Reaffirming the support of the House of Representatives for the legitimate, democratically-elected Government of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

Mr. Speaker, the nutrition title in the Conference Report for the 2008 Farm Bill is a monumental achievement for the millions of Americans who struggle to put enough healthy, nutritious food on the table. I know it's not always easy to make ends meet and to put food on the table each day. I've walked in those shoes, and I've sat at that table. But with this bill we start to fulfill our responsibility to our neighbors. We have improved and strengthened food stamps and other important nutrition programs for our children and seniors. I want to take a few minutes to expand upon some of the accomplishments that are in this nutrition title.

First off, we have updated the name of the program. The new name will be SNAP: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. We needed a new name because there are no places left in this country where food stamps actually are ``stamps.'' Instead, like with other modern transactions, people swipe their cards at the store to access their benefits. This has been a huge success for reducing fraud and stigma in the program. We hope and expect that the new name and new image for the program will help us to continue to chip away at the stigma that keeps some proud people, especially senior citizens, from signing up for help in paying for their groceries and puts them at risk of hunger.

The name reflects the fact that the program provides a ``supplement'' to help people afford an adequate diet when their own resources are not quite enough. We also say ``nutrition,'' instead of ``food,'' because the program is about more than just food. It has got a vibrant nutrition education component to help our low-income population learn about healthy diets and make the choices that will improve their health status over their lifetimes. So I'm very proud of this new name for food stamps: an established program that is one of the best government programs we've got. Let me be clear, however, that in changing the name and eliminating food stamp coupons we did not intend to make any other policy changes to the program.

I think the biggest single accomplishment in the nutrition title is to end the decades of erosion in the value of food stamp benefits. We're all aware of the rising gas and food prices of recent months and the bite they've taken out of the pocketbooks of most Americans. But for many low-income Americans the squeeze has been getting tighter for decades, as the value of their food stamps has been able to purchase less and less food with each passing year. Food stamp benefits average only $1 per person per day. It's not easy to purchase a healthy, nutritious diet on such a limited amount.

So in this bill we have addressed this problem. We made critical improvements, and, for the first time in the program's history, we have ensured that, in every aspect, the food stamp program keeps its purchasing power over time. We raise the standard deduction from $134 to $144 and index it for inflation. That is an important accomplishment. It helps about 10 million people afford more food-- families, seniors, people with disabilities--all types of low-income food stamp recipients are helped by this change. We raise the minimum benefit, and index it for inflation. We uncap the dependent care deduction so that families can deduct the full cost of the child care they so desperately depend on to hold down their

jobs. And we index the asset limits. We don't know what the future will hold. Hopefully, the high inflation of the past months will shortly subside as the country gets back on track. But we now can rest assured, as never before, that if there is substantial inflation our low-income families and senior citizens won't lose out on food.

For me what this bill really is about is people. It's about our senior citizens who have worked hard their whole lives and deserve better than to face the fear of hunger in their last years. It's about children, who come home from school and look to their parents to put a nutritious meal on the table.

One of the groups that will be most helped are our Nation's senior citizens. We were able to increase the minimum benefit, which goes predominantly to senior citizens, from $10 to about $14 a month. This is the first increase in almost 30 years in the minimum benefit. I would have liked to have increased it even more, but this change will help make it worthwhile for some of our seniors who qualify for a low benefit to participate in the program. We did this by setting the minimum benefit at 8 percent of the thrifty food plan for a single person. Because USDA adjusts the thrifty food plan every year for increases in food prices, so too will the minimum benefit now adjust. In addition, because of higher food prices in some places, like Alaska, Hawaii, and some of the territories, seniors in these places will now also see a modestly higher minimum benefit. For example in some parts of Alaska, the minimum benefit will be as high as $25 per month.

In this bill we've also excluded retirement accounts from assets and indexed the asset limits to inflation. These changes will help seniors and working families to save for the future. It makes no sense to require people who fall on hard times to virtually liquidate all of the savings they've managed to put away in order to get help paying for groceries for themselves and their families. Our seniors, especially, may have no ability to replace these savings, and as a result, no cushion to deal with unexpected expenses. And a working family who is forced to spend down savings now will be that much closer to poverty in their older years. So this is an important change for the long-term ability of low-income individuals to move toward financial independence and for our senior citizens to be able to retain an ability to support themselves in their retirement.

