do is raise the profile of these national treasures both within the department and with the public so that they are known by all as the gems of the BLM's stewardship mandate rather than mere afterthoughts subject to executive fiat. While the underlying bill already contains a savings clause stating that all existing laws and regulations governing these lands will continue to be exercised and enforced as before, the Altmire-Carney Amendment very simply adds an explicit reminder that hunting and fishing will continue to go hand in hand with conservation. as sportsmen and women provide the primary source of funds for state and local conservation budgets, It is appropriate that hunting and fishing rights be retained in the National Landscape Conservation system. As co-chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and a member of the Natural Resources Committee, I wish to thank my friend and subcommittee chair Raul Grijalva for introducing this bill, chairman Rahall for his invaluable support, and Representatives Altmire and Carney for offering this important amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying measure.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the essential role nurses play in providing quality health care across the country. Every day people with a variety of needs are served by legions of caring, qualified, and professional nurses. They are integral to our Nation's health care delivery system. Every one can remember an experience when someone they know needed health care and a nurse was the first person by their side providing care and comfort. We all know someone who works in the field of nursing and the commitment they make to their profession, despite extraordinary challenges everyday. More than 100 representatives of the nursing field are present in our Nation's capitol this week to give a voice to their professional needs and experiences. Nurses care for our children and serve more of our constituents then we will ever meet. Nurses deserve our time, our attention, and our respect for their views. An adequate supply of nurses is essential to ensuring that all people receive quality care and that our Nation's public health infrastructure has the professonals necessary to respond to all natural and manmade disasters. The Department of Health and Human Services projects that the current 10 percent vacancy rate in the registered nursing professions will grow to 36 percent by 2020, representing more then 1 million unfilled jobs. Additional congressional leadership, ongoing support, and federal funding is necessary to ensure that the Nation has an adequate supply of nurses to care for the patients of today and tomorrow.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I want to thank and commend my good friend Mrs. McCarthy from New York for the wonderful leadership that she has shown in the reauthorization of this important legislation. I agree with my good friend and colleague from Connecticut that this is one of the more important pieces of legislation that we will be dealing with in this session of Congress, and I commend the efforts of everyone on the committee for the bipartisan support that's been shown on behalf of this bill. Madam Chairman, this legislation will provide a vital increase in funding for a variety of domestic volunteer service programs, including AmeriCorps, Volunteers in Service to America, and Learn and Serve America. Expanding these important community-based programs is essential so that residents in the neediest places receive the assistance that they need and deserve. I'm very proud that my home State of Wisconsin has more than 35 AmeriCorps programs. Jump Start for Young Children is just one of several programs that help prepare young children from low-income families to succeed and go on in school. Just this past year, this program benefited from the service of 3,500 corps members and volunteers from over 70 colleges. Together, these individuals were able to assist more than 13,000 preschoolers in over 20 of our States in this country. I'd like to applaud the hard work and selfless efforts of these individuals who have not only rebuilt houses in communities but also lives. I'm especially proud that three of my congressional staff members are former AmeriCorps volunteers: Karrie Jackelen, Brad Smith, and David De Gennaro. The contributions of these participants is truly admirable given the enormous difference they've made in so many lives. Mr. Chairman, there is a yearning for community involvement and community service across this country, and it's especially acute with the youth, the children of our Nation. It was unfortunate that the current President sent this Nation to war without asking for any type of contribution or significant sacrifice from the average American. Except for our troops and their families who have borne the brunt of this sacrifice and burden, there's very little asked of the American people. This legislation, which was the vision of President Clinton and his administration, tries to correct that deficiency. It's a good, bipartisan bill. I encourage my colleagues to pass the GIVE Act today.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of National School Breakfast Week and in support of a resolution that recognizes how providing breakfast in schools through the National School Breakfast Program has a positive impact on classroom performance. It is often stated that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, and yet a great number of children begin their school day without access to a nutritious breakfast. As a former member of the House Education and Labor Committee and the father of two young boys, I understand the vital link between a healthy diet and successful performance in school. We must ensure that schools have the resources necessary to provide each student the nourishment necessary to get them through their day. With over 8.1 million students participating in the school breakfast program, schools recognize the benefits of making sure that all children have a healthy breakfast to start their day; however, there are still many students not at the table and their academic progress may be suffering. It has been shown that school breakfast programs have led to a drastic reduction in school tardiness and provide students with the vital nutrients they need for remaining attentive in class and processing the information. They receive. We can simultaneously improve the physical well-being of our students while also improving their performance in the classroom. The National School Breakfast Program provides students with the healthy start to the day that they need to succeed. I ask my fellow Members to join me in offering their full support of this resolution. Together we can ensure that our commitment to the physical health of our students matches our commitment to their academic progress.