[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10278-10288]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE 
          PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 110-115)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto 
message from the President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives:
  I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2419, the ``Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.''
   For a year and a half, I have consistently asked that the Congress 
pass a good farm bill that I can sign. Regrettably, the Congress has 
failed to do so. At a time of high food prices and record farm income, 
this bill lacks program reform and fiscal discipline. It continues 
subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm bill spending by more than 
$20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase. 
It is inconsistent with our objectives in international trade 
negotiations, which include securing greater market access for American 
farmers and ranchers. It would needlessly expand the size and scope of 
government. Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be 
good stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill violates 
that fundamental commitment.
  In January 2007, my Administration put forward a fiscally responsible 
farm bill proposal that would improve the safety net for farmers and 
move current programs toward more market-oriented policies. The bill 
before me today fails to achieve these important goals.
  At a time when net farm income is projected to increase by more than 
$28 billion in 1 year, the American taxpayer should not be forced to 
subsidize that group of farmers who have adjusted gross incomes of up 
to $1.5 million. When commodity prices are at record highs, it is 
irresponsible to increase government subsidy rates for 15 crops, 
subsidize additional crops, and provide payments that further distort 
markets. Instead of better targeting farm programs, this bill 
eliminates the existing payment limit on marketing loan subsidies.
  Now is also not the time to create a new uncapped revenue guarantee 
that could cost billions of dollars more than advertised. This is on 
top of a farm bill that is anticipated to cost more than $600 billion 
over 10 years. In addition, this bill would force many businesses to 
prepay their taxes in order to finance the additional spending.
  This legislation is also filled with earmarks and other ill-
considered provisions. Most notably, H.R. 2419 provides: $175 million 
to address water issues for desert lakes; $250 million for a 400,000-
acre land purchase from a private owner; funding and authority for the 
noncompetitive sale of National Forest land to a ski resort; and $382 
million earmarked for a specific watershed. These earmarks, and the 
expansion of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements, have no 
place in the farm bill. Rural and urban Americans alike are frustrated 
with excessive government spending and the funneling of taxpayer funds 
for pet projects. This bill will only add to that frustration.
  The bill also contains a wide range of other objectionable 
provisions, including one that restricts our ability to redirect food 
aid dollars for emergency use at a time of great need globally. The 
bill does not include the requested authority to buy food in the 
developing world to save lives. Additionally, provisions in the bill 
raise serious constitutional concerns. For all the reasons outlined 
above, I must veto H.R. 2419, and I urge the Congress to extend current 
law for a year or more.
  I veto this bill fully aware that it is rare for a stand-alone farm 
bill not to receive the President's signature, but my action today is 
not without precedent. In 1956, President Eisenhower stood firmly on 
principle, citing high crop subsidies and too much government control 
of farm programs among the reasons for his veto. President Eisenhower 
wrote in his veto message, ``Bad as some provisions of this bill are, I 
would have signed it if in total it could be interpreted as sound and 
good for farmers and the nation.'' For similar reasons, I am vetoing 
the bill before me today.
                                                      George W. Bush.  
                                         The White House, May 21, 2008.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will be 
spread at large upon the Journal, and the veto message and the bill 
will be printed as a House document.
  The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, 
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) is recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, 
I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and 
further would yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and ask unanimous consent that he may control that 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I ask my colleagues to listen up here because this has been a very 
difficult bill and there has been numerous problems that have developed 
every day for the last year-and-a-half. I guess it's appropriate that 
there would be a problem that would be developing today as well.
  When the enrolling clerk enrolled the bill to send to the White 
House, somehow or another they inadvertently, or however it happened, 
did not include the trade title, title III of the bill, in the official 
documents that went to the White House. So the President vetoed the 
bill minus the trade title, title III.
  The trade title includes the food aid programs, including McGovern-
Dole; it includes the market promotion; the export credit program; the 
market access program, and it also includes the soft wood lumber 
certification program.
  So we are moving ahead to override the veto that the President has 
done. But we have this issue that one of the titles is missing from the 
bill. We have a process after we get through the override to try to 
deal with that issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's veto message said that when the 
commodity prices are high, it's irresponsible to increase government 
subsidy rates for 15 crops and subsidize additional crops and so forth. 
We made some adjustments in some of the price supports to try to 
rebalance the system from what it has been in the past. These were 
modest, and I think it's questionable that you would use this as one of 
the items in the veto override.
  As I have worked through this process, I spent more time than anybody 
else talking to the White House, trying to avoid the situation we are 
in today, where the President has vetoed this bill. I don't know that 
anybody else has spent more time trying to work with the White House. 
The problem has been that they keep changing the objections to the 
bill, and 2 or 3 weeks ago, when we tried to engage the White House to 
be able to work with them in a negotiating fashion to take into 
consideration some of their concerns, their position was that, well, 
they had these demands but they really weren't in a position or willing 
to negotiate with us.
  So we have come to this day where the White House has vetoed this 
bill, which I regret. But we have a good bill that I think all of us 
should be proud of. It maintains a safety net for farmers, by and 
large, in the way it was done in the 2002 bill. We did make some 
changes; reductions in crop insurance and some other areas. We included 
a new disaster program that is paid for, that would be an unusual 
situation because generally the disaster ad hocs that we have done have 
not been paid for. So we think we have made some improvements in area.
  We responded to the concern of people around the country of food 
costs and the way food prices have gone up by taking all of the new 
money, the whole $10 billion of new money that was put into the bill 
over and above the baseline and we have put that into nutrition 
programs. $10.364 billion in this bill was put into nutrition programs. 
That includes modernizing and

[[Page 10279]]