But I also want to reaffirm that we did not take away, as President Bush proposed, the State option in the food stamp program to design a more appropriate asset test at the State level. In my home State of California the legislature and Governor have been working together to design an ``expanded categorical eligibility'' program that will revise the asset limit for many food stamp recipients and make it easier for them to save for the future. I hope that other States consider this option, and I urge USDA to work with other States to promote this important policy.

In another major improvement for senior citizens, we have expanded to seniors a State option from the 2002 farm bill that dramatically reduces paperwork requirements. This policy is known as ``simplified reporting'' and it will allow seniors to participate without filing paperwork for 12 month periods, unless they have a major increase in their income that makes them ineligible for food stamps. I urge USDA to make this option as simple and streamlined for seniors and States as possible, and to find ways to insulate food stamp benefits from interactions with other programs that low-income seniors participate in, particularly Medicaid.

Finally, we have heard reports that despite the overwhelming success of the electronic benefits, some seniors can find the technology confusing. For those at the minimum benefit who receive maybe only $10 to $20 a month, we've heard concerns that if they don't use their benefits fast enough those benefits can be taken away--or moved ``offline''--sometimes in as short a period as 3 months, with the senior citizen not understanding why this has occurred. I don't think this is a very common problem, but it is understandable that a senior citizen might want to store up small benefits to use at one shopping trip every few months, rather than have to keep track of the card every month. This bill allows States to move benefits off-line after 6 months of inactivity, but requires them to notify the household and restore the benefits within 48 hours upon request. This benefit reinstatement should be a simple process, and States should aim to help seniors navigate it, so we don't have our seniors being bounced around an EBT call center trying to figure out what happened to their food stamp benefits.

For children and families, the biggest change we make is the increase and indexing of the standard deduction which will significantly boost the ability of low-wage workers to afford food for their families, especially over time. More than $5 billion of the nutrition title's 10- year investment go to this change, which primarily benefits families with children.

We also lift the limit on the dependent care deduction. This change will help about 100,000 families who pay out-of-pocket child care costs above $175 per child per month (or $200 for infants), by recognizing that money that is needed to pay for child care so that a parent can work is not available to purchase food. On average, families who are helped will receive an additional $40 a month (or $500 a year), according to the Congressional Budget Office. The dependent care cap has not been raised since the early 1990s, despite the increases in the costs of safe, reliable child care. Families incur all types of costs in order to secure child care for their children, and USDA should continue to allow all of these expenses to count toward the deduction-- such as transportation costs to and from day care and the cost of informal care. Finally, as states roll this out to the 100,000 families currently on the program, its important that they make it easy for eligible families to claim the new deduction. Families shouldn't have to make extra trips to the food stamp office or be at risk of losing benefits if they fail to claim a new higher deduction. A household should never have its benefits cut or reduced because of a failure to document child care expenses, but should be given a full opportunity to receive the higher deduction if they have expenses above the current capped amounts.

We hear all the time that despite the importance and success of the food stamp program, for most families the benefits run out before the end of the month. That is why it is so important that we provide more than $1.2 billion in this farm bill for additional food purchases for emergency food organizations, like church food pantries and soup kitchens, to feed our families and seniors. We provide $50 million in additional funds this year to help meet food banks needs in light of rising food costs. And, we increase the basic The Emergency Food Assistance Program annual funding level to $250 million. That amount will be adjusted for inflation in future years to insure that this program does not lose any of its food purchasing power.

Another important provision for our children is a provision that ensures that children who receive food stamps can automatically, or ``directly'' be certified as eligible for free meals. The eligibility rules for the two programs overlap: virtually every child who receives food stamps is eligible for free meals. So making that connection in an automated way can save the family from falling through the cracks or from having to file duplicative paperwork. Unfortunately, too many States and schools don't currently make the connection adequately. So this bill requires USDA to report to Congress annually on each State's progress in directly certifying food stamp recipients for free school meals, and asks for USDA to report on best practices among the various States and school districts. This is a provision that is about good government--there is no reason the government can't make these connections, instead of requiring school administrators and families to be responsible for duplicative paperwork.

