Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2008

Mr. Speaker, of the 30 minutes yielded to me by the gentleman from Minnesota, I would ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona so that he may manage that time as a part of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the farm bill, and the words before me say ``the very same farm bill passed by this body last week with an overwhelming bipartisan majority.'' Now we find that it is not quite the same farm bill because of an enrolling error or something in the transmission of the document. I certainly hope that we can find an amicable way to make sure that the trade title of this bill, which is an important title, is included in the final product, whether as a part of a joint resolution or by some other means of adopting that.

This bill was a collaborative effort, crafted by Members on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol, and is historic in the amount and degree of reform. It costs less than either the House or the Senate bills and ensures Americans will continue to enjoy access to a safe, affordable, and reliable food supply.

Last week, the 318 bipartisan votes in favor of the farm bill sent a clear message: This is a good bill and there is significant support for it. Despite what has been opined by editorial boards throughout the country, this bill contains significant reforms and is the most reform- minded farm bill this body has ever considered. Granted, everyone didn't get exactly what they wanted. We all gave a little and we all got a little. But such is the nature of compromise. Given the diverse nature of a farm bill, it is extremely difficult to manage the scope of needs within the farm bill, and even more difficult when you're not given the resources needed to do so.

This bill contains many of the ideas suggested in the administration's farm bill proposal. Like the administration, we utilized the adjusted gross income to reduce payments to the wealthiest farmers and ranchers. We eliminated the three-entity rule, created a revenue-base countercyclical program, modified and modernized the dairy program, modified planting flexibility rules, increased the efficiency of the crop insurance program, directed funding to the development of cellulosic ethanol, included programs for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, and created beneficial interest for the loan programs.

Variations of these measures were included in the administration's proposal. We may not have gone as far as the administration wanted, but these reforms help make this a better bill than the House or Senate farm bills.

It is important to point out that despite comments to the contrary, this bill is completely paid for, without any tax increases. While many throughout the world are feeling the effects of increased food prices, U.S. consumers have been largely insulated from spikes in food prices because many years ago we established a food production system that maintains an adequate supply in good times and in bad. Because it is produced domestically, we know it to be safe and affordable.

This bill ensures that Americans will continue to enjoy the access to a safe, affordable, and reliable food supply, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this farm bill, which moved substantially in the direction that the President asked for, but which did not meet all of his goals. I think we have increased the support for this bill substantially by almost 90 Members in the process, and I urge my colleagues to support this override vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), a subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from Arizona about the ACRE program. This is a program that was requested by the administration. It was modified by the House and modified by the Senate. Now we hear the administration doesn't like the way it is projected to work, but, quite frankly, it scores by the Congressional Budget Office as saving the taxpayers of our country $400 million.

Why? Because the fact of the matter is it is not expected to have a very high enrollment, and in order to have what the gentleman describe take place, we would have to have a dramatic drop in corn prices. But the administration just signed into law in December a bill that mandates ever-increasing costs of amounts of production for ethanol, and the fact of the matter is we are not going to see those conditions. It is a theoretical possibility, a practical unlikely condition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kuhl).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a ranking member on the Agriculture Subcommittee, Mr. Lucas.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from Missouri, a real advocate for agriculture, Mr. Hulshof.

(Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said here today about the bipartisan nature of this legislation, but when it passed the House last week, a majority on both sides of the aisle voted for this farm bill, and three-quarters of all of the Members here did so. But we did so because there are provisions in this bill that are of interest to each side of the aisle, and sometimes there are very clear partisan differences.

But nonetheless, the Republican side of the aisle received a number of concessions in the final negotiations of this bill: a provision that would have prohibited all 50 State food stamp programs to be able to reach out to technology companies and others to modernize and improve their food stamp program, something they have done many times in the recent past. A prohibition on that was removed from the bill. A provision in the bill that would have rolled back the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 and provided increased food stamps for able-bodied adults without dependent children was removed from the bill. Provisions related to the Davis-Bacon legislation that many Members on my side of the aisle, including myself, were concerned about were removed from the bill.

So this is a bipartisan bill because it was compromise and give-and- take on both sides of the aisle.

I have also heard Members complain that this bill is not fiscally responsible. It's less than the last farm bill. It is less than either the House-passed

version of the bill or the Senate-passed version of the bill: $4 billion less than the House, $5 billion less than the Senate version. I ask any Member here in the House, when was the last time they recall that a bill came back from a conference between the House and the Senate and spent less money than either the House or Senate spent?

