Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5658) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of this rule. I suggest further, if we were all adults on this floor, everybody would say this rule, outside of the ambit of what amendments are made in order on the defense bill, is an appropriate rule. It is an appropriate rule to respond to a mistake that was made.

As the gentleman from California observed earlier in debate, mistakes are made. Unlike the previous instance some years ago, which were discussed on this floor of the deficit reduction bill where the minority was not notified, the assertion the minority was not notified was absolutely inaccurate,

and Mr. Goodlatte would say that. In point of fact what happened was Mr. Peterson learned of it, talked to Mr. Goodlatte about it, then discussed it with me, and they decided jointly and bipartisanly to proceed.

Unlike the Deficit Reduction Act, the first thing that Mr. Peterson said in arguing for the override of the President's veto was, there is a problem here. He wanted all the Members to know what the problem was. There was not a Member on the floor who didn't know what the problem was.

When they voted, a majority of the minority party voted to override the President's veto because they believed the policy proposed in that bill is a good one. The overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for that bill, and 316 out of 435 of us--there weren't 435 of us; there were 11 absentees. So 316 out of about 424 voted for this bill.

This bill, unfortunately, included fourteen-fifteenths of the bill we passed, and really a larger proportion of that because in terms of pages it was probably 95 percent, 98 percent of the bill.

Now, a mistake was made. It was not a venal mistake. It was not a conscious mistake. And the mistake was made, as everybody ought to know, by the Clerk of the Congress and OMB, and they both made the same mistake. And the mistake they made was reading from the printed copy as opposed to the parchment copy. OMB didn't read from the parchment copy, we didn't read from the parchment copy, because the belief was a decision made 10 years ago by the Deputy Clerk not to proofread the parchment because changing the parchment was too expensive, but to read from the printed copy which then, if found in error, could be corrected and reprinted and then programmed for the parchment to be printed from that. And both our side--our side, the Congress--and the OMB made the same mistake. They assumed, as normally is the case, that the parchment reflected exactly what the conference printed report said.

Unfortunately, in this instance it did not. We still don't have a full explanation of how that happened. But obviously, notwithstanding the fact that parchment indicates that title III in the table of contents is included, when you go to page 169, the end of title II, and you turn the page to 170, you go to title IV. Now, one would have thought it would have been a pretty simple proofreading job if you read the parchment. Unfortunately, the print document which was used by OMB and the Congress to proof did in fact include title III.

Okay. So we made a mistake. The administration made a mistake, we made a mistake, the bill was not whole.

This is, my friends, not an unusual situation. In an 1892 case, which was relied upon in the budget case as well, the Court clearly said: Whatever the facts are internally to the House of Representatives, what the President signs is the statute, is the law.

The Supreme Court says clearly, therefore, that what the President sent us back and the veto overridden is in fact what the court has found is the law. Now, unfortunately, it doesn't include title III. We want to pass title III.

This bill took some 15 months, 18 months of deliberation. The farm bill expires tonight or tomorrow, Friday. So we can either do another extension, which is possible, or we can pass what was overwhelmingly passed in the Senate, overwhelmingly passed in the House of Representatives, and, as I said on the floor last night, was passed in exactly the same form without title III as was passed in both Houses. There were no changes. No alterations. That was not the case in the deficit bill that was referred to by Mr. Boehner yesterday.

In fact, a very substantial difference was made in the bill without notice to the Democrats, a $2 billion change, I might add, changing from 36 months to 13 months the implications of the reimbursement of Medicare for implements.

Now, that is all to say that this is not without precedent, number one. There are a number of cases that hold that what we did yesterday was exactly appropriate, and that law is not subject to question. Everything is subject to question, but not valid question or winning question.

So what have we done?

First of all, I discussed it with the Parliamentarian. I had not done so when we had the colloquy with Mr. Boehner. I then discussed it with the chairman. The chairman discussed it throughout the next few hours with Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Harkin and others.

I discussed it with Mr. Reid to figure out, a mistake has been made, how do we correct that, in fairness to everybody, on a bill, that, by the way, the Deficit Reduction Act was passed by a two-vote margin in the House, and in the United States Senate was passed because of the Vice President's vote. And we were not informed, so we were somewhat concerned about the $2 billion mistake that had been made.

In this case, that is not the issue at all, and it's a bill that was, in a bipartisan basis, passed by a majority of the Republicans and overwhelming majority of Democrats.