indexing food stamps; $1.25 billion for food shelves and food banks 
that are basically bare right now; and also a new fruit and vegetable 
snack program for folks in low-income schools so that our kids can have 
healthy snacks and have an alternative to some of the things that they 
are now snacking on. We also made some changes, as I said, in the 
commodity area so that we could improve substantially conservation. We 
have added a specialty crop title to this bill, and we have also added 
an energy title to this bill.
  So we have responded to what we heard when we traveled the country 
under the leadership of then-Chairman Goodlatte. We have responded to 
all of the areas. We think we have a bill that is responsible, that is 
paid for without tax increases, that puts the priorities where they 
need to be in this country.
  I would ask my colleagues to follow up on the good vote that we had 
last Wednesday on the bill when it was on the floor and give us the 
majority today to override the President's veto.
  With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, of the 30 minutes yielded to me by the 
gentleman from Minnesota, I would ask unanimous consent to yield 10 
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona so that he may manage that time 
as a part of the debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the farm bill, and the words before 
me say ``the very same farm bill passed by this body last week with an 
overwhelming bipartisan majority.'' Now we find that it is not quite 
the same farm bill because of an enrolling error or something in the 
transmission of the document. I certainly hope that we can find an 
amicable way to make sure that the trade title of this bill, which is 
an important title, is included in the final product, whether as a part 
of a joint resolution or by some other means of adopting that.
  This bill was a collaborative effort, crafted by Members on both 
sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol, and is historic in 
the amount and degree of reform. It costs less than either the House or 
the Senate bills and ensures Americans will continue to enjoy access to 
a safe, affordable, and reliable food supply.
  Last week, the 318 bipartisan votes in favor of the farm bill sent a 
clear message: This is a good bill and there is significant support for 
it. Despite what has been opined by editorial boards throughout the 
country, this bill contains significant reforms and is the most reform-
minded farm bill this body has ever considered. Granted, everyone 
didn't get exactly what they wanted. We all gave a little and we all 
got a little. But such is the nature of compromise. Given the diverse 
nature of a farm bill, it is extremely difficult to manage the scope of 
needs within the farm bill, and even more difficult when you're not 
given the resources needed to do so.
  This bill contains many of the ideas suggested in the 
administration's farm bill proposal. Like the administration, we 
utilized the adjusted gross income to reduce payments to the wealthiest 
farmers and ranchers. We eliminated the three-entity rule, created a 
revenue-base countercyclical program, modified and modernized the dairy 
program, modified planting flexibility rules, increased the efficiency 
of the crop insurance program, directed funding to the development of 
cellulosic ethanol, included programs for beginning and socially 
disadvantaged farmers, and created beneficial interest for the loan 
programs.
  Variations of these measures were included in the administration's 
proposal. We may not have gone as far as the administration wanted, but 
these reforms help make this a better bill than the House or Senate 
farm bills.
  It is important to point out that despite comments to the contrary, 
this bill is completely paid for, without any tax increases. While many 
throughout the world are feeling the effects of increased food prices, 
U.S. consumers have been largely insulated from spikes in food prices 
because many years ago we established a food production system that 
maintains an adequate supply in good times and in bad. Because it is 
produced domestically, we know it to be safe and affordable.
  This bill ensures that Americans will continue to enjoy the access to 
a safe, affordable, and reliable food supply, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting this farm bill, which moved substantially in 
the direction that the President asked for, but which did not meet all 
of his goals. I think we have increased the support for this bill 
substantially by almost 90 Members in the process, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this override vote.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we do need a farm bill. It's planting season throughout 
the country. The farm economy is crucial in regards to the health and 
well-being of our Nation. It's an integral part of the economic well-
being of my home State in Wisconsin. But I always believed that we 
should have the right type of farm bill, not the wrong type of farm 
bill before us today.
  Merely because the President is not the most popular person in the 
country today doesn't mean that he is always wrong. I think he is right 
when he is sending back a veto message telling the Congress today: We 
can do better. We should do better. We ought not be giving large 
taxpayer subsidies to wealthy individuals at a time of record commodity 
prices.
  The modicum of reform that is being hailed under the commodity title 
is barely the illusion of reform. In fact, if you look at the three 
main subsidy programs that still exist and still continue on this farm 
bill, the loan deficiency program, the countercyclical, and the direct 
payment all of them are going up, in practice. They are increasing the 
loan rates under the LDP program, increasing the target price under the 
countercyclical, they are expanding the maximum amount allotted under 
the direct payments from $40,000 to $45,000.
  While the gentleman from Virginia is correct that there is a little 
tightening of the adjusted gross payment limit to farm entities, it 
doesn't come anywhere close to the type of reform that is eminently 
justifiable in light of farm income and debt to asset ratio.
  By the time you allow two entities on the same farm to qualify for 
these same direct payments, you can have a farm entity with an adjusted 
gross income of up to $2.5 million still receiving taxpayer subsidies. 
What does this mean in regards to production agriculture? It means that 
based on last year's schedule F tax returns that farmers file to report 
their income, these so-called reforms under the commodity title might 
affect two-tenths of 1 percent of producers around the country today. 
Hardly the type of reform that we should be talking about. Hardly the 
justification that we can take home and tell the taxpayers that we are 
doing right by them.
  I believed from the beginning that we can still have a farm bill that 
maintains an important safety net for family farmers throughout the 
country in case the bottom drops out, in case they run into hard times. 
And we know how cyclical farm economy is. We can find savings under 
those subsidy programs through the reforms that are justifiable to have 
a strong conservation title coming out of this, strong nutrition title, 
research and marketing for specialty crops, and having a strong rural 
economic development program, not to mention the energy title that was 
alluded to.
  In talking to one of my colleagues earlier this afternoon, he says he 
is reminded by an old Clint Eastwood film: The Good, the Bad, and the 
Ugly. There's plenty of good that you can point to in this farm bill. 
Certainly the increase in nutrition is justifiable in light of rising 
costs and eligibility and to combat hunger that is rising throughout 
the country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has 
expired.
  Mr. KIND. I yield myself 1 additional minute.

[[Page 10280]]

  The bad is the fact that last year when we passed the farm bill out, 
they were talking about an increase of $5.7 billion of funding under 
the conservation title. Today, coming back, it's less than a $4 billion 
increase.
  Why is this important? It's important because the increase of 
commodity prices, there's great pressure on sensitive lands to bring 
them back into production, and that means it's going to affect wildlife 
habitat, highly erodible land with sediment and nutrient flows flowing 
off and contaminating our water and drinking supply. We are seeing 
already that CRP enrollment is dropping because farmers are choosing to 
take that out of CRP and putting it back into production. Instead of 
recognizing market forces and having the strongest possible 
conservation title, that was one area where they went for further 
savings in order to protect these large subsidies.
  Finally, the Washington Post reported in an article today, Farm Bill 
Subsidy Costs May Rise. Billions More Could Be Paid Through Little-
Notice Provisions. This is that new revenue-based countercyclical 
program the gentleman from Virginia just alluded to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has 
again expired.
  Mr. KIND. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  This is based on a 2-year rolling average of commodity prices rather 
than 5 years that the administration was proposing. But even 2 years 
ago, commodity prices were at or near record lows. What this means is 
that it will take very little for the prices to drop today for this 
program to get triggered and for tens of billions of dollars to be 
flowing out in further subsidy programs because of the way this is 
structured, and that is wrong. And we should be more honest, not only 
with the Members of this Congress of how it's going to work, but with 
the American taxpayer.
  One farm economist called this new ACRE program, and I quote, 
``lucrative beyond expectations.'' That is what has been created. So 
instead of reform, we are heading in the opposite direction.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hensarling).