And I would give you this overall picture. Americans spend about $1.2 trillion a year on food. The provisions in this bill related to the commodity title, the safety net for America's farmers and ranchers, is about $7 billion or slightly less than one-half of 1 percent of what Americans spend on food.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Now for that one-half cent on every dollar, Americans get the stability and safety of their food supply and the assurance that they will not see in the United States what they're seeing in other countries around the world which do not have a good farm program for their farmers that assure their consumers that they will get an adequate, safe, and affordable supply of food. They do not see food riots in the United States.

They see, instead, those in the greatest need receiving appropriate food programs and the average American being able to spend less than 9 percent of their income on food. That is lower than any other country in the world today or any other country in the history of the world.

This farm bill helps to promote those good policies. I urge my colleagues to support the override.

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

I urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto, but I would like to close my remarks by commending the President of the United States and his administration for their involvement in this process. They have improved this farm bill considerably from the versions that were passed in the House and the Senate. In fact, I'm going to yield a portion of my time to the leader.

But I want to say that this includes more than 90 provisions that the President of the United States, the leaders in the Department of Agriculture and others, suggested to us to reform. And there are numerous reforms in this legislation that are very, very substantial, very, very significant. They would not have occurred without the President's active involvement and support for efforts to improve this farm bill.

This farm bill is dramatically reformed from previous farm bills, and as a result of his involvement, of involvement on both sides of the aisle, this farm bill is dramatically improved. As a result, the Republican Members on this side of the aisle went from 17 Members supporting the bill when it came out of the Agriculture Committee to 100 Members supporting it when we voted for it last week.

There is much to commend in this bill. The President has asked for additional reforms. I supported him in the efforts to obtain some of those reforms, but we could not achieve every single objective that he sought because this is a bipartisan bill that includes the considerations of a wide array of viewpoints.

But I will say that this side of the aisle was well represented in this process and thanks in part to the efforts of the administration.

Notwithstanding that, the bill is a good bill, and we would urge our colleagues to support it.

At this time, I yield the balance of my time to the Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and further would yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I ask my colleagues to listen up here because this has been a very difficult bill and there has been numerous problems that have developed every day for the last year-and-a-half. I guess it's appropriate that there would be a problem that would be developing today as well.

When the enrolling clerk enrolled the bill to send to the White House, somehow or another they inadvertently, or however it happened, did not include the trade title, title III of the bill, in the official documents that went to the White House. So the President vetoed the bill minus the trade title, title III.

The trade title includes the food aid programs, including McGovern- Dole; it includes the market promotion; the export credit program; the market access program, and it also includes the soft wood lumber certification program.

So we are moving ahead to override the veto that the President has done. But we have this issue that one of the titles is missing from the bill. We have a process after we get through the override to try to deal with that issue.

Mr. Speaker, the President's veto message said that when the commodity prices are high, it's irresponsible to increase government subsidy rates for 15 crops and subsidize additional crops and so forth. We made some adjustments in some of the price supports to try to rebalance the system from what it has been in the past. These were modest, and I think it's questionable that you would use this as one of the items in the veto override.

As I have worked through this process, I spent more time than anybody else talking to the White House, trying to avoid the situation we are in today, where the President has vetoed this bill. I don't know that anybody else has spent more time trying to work with the White House. The problem has been that they keep changing the objections to the bill, and 2 or 3 weeks ago, when we tried to engage the White House to be able to work with them in a negotiating fashion to take into consideration some of their concerns, their position was that, well, they had these demands but they really weren't in a position or willing to negotiate with us.

So we have come to this day where the White House has vetoed this bill,

which I regret. But we have a good bill that I think all of us should be proud of. It maintains a safety net for farmers, by and large, in the way it was done in the 2002 bill. We did make some changes; reductions in crop insurance and some other areas. We included a new disaster program that is paid for, that would be an unusual situation because generally the disaster ad hocs that we have done have not been paid for. So we think we have made some improvements in area.