So what solution did we come up with? Resending the bill that, under the Supreme Court's edict is, in fact, law if it is overridden in the Senate, so that fourteen-fifteenths of what is the Congress's intent will be accomplished.

The rule then says, but in an abundance of caution, we'll also provide for the passage of the entire bill and send it over to the Senate, as has been passed overwhelmingly in both Houses.

In addition to that, we said, the bill does not include title III that is going to be in the veto message that's sent to the Senate.

I know for the public, this is pretty esoteric, and they don't really care. What they care is the substance.

But the point that I'm trying to make is, we are trying to correct a mistake and serve the agricultural community, serve those millions of people who are relying on the nutritional aid, serving those people who are relying on the conservation assistance throughout this country, to have this bill, after 18 months almost of consideration, serious bipartisan working and overwhelming bipartisan votes in both Houses, enacted into law.

But we are also providing separately for the passage of title III. In other words, we're doing title III twice, once as the full bill so we can repass the full bill. If the Senate decides, as I hope it will, to pass that again, then we will not only have passed fourteen-fifteenths, we will have passed fifteen-fifteenths in another bill, and they will be reconciled and they will be consistent with the law and with the will of this body representing the American people.

Now at about 7 p.m. last night, those of you who heard the colloquy, I indicated to Mr. Boehner we ought to talk about this. I went by Mr. Boehner's office to explain to him what I thought the solution to this problem was and discuss it with him. He was not at his office. I left a message and my phone number at 7 o'clock last night. I have not yet received a response to that visit.

I went to his office to suggest that, pursuant to my representation on the floor, we discuss that. I have not yet received a phone call.

I did talk to Mr. Blunt last night. I've talked to Mr. Blunt this morning. I frankly am offended, I will tell you, by the mischaracterization of what we are doing here by the representatives of the minority leader's office.

There are no games being played here. There was a mistake made. And if we were adults and nonpartisan and wanted to deal with this in a responsible way, I suggest we would have agreed on this proposal.

Now, unfortunately, we didn't get to an agreement. I don't allege that anybody on your side has agreed to this. But to suggest that it hasn't been discussed, informed, and I called as soon as I came in this morning, the leadership on your side, to explain exactly this procedure.

Now you can disagree with the farm bill or not disagree with the farm bill. I understand that additional games are going to be played, as it was my perception last week were played. On Thursday, 131 or 132 of you decided, notwithstanding the fact that I am sure you are for funding the troops in Iraq, you voted ``present.'' That was your decision.

It's my understanding now that perhaps you're being urged, some of you who are for this bill, to deny the two-thirds on the suspension of a bill that has gotten essentially three-quarters of

this House and 80 percent of the United States Senate supporting it.

Ladies and gentlemen, at some point in time the American public expects us to act as adults, not simply as partisan protagonists, to conduct business, notwithstanding the fact because we are humans, and those who work for us are humans and are under great stress. They have to work around the clock. They work 15-hour days, sometimes longer days. And we expect them to act without ever making a mistake. That is unreasonable. And when they make mistakes, and when we make mistakes, it is appropriate for us respond in a way that will correct those mistakes and, at the same time, carry out the policies that are overwhelmingly supported by this body.

My friends on both sides of the aisle, I would hope that we could do that. I regret that the minority leader has not called me back. I regret that he has not sat down and, with me, had the opportunity to discuss this. I had a discussion with him before the vote last night. It was a very calm, reasonable discussion, Mr. Lawrence and I, outside the middle door. We knew there was a problem. We knew we had to solve it. I think this does, in fact, solve it from the standpoint of adopting the policy overwhelmingly supported by this Congress of assuring that title III is addressed, and assuring us of the opportunity to make sure that it's not subject even to any lawsuit question by, again, passing the entire bill supported by, as I said, over 75 percent of the Congress of the United States.

I understand there may be questions about which amendment was allowed in order to the defense bill and which wasn't, so on that case, you may vote differently on the rule. But on the addressing of the mistake that was inadvertently made, and I stress again, by the Congress and by the Office of Management and Budget, same mistake apparently was made, that we can correct this as adults treating one another in a way that each of us would want to be treated to act so that we adopt policies that are supported by this Congress.

I would be glad to yield to my friend, Mr. Blunt, if he wants time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank you. I hope I didn't imply that. What I said, what I meant to say, if I misspoke, not that the--we, first of all agree and, as I've said, we're going to do what you suggest in an abundance of caution to assure us, ourselves, and I would hope that we would all, or least those who are for the farm bill would vote for it, the entire bill will be put on suspension. In light of the fact we had 75 percent of this House support that bill, that would be more than enough to pass it on suspension. We're going to do that in an abundance of caution.