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
report, but I certainly want to thank our ranking member for taking a 
product and making it better.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago the front page of USA Today talks about 
taxpayers' bill leaps by billions, long-term financial obligations of 
the Federal Government grew by $2.5 trillion last year, unfunded 
obligations that will be placed on our children and grandchildren.
  Today we have a conference report for a farm bill that is going to 
cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $700 billion. Now, I have heard 
it said, well, this bill is paid for. Yes, it is paid for. It is paid 
for by the auto mechanics in Garland, Texas. It is paid for by the guy 
that sweeps out the grocery store in Mineola. It is paid for by the guy 
who works at the counter at the hardware store in Canton, Texas, that I 
have the privilege of representing.
  We have a farm program that in many ways is at odds with the poster 
child that is represented. Two-thirds of this bill isn't about 
agriculture. It is about nutritional programs, welfare programs, food 
stamps. And of the money that is going to agricultural production, two-
thirds of agricultural production is not getting anything. And yet some 
of this money is going, as we know, to millionaires, at a time when 
middle-income family paychecks are shrinking.
  Now, I must admit, Mr. Speaker, this is a debate that is somewhat 
personal to me. I grew up working on a family farm. I come from three 
generations of farmers. No one sought a subsidy from their neighbor. No 
one gave a subsidy. You can make a living in agriculture without asking 
your neighbor to give you a check.
  We do need a farm bill, but what needs to be in a farm bill is tax 
relief, to prevent taxes from being increased. We need an end to the 
death tax. We need to increase trade opportunities. We could be 
exporting good Texas beef right now to Colombia.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas has 
expired.
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. HENSARLING. We do need a farm bill, but not a farm bill that 
forces our neighbors to subsidize this program. Ninety-six percent of 
the world lives outside of America, and already we had the Democrat 
majority deny a trade agreement that could have opened up great trading 
opportunities for agriculture in America.
  We need a respect for private property rights. We need regulatory 
relief. When we have an EPA out of control trying to somehow deign 
animal manure as part of the Superfund hazardous waste site, you know 
that something is out of control.
  So our agricultural producers need help. But this is the wrong way to 
do it. Again, at a time of shrinking paychecks, at a time when $2.5 
trillion of burden have been added to our children and grandchildren, 
why are we keeping alive a relic of the New Deal, not to mention at a 
time of the highest food inflation in almost two decades. And why we 
would take money away from some people to hand to millionaires is 
beyond me.
  We ought to defeat this conference report.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished vice chairman of our committee and also the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research, Mr. 
Holden from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. HOLDEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the farm bill and I rise to 
congratulate and commend the chairman and ranking member of the 
committee, and really all the members of the committee and the staff.
  I think this is a shining example of how this House should work its 
will. This bill is bipartisan. This bill has been worked together by 
both sides of the aisle as we traveled around the country and listened 
to what producers had to say and people concerned about conservation 
and every title of this bill as we put this together.
  This bill reflects the diversity that we have in agriculture all 
across this country. No one can say they got 100 percent of everything 
they wanted in this bill, but every region of the country has benefited 
from this legislation.
  As was spoken about previously in the commodity title, there has been 
significant reform in the commodity title. Could we have gone further? 
Maybe we could have, but we would have lost votes in other regions of 
the country. In the conservation title, there is an additional $4 
billion in investment in conservation that will be beneficial all 
across the country.
  In my short time here, Mr. Speaker, the one point I would like to 
make is that throughout this whole day we have been hearing an awful 
lot of people talking about the need for the Congress to do more for 
energy independence. This bill reflects that with the energy title.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), a subcommittee ranking 
member.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia for 
not only the time, but for his leadership, as well as the chairman, Mr. 
Peterson, on this important farm bill.
  I heard some of my colleagues say this is not a good farm bill. But, 
do you know what? Seventy-five percent of our colleagues here in the 
House thought this was a good farm bill. Eighty-five percent of the 
Members in the Senate thought this was a good farm bill. And do you 
know why they thought it was a good farm bill? It is because they 
understand how important American agriculture is to our country.
  One of the things that we were listening to today, oil prices again 
set another record price today. Why? Because there is not enough oil to 
meet the demand for our country. There is a mentality going around here 
that maybe if

[[Page 10281]]

we just don't produce things, things will just show up. But if we are 
going to eat feed and clothe America, we have to produce something. If 
you are going to get something, you have to produce something.
  So what this farm bill does is it allows American agriculture to 
continue to do what it has been doing for hundreds of years, and that 
is produce the highest quality, the most affordable food and fiber in 
the world. It is the reason today demand for a lot of American 
agricultural products are at an all-time high. With the cheap dollar, 
you can buy the best for a lot less.
  What is important here is that we have a future for American 
agriculture, because we don't want to be in the same shape we are 
today. We had to wake up today and figure out who is going to supply 
energy for America. The American people don't want us to have to wake 
up tomorrow and say who will feed us, who will clothe us, because we 
have let American agriculture die in America.
  So this bill, the reason I support it and why I encourage my 
colleagues to override this presidential veto, is because it is a good 
bill. Yes, it is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. A lot of 
bipartisan work and bicameral work was done to bring this product to 
the floor, and that is the reason it is important now that we do what 
American agriculture has been waiting several months for us to do, is 
finally put in place permanent policy for American agriculture. I 
encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, if this represents reform, I would hate to see what the 
Ag Committee calls a boondoggle. We have here not just a continuation 
of all the programs we had before, some even at higher levels; we have 
a new program.
  As the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned, there was an article in 
the Washington Post today detailing the ACRE program. The ACRE program 
is a new program where subsidies will kick in at far higher levels than 
they ever have before. In fact, just take corn, for example. If corn 
hits $3.50 a bushel, where it was just a year or two ago, at historic 
highs for the time, if we hit that again, that will trigger subsidies 
totaling about $10 billion a year, in addition to everything we are 
doing today.
  That is not reform. That is far away from reform, and how somebody 
can stand up today and with a straight face say this is reform, I just 
don't know.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time 
on behalf of Mr. Peterson.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Boswell), the chairman of the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the stand-in 
chairman for the moment. Mr. Goodlatte, thank you again for your hard 
work, and everybody else who participate in this process. I thank my 
ranking member helping on the Livestock Committee. Robin, I appreciate 
your work as well.
  We do have a new livestock title. It is the first time ever. It 
offers producers much-needed protection and ensures fairness and 
transparency within the marketplace. And as I look at the support we 
gave when we passed the bill, the 318 here, 81 in the other body, and 
then the 1,000 organizations that have sent letters supporting us to do 
this override, why, it seems to me like there is a lot of need to get 
this done.
  So, in short, I think we have got the best we can do under the 
circumstances. It is bipartisan. I appreciate the efforts, and I 
recommend the override.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to 
the gentleman from Arizona about the ACRE program. This is a program 
that was requested by the administration. It was modified by the House 
and modified by the Senate. Now we hear the administration doesn't like 
the way it is projected to work, but, quite frankly, it scores by the 
Congressional Budget Office as saving the taxpayers of our country $400 
million.
  Why? Because the fact of the matter is it is not expected to have a 
very high enrollment, and in order to have what the gentleman describe 
take place, we would have to have a dramatic drop in corn prices. But 
the administration just signed into law in December a bill that 
mandates ever-increasing costs of amounts of production for ethanol, 
and the fact of the matter is we are not going to see those conditions. 
It is a theoretical possibility, a practical unlikely condition.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, for more than 3 years I have worked with 
Southwest Louisiana farmers to deliver a sound and responsible farm 
bill, and I am glad to report that our hard work has finally paid off 
with a bipartisan bill.
  This important piece of legislation is a victory for farmers in rural 
communities throughout Louisiana and around the country, but the 
President failed to see it this way. And I understand his arguments. 
This is not a perfect bill, but it does make important reforms with a 
hard cap on farm and nutrition programs.
  The hard work of farmers and ranchers across our region maintains 
America's food security. Ensuring that we have access to safe quality 
food is critical, and American farmers lead the way. This farm bill 
supports American farmers going through tough times, while not 
burdening them during good times. This farm bill supports the 
agriculture community and ensures its competitiveness in the years to 
come.
  This has been a long process, but in the end we were able to come 
together and support a bipartisan, responsible farm bill. I am proud of 
the work we accomplished on this farm bill, and I am grateful to all of 
those in Southwest Louisiana who helped me with it.
  I urge my colleagues to override the veto and vote for American 
farmers.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, for 1 
minute.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Chairman Peterson and 
Ranking Member Goodlatte for their hard work. They worked together in a 
bipartisan manner. I rise today in support of the veto override of H.R. 
2419.
  Last week, this legislation was passed on a bipartisan vote in this 
House and by an overwhelming vote in the other body, and I am saddened 
that this President, a man who represents himself as a friend of 
agriculture, would choose to turn his back on our Nation's farmers and 
rural America by vetoing one of the most important pieces of 
agricultural legislation that this Congress has passed this year.
  Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we have a stable farm policy in this 
Nation, not just for farmers, but for every child that participates in 
a nutrition program, for every food bank, for every school lunch 
program. This legislation affects every citizen in this country.
  This is a bill that we can be proud of, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote to override this veto. It is a vote for America.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the gentleman from Virginia 
responding to my statement about the ACRE program and the potential for 
taxpayer liability here.
  The reason that the CBO scored it as a net savings is because of what 
is called baseline shopping. It was done with this bill, where we 
actually reached back and chose to base the bill on a baseline, a prior 
year baseline, when corn prices, when wheat prices, when soybean prices 
weren't as high. Had we used this year's baseline or this year's 
projections, then we would see that next year, for example, when this 
kicks in, that you could have corn at $4.25 a bushel still receiving 
subsidies. Now, keep in mind $4.25 is higher than corn has ever been, 
until this year.