We responded to the concern of people around the country of food costs and the way food prices have gone up by taking all of the new money, the whole $10 billion of new money that was put into the bill over and above the baseline and we have put that into nutrition programs. $10.364 billion in this bill was put into nutrition programs. That includes modernizing and indexing food stamps; $1.25 billion for food shelves and food banks that are basically bare right now; and also a new fruit and vegetable snack program for folks in low-income schools so that our kids can have healthy snacks and have an alternative to some of the things that they are now snacking on. We also made some changes, as I said, in the commodity area so that we could improve substantially conservation. We have added a specialty crop title to this bill, and we have also added an energy title to this bill.

So we have responded to what we heard when we traveled the country under the leadership of then-Chairman Goodlatte. We have responded to all of the areas. We think we have a bill that is responsible, that is paid for without tax increases, that puts the priorities where they need to be in this country.

I would ask my colleagues to follow up on the good vote that we had last Wednesday on the bill when it was on the floor and give us the majority today to override the President's veto.

With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished vice chairman of our committee and also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research, Mr. Holden from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee, who did such an outstanding job in putting the much needed nutrition title together, Mr. Baca from California.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Horticulture and Organic Agriculture Subcommittee who brought us the first specialty crop title to the farm bill, Mr. Cardoza of California.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize an outstanding member of our conference committee, also a member of the Ag Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) who is a member of both the Ways and Means Committee and Agriculture Committee, and did an outstanding job in helping us put this bill together.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to one of our new outstanding freshmen on the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney) who represents a very big agriculture district and has done outstanding work for us.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a good friend of the Agricultual Committee, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people make a lot of claims about this bill. Editorial writers, most of them get the information wrong. But as has been mentioned here before, 15 percent of the bill goes to farmers; 9 percent of that goes to traditional commodity type programs; the balance of it to crop insurance and the new disaster program; 73\1/2\ percent of this bill goes to nutrition programs, while 7 percent goes to conservation.

So you can talk all you want about the bull's-eye on the back of the farmers, but people need to understand that the European Union now is having discussion to get rid of their direct payments and increase their commodity price supports similar to what we have here in the United States. And there are people in this country that would like to do this as well. This ideology that's been pushed by the World Bank, the IMF, all of these other world organizations, is part of the reason we're in trouble in this country and in the world.

We have, not just us but countries all over the world, have sold food below the cost of our production. Some of our opponents want us to keep doing this. I understand if you're a livestock farmer you want to keep buying cheap corn. But we've addicted these folks in these developing countries to cheap food prices. Now that we're getting prices that are more realistic, all of a sudden it's a problem because they didn't develop their own agriculture. They got hooked on exports from the United States and from other countries.

What we're doing in this bill is recognizing all of the different aspects of this country, not just farm country, not just farmers, but people in the city, people in the suburbs, people that like to hunt and fish, people that are concerned about the environment, people that are concerned about getting nutritious food into our schools and having more fresh fruit and vegetables available for people around the country, and people that want to get independent from foreign oil. All of these things are covered in this bill.

Are they done to the magnitude that I would like in some areas? No. I would say everybody here would probably agree that they would like to have something a little bit stronger in one area or the other or maybe a little weaker in one area or the other.

But this is a compromise, a bipartisan compromise that I am proud of the way that we've been able to put together. Mr. Goodlatte and I sat in that room for many days with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We operated on an equal basis, as Mr. Goodlatte pointed out. There was give and take. This was a true bipartisan effort. We came up with a true bipartisan bill that we should be proud of that is good for America, that spends less than the last farm bill, that, as Mr. Goodlatte says, spends less than both bills that passed the House and the Senate. I can't remember a time around here when we've done something like that.

So I encourage my colleagues to take a good look at this bill to understand that this is something that's good for the country. I urge my colleagues to override the veto of the President.

I thank the gentleman.

As I understand it, it was just a glitch in the printing of the document that went to the White House. They vetoed the bill missing title III and didn't recognize it.

As I understand, the Constitution says that when we have a veto, we are bound to deal with it. So we don't see any other way to deal with this thing at this point other than to deal with the President's veto, have the override and then deal with title III later.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about some important legislation that honors the sacrifice and courage of our women who have served and are currently serving in our armed forces.

The Veteran's legislation we considered today provides an opportunity for each of us, regardless of political views, religion, ethnicity, gender, or background to come together, and to recognize and honor our Nation's heroes.

We gather here today, in the midst of ongoing conflict and warfare, to celebrate the dedication of our men and women in uniform. Though we may be divided by our positions on the war in Iraq, we stand together to support our veterans. Our Nation has a proud legacy of appreciation and commitment to the men and women who have worn the uniform in defense of this country. We must be united in seeing that every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine is welcomed back with all the care and compassion this grateful Nation can bestow.