In addition, we're going to do title III separately so the Senate can have that option as well, so if on the veto override they do fourteen- fifteenths of the bill, they can do the one-fifteenth, that is, title III at the same time so they would contemporaneously move forward.

When I refer to, and if I offended the gentleman, adult behavior, this is not a political problem. It is a procedural problem that we need to cure, and we've been working to cure it. You and I have had discussions about it, very positive discussions about it over the last 12 hours. And I would hope that we could proceed on that basis.

And I yield back some time.

Reclaiming my time. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I simply rise to say that this rule accomplishes exactly, in my opinion, what the minority whip wants to accomplish. It provides for the full passage of this bill under suspension, which the gentleman was for when it passed before, which I was for, and I will vote for. And that suspension accomplishes exactly that objective, so that any defect caused by the mistake will be cured.

Secondly, it's not blame. I, frankly, think the decision that was made 10 years ago was a rational decision. The decision was not to use the parchment copy as a copy to mark on to correct. There was no criticism there. It was simply that's when the decision was made. I think it, frankly, was a good decision.

The problem was, neither OMB nor ourselves used the parchment copy. We used the printed copy. The printed copy did, in fact, have title III in there. And obviously both the President and ourselves thought that the bill that was signed was the full bill. It ended up not being so, so we're going to correct that. I think we're correcting it properly.

I would urge all Members to vote for the rule, vote for the full bill, the farm bill which, as I said, got over 75 percent of the House and over 80 percent the Senate. Vote for title III so that, frankly, that can be passed more quickly by the Senate under its rules, and the leader has already indicated he will move forward on that.

If you have a disagreement, you won't vote for that. I understand that. And I think we will, therefore, cure the issue at hand.

I congratulate the Rules Committee for adopting this rule. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule, and if we do so, we will adopt a farm bill that I think will be good for the country. I think we will enact a farm bill which will be unimpeachable in either aspect, and I think we will have done what the American people expect us to do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, there are two primary purposes to the rule that is before the House today. One purpose, legitimate, though unfair, relating to the defense authorization bill. The other purpose, a unilateral, partisan abuse of power by the liberal leaders of the House.

The first purpose. This rule provides for consideration of 58 amendments to the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Of the 58 amendments that this rule makes in order, 42 are Democrat amendments. Just 14 Republican amendments were allowed. Two of those amendments have bipartisan support.

The Rules Committee has blocked two-thirds of the amendments submitted by members of the Republican Party. Reasonable, responsible amendments that raise legitimate national defense issues relating to the security of American troops and the American people are not being permitted to be debated on the House floor.

The defense authorization bill was approved by a unanimous bipartisan support, Mr. Speaker, of the Armed Services Committee. But that does not mean that that bill is perfect. Indeed, amendments to the bill were filed with the Rules Committee by both Democrats and Republican members of the Armed Services Committee. These members, who had worked in a bipartisan way in committee and who wanted to have their ideas for improving the defense authorization bill considered by the House, were denied that opportunity, and among those amendments that were blocked by the Rules Committee is the ranking Republican member of the Armed Services Committee, for whom this bill is named.

At the same time we are applauding those committee members for their bipartisan work, the Rules Committee steps in and shuts down what has been an open, cooperative process by blocking so many Republican amendments.

Mr. Speaker, the House should recognize that when a committee works in an open and honest manner to produce a truly bipartisan bill, we should recognize that, especially because it has become a rarity in this Congress.

Despite the promises made by the Democrat leaders to run the most open and honest House in history, they have made it a matter of routine to close down debate, take away the ability of every Representative to offer amendments on the House floor, to defy rules,

and to ignore over 200 years of legislative precedents. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this House has never seen anything the likes of what the Democrat leaders did last night with the vote to override the President's veto of the farm bill.

Despite having full knowledge that the bill that the Speaker of the House certified with her signature and sent to the President was not the exact same bill that passed both the House and the Senate, Democrat leaders deliberately acted to have this House vote on overriding the President's veto. The bill that the Speaker sent to the President completely omitted title III of the farm bill. This is the entire trade section that runs several dozen pages.