[[Page 10282]]



                              {time}  1700

  And so dropping back to just what it was before this year will 
trigger subsidies that would not have been triggered before. That is 
not reform. That is not reform at all. That is soaking the taxpayers. 
That is farming the taxpayers rather than the land.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I thank the gentleman. I applaud your hard work on 
this farm bill and Chairman Peterson's.
  Every day we are reminded of our problems that we are facing because 
we rely on foreign nations for our energy supply. I believe that 
Americans ought to think about what happened with the pet food issue 
and realize that we need a safe and reliable food supply.
  As we worked on this farm bill, we had demands from the Speaker of 
the House, we had demands from the White House. Serving in the minority 
there was the tension between my party and the other party in the 
Senate and the House. We had a great deal of difficulties to overcome. 
But I am proud today to say that I stand in support of this farm bill 
and urge my colleagues to join me in overriding this veto.
  This farm bill increases funding to food banks that are seeing more 
and more people come in, needy people. It increases that funding by 
$1.2 billion. The farm bill increases dollars for conservation programs 
that are so important in this Nation. The farm bill increases 
investment in alternative energy research. Americans want to lessen our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  When we are concerned at this time in our Nation about childhood 
obesity and diabetes, this farm bill increases dollars for nutrition 
programs for school children around the Nation. And, most importantly, 
it provides a safety net for rural America.
  As we look at what Americans spend on their food supply, 10 percent 
of their disposable income, we are truly blessed in this world to have 
this safe, abundant food supply, and we want this to continue. Despite 
what has been said on this House floor today, this farm bill contains 
real reform, and we are moving in the right direction with that.
  So, again, I urge my colleagues to join me as we override this 
President's veto.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a strong advocate of 
reform and conservation in this farm bill, the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate 
his leadership. It is a pleasure to be here with my friend from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) as we are going back to review some of what we said was 
going to happen when we were here a week ago. Remember, we talked about 
what would happen: As the light of day shone on this bill, there would 
be more things that would come up that would give pause.
  Now I have had my differences with President Bush from time to time, 
but he did the right thing by putting the spotlight on this bill by 
vetoing it. As has been pointed out by my colleagues, we found out just 
in the course of the last couple of days something that wasn't clearly 
explained on the floor, how as the high commodity prices declined to 
more typical levels, we could end up paying an additional $16 billion 
of subsidy.
  This bill simply is a missed opportunity for real reform. It is not 
turning your back on America's farmers and ranchers to suggest, as some 
of us have and the President argues, that you are limited to $200,000 a 
year of income before subsidies kick in. At a time of record commodity 
food prices, farm couples earning up to $1.5 million a year with an 
additional up to $1 million outside income simply don't need to receive 
government subsidy. Meanwhile, the majority of farmers who don't grow 
the commodity crops are going to continue to get little or no money.
  It hurts a State like mine, the State of Oregon, where we are proud 
of what our ranchers and farmers do. But the majority of them get 
nothing under the existing farm bill and they will continue to get 
nothing under this proposal.
  It troubles me that we are creating a new permanent disaster program, 
an additional layer of subsidy, which doesn't make sense. If a region 
is representing repeat disaster year after year after year, it is not 
really a disaster. It is growing the wrong things using the wrong 
techniques in the wrong places. We shouldn't turn it into an 
entitlement.
  This bill is a missed opportunity for conservation. The National 
Wildlife Federation has called the farm bill a disaster for wildlife 
that ``fans the flames of global warming.'' The funding for 
conservation is not nearly enough to meet the needs. They are not met 
today. The majority will not be met under this bill. And, sadly, it 
makes cuts to important programs like the conservation reserve program, 
the wetland reserve program. I am disappointed that it also guts the 
sod saver program that protects important prairie and grassland 
habitat.
  I mentioned last time that I was on the floor that this bill 
nullifies a Federal appeals court decision under the Freedom of 
Information Act that ordered USDA to make public data that is critical 
to monitoring the economic and environmental impacts of these 
subsidies.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Oregon has 
expired.
  Mr. KIND. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Nobody talked about this on the floor, drawing the 
veil over this information. It was inserted without public hearings, 
without debate, and will have serious oversight ramifications on how we 
manage these programs. Nineteen congressional districts in the country 
will get about half the money. They make out grandly. But States with 
strong agricultural communities will continue to be shortchanged.
  Congress could have done a better job for the environment, could have 
concentrated the help on the majority of farmers who are shortchanged 
to help them and their communities. Small- and medium-sized farmers 
will continue to be squeezed away. If we pass this bill, do not sustain 
the veto, we will continue to have large operations squeezing out small 
and medium-sized operations. If we can't muster reform with these 
record high prices, we probably never will. The President was right to 
veto it. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support him and go back and do it right.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished chairman of the Department Operations, 
Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee, who did such an 
outstanding job in putting the much needed nutrition title together, 
Mr. Baca from California.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong opinion in support 
of this farm bill, and urge my colleagues to override the President's 
veto.
  Simply put, this farm bill strengthens our nutrition, conservation, 
energy independence, and specialty crops like no other farm bill has 
ever done before, and it is done in a bipartisan fashion.
  People asked us to come here in Washington, D.C. and vote on a 
bipartisan, not to vote on a partisan. We have come together on a 
bipartisan.
  This currently will feed 38 million Americans who do not have enough 
to eat. We are in an economic recession. People have lost their jobs. 
People have lost their homes because of foreclosures. Gas prices are 
going up. This farm bill will put food on the table for over 13 million 
American families. We have raised the food stamp benefit index to keep 
up with the lost of living. These changes will help an additional 10 
million Americans, including poor working families, the elderly, the 
disabled, and the veterans.
  We expanded the USDA snack programs under the fresh fruits and 
vegetables. We will leave no child behind. This will feed them.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and override the President. 
This is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill.