All too many of our veterans are left without the help and support they need to transition from the horrors they bravely face on the front lines of battle to successful civilian life. According to the Veterans Affairs Department, as of 2006, on any given night, 196,000 veterans of all ages were homeless.

The V.A. also reports 400 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone have already become homeless, and this figure only takes into account those who have sought services from V.A.-sponsored programs. Experts have predicted that the trauma resulting from the extreme horrors of these modern wars could lead to a surge in homeless veterans in the coming years.

I chose to celebrate one of our heroic daughters of Texas, Specialist Monica L. Brown of the United States Army with House Concurrent Resolution 320 for her efforts earlier this year.

Spec. Brown was the first woman in Afghanistan and only the second female soldier since World War II to receive the Silver Star, the Nation's third-highest medal for valor. This solider from Lake Jackson, Texas is only 19 years old.

On April 25, 2007, Specialist Brown was part of a four-vehicle convoy patrolling near

Jani Kheil in the eastern province of Paktia on April 25, 2007, when a bomb struck one of the Humvees.

When Spec. Brown saw her fellow soldiers were injured, she grabbed her aid bag and started running toward the burning vehicle as insurgents opened fire. All five wounded soldiers from her platoon scrambled out. Under this commotion, she assessed her patients and moved them to a safer location because they were still receiving incoming fire.

The Pentagon's official policy is to prohibit women from serving in front-line combat roles in the infantry, armor or artillery, but the nature of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with no real front lines, has seen women soldiers take part in close-quarters combat more than previous conflicts.

According to the army four Army nurses in World War II were the first women to receive the Silver Star, though three nurses serving in World War I were awarded the medal posthumously in 2007. Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, of Nashville, Tenn., was the first to receive the Silver Star in 2005 along with two fellow male soldiers for her gallantry during an insurgent ambush on a convoy in Iraq.

The Army has stated that Spec. Brown's ``bravery, unselfish actions and medical aid rendered under fire saved the lives of her comrades and represents the finest traditions of heroism in combat.''

Though I have opposed the war in Iraq from its inception, I remain absolutely committed to ensuring that we recognize, celebrate, and honor the service of our sons and daughters returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do, and I firmly believe that we must commend the men and women of our military for their exemplary performance and success in Iraq.

I am proud to be a cosponsor on H. Res. 1054--Honoring the service and achievements of women in the Armed Forces and female veterans (Representative Davis (CA)--Armed Services) and H.R. 3819--Veterans Emergency Care Fairness Act of 2007 (Representative Space--Veterans' Affairs).

We are providing for our Veterans with legislation such as:

H.R. 6081--The Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 (Representative Rangel--Ways and Means).

H. Res. 986--Recognizing the courage and sacrifice of those members of the United States Armed Forces who were held as prisoners of war during the Vietnam conflict and calling for a full accounting of the 1,729 members of the Armed Forces who remain unaccounted for from the Vietnam conflict (Representative Boehner--Armed Services)--Recorded Vote

H.R. 2790--To establish the position of Director of Physician Assistant Services within the office of the Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Health as amended (Representative Hare--Veterans' Affairs).

H.R. 3681--Veterans Benefits Awareness Act of 2007 (Representative Boozman--Veterans' Affairs).

H.R. 3889--To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a longitudinal study of the vocational rehabilitation programs administered by the Secretary (Representative Boozman--Veterans' Affairs)--Passed

H.R. 5554--Veterans Substance Use Disorders Prevention and Treatment Act of 2008 (Representative Michaud--Veterans' Affairs)--Passed

H.R. 5664--To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to update at least once every six years the plans and specifications for specially adapted housing furnished to veterans by the Secretary (Representative Rodriguez--Veterans' Affairs).

H.R. 5826--Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2008 (Representative Rodriguez--Veterans' Affairs)--Recorded Vote

H.R. 5856--Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Authorization and Lease Act of 2008 (Representative Michaud--Veterans' Affairs).

H.R. 6048--To amend the Service members Civil Relief Act to provide for the protection of child custody arrangements for parents who are members of the Armed Forces deployed in support of a contingency operation (Representative Turner--Veterans' Affairs).