In addition to my role as the Agriculture's Subcommittee Chair on Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, I also have the great pleasure to assess this bill from the perspective of my role as the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. More than 5 million Latinos, or more than 10 percent of the Latino population, receive food stamps each month. Food stamps constitute 25 percent of total monthly income for a typical Latino family that participates in the food stamp program. All of the changes that I have just described will benefit low-income Latinos who rely upon this program.

I must take one moment to express my deep personal disappointment that we were not able to restore food stamp benefits to all legal immigrants who are currently ineligible for the program. Keeping food assistance from hard-working immigrants with whom we live side by side is simply wrong and I will not stop fighting until we fully repeal the benefit cuts to legal immigrants enacted in 1996.

In spite of this major setback, we have achieved a number of important improvements for the Latino community. First, USDA will conduct a study on the possibility of bringing the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico back into the national food stamp program. Since 1982 Puerto Rico has received a fixed block grant amount for food assistance, rather than be a part of the U.S. program like the 50 States, District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. This block grant does not take into account changes in economic or demographic conditions, such as unemployment or the number of people who are in need of food assistance.

The poverty rate in Puerto Rico (45 percent) is more than three times the national poverty rate. However, because of the block grant, Puerto Rico cannot afford to provide benefits to all households poor enough to qualify for benefits using food stamp program standards. Instead they have been forced to impose rigid eligibility criteria. For example, a family of four

with net income above about $600 a month (or 34 percent of the Federal poverty level) cannot get any food assistance in Puerto Rico. The same family living in California, or any other State on the mainland, could have almost three times as much income and still be eligible for food assistance. An elderly person living alone faces an income limit of $192 per month--just 23 percent of the poverty level.

Clearly, some of our most vulnerable American citizens are at risk of being denied food assistance they greatly need. It seems just plain wrong to knowingly leave some Americans with insufficient food. With this study we hope to get a better understanding of what the local conditions are in Puerto Rico, in terms of food costs, poverty and other programmatic factors so that we can figure out how to address the issue in the next farm bill, or earlier if possible.

Another important achievement of the bill is to ensure that both Federal statute and regulations have the full force of law, ensuring that clients who do not receive adequate service under these rules and standards may bring suit. Recently, a district court in Ohio dismissed a case brought against the State to enforce the Department's regulations for serving people whose primary language is not English. I can't speak to whether the case had any merit, but my colleagues and I were surprised and disturbed to learn about the court's dismissal. We felt that it was critical to clarify in this bill that it has always been Congress's intent that the program's regulations should be fully enforceable and fully complied with to the same extent as the statute. The farm bill, therefore, clarifies that the Department's rules on serving non- and limited-English speaking people have the force of law and create rights for households.

Beyond the issue of bilingual access rules, this legislation makes clear that the Department's civil rights regulations are among those which have the full force of law and which households have the right to enforce. Discrimination is not acceptable in any form or at any point in the food stamp certification process. Households should not be assisted, or not assisted, approved or denied for any reason other than an individual assessment of their need for help or their eligibility by the State. I am pleased to be playing a role in making clear that the committee and the Congress wish the program to be administered in compliance with the Food Stamp Act and its regulations.

I'd like to also talk about a somewhat related matter that we did not manage to agree to include in this farm bill, much to my disappointment. I worked hard to include in the House bill, and shepherd through the conference negotiations, a provision that would have strengthened the long-standing policy in the food stamp program that certification and eligibility decisions should be done by State employees, rather than private companies. We would have added to the traditional restrictions around merit systems and provided specific exceptions for certain activities, such as outreach. In recent years the Bush Administration has let two States, Texas and Indiana, experiment with using private companies to collect and review food stamp applications and conduct the sensitive eligibility interview. In my view, these projects are not consistent with current law or good sense. These experiments have been disastrous to the States' treasuries but, more importantly, to the vulnerable families and senior citizens who rely on food stamps and found their applications delayed or improperly denied. Some people even had their private, personal information shared inappropriately. The activities involved in determining eligibility--and ineligibility--for food stamps should be public functions and should not be governed by profit motive or a company's responsibility to its shareholders.