It has been asserted that deletion of this title from the farm bill that the Speaker sent to the President was simply a mistake, an oversight, or a technical error. That may very well be. That may very well be, Mr. Speaker. Yet Democrat leaders deliberately acted yesterday to have the House vote to override a Presidential veto on a bill that the House had never, ever passed. They took this action in direct contradiction to the simple procedures established in article I, section 7 of the United States Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I have often spoken to elementary and high school students about my job as a Congressman and how Congress works. The most fundamental lesson I always convey is how a bill becomes law in this Congress. It's very simple. The House and the Senate must pass the exact same bill. It must be exact. No comma difference. When they do that, the bill is sent to the President to be signed into law or vetoed and returned to the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this did not happen with the farm bill. The bill passed by both the House and the Senate was not the bill that the Speaker of the House signed and sent to the President.

Mr. Speaker, last week I stood right here on the House floor and stated that while I believed that the farm bill was far from perfect, I would vote for the bill because of the positive provisions it included for specialty crop growers in my congressional district.

In my speech to the House and in my communications with my constituents, I specifically cited parts of the farm bill that helped convince me to vote to pass it. In particular, I spoke about the Market Access Program in reference to technical trade assistance for specialty crops, both of which help to break down unfair trade barriers and open new markets for farmers overseas. Both of these programs are part of title III of the farm bill which passed the House and Senate but was not sent to the President.

Mr. Speaker, the farm bill I voted for, and the very reasons I voted for it, was not the bill that the House voted to override yesterday.

Democrat leaders of this Congress acted in an unconstitutional way in voting to override the veto vote yesterday. That the leaders acted unconstitutionally is not a matter of my personal opinion, it is a matter that has been ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court. In a 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Stevens in the 1998 line-item veto case, Clinton v. The City of New York, the court concluded, and I quote:

``The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became Public Law 105-33 after three procedural steps were taken. One, a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives. Two, the Senate approved precisely the same text. Three, that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of these three steps be taken before a bill may `become a law.' Article 1, section 7. If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105-33 would not have been validly enacted.''

Mr. Speaker, last night it wasn't until Republicans objected that the Democrat majority took any action to speak on the floor and inform the House of what had occurred by the omission of title III of the bill. The Democrat majority then responded, as they have for the past 16 months, by choosing the path of unilateral, partisan action over working in a bipartisan way. Keep in mind, this farm bill passed by over 300 votes in a bipartisan way.

As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, there are two parts to this rule. The first makes in order amendments to the defense authorization bill. The second provides blanket authority for any bill relating to agricultural programs to be considered under suspension of the House rules.

The inclusion of this blanket authority to suspend House rules and consider bills was not even discussed with Republicans. I say that with the knowledge I have as I speak here today, right now, at 10:39 a.m.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will claim that this is simply an effort to fix the farm bill. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the farm bill and I support getting it enacted into law. But this isn't just about a fix or finding the most convenient or face-saving way to act on the farm bill. It's about following the Constitution and holding Democrat leaders accountable for their deliberate actions yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

They knew the bill they put to an override vote yesterday had never passed the House in the version that it was presented to us for the override, but they did it anyway. The House should not gloss over an incident of this magnitude with such serious constitutional violations.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from California, I just want to make this point, and this is a very, very important point. Yesterday, prior to taking up the veto override of the farm bill, the Democrat leaders knew that title III was out of the bill. Therefore, it was not a bill that had passed either House. Therefore, the ultimate rule of this land, the Constitution, was violated.

It was at that point, Mr. Speaker, that there should have been discussions on how to remedy this in a way, but there was no discussions on that, at least with the leaders on our side. Yet we went ahead with the action of overriding a veto, overriding a bill that the House had not passed.

That is what the facts were yesterday, and it was not brought to the full House's attention until the leaders on our side stood up after the vote to ask what the procedures were for clarification. Had we known that ahead of time, we probably could have gone through regular order and got this resolved in such a way that would have been acceptable to all sides.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the namesake of the bill that we are debating later on, the Duncan Hunter Defense Authorization Act of 2009. The gentleman from California served as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He has been somebody that I have looked up to in my years in Congress. He probably, if not the most knowledgable person in this House on military affairs, he is certainly one of the most.

I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Hunter).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Rules Committee and now a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

For the purpose of a unanimous consent, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

(Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Franks.

I have numerous people that would like to speak, but I haven't got the time for that. If the gentleman would entertain an extension of time on both sides, I would be more than happy to allow my Members to speak. But I'm constrained for time.

So if the gentleman would allow me unanimous consent for some more, I would do that. But I will leave it up to the gentleman.