[[Page 10283]]


  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. I thank the gentleman.
  Earlier someone indicated that we had thousands of supporters, 
thousands of groups supporting this bill. Who couldn't get thousands of 
groups to support a bill by paying them $300 billion in subsidies?
  We are poised here to pass a record-breaking, multibillion-dollar, 
Soviet-style central planning farm bill that takes tax dollars away 
from the general public and doles them out to a few people in the 
agricultural industry, some of them millionaires, at a time when crop 
prices are breaking records.
  What benefit do the American taxpayers get from this bill? They get 
higher taxes for the privilege of paying artificially higher food 
prices. What a deal.
  Mr. Speaker, when oil prices hit record highs, the Democrat 
leadership and some Republicans called for the imposition of a windfall 
profits tax on greedy evil oil producers. But when crop prices 
skyrocket, the same leadership comes to the floor of this House to hand 
out billions of dollars in subsidies to big agricultural businesses and 
wealthy hobby farmers.
  America, what a country. Washington, what a disaster.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the 
Horticulture and Organic Agriculture Subcommittee who brought us the 
first specialty crop title to the farm bill, Mr. Cardoza of California.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, I thank him for his 
leadership and for allowing us to write this bill the way we did, 
including specialty crops. And I rise in strong support of overriding 
the misguided Presidential veto on the Farm, Conservation and Energy 
Act.
  It is extremely unfortunate that we must go through this exercise on 
legislation that is so critically important to both rural and urban 
America alike. The bipartisan conference report on the 2008 farm bill 
represents the blood, sweat, and tears of many members on this floor 
and of the other body of the agriculture committees and including 
myself. We have made significant reforms, preserved the safety net for 
American farmers, and dramatically increased domestic nutrition 
assistance. And for the first time in history we have given specialty 
crops a seat at the table. We did all of this, and we complied with the 
PAYGO rules of this House.
  It is not a perfect bill. There are some who would have preferred 
more conservation spending or more reforms. However, the 2008 farm bill 
is the product of hard work and compromise, and should not be 
discounted simply because we could not meet the unrealistic, 
impractical, and unworkable benchmarks set by the administration.
  I take particularly strong exception to the President's repeated 
insistence in the farm bill that it must be vetoed in the name of 
international trade agreements. Meeting our global trade obligations 
should never trump critical domestic priorities. Our farmers have the 
capacity for immeasurable innovation and success, and they deserve our 
commitment and our support, and it is done in this farm bill.
  The President has let down American agriculture today, and that is 
just a shame. But I am confident that, together with the Senate, we can 
override this veto today and make good on our promise to protect 
American farmers and ranchers. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
override this veto.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 8\1/2\ 
minutes; the gentleman from Virginia has 11\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman 
from Wisconsin has 1\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from Arizona has 4 
minutes.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kuhl).
  Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding 
the President's veto of the farm bill.
  When I was elected to Congress, I joined the Agriculture Committee 
because of my district's rich and deep tradition in farming. And as a 
member of this committee, I am committed to serving not only the needs 
of my district, but also to preserving our Nation's agricultural 
vitality. As such, I am extremely disappointed by the President's veto.
  I am very pleased, however, by what our committee has been able to do 
in writing this farm bill. This farm bill fairly and accurately 
represents the interests of all our farmers and various agricultural 
industries across the country and was fashioned in a bipartisan manner. 
Particularly the dairy and specialty crops and conservation programs 
will be extremely beneficial to New York farmers. But, more 
importantly, this legislation contains reform.
  For the first time in history there will be a hard cap on the 
adjusted gross income standard to prevent the wealthiest from receiving 
payments. As such, this farm bill has broad support from a variety of 
agricultural, nutrition, conservation, and consumer entities. This farm 
bill is an opportunity to make American farm policy truly 
comprehensive, competitive and cohesive, and I urge my colleagues in 
Congress to override this veto.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize 
an outstanding member of our conference committee, also a member of the 
Ag Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentleman, Mr. 
Speaker, this bill requires our urgent action to override the 
President's veto. The American people are concerned about many, many 
things, but they are most concerned about the high cost of food and the 
high cost of gasoline. And as soon as this bill is made into law, we 
will deal with these two issues right away.
  The first thing that this bill does to address the high cost of food 
and the high cost of gasoline is that we immediately look at the corn-
based ethanol, and we reduce the tax credits on corn-based ethanol and 
we increase the tax credits on ethanol made from cellulosic materials, 
which are switch grass and pine straw.
  The other reason why we need to make sure we override this veto is 
simply because, Mr. Speaker, this bill will reach out and bring in 
individual segments of our population that were left out. The African 
American farmers are entitled to their due, and this bill will require 
that African American farmers who in the past have been discriminated 
against will have this, and it provides millions of dollars for 
traditionally African American schools. That is why it is important 
that we override the veto of this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to 
join me in voting to override the President's veto of the farm bill. 
It's a widely held axiom that good agriculture policy is good Federal 
policy. This farm bill is a fulfillment of that statement.
  This legislation will continue a safety net for America's producers 
and consumers, while providing a proper return on investment to the 
American taxpayer. The food and fiber commodity market is an extremely 
unpredictable place in which our producers have no ability to set their 
prices for their products.
  Furthermore, farmers and ranchers in all areas of the world are 
forced to deal with uncontrollable production risks that could at any 
time wipe out an entire year's income at a moment's notice. These are 
fundamentals that will never change, and I firmly believe that we'll 
always have a need for policies and mechanisms to address these issues.
  This long overdue and extremely important piece of legislation, once 
law, will return a sense of certainty to farmers and ranchers of rural 
America.
  The farm bill has an important impact on every single American, and I

[[Page 10284]]