While the House voted to include this provision in the conference agreement, the Senate did not because of opposition from the other party and a veto threat from President Bush. I regret this outcome and I am determined to not drop this issue until we have restored the proper balance to food stamp administration.

But I urge my colleagues to not forget, that separate from this ``privatization'' issue, in recent years States have been experimenting with a wide variety of changes to food stamp policies and practices that incorporate new technologies and modern business practices. For example, some States are using technology to create new pathways to apply for and retain benefits such as food stamps, health insurance, and child care, including online applications, online program redetermination or recertification, phone interviews, and call centers where changes in circumstances can be reported.

On the one hand, creating ways for families to participate in these programs without having to travel to a human service office can expand access and save time and money for States and families alike. In fact, in this bill we've created a new option for States to accept food stamp applications over the telephone. No doubt technology offers numerous opportunities for improved customer service and simpler application and retention processes.

On the other hand, if these processes are not well-designed, evaluated, and implemented, then families can face new access barriers. Moreover, some States are exploring these options at the same time that they are reducing human service staffing and closing local welfare offices. These steps can create new access barriers for certain groups of families and need to be carefully monitored. And I am concerned because neither States nor USDA appear to be asking the important questions about what has been the effect of these technological changes on access for food stamp households, particularly vulnerable populations like seniors, people with physical or mental disabilities, or people who do not speak English proficiently. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) last year published a report that found that USDA has not sufficiently monitored the States' ``modernization'' efforts in terms of their effects on program access, payment accuracy, or administrative costs.

So in this bill we have included several provisions to require that States that are eager to pursue modernized systems are pausing to ask the necessary questions about how to ensure that the new systems are designed in such a way that they are effective tools for connecting eligible families to benefits. In this bill we require USDA to establish standards for when States are making major changes in program operations and to monitor the effects on households, especially the types of households I just mentioned. I urge USDA to do this in a way that yields useful information so that States can refine and improve their systems to make them as accessible as possible to all clients.

Another provision requires States to adequately pilot test new computer systems before they go full-scale. This responds to situations where States have implemented new computer systems without adequate testing. This occurred even though some at USDA knew that there were weaknesses in the system and that serious benefit delays and errors were likely to occur. We also included a provision the Administration suggested to require States, instead of households, to repay any over- issuances that occur because of one of these preventable major systems failures.

Finally, in light of all of the modernization changes and the potential access to sensitive information that new players may have, we strengthened the act's privacy protections to ensure that anyone receiving confidential information for appropriate program purposes cannot then share that information with a third party. In addition to our fears that too many people may have access to private food stamp information as a result of new technology, we were also concerned that clients have not been able to access their private records. We heard about clients in Texas who had their benefits cut off, or who never were able to obtain benefits, and could not get access to their case records in order to pursue a claim against the State. That is unacceptable. We also clarified that despite all of the changes in how States are storing and maintaining client records, clients can access these records in litigation. These changes are not in conflict because confidential records would continue to be unavailable to the general public and others not having a legitimate reason relating to program administration.

Another concern I have is about two new provisions that would disqualify certain people from food stamps for misusing their benefits. One relates to situations where a recipient of food stamps intentionally uses food stamp benefits to buy a product, like water, that is in a disposable container that can be redeemed for cash, then discards the product and redeems the container in order to obtain the cash deposit. The other new disqualification addresses individuals who intentionally purchase food with food stamp benefits in order to resell the food for a cash profit. I agree that both of these practices are contrary to the purposes of the food stamp program in assisting people in obtaining an adequate diet and it's appropriate to address them in this bill. However, I caution USDA to implement them in a way that ensures that only those who intended to defraud the system in these manners be disqualified. I do not want to see innocent people--who may simply have bought groceries for a neighbor or relative--be caught up as somehow engaging in fraud under this provision.

My concerns here are not completely without precedent. In this bill we are revisiting and clarifying a different disqualification rule that was enacted in 1996, and that has, in fact, ensnared innocent people and denied food stamp benefits in inappropriate ways. The intent of the law was to aid law enforcement and prevent criminals who are fleeing to avoid prosecution from receiving food stamps. Unfortunately, in practice, the provision has disqualified innocent people who had their identities stolen, or who have outstanding warrants for minor infractions that are many years old

and where the police have no interest in apprehending and prosecuting the case.