I am the last speaker under the regular time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I woke up today and heard on the news that oil is $137 a barrel on the worldwide market, and I think it's time for the House to debate ideas. I know there are a number of ideas in this House on lowering the cost of gasoline specifically.

So I'm going to ask my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous question so that this House can finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. When the previous question is defeated, I will move to add a section to the rule, not rewrite the entire rule. But that section would say it shall be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the previous question.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can now really have a dialogue on the rising price of energy in this country. I believe it's strongly the responsibility of the elected leaders of the people to take this issue up, and we will have this opportunity by defeating the previous question.

I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1218 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1218.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1218 provides for the further consideration of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, under a structured rule, without further general debate.

The rule makes in order 58 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration under this rule. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the committee report and amendments en bloc except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule also provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 5658, the text of H.R. 6048, as passed by the House, shall be added at the end of H.R. 5658.

Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of Thursday, May 22, 2008, relating to any measure pertaining to agricultural programs.

Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to finish consideration of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. General debate on this measure concluded last night. This two-part process has been used over the years to ensure that the Rules Committee has ample time to consider amendments submitted to the committee. This year, 121 amendments were submitted for consideration.

As my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings) said on the floor yesterday, the defense authorization bill is one of the most comprehensive and important pieces of legislation this House considers each year.

I salute the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, and Ranking Member Hunter for their hard work and cooperative effort in bringing this piece of legislation to the floor. Their bill passed the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 61-0, a testament to their bipartisan efforts and desire to ensure our Armed Forces have all the tools they need to maintain our national security and to provide our servicemembers in harm's way with the best gear and force protection possible.

America has the finest military in the world, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's policies in Iraq have depleted our great military, put a tremendous strain on our troops, and dropped the Army's readiness to unprecedented levels.

H.R. 5658 takes us in a new direction. It will help restore our Nation's military readiness and protect our troops in harm's way. This bill supports our troops and their families by giving the military a pay raise larger than was requested by the President and prohibiting TRICARE fee increases. It focuses on the war in Afghanistan. It also includes Iraq policy provisions that ban permanent bases in Iraq and require the Iraqi Government to pay its fair share of reconstruction costs.

In the spirit of maintaining the committee agreement and the overwhelming bipartisan support for this bill and to further ensure that our military is fully prepared and our troops get the benefits they deserve, the Rules Committee has made in order 58 amendments for consideration on the floor today. These are amendments that the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee determined would not disrupt the bill's carefully negotiated content and warranted further consideration.

In addition, this rule also allows the Speaker to bring up under suspension of the rules any measure pertaining to agricultural programs.

As we all know and we heard on the floor yesterday, an unintentional clerical error occurred prior to the enrollment of the farm bill. As a result, the President did not receive the full bill. The distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, has been working to remedy this situation so the President may receive the full bill for his consideration.

As a result, if a resolution is reached, and I do not know the status of the negotiations between Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Boehner, the resulting end product will be brought to the floor without further delay so that we may complete nearly 2 years of effort and deliver once and for all on the promises we made long ago to America's farmers and ranchers.

In the meantime I must remind our colleagues that the current farm bill extension is set to expire unless we act today. Whether a resolution is reached in the coming days or how we resolve this clerical error, we must, Mr. Speaker, extend the current farm bill and this rule will simply allow that to occur.

Much will be made of this rule by my friends on the other side of the aisle, but I will remind them that any farm bill measure that may come before the House today will come up under suspension of the rules. That means that two-thirds of the House must support any suspension bill in order for it to pass the House. That further means that there will be no political gamesmanship and we must have a strong bipartisan vote in order to pass any bill that reaches the floor.

The farm bill conference report has overwhelming bipartisan support. It passed this House with 318 votes. It passed the Senate with 81 votes. It represents the tireless effort of many Members, including myself, and is far too important to fail, Mr. Speaker, especially in light of what was an unintended clerical error.

This rule ensures swift passage of a bipartisan defense bill and a remedy to our already passed bipartisan farm bill, and I demand that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just like to say to my friend and the gentleman from Washington State that his claim that it was never brought before the House is simply not the facts. I was on the floor. I heard Mr. Peterson announce to the floor that in fact there had been an error yesterday during the debate for the override. In fact, Mr. Peterson said that he had been discussing with Mr. Goodlatte the situation and how to remedy it. In fact, Mr. Hoyer acknowledged it on the floor.