I firmly believe that we should celebrate our veterans after every conflict, and I remain committed, as a Member of Congress, to both meeting the needs of veterans of previous wars, and to provide a fitting welcome home to those who are now serving. Veterans have kept their promise to serve our Nation; they have willingly risked their lives to protect the country we all love. We must now ensure that we keep our promises to our veterans.

Currently, there are over 25 million veterans in the United States. There are more than 1,633,000 veterans living in Texas and more than 32,000 veterans living in my congressional district alone. I hope we will all take the time to show appreciation to those who have answered the call to duty. As Winston Churchill famously stated, ``Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.''

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting our troops of yesteryear and our troops of today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

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

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

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

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, for the information of our colleagues and my constituents, I want the Record to reflect how I would have voted on the following votes I missed this session.

On rollcall 338, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1212 providing for consideration of H.R. 6049, Energy Production and Conservation and Individual Income Tax Relief I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 339, on agreeing to the resolution providing consideration of H.R. 6049, Energy Production and Conservation and Individual Income Tax Relief, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 340, on ordering the previous question providing for consideration of H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization of 2009, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 341, on ordering the previous question providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 70, the Congressional Budget Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 342, on agreeing to the resolution providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res 70, the Congressional Budget Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 343, on the motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 344, passage of H.R. 6049, The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 345, to suspend the rules and pass as amended H.R. 1771, The Crane Conservation Act of 2008, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 346, passage of H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act objections of the President notwithstanding, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 347, to suspend the rules and pass, as amended H.R. 3819, Veterans Emergency Care Fairness Act of 2008, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 348, to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5826, Veterans Compensation Cost-of-Living adjustment, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 349, to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5856, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Authorization and Lease Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 350, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1218, providing for consideration of H.R. 5658, Department of Defense Authorization, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 351, on agreeing to the resolution providing for consideration of H.R. 5658, Department of Defense Authorization, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 352, on motion to table H. Res. 1221, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 353, to suspend rules and pass H.R. 6124 to provide for the continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through 2012, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 354, to suspend rules and pass H. Res. 1194, reaffirming the support of the House of Representatives for the legitimate, democratically-elected Government of Lebanon, under Prime Minister Fouad Sinoria, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 355, on the Akin amendment to H.R. 5658, to cut military pay, benefits, and healthcare by $163 million. I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 356, on the Franks amendment to H.R. 5658, that would take $719 million from high priority R&D programs outside of the Missile Defense Agency, in order to eliminate the committee's targeted reductions to the missile defense budget, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 357, on the Tierny amendment to H.R. 5658, to reduce funding for the Missile Defense Agency by an additional $996.2 million beyond the $719 million already reduced, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 358, on the Pearce amendment to H.R. 5658, to cut $10 million from the Department of Defense Energy Conservation Improvement Program in order to restore RRW funding, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 359, on the Lee amendment to H.R. 5658, requiring that any security guarantee, arrangement, or assurance between the US and Iraq would have to be ratified by the Senate or approved by the full Congress, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 360, on the Braley amendment to H.R. 5658, requiring an extensive report on current and future war costs, including direct war costs and veterans payments, to try to capture the full cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 361, on the Price amendment to H.R. 5658. prohibiting agencies under the Department of Defense from using contractors to perform interrogations, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 362, on the Holt amendment to H.R. 5658, requiring that strategic intelligence interrogations of Department of Defense detainees being conducted in theater interment facilities, and not on the battlefield, are video-taped or otherwise electronically recorded and stored according to guidelines that the Secretary of Defense will promulgate, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 363, on the McGovern amendment to H.R. 5658. requiring the secretary of defense to remove recently imposed secrecy and return to the previous practice of releasing the names, upon request, of the students and instructors at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 364, on the motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 365, on passage of H.R. 5658 Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 366, to suspend the rules and agree, as amended H. Res. 986, recognizing the courage and sacrifice of those members of the United States Armed Forces who were held as prisoners of war during the Vietnam conflict and calling for a full accounting of the 1,729 members of the Armed Forces who remain unaccounted for from the Vietnam conflict, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 367, to suspend rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 138 supporting National Men's Health Week, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 368, to suspend rules and agree on H. Res. 923 recognizing the State of Minnesota's 150th Anniversary, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 369, to suspend rules and agree to H. Res. 1114 supporting the goals and ideals of the Arbor Day Foundation and National Arbor Day, I would have voted ``yes.''