strongly support this bipartisan act, and urge my colleagues to 
override the President's veto.
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I hate to have to come to the 
floor today to talk about how bad this bill is, but it's impossible not 
to do that.
  This bill gives millions of dollars, billions of dollars in farm 
subsidies to millionaires. This bill takes all budget discipline in 
this Chamber and throws it out the window. It sweeps PAYGO under the 
rug.
  Ninety-seven percent of the world's consumers don't live in this 
country. They're overseas. And the way we help farmers is to open up 
markets to their products overseas. This bill shuts that down. This 
bill makes it next to impossible for us to be able to open up markets 
for our farmers.
  A farm bill ought to help the family farmer in tough times. This 
doesn't do that. This is corporate welfare. This is subsidies for 
multi-millionaires. In fact, you can still live on Wall Street, make 
half a million dollars and get farm subsidies under this bill.
  This bill is not going to help agriculture. This bill is going to 
help corporate agriculture, not family farmers.
  I believe that we should sustain the President's veto. And this is 
not always good to say it's bipartisan. And I hope, on a bipartisan 
basis, we support this veto and pass a farm bill that actually helps 
the family farmer and takes away these exorbitant subsidies to multi-
millionaire corporate farming operations.
  We ought to protect conservation. We ought to help the Third World 
raise themselves out of poverty, and we ought to open up markets for 
our farmers so they have more people to sell their products to. That's 
what a farm bill ought to look like. That's not what this farm bill 
does.
  I urge a sustain of the veto.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) 
who is a member of both the Ways and Means Committee and Agriculture 
Committee, and did an outstanding job in helping us put this bill 
together.
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the chairman. The rhetoric is a little overblown 
against this bill, as it was the first time it was before us, as it was 
when we passed it on final passage.
  The fact is, this bill spends billions less than the last farm bill. 
This bill increases the baseline on conservation, and this bill is the 
result of some of the best bipartisan activity I've seen in this place 
to develop and produce a fine product. It responds to the needs of 
consumers having a hard time buying their groceries with increased 
nutrition support. It responds to the struggles of family farmers 
meeting the incredibly high cost of getting their crop in with better 
risk protection, and it does so in a collaborative measure.
  As my friend, Bob Goodlatte, said last week, this isn't Republicans 
voting for a Democrat farm bill, this is the parties coming together to 
build a strong collaborative product.
  I urge us to override the President's veto of this very important 
bill for rural America.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a ranking member on the 
Agriculture Subcommittee, Mr. Lucas.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote to 
override the President's veto. As I told you a few days ago, not 
everything in this bill do I love. But the fact of the matter is, I 
love rural America. And production agriculture and those small towns 
and all those good people who live out there who work the land and 
raise the stock, provide the food and fiber that feeds and clothes us 
all. And they know that we need a comprehensive farm bill. They know 
how important it is that we provide the resources to meet the needs of 
this country.
  Now, 75 percent of this bill goes to the food stamp program, the 
feeding programs. They understand that in rural America. They want to 
make sure all of our fellow citizens have enough to eat.
  But they also know that they fight the weather, they're paying more 
for diesel and fertilizer and inputs than they ever have or they may 
ever again. But they want to raise those crops, and they want a 
comprehensive farm bill that provides a reasonable amount of safety net 
to allow them to work with their bankers and financiers.
  Vote to override the veto for the future of rural America.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 
minute to one of our new outstanding freshmen on the Agriculture 
Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney) who represents a 
very big agriculture district and has done outstanding work for us.
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I've read the President's reasons for vetoing this farm 
bill, and it's clear that even though he owns a ranch, he's not a 
rancher. It's clear he doesn't understand that to have national 
security, America needs food security. It's clear that while the White 
House whines about crop subsidies, that his administration's failed 
economic policies have resulted in $4 per gallon diesel and 
skyrocketing fertilizer costs that are driving farmers in Florida out 
of business.
  Although not perfect, this farm bill, for the first time, gives 
Florida agriculture some of the monies we need to help market and 
protect our crops. It ensures that our Nation's hungry children and 
seniors get Florida's fresh fruit and vegetables. It invests in 
conservation that will speed up our efforts to save the Everglades.
  Finally, this farm bill, in combination with the energy bill, 
provides rural Florida a new beginning by breaking the corn ethanol 
monopoly, and ensuring that Florida, the biggest biomass producing 
State in the Nation, takes its rightful place as a leader in renewable 
energy production.
  I call on my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to vote to override 
the President's veto.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a member of 
the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the 
average U.S. farmer provides enough food and fiber for 143 persons, 
both here in the United States and internationally. This new farm bill 
continues agricultural policies which have allowed America's farmers to 
help feed the world.
  I believe that the farm bill promotes agricultural stability and 
diversification, agriculture-based renewable energy production, and 
good conservation and land stewardship practices. As with any 
complicated piece of legislation, there are trade-offs and concerns. 
For instance, payment limitation reform progressed, but did not go far 
enough in my view. Even though I'm going to vote to override the 
President's veto, I do commend the administration for its considerable 
efforts to highlight the need for reform, particularly in the area of 
payment limitations.
  I'm also pleased that the farm bill conference report includes three 
of my initiatives. First, a new rural energy self-sufficiency 
initiative that would provide grants to rural communities seeking to 
become energy self-sufficient through the use of renewable sources such 
as wind and solar and biofuels and biomass.
  Additionally, there is a new provision allowing school systems and 
other governmental institutions to purchase local foods from local 
farmers, promoting agricultural sustainability and diversification.
  And there is a change to the value-added producer grants program that 
would help target assistance to farmers with small or mid-sized farms 
who develop new uses and creative marketing strategies for their 
product.
  Mr. Speaker, the development of this important legislation has taken 
several years. This ground has been plowed long enough. I believe this 
bill deserves merit. I wish to thank our ranking member, Chairman 
Goodlatte, for his

[[Page 10285]]

support of this bill and Chairman Peterson as well for his considerable 
efforts.
  Mr. FLAKE. I just want to address some of the comments that have been 
made. It's been said several times that this bill is good because it's 
a bipartisan bill. If this is the standard by which we judge 
legislation, then we're doing pretty poorly in this House.
  If anybody remembers, just a couple of years ago, the infamous bill 
that brought us the Bridge to Nowhere. Do you want to know how 
bipartisan that bill was? I believe it was 412 votes for, 8 votes 
against. If that isn't bipartisan, what is?
  Yet who would want that vote back if they could? 6,300 earmarks, with 
a lot of bad ones, including the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. And yet we 
laud legislation simply because it's bipartisan.
  I would love to see a lot more partisanship in this House when it 
comes to fiscal discipline. I wish that my party, the Republican Party, 
would stand up and say, anybody who believes in limited government 
cannot support a bill like this, a $300 billion bill that is bipartisan 
because so many groups are now involved.
  You do a specialty crop title; you add another subsidy program called 
ACRE, you get biomass in it, you get cellulosic ethanol, you add 
another nutrition program, and pretty soon you have so many people in 
it that they don't dare vote against it, and it just gets bigger and 
bigger and bigger, and pretty soon you have a $300 billion bill that 
you can only pay for by shopping for a baseline other than this year's 
baseline, and waive PAYGO requirements. That's why this is a bipartisan 
bill.
  I would hope, in a week where a major news organization published, 
and I hope it set off some alarm bells here, that not only do we have 
about 9 or $10 trillion in debt, but when you add in the unfunded 
liabilities, it adds up to about a half a million dollars per person in 
this country, the amount of debt and unfunded obligation that we're on 
the hook for.
  If we cannot, in this legislation, tell a farm entity, a farm couple 
that earns as much as $2.5 million that they can no longer collect farm 
subsidies, how in the world are you going to tell a grandmother, you're 
going to have to postpone your retirement for a couple of years because 
we can't afford your Social Security payment?
  How in the world are you going to tell somebody, you know, you're 
going to have to have a higher copay on Medicare for prescription drugs 
because we have a big farm bill like this?
  We need to be more responsible, and I would urge us to sustain the 
President's veto.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 6\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Minnesota has 5\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman 
from Wisconsin has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished Member from Missouri, a real advocate for 
agriculture, Mr. Hulshof.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, the President has, for the second time, 
vetoed a bill that would help Midwestern farmers. Once again, I rise to 
vote for Missouri's family farmers and to override President's veto.
  I think it's interesting that for over a year, opponents have said 
prices are high, farmers don't need a safety net, as if we can predict 
with certainty the market price of commodities 5 years down the road.
  Today those opponents claim prices may drop, causing the safety net 
to be too expensive. Well, with all respect, which is it?
  Sixteen percent of this bill provides a responsible safety net for 
farmers when the market turns south. And let's make no mistake. Farmers 
don't want to farm for a government check. Farmers want to farm for the 
market.
  And what is the cost to the American taxpayer? Six cents a day. In my 
mind, six cents a day is not too much to pay to ensure that we continue 
to have the safest, most abundant food supply at the lowest cost.
  Now, we have seen what happens when we offshore or energy production. 
What will happen when we offshore our food production? Thank the Lord 
above, literally, thank the Lord above that we can put three square 
meals a day on our tables from the bounty of our country's own farmers.
  This bill is not perfect. It doesn't contain all the reforms that the 
other side would want. But under their plan, which failed 117-309, most 
of the farms and ranches would not be able to survive the erosion in 
farm income. That's according to the Agriculture and Food Policy Center 
at Texas A&M.
  Some people just can't take yes for an answer. 1,054 organizations, 
from MoveOn.Org to the USA Rice Federation, support this bill.
  I know it's tough to do, but I urge my colleagues to vote to override 
the President's veto and provide this safety net. And I appreciate the 
gentleman for the time.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to a good friend of the Agricultual Committee, Ms. Jackson-Lee 
of Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished 
chairman. Let me rise to indicate the broad opposition to the veto of 
the President on this agricultural bill, and I'm going to try to rush 
through some very vital issues that are of concern to many of us.
  I just came back from Haiti and recognized the crisis that our very 
good friend and neighbor, the poorest country in the western 
hemisphere. The good news is that President Preval, who asked us to 
create an opportunity for jobs in a country that is hungry and lacks 
jobs, the Haiti trade provisions were in the bill, but unfortunately 
vetoed which causes us an urgent necessity to override this veto. The 
Caribbean Basin Initiative extension is a vital part.
  But yet I look forward to us fixing the parts that included the trade 
title that left out the food aid, very important; McGovern-Dole, which 
is food for education; giving girls the incentives to come to school. 
And then the market access problems that are crucial.
  We know there are 850 million hungry people in the world; 300 million 
of them are children; 40 percent of those in Haiti eat one meal a day. 
We are in a crisis.
  This is a crucial legislative initiative.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I would yield the gentlewoman 
1 additional minute.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. So what we are talking about here, I think 
there is something important to bipartisanship. Mr. Chairman and 
Ranking Member, thank you for this. I've lived around the edges of the 
agriculture bill ever since I came here from Texas. We know about 
specialty crops. We know about ranches and farms. I think you did a 
great job for these fruits and vegetable farmers because you give them 
an incentive to get to market.
  And thank you for what you've done for the black farmers, especially 
on Pigford, where you allowed those late filers--I've always heard from 
them throughout the work on the Judiciary Committee to get back in the 
court by being able to file again. We are delighted that you also give 
them a greater access; you allow them to have transparency and 
accountability in the USDA, and I'm glad that what we do is try to 
preserve the black farmers.
  This is an important bill. Let's fix the trade part of it, but let's 
join together and override a bill that promotes energy and food and 
understands you can't have a food fight when people are starving.
  I urge our colleagues to vote to override the veto.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said here today about the bipartisan 
nature of this legislation, but when it passed the House last week, a 
majority on both sides of the aisle voted for this farm bill, and 
three-quarters of all of the Members here did so. But we did so because 
there are provisions in this bill