There has been no glossing over this. Mr. Hoyer readily acknowledged on the floor last night that there was a clerical error about this. Certainly we are concerned about how to remedy this. That is why we are bringing this rule to the floor. We are also concerned that the farm bill expires. We have brought a resolution to the floor that allows for a bipartisan compromise that would fix that situation.

We are trying to solve problems here today. We are trying to do right by our military, we are trying to do right by our farmers, and we are doing it in a manner that would require, with regard to the farmers, at least, a two-thirds vote of this House to resolve the problem.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that we are doing everything possible to remedy this situation, and we are doing it in a bipartisan manner.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Rules Committee, a leader in the farm bill debate, and a great friend.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the comments we just heard from our distinguished former chairman of the committee, while a lot of us have sympathy for the amendment that the gentleman put forward, it is my understanding that no defense contractor currently can meet the requirements of that 85 percent. So that is an issue that is bigger than just simply this bill. It probably needs to be dealt with in the Armed Services Committee so they can decide the proper course of action, and it was not ruled in order for that reason.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) to respond to Mr. Dreier's remarks.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a gentleman who worked tirelessly on the farm bill and who has worked tirelessly on behalf of defense matters, my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend the gentleman from Maryland for giving us an incredibly articulate, accurate, and statesmanlike presentation.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the gentleman from Arizona, I would certainly like to say he's certainly been bipartisan in his offering of striking of earmarks. He's offered them in the past on both sides, and I will acknowledge that the gentleman has talked to the majority leader and it will be under discussion.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire from the gentleman from Washington if he has any remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot entertain a motion on unanimous consent to extend. We've been debating this for longer than the allotted period of time already.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will let the numbers speak for themselves.

The bipartisan defense bill passed through the committee by a vote of 61-0. Fifty-eight amendments were made in order in the spirit of maintaining that bipartisan vote. The bipartisanship that was exhibited on the farm bill and the farm bill vote was 318 ayes, and 81 in the Senate voted ``aye.''

However you look at it, the facts remain that these overwhelmingly bipartisan measures deserve and demand our strongest support. I encourage the House to vote in the affirmative.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1218 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution. add the following:

Sec. 9. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution or the operation of the previous question, it

shall be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which

the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of

lowering the national average price per gallon of regular

unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall he considered as

read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be

subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand

for division of the question in the House or in the Committee

of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are

waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For

purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a

statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record

by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration

shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2009 which has many important provisions to help our military personnel and their families. I want to thank my colleague Congressman Skelton for his leadership on the House Armed Services Committee in bringing a bill to the floor that not only protects but supports our military and our veterans.

Samuel Adams, who was known as the Father of the American Revolution, stated ``All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should.'' Well, while most of us value freedom many of us do not risk our lives for it the way our men and women in the armed forces do on a daily basis.

This defense bill reflects our commitment to support the men and women who fight to secure not only our citizen's freedom but the freedom of others. This bill will provide the necessary resources to protect the American people and our national interests at home and abroad. The Armed Services committee has provided for military readiness; taking care of our troops and their families; increasing focus on the war in Afghanistan; and improving interagency cooperation, oversight, and accountability in this year's defense authorization bill.

Defense Provisions

We must maintain our efforts to restore military readiness in order to meet current military challenges and prepare for the future. This bill directs approximately $2 billion toward unfunded readiness initiatives requested by the services, which includes an additional $932 million to deal with equipment shortages and for equipment maintenance.

The bill also provides $800 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment and $650 million to keep defense facilities in good working order and to address urgent issues such as dilapidated military barracks. To boost readiness and to reduce the strain on our forces, the bill increases the size of the military by 7,000 Army troops and 5,000 Marines, and prevents further military to civilian conversions in the medical field by authorizing an additional 1,023 Navy sailors and 450 Air Force personnel.

To improve the quality of life for our forces and their families, the bill provides a 3.9 percent pay raise for all service members, which is .5 percent more than the President's budget request, and extends the authority for the Defense Department to offer bonuses and incentive pay. The bill also preserves important health benefits to improve the readiness of our force, keep servicemembers and their families healthy, and to reduce the overall need for care.

The bill establishes a Career Intermission Pilot Program to allow a servicemember to be released from active duty for a maximum of 3 years to focus on personal or professional goals outside of the military. The bill also provides tuition assistance to help military spouses establish their own careers, authorizes Impact Aid funding to assist schools with large enrollments of military children, and establishes a DoD School of Nursing to address the critical nursing shortage in our military services.