So in this bill we direct USDA to clarify that people should only be subject to disqualification if they are actively fleeing law enforcement authorities who are, in fact, interested in bringing them to justice.

In addition to the very important changes we have made to the food stamp program and new funding for food banks through TEFAP, the bill would expand and improve the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. This program has been receiving $9 million a year in mandatory funds and operates in 14 States. (Three Indian tribes also operate the program.)

Under the conference agreement, mandatory funding would increase to $40 million for the 2008-2009 school year and continue to grow. By 2012, the program would be funded at nearly 8 times its current size: $150 million each year, with annual adjustments for inflation in years after that.

In addition to providing increased funding, the conference agreement takes important steps to target program funds to elementary schools with a significant share of low-income children. Our goal is to provide free fresh fruits and vegetables to all elementary schools in the country where more than half of the children are eligible for free or reduced price school meals. This program should expose a whole new generation of children to a healthy way of eating.

To sum up, I am extremely proud of the work that our committee and our Congress have undertaken in the nutrition title of the farm bill. With these changes, we are building a healthier better fed population. As a result, we are taking a few important steps towards a stronger future for our children and our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1194) reaffirming the support of the House of Representatives for the legitimate, democratically-elected Government of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank Chairman Berman for his leadership in getting this vitally important resolution to the floor so quickly. It's extremely important that the House be on record telling the brave men and women who fought and died defending Lebanon's independence and sovereignty that America has not forgotten you and will not abandon you.

While many in the Middle East, particularly in Lebanon, are trying to make sense of what has happened, I believe that it is critical that they know that the United States and the U.S. Congress still strongly support the democratically elected and legitimate Government of Lebanon, that we will stand behind its efforts to fully restore Lebanon's sovereignty and independence, and that the future of Lebanon is not with Iranian and Syrian sponsored thugs and bullies, but with the decent people of Lebanon of every sect and confession who only want the normal and peaceful life for themselves, for their children, and for their country.

Mr. Speaker, just as Hezbollah sucked Lebanon into its conflict with Israel in 2006 by hiding behind its women and children, they have now forced the Lebanese people to endure their war against the Lebanese state. The insurrection by Hezbollah was unjustified, illegitimate, and immoral. No conceivable Lebanese interest was served by it. Only the goals of Iran and Syria were advanced by Hezbollah and its allies' assault on the sovereignty of the Lebanese Government.

The pretense that Hezbollah is an authentic Lebanese political actor has fallen away, and in the arrogance of power they have declared their true allegiance. It is not to Lebanon, and it is not even to the Lebanese Shia. Their loyalty is to Iran and Syria, and to the needs and interests of Tehran and Damascus. In their Lebanese puppet state, Ayatollah Khamenei will be the true president and Bashar al-Assad the real prime minister.

We have seen this kind of fraud before in the 20th century. The culmination was called the Warsaw Pact. But what was true in Europe in the Cold War remains true today in the Middle East--a captive nation is no true ally of its captor, and no amount of power can make a lie become the truth. And no amount of thuggery, torture, intimidation and murder can make Hezbollah anything other than the terrorist arm of foreign powers and an enemy of Lebanese independence and sovereignty.

The United States and every other decent nation must continue to support the Government of Lebanon. The Lebanese Government was democratically elected, it is legitimate, and it deserves our aid. Justice must ultimately be done for those recently and unjustly killed, as well as all those Lebanese murdered for their support of Lebanese sovereignty going back to the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. I have said many times before, and I will keep repeating it, there must be no deal or arrangement that undercuts the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

Mr. Speaker, you either believe that Lebanon is a sovereign and independent state that is to be governed by and for the Lebanese people alone, or you don't. The overwhelming majority of Lebanese, whether they're Sunni, Shia, Maronite, Orthodox, Druse, or any other group, believe in this principle. The entire international community, with the reprehensible exceptions of Syria and Iran, believes in this principle. The United States certainly believes in it. Only Hezbollah, Amal, and the delusional Aounists do not. And that is why Lebanon has suffered and remains in pain today.