[[Page 10286]]

that are of interest to each side of the aisle, and sometimes there are 
very clear partisan differences.
  But nonetheless, the Republican side of the aisle received a number 
of concessions in the final negotiations of this bill: a provision that 
would have prohibited all 50 State food stamp programs to be able to 
reach out to technology companies and others to modernize and improve 
their food stamp program, something they have done many times in the 
recent past. A prohibition on that was removed from the bill. A 
provision in the bill that would have rolled back the Welfare Reform 
Act of 1996 and provided increased food stamps for able-bodied adults 
without dependent children was removed from the bill. Provisions 
related to the Davis-Bacon legislation that many Members on my side of 
the aisle, including myself, were concerned about were removed from the 
bill.
  So this is a bipartisan bill because it was compromise and give-and-
take on both sides of the aisle.
  I have also heard Members complain that this bill is not fiscally 
responsible. It's less than the last farm bill. It is less than either 
the House-passed version of the bill or the Senate-passed version of 
the bill: $4 billion less than the House, $5 billion less than the 
Senate version. I ask any Member here in the House, when was the last 
time they recall that a bill came back from a conference between the 
House and the Senate and spent less money than either the House or 
Senate spent?
  And I would give you this overall picture. Americans spend about $1.2 
trillion a year on food. The provisions in this bill related to the 
commodity title, the safety net for America's farmers and ranchers, is 
about $7 billion or slightly less than one-half of 1 percent of what 
Americans spend on food.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has 
expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  Now for that one-half cent on every dollar, Americans get the 
stability and safety of their food supply and the assurance that they 
will not see in the United States what they're seeing in other 
countries around the world which do not have a good farm program for 
their farmers that assure their consumers that they will get an 
adequate, safe, and affordable supply of food. They do not see food 
riots in the United States.
  They see, instead, those in the greatest need receiving appropriate 
food programs and the average American being able to spend less than 9 
percent of their income on food. That is lower than any other country 
in the world today or any other country in the history of the world.
  This farm bill helps to promote those good policies. I urge my 
colleagues to support the override.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, under of the commodity title of the current bill, we 
still have loan deficiency programs in place, countercyclical programs, 
another $25 billion of direct payments that will go out over the next 5 
years regardless of price or production. A new revenue-based 
countercyclical program has been added to it. And then the granddaddy 
of all earmarks, a disaster relief fund has been created, all of which 
have been reformed upwards rather than down, rather than restricting 
it.
  I think the gentleman I talked to earlier is right. This can be 
described as the good, the bad, and the ugly farm bill. Unfortunately, 
the ugly outweighs the good here today. But, of course, whenever you go 
$10.5 billion above current baseline and put enough money around and 
enough groups with enough individuals, you're going to get a strong 
vote. We understand that.
  But someone needs to stand up here today on behalf of the American 
taxpayer. Someone needs to stand here in the Chamber and say the 
emperor has no clothes. This farm bill will continue to distort the 
marketplace. It will continue to paint a bull's-eye on the back of our 
farmers through trade-distorting policies. And I would encourage my 
colleagues, if they took another look, a closer look at what's being 
proposed here today, they would understand that we can and should do a 
better job.
  I would encourage my colleagues to sustain the President's veto and 
do the farm bill the right way, not the wrong way.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 3\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people make a lot of 
claims about this bill. Editorial writers, most of them get the 
information wrong. But as has been mentioned here before, 15 percent of 
the bill goes to farmers; 9 percent of that goes to traditional 
commodity type programs; the balance of it to crop insurance and the 
new disaster program; 73\1/2\ percent of this bill goes to nutrition 
programs, while 7 percent goes to conservation.
  So you can talk all you want about the bull's-eye on the back of the 
farmers, but people need to understand that the European Union now is 
having discussion to get rid of their direct payments and increase 
their commodity price supports similar to what we have here in the 
United States. And there are people in this country that would like to 
do this as well. This ideology that's been pushed by the World Bank, 
the IMF, all of these other world organizations, is part of the reason 
we're in trouble in this country and in the world.
  We have, not just us but countries all over the world, have sold food 
below the cost of our production. Some of our opponents want us to keep 
doing this. I understand if you're a livestock farmer you want to keep 
buying cheap corn. But we've addicted these folks in these developing 
countries to cheap food prices. Now that we're getting prices that are 
more realistic, all of a sudden it's a problem because they didn't 
develop their own agriculture. They got hooked on exports from the 
United States and from other countries.
  What we're doing in this bill is recognizing all of the different 
aspects of this country, not just farm country, not just farmers, but 
people in the city, people in the suburbs, people that like to hunt and 
fish, people that are concerned about the environment, people that are 
concerned about getting nutritious food into our schools and having 
more fresh fruit and vegetables available for people around the 
country, and people that want to get independent from foreign oil. All 
of these things are covered in this bill.
  Are they done to the magnitude that I would like in some areas? No. I 
would say everybody here would probably agree that they would like to 
have something a little bit stronger in one area or the other or maybe 
a little weaker in one area or the other.
  But this is a compromise, a bipartisan compromise that I am proud of 
the way that we've been able to put together. Mr. Goodlatte and I sat 
in that room for many days with our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle. We operated on an equal basis, as Mr. Goodlatte pointed out. 
There was give and take. This was a true bipartisan effort. We came up 
with a true bipartisan bill that we should be proud of that is good for 
America, that spends less than the last farm bill, that, as Mr. 
Goodlatte says, spends less than both bills that passed the House and 
the Senate. I can't remember a time around here when we've done 
something like that.
  So I encourage my colleagues to take a good look at this bill to 
understand that this is something that's good for the country. I urge 
my colleagues to override the veto of the President.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto, but I would like 
to close my remarks by commending the President of the United States 
and his administration for their involvement in this process. They have 
improved this farm bill considerably from the versions that were passed 
in the House and the Senate. In fact, I'm going to yield a portion of 
my time to the leader.
  But I want to say that this includes more than 90 provisions that the 
President of the United States, the leaders