This bill addresses the need to improve the command and control structure for military forces operating in Afghanistan providing equipment to train and properly equip the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). This bill urges the President to appoint a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), as required by law, at the earliest possible time.

More importantly this bill contains several layers of transparency and accountability. By requiring more detailed reporting to Congress on the status and strategies of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on the performance of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) and information on U.S. contractors--this bill provides greater oversight by this body.

Rep. Jackson-Lee Proposed Amendments

While I do believe that Congressman Skelton and the Armed Services Committee have done a great job at trying to address the needs of our servicemembers, their families, and our national interests, I am disappointed to see certain areas were not addressed. I offered two amendments to the defense authorization to improve its ultimate outcome.

My first amendment would have added three sense of Congress paragraphs: (1) the war in Iraq should end as safely and quickly as possible and our troops should be brought home; (2) the performance of United States military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan should be commended, their courage and sacrifice have been exceptional, and when they

come home, their service should be recognized appropriately, including through the observance of a national day of celebration; and (3) the primary purpose of funds made available by this Act should be to transition the mission of United States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment, and not to extend or prolong the war.

This amendment was borne from my deeply held belief that we must commend our military for their exemplary performance and success in Iraq. As lawmakers continue to debate U.S. policy in Iraq, our heroic young men and women continue to willingly sacrifice life and limb on the battlefield. Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. The United States will not and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi government and military. Whether or not my colleagues agree that the time has come to withdraw our American forces from Iraq, I believe that all of us in Congress should be of one accord that our troops deserve our sincere thanks and congratulations.

My amendment explicitly stated that the goals laid out by the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (AUMF) have all been achieved by our troops in Iraq.

Due to the skill and dedication of the members of the Armed Forces, the entire world has now been assured that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the United States or any member nation of the international community. The United States Armed Forces successfully toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein and captured the key cities of Iraq in only 21 days. The Armed Forces performed magnificently in conducting military operations designed to ensure that the people of Iraq would enjoy the benefits of a democratically elected government governing a country that is capable of sustaining itself economically and politically and defending itself militarily.

While our troops have achieved the objectives for which they were sent to Iraq, they are now caught in the midst of a sectarian conflict. Unfortunately, there is no military solution to Iraq's ongoing political and sectarian conflicts.

My second amendment would have made a declaration of U.S. policy that ``The Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; approved on October 16, 2002) is the basis of authority pursuant to which the President launched the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.''

Further, it describes the authorization's two stated objectives: to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and to defend the national security of the United States (i) by disarming Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the security of the United States and international peace in the Persian Gulf region, (ii) by ensuring that the regime of Saddam Hussein would not provide weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists, including al Qaida, (iii) by changing the Iraqi regime so that Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime no longer pose a threat to the people of Iraq or Iraq's neighbors, and (iv) by bringing to justice any members of al Qaida bearing responsibility for the attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, known or found to be in Iraq.

Most crucially, my second amendment states unequivocally that ``the objectives of Public Law 107-243 described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) have been achieved. This amendment would have provided an expressed acknowledgment by the Congress that the objectives for which the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution of 2002 authorized the use of force in Iraq were achieved by the Armed Forces of the United States.

The objectives for which this Congress authorized war in Iraq have been met; therefore, that authorization should no longer be the basis for ongoing involvement by U.S. armed forces. Our military has already paid too heavy a price for this Administration's ill-advised and poorly planned war effort in Iraq. My amendment would have recognized the exemplary performance of our men and women in uniform, and emphasizes that our military has already achieved the objectives for which it was sent to Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, although I would have liked to see my amendments included in this bill I am supportive of much of the provisions of this bill; however since this legislation provides for continued funding of the Iraq war I will not be able to vote for the continuation of the war. I will vote no.

Would the gentleman yield?

We've obviously cleared this on our side, and we totally support the distinguished gentleman from Missouri's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield to myself such time as I might consume.

I would simply say that this is an important amendment and one that I support strongly, and I think most of the members of the committee support strongly.

This is a joint effort. It's not just a DOD effort, when we discussed the two warfighting theaters and the standing up of a government that will be an ally of the United States and will have a modicum of democracy. It's important to have the other agencies that are so critical to this effort, to the coordination of this effort, that is, the Department of State and the USAID administrator, to be involved to ensure that we do have coordination and cooperation.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield to Mr. Forbes, the gentleman from Virginia, 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we have one more speaker who I think is on his way. So if the gentleman from Missouri has another speaker, if we could pass and see if we can get our other speaker down here.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield back the balance of my time unless the gentleman from Missouri needs it. I would yield it to his side.