I'm very proud of the resolution before us today. I strongly urge its adoption by the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Dennis Kucinich.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First let me express my appreciation for the gentleman from Ohio and for his good intentions and for his support of dialogue. Certainly nobody is against dialogue.

But we have a situation here where a democratic, freedom-loving, sovereign people are insisting on the results of their own self- determined election that they came to through democratic processes and are doing that in the face of outside interference in the form of armed opposition, murders, assassinations that are being sponsored by Hezbollah, financed by the Iranian and Syrian regimes. And the gentleman instead calls for dialogue. We call for nothing other than dialogue.

This is a nonbinding sense of the Congress resolution. And while other countries are running interference and murdering the people of Lebanon and preventing their democratic government from governing, we are sending them a message of hope, a message of support. And the gentleman's protestations say that we shouldn't interfere, let them have a dialogue.

What we are looking at, Mr. Speaker, is the equivalent of a rape, and I have just heard the argument that what we should do is not interfere and take sides between the victim and the raper and to say let them have a dialogue and work it out, while each and every day the rape continues. As a civilized, democratic society, we cannot sit idly by without saying a word.

I do appreciate the argument of those who are against violence, who are against arms, and who are against war. I stand with them on that. But we have no alternative than to act and at least send a message of support. There is no interference other than our best wishes while others are sending arms. There is nothing in the 17 whereases in this resolution that suggests that we're in favor of violence. And if the gentleman and those who argue his argument are truly opposed to raising an army, let them at least raise their voice. Let them speak out with us on this resolution. Let us reaffirm our dedication to the principles of democracy and self-determination of a people who have already made their choice in their election, and to stand by them, not by providing arms or violence, but by sending them the wishes of this Congress, of the American people, expressing our support for their determination to continue in their quest to effectuate the democracy to which they are entitled.

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, the Security Council of the United Nations has asked for the disarmament of Hezbollah. This is not our request. This is the United Nations. This is the international community. This is the entire peaceful world that has asked for that.

As far as the administration, I don't speak for the administration, heaven forbid. This is our Congress, and together Democrats and Republicans have joined in with words. Words are powerful. Words are important weapons. And if you want to avoid the weapons that go bang in the night, then words of support are important, important to a people who are under siege, whose democracy is being eroded by rogue states and terrorist organizations using violence and assassination, trying to blow up members of their elected parliament so that they no longer have a majority to continue their democratic work.

I yield.

Let me say I'm not opposed to that happening. Let them disarm themselves. But let us in the meantime do what we can to be the voice of democracy and freedom.

The world looks at us as a beacon. We have spent so much of the goodwill that we have built up over 230 years of this democracy. At least let us speak out for freedom, speak out for freedom in the case of a people who are under siege, who are in the throes of having their duly elected government taken away from them by terrorist organizations and rogue regimes.

We know what Hezbollah is. The world knows what it is. We cannot stand idly by and not utter a word of support. This is our word of support. This is the resolution of this Congress. Would that it be more. Would that it be more forceful. Would that it be more effective. But at least we can continue to give those people who insist on living lives of freedom a rekindling of the belief that we too believe in what they believe in and that we support them in their struggle.

If the gentleman is prepared to yield back his time, I will do so.

You're quite welcome.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and ask all Members to support the resolution.

I want to compliment Chairman Berman and Chairman Ackerman and Ranking Member Manzullo for their leadership in bringing this very important resolution to the House floor.

No one has suffered more in the Middle East than the small country of Lebanon, caught in the crossfire of many different attacks from many different forces, not the least of which is Hezbollah. This resolution reaffirms the House's strong support for the legitimate democratically elected government, expresses sympathy to the people of Lebanon and condolences to those in Lebanon who have been displaced, injured, and lost relatives as a result of Hezbollah's violent action.

It urges the U.S. Government and the international community to immediately take all appropriate actions to support and strengthen the legitimate Government of Lebanon under the extraordinary leadership of Prime Minister Siniora, condemns Hezbollah and its state sponsors, Iran and Syria, for its efforts to undermine the Lebanese Government, including from approximately May 5-12, fomenting riots, blocking roads, seizing buildings, seizing control of West Beirut, and engaging in sectarian fighting in much of Lebanon.