[[Page 10287]]

in the Department of Agriculture and others, suggested to us to reform. 
And there are numerous reforms in this legislation that are very, very 
substantial, very, very significant. They would not have occurred 
without the President's active involvement and support for efforts to 
improve this farm bill.
  This farm bill is dramatically reformed from previous farm bills, and 
as a result of his involvement, of involvement on both sides of the 
aisle, this farm bill is dramatically improved. As a result, the 
Republican Members on this side of the aisle went from 17 Members 
supporting the bill when it came out of the Agriculture Committee to 
100 Members supporting it when we voted for it last week.
  There is much to commend in this bill. The President has asked for 
additional reforms. I supported him in the efforts to obtain some of 
those reforms, but we could not achieve every single objective that he 
sought because this is a bipartisan bill that includes the 
considerations of a wide array of viewpoints.
  But I will say that this side of the aisle was well represented in 
this process and thanks in part to the efforts of the administration.
  Notwithstanding that, the bill is a good bill, and we would urge our 
colleagues to support it.
  At this time, I yield the balance of my time to the Republican 
leader, the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate my colleague for yielding, and I'm not 
going to talk about the farm bill.
  I'm a little concerned and have serious doubts about the process that 
we're using to bring this bill considering that the bill that the 
President vetoed is not the bill that the Members are being asked to 
override.
  Remember, there were 12 titles in the farm bill that we sent to the 
President. The bill that we have, that we're overriding, contains 11 
titles. Title III of the bill is missing.
  Now, the reason I rise is because I have got doubts about the process 
that we're engaged in, and I have doubts about the constitutionality of 
what it is that we're doing. And people were in such a hurry to bring 
this bill up here to the floor that no one would take the time to 
consider what is it that we're doing; is it constitutional, and should 
we proceed under the conditions we find ourselves.
  We don't know why title III of the bill that we sent to the President 
is missing in the document that we're considering right now.
  So it is not just me as a Member. I think there are other Members on 
both sides of the aisle that are wondering should we proceed with this 
and is what we're doing constitutional, is it breaking precedent with 
what we've done in the past. I would just ask my colleagues, and 
especially ask the majority, why we couldn't take some time to 
understand what happened in this process, why title III isn't included 
in the bill that we're moving to override.
  And so until there are answers to this, I would suggest to the 
majority that we ought to consider suspending activity on this until 
such time as we know we have answers to the questions that Members on 
both sides are going to have.

                              {time}  1745

  I would be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman.
  As I understand it, it was just a glitch in the printing of the 
document that went to the White House. They vetoed the bill missing 
title III and didn't recognize it.
  As I understand, the Constitution says that when we have a veto, we 
are bound to deal with it. So we don't see any other way to deal with 
this thing at this point other than to deal with the President's veto, 
have the override and then deal with title III later.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, I don't know whether the President 
signed the bill that included title III or not. I don't know where 
title III fell from the bill. That's the point I'm making.
  Until there are answers as to what did happen, how we proceed is 
critically important to the constitutionality of the process that we're 
engaged in here.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today the President vetoed the 
Farm Bill conference report--a significant piece of legislation that is 
supported by the vast majority of the House of Representatives. While I 
am disappointed with the President's veto, I am proud to stand with so 
many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in making the Farm 
Bill law.
  This bill, while not perfect, addresses some of the most pressing 
issues facing our nation today. Perhaps most importantly, this bill 
will provide millions of Americans with access to healthy food, 
especially those hit hardest by the President's failed economic 
policies. Nearly three-quarters of the bill's funding will promote 
nutrition initiatives such as increased access to food stamps, 
emergency food assistance programs, and a program to supply our schools 
with fresh fruits and vegetables as a healthy snack alternative to 
reduce our unacceptably high ratio of obese children.
  This bill will help my home state of Colorado continue to lead the 
nation in developing renewable energy technologies, and will help our 
nation move closer to energy independence, while reducing overly 
generous tax credits for corn-based ethanol, and creating a better tax 
credit for the production of more efficient cellulosic biofuels, such 
as switch grass and wood chips.
  The bill also ensures that farmers in Colorado and around the nation 
have some protections should a natural disaster befall them. This 
action may foster lower future grocery prices by speeding up disaster 
compensation for lost crops and allowing farmers to bring new crops to 
market faster. Meanwhile, conservation programs included in the bill 
will help further protect sensitive rural fields from urban sprawl and 
harmful over farming, while encouraging public access to private land.
  Of particular interest to Colorado, this bill includes legislation I 
introduced that will protect the future of Colorado's unique collection 
of mutual ditch companies and the precious water rights that they share 
for the mutual benefit of all Coloradans.
  To be sure, I would have preferred this bill include tighter reforms 
on farm subsidies, especially when many farmers are reporting surging 
profits. But no compromise can he all things to all people, and while 
this Farm Bill is not perfect, it is good for Colorado and for our 
nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in overriding the President's 
flawed national priorities when it comes to agriculture, energy 
independence and ensuring that American families have food on their 
tables.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding?
  Under the Constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on passing H.R. 
2419, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, 
will be followed by 5-minute votes on motions to suspend the rules on 
H.R. 3819, H.R. 5826, and H.R. 5856.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 316, 
nays 108, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 346]

                               YEAS--316

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords

[[Page 10288]]


     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman (VA)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--108

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capuano
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cooper
     Culberson
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Goode
     Granger
     Harman
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hobson
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Tiberi
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bishop (UT)
     Brown, Corrine
     Carter
     Castor
     Crenshaw
     Fossella
     Gillibrand
     Kennedy
     Rush
     Tiahrt
     Wexler


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded there 
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1809

  Mrs. GRANGER changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. WOOLSEY and Mrs. CUBIN changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the bill was passed, the 
objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will notify the Senate of the 
action of the House.

                          ____________________