Mr. Chairman, my speaker did just arrive. If I could impose on the gentleman, he is ready to go.

I would ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to retrieve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the gentleman from Tennessee had it right in that the chairman has been a prime mover in forcing jointness with the military services. And it's only appropriate that, because this is an effort that requires other agencies, besides DOD, that we have a mechanism to get them together, move them together in a true jointness. I want to commend the chairman for his authorship of this.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, we have no more requests for time on this side. Unless the gentleman needs our time, I yield back our time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, distinguished ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee (Mr. Buyer).

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

Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers, and we would yield back the balance of our time.

I thank my great colleague for yielding to me.

My friends, this is the age of missiles. The people that we listen to so carefully in our hearings are the combatant commanders. Those are the guys who are in charge of running military operations in the case of an attack on the United States or a military operation or a contingency.

Our combatant commanders have reported to us that we are short missile defense. Specifically, they have said that we should nearly double the inventory of THAAD and Aegis Standard Missile Interceptors. And I quote from Admiral Keating. He said increased inventories are needed, and he goes through these short-range BMD systems that are so key to countering this emerging threat, like the one that is coming from North Korea, like the Shahab-3 being developed now by Iran, and by the increasing short-range and medium-range ballistic missile inventories around the world.

This is crucial to the survival of our troops in theater and to the survival of the United States in wars that are going to occur in the future, and in the least we should listen to the combatant commanders and plus these inventories up. That is what the gentleman from Arizona's amendment does, and I would recommend it to all Members.

Vote ``yes'' on Franks.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

My colleagues, we are in a race against those who would build offensive missiles and in fact have built missiles.

I remember, I think it was 1987 when members of this committee, the Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to the leadership of Israel, and we said this--and I know this because I drafted that letter. We said, at some point in the future--and this was 1987, before the Gulf War. We said, you will be attacked at some point in the future by probably Russian-made missiles coming from a neighboring country. And even though you could defend against an aircraft attack, just as you did in the Bekaa Valley with your F-16s, you will not be able to stop a single incoming ballistic missile coming into Israel.

A few years later in the Gulf War, we saw just that. In fact, we saw ballistic missiles kill Americans. Some of them were shot down by deployed Patriots, but we saw missiles coming into Israel totally unprotected. We saw people being rushed to the hospital not from the effects of the missiles, but because they were so afraid that poison gas would be on the head of those missiles launched by Saddam Hussein, that many people went into the hospital with heart problems.

We are in a race, my friends, my colleagues, and we have seen the manifestations of that race on the other side. We have seen those TD-2s and those NoDong missiles and SCUD missiles launched by the North Koreans that fell into the Sea of Japan, the TD-2 having the ability now to reach some parts of the United States. We have seen the tests of the Iranian Shahab-3s. We have seen now the complicity of North Korea and Syria in developing nuclear weapons capability, which was stopped short by a strike that was made by our allies. We know that that throat through which the Iranian missiles might one day travel going into

Western Europe could be defended by the missile sites that we have now proposed to be established in Czechoslovakia and Poland.

We are in a race. Our combatant commanders tell us that we need to double the number of THAAD missiles and Aegis missiles. Incidentally, those sea-based missile system are testing out very, very well. We have had a series of successes.

The idea that we cut back on this one massive area of vulnerability, that we cut back on defenses against this massive area of vulnerability--and for my friends that said we want to use this money for quality of life for our troops, ladies and gentleman, I am the father of one of our marines who has been deployed, and let me tell you quality of life. It is when that family that is sitting there in Pendleton or in Savannah, Georgia, or at Fort Bragg or in Camp Lejeune knows that their family member, their servicemember is not going to be vulnerable to a short-range or ballistic missile attack. That gives you quality of life, because that gives you assurance that they are going to be able to survive that very, very real threat which is now being developed.

This is a misplaced amendment, and I would urge everyone to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield at this time to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Tauscher), the chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to a gentleman who's leaving us this year, but the guy who has accomplished so much in confidential briefings and sessions in which you analyze our space systems and our missile systems, and a guy who hasn't been elbowing his way into press conferences, but who does enormous work for the people of this House and for the people of this Nation, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett). I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman. He's the ranking member on Strategic.