The resolution demands that Hezbollah, as a first step toward total disarmament, immediately cease its attacks and withdraw from all areas in Lebanon that it has occupied.

The resolution urges the U.N. Security Council to condemn Iran and Syria for their violations of multiple UNSC resolutions and to sanction those nations by banning air traffic between Iran and Lebanon and between Iran and Syria. It urges every country controlling possible transit routes between Iran and Lebanon to impose strict controls to prevent Iran from arming Hezbollah. And it urges the European Union to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist group. This is a very good resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as someone who has traveled to Lebanon 12 out of the 14 years that I've been a Member of the House, I can tell you that Lebanon is caught in a very, very difficult situation.

I want to give credit, also, to President Bush and Secretary Rice for the interest that they've taken in Lebanon. More recently, the President was in the Middle East and spoke out in defense of Lebanon and calling on those countries, including the group Hezbollah, to cease and desist from their activity that they're participating in in this small country. I compliment President Bush and Secretary Rice for their involvement and their encouragement to the country of Lebanon and to the leaders that they met with most recently to become more involved in trying to help solve the problem and detach Hezbollah from the kind of hold that they have on the country.

One other thing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to also encourage the Parliament in Lebanon, who have the responsibility for electing a president and have not taken on that responsibility, and given the fact that the Office of President of Lebanon has been vacant for a number of months, I call on the Parliament of Lebanon to convene themselves and elect a president. This would send a very strong message around the region and around the world that Lebanon is a country that can stand on its own and stand up to these terrorist groups if it has the help from other countries.

So I encourage the Speaker of the Parliament in Lebanon to take on the responsibility to call the Lebanese Parliament into session and to elect a president. I think it would be a very, very important move.

Again, I thank the Committee on Foreign Affairs for their interest in the country of Lebanon and the way that they have struck a very strong cord against Hezbollah and their activities in Lebanon. I urge all Members to support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman knows that he and I have had a number of discussions about Lebanon.

I know of your deep interest in the country, and I know that you've traveled there.

The one thing, Mr. Speaker, that I would say to the gentleman is that Prime Minister Siniora did not turn a blind eye on a number of occasions when the bombing was taking place. He called for a cessation of the bombing in the southern part of the country; so I want to be sure the record is clear on this.

He did not sit by and allow his country----

I don't want to belabor this to my friend from Ohio, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say this: I visited right after the bombing stopped in the southern part of Lebanon. I visited there, Mr. Speaker, with some other Members of Congress, and I can tell you this: The Siniora government and all government officials decried very much what was happening in the southern part of the country and asked the United States to help in this instance to raise an enormous amount of money to help rebuild the southern part of the country. And President Bush got on the telephone, Mr. Speaker, talked to a number of countries, raised an enormous amount of money, billions of dollars. Siniora, the Prime Minister, went to France and actually met with leaders and raised an enormous amount of money.

The country of Lebanon, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, has encouraged the kind of involvement of our country to help raise money to rebuild the south and also to say to those who have taken a place in the country for no other good but to disrupt the country that this is not the kind of activity that they want.

And so we do disagree on this, Mr. Speaker, and I do disagree with the gentleman from Ohio. We need to speak out. That's what this resolution does. It speaks out about a group of people in Lebanon whose only goal is to disrupt the country and to try to take over, for no good, and that's why this resolution is well drafted and well written.

Of course.

Well, I would say this, Mr. Speaker: I would say there are a lot of back-channel talks going on that don't get the kind of headlines and the kind of publicity. But there are activities taking place, unbeknownst to many who serve here and unbeknownst really to the public. I think these are good discussions. But I urge the House to support this resolution because for one of the few times that I've been here in 14 years, it really sets out, I think, the right language that we, as the House of Representatives, want to send as a message to the Prime Minister of Lebanon and to a group there that wants to hurt the country and hurt the people in the country and have set on a course to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6124) to provide for the continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The bill before the House is identical to the provisions of the conference agreement on H.R. 2419 as adopted by the House and the Senate, with the exception of the added provisions to ensure, number one, that the legislative history associated with H.R. 2419 is carried forward; and, number two, that the two bills do not have simultaneous force and effect. Otherwise, by passing this bill, we are giving ourselves another opportunity to send to the President exactly what the House and the Senate have already passed by large bipartisan votes.

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

Not this morning.

My staff worked through this and assured me this is the exact same bill that passed the House and Senate and was sent to the President.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is, as I said earlier, the exact bill that was voted on and passed by the House and the Senate. The gentleman is wrong. The provision that he is referring to was in both the House bill and the Senate bill, and it was also an original idea from the White House that was in their original farm proposal. So this is not some new program that came about in the conference committee. It was in the bill that passed the House, it was in the bill that passed the Senate, and it was in the President's bill that they proposed. In fact, this was a reform that was suggested by the White House and the administration.

So you can make all kinds of outrageous assumptions and come up with outrageous charges, which has been done for some time on this bill. The idea that there is going to be anybody in this country that has $2.5 million of adjusted gross income and is going to be able to collect farm payments is complete lunacy. That is not true. And whatever people they have been able to get to score this to come up with these numbers, nobody can verify that. These are more charges that we have dealt with.

This bill was filed on May 13. It has been available for everybody to read since May 13. It is exactly the same bill that has been out there all of this time. The error that was made was made by the Enrolling Clerk, not by this committee, and it is unfortunate. What we are trying to do here is fix the situation.

I am not sure that we need to do what we are doing here. But to try to accommodate some concerns on the part of the minority and others that have raised issues, what we are doing here is re-passing the bill exactly the way that it passed the House and the Senate, the way that it should have gone to the President, so that we can move this bill out of the House, the Senate can deal with it, the President can veto it, we can override it, and in the provisions we will vitiate the work that has been done with the House and

Senate overriding the veto of the current bill.

It is a messy process. It is something we would just as soon not go through. But it is where we are at. We are trying to deal with fixing a clerical error that was caused by the Enrolling Clerk, and we think this is an appropriate way to do that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Does the gentleman have further speakers?

Okay. We will give the minority leader the opportunity to close. I will just make some brief comments, and then yield back my time.

At this point I will reserve my time.

If the gentleman will yield, we had an optional ACRE in our bill that passed the House.

Would the gentleman yield?

We had an option to ACRE in the House bill that was different than the Senate. We had a national trigger, they had a State trigger. So it was in both bills.

Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the House- passed bill, and in our bill we had a countercyclical revenue assurance program that was a national trigger, as I said earlier.

This is an idea that came about from the White House, and it is not something that is going to be given to people just automatically. This is reviewed as a reform and it was sold as a reform by the White House, and I was skeptical of it.

But you have to give up 20 percent of your direct payments in order to get into this program. You have to lower your loan rate 30 percent. And this works not only going up, it works going down. So people are taking a risk by getting involved in this program as well as opportunity on the other side.

So you can have your arguments about it, but this is something that we are trying out as an option. It is something we are going to see how it works between now and 2012. There are a lot of people, including the administration, that think that this is a better way to go than the current target priced countercyclical marketing loan situation that we have. We will see. I have been skeptical of it. But there are people in the Senate and other places that were thinking that this is a good reform.

Now this idea that was just put forward by the minority leader that somehow or another this $287 billion goes to farmers, we have editorial writers saying the same thing around this country. The reality is that what actually goes to farmers under this bill is less than 9 percent of the bill, the traditional crop supports. 73.5 percent of the 10-year bill goes to nutrition. And if you add in crop insurance and the new disaster program, which is paid for, for the first time, you are up to about 15 percent of the total bill going to farmers.

So this idea that $287 billion is going to farmers is not true. All of the new money in this bill is going to nutrition, going to conservation, going to fruits and vegetables, going to energy. The reality is that what is in this bill for farmers is less than it was in the old law. This bill is less than the total cost of the 2002 bill. This bill is less than what passed the House and the Senate. And this bill is exactly what we passed in the House, exactly what we passed in the Senate, and was sent to the President. What we are trying to do here today is fix this problem. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, and let us get this farm bill finally resolved.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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.''