Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2346) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

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

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

Let me begin by thanking my friend from Utica for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I have to say that it's with extreme disappointment and sadness that I rise in opposition to this rule, having been very supportive of it when we had it just, it seemed, a few weeks ago.

The underlying measure of the supplemental appropriations bill that's supposed to fund our troops began auspiciously as a wonderfully bipartisan effort. In fact, when the House first considered the funding measure last month, Republicans were very proud to have what was our first opportunity, Mr. Speaker, our first opportunity of this 111th Congress to consider a major bill that had been developed in a bipartisan way.

I noted on that occasion that the President's call for bipartisan action had previously been completely thwarted by the Democratic majority; and, frankly, the record proves that to be the case. But finally when it came to the issue of funding our troops, even the Democratic leadership that had thwarted efforts to follow the Obama directive for bipartisanship, we had concluded that they weren't about to politicize the process of funding our troops. While the bill that we considered last month was not perfect, it did accomplish the key issue at hand, adequately providing for the protection and welfare of our troops. And as I said, we were very proud to do it in a bipartisan way, something the President wants, something that the American people want, and frankly, it's something that I believe a majority of Democrats and Republicans in this House want. But unfortunately the Democratic leadership does not seem to have that same goal.

Now the Democratic leadership is, unfortunately, back to what has very unfortunately been determined to be business as usual, which is concerning a measure which should have been as depoliticized as possible, considering it in an extraordinarily partisan way.

The conference report before us actually cuts troop funding in order to pay for billions of dollars of additional non-troop non-emergency spending. This includes $5 billion for the International Monetary Fund in order to provide additional global bailouts. Now any country, Mr. Speaker, can apply for this money. So there's nothing to ensure that United States taxpayer dollars don't go to countries like Iran or Venezuela. The question of whether to provide this new IMF funding is a controversial one; and it may end up being a right decision; but it's one that should be fully debated, not air-dropped into a conference report. Again, whatever the outcome of that debate on IMF funding, it is clearly something that should not be considered as emergency funding. It should be part of the regular appropriations process, which we're in the midst of right now, where tough decisions are made, priorities are set, and a proposal to send $5 billion to the International Monetary Fund can be weighed against other priorities that Members of this House may have, like transportation funding or some other issue that it may be determined through the deliberative process is a higher priority.

Mr. Speaker, our military is on the verge of running out of money. We all know that. That, frankly, is why we're here. The resources needed for our troops to conduct their mission and return home safely are nearly depleted. This, the issue of troop funding, is a true emergency. This is what this supplemental appropriations bill is all about--to protect and support the men and women in harm's way defending our country. The Democratic leadership, instead, chose to cut troop funding and load this bill up with other very controversial funding that does not support our troops. Republicans made it clear that we could not support a troop funding bill that does not, in fact, fully fund our troops. So the leadership on the other side of the aisle found itself in a dilemma. They had lost Republican support with their partisanship, their controversial programs and their cuts for troop funding. So what could they do? How could they win the votes necessary to pass this conference report?

The obvious solution would have been to return to bipartisanship. It's what the President of the United States has called for; it's what the American people want; and it's what I believe a majority of Democrats and Republicans in this House would like. But instead, the Democratic leadership chose to push the contents of this bill as far to the left as they possibly could in the hopes of picking up support from the fringes of their own party. Having left the middle ground, the fringe was the only place left to go.

So how did they appeal to the very, very extreme left? First they watered down language related to moving terrorists to U.S. soil from Guantanamo Bay. Well, Republicans have supported much stronger language to ensure that no terrorists are ever moved to or set free on American soil. The original language would have at least required consultation with Congress and slowed down the process until we could act definitively to ensure the protection of our communities. But inexplicably, as Democrats, Republicans and Independents across the country have voiced their outrage over the prospect of having terrorists potentially released on American soil, today's conference report further weakens the already weakened language. It leaves our neighborhoods even more vulnerable to the movement of Gitmo terrorists. Furthermore, the Democratic leadership removed protections to ensure that information that could put our troops in danger would not be released. Many on the far left opposed these protections, so the Democratic leadership bartered for their support of this bill by stripping them out completely. Without those protections in place, our troops in the field will be subject to even greater harm. This was the price the Democratic leadership paid in order to negotiate with the far left rather than return to the bipartisanship and common sense that had guided earlier debates on this funding bill.

To see just how far out of the mainstream this approach is, Mr. Speaker, look no further than the vote on the motion to instruct conferees that we had just this past Friday. It was a Republican motion which handily passed the House by a vote of 267-152. Mr. Speaker, by a vote of 267-152, this House called for a clean bill that restores full funding for the troops and keeps in place the protections to prevent the release of information that could potentially endanger our troops. That strong bipartisan vote just this past Friday in favor of this motion indicates how much support there is in this House for a clean, bipartisan full troop funding bill. For those of us who naively thought that the funding of our troops was the one issue that could not be politicized, this is a very, very sobering moment. Clearly the Democratic leadership cannot help themselves. Even when bipartisanship would be the easy choice, they were compelled to move in the exact opposite direction.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, demand a clean troop funding bill, one that fully provides the resources they need, one that is stripped of all extraneous controversial non- emergency funding and one that includes full protections for American communities as well as our troops in the field.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend from Utica who made it very clear that he believes that troop funding is their priority; but yet this measure reduces by $4.7 billion the level of troop funding that we had in the bipartisan bill passed just last month and transfers it to the IMF. So, in fact, this measure does cut troop funding.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to the new ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the very distinguished gentleman from Santa Clarita, California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. Speaker, at this juncture, I don't have any further requests for time. I would inquire of my friend whether he has any further speakers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I just plan to close debate if the gentleman has concluded debate.

I reserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, this has been a fascinating debate that has taken place. It began with some very thoughtful comments from my friend from Utica talking about the need for funding for our troops, and I laude him for referring to the fact that that is the priority of this measure.

We then listened to, on our side, the distinguished new ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, my friend from Santa Clarita (Mr. McKeon), talk about the priority of funding for our troops.

And then we listened to speeches made by our colleagues, and there was barely a mention of the issue of troop funding.

We just heard our colleague talk about firefighters. Hey, I'm from southern California where we have fires, and we have horrible fires. Loss of life and property is something that regularly takes place there. It's a very, very important issue. It's an issue that should be considered under the regular appropriations process under the leadership of my California colleagues, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Obey, not in a troop funding bill.

Then we listened to our very good friend from Detroit talk about the automobile industry, a serious challenge that we, as a Nation, are trying to address. I personally believe that the notion of continuing to see the government more and more involved in

this area is not the right thing to do, but it's a debate that will go on. And yet our friend, Mr. Levin, was talking about the issue of the automobile industry in this troop funding bill.

Then I listened to our friend from Houston, Texas, talk about Darfur, one of the most troubled spots on the face of the Earth, an issue that does need to be addressed, and the challenges of meeting the needs of children in Texas, a very, very important issue, but not as part of a troop funding measure.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said, through the very thoughtful work of the Appropriations Committee last month, we came to this floor with what President Obama and I believe a majority of Republicans and Democrats in this House would like to see us achieve, and I know the American people would like to see us achieve, and that is bipartisanship.

Bipartisanship is a word that is used all the time around here, all the time. Everyone talks about the need for bipartisanship, how important it is. The Speaker in her opening address here to the Congress as we began the 111th Congress talked about how she wanted to work in a bipartisan way. We Republicans say we want to work in a bipartisan way.

But this bill that emerged from the House Appropriations Committee was the first time, the very first time in this 111th Congress that we were able to see a bipartisan work product emerge from the Democratic leadership, and I congratulated them on that, and I have done that when we considered the bill, and I would like to be able to do it today.

But, unfortunately, this bill has crumbled from what it was intended to be, a bill to support funding for our troops. It in fact included a reduction by transferring money that was intended in the House-passed bill to be funding for our troops to the International Monetary Fund.

Now, I will say that that may be a worthwhile cause as we deal with the economic challenges that exist here in the United States and around the world. But, again, Mr. Speaker, that is something that should not be considered as an emergency funding measure. It is something that should be considered under the normal appropriations process, so that we can make a determination whether increasing by $5 billion the funding for the International Monetary Fund is more important than transportation priorities here in the United States or other priorities that we have.

So, some might like to say that this bill is just a continuation of what we considered last month. But, Mr. Speaker, it unfortunately has gone a long way down from where we were, creating the potential, the potential for us to not be able to prevent with absolute certainty the terrorists from Gitmo ending up in the United States. There is no guarantee that that will happen.

On the IMF, on the IMF, there is no guarantee, no guarantee in this measure that funding requests could not be made for countries like Iran or Venezuela.

So, Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of things that this troop funding bill has ended up addressing, and it was made very clear by an overwhelming majority of the remarks that came from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, so that we can come back and pass in this House what 267 Members last Friday said that they wanted to have passed, and that is a clean bill that funds our troops and ensures that we won't have terrorists in the United States, that ensures that we will not be dramatically expanding a wide range of other programs.

So vote ``no'' on this rule, and, if by chance it passes, I urge a ``no'' vote on the conference report itself, because we can do better.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 545, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2346) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, this is the last of last year's business. We have a huge amount of work that we have to do before the August recess. We have to pass all 12 appropriation bills, we have to make time on the schedule for health care reform, for the military authorization bill, and for historic climate change legislation. I just think we ought to get on with it.

I think everybody understands what is in this bill, and the sooner we can get on with it, the sooner we can get on with this year's business.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2346.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would simply note in light of the gentleman's comments on the IMF that in 1999, the last time we voted on it, the IMF funding was attached to the Transportation bill and 162 Republicans voted for it. They didn't seem to have any problem at that time. I find it interesting that today, with a different President, they do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that we have the right to close, and we have only one remaining speaker.

I continue to reserve the balance of our time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I noted at the beginning of the debate, this item represents last year's left-over business. It is the last item of last year's left-over business.

We have been mired in a war for over 7 years. The President previous to this one has continually minimized the cost of that war by financing it on the installment plan. Instead of providing a full estimate of a yearly cost for the war, he would ask to fund that war in 6-month increments. And when he left office, there was still one 6-month increment left to go that was not yet paid for left over from his watch. And so this bill today, in the process of supporting the President's policies of trying to wind down that war, is providing the remaining funding for this fiscal year to help accomplish that.

In addition, this new President is trying to change the way that that war has been breaking in Afghanistan, and by necessity, Pakistan, which is integrally tied to the Afghanistan situation. And what he is trying to do is, through a combination of military action, political action, and diplomacy, he is trying to change the mix and gradually extricate ourselves from that conflict and stabilize that region politically in the process. I doubt that that will succeed. But this President, having inherited a God awful mess both at home and abroad, has a right to try to fix this situation. That's what the American people, in part, elected him to do. And so this bill provides the financing to do that.

And, yes, it added some other items that were not in the bill when it left the House. It did add funding for the IMF, about which our friends on the other side of the aisle roundly complain. But I would point out, in 1999, the last time I believe that we voted on this, the majority party then, our friends on the other side of the aisle, added IMF funding to the Transportation bill and 162 Republicans voted for it. I find it interesting that today, with a new President, they decline to provide that support.

We also added something else. The GI bill education proposal that the Congress passed last year, had one remaining gap which needed to be filled. That legislation said that if you served your country in the military a sufficient length of time, you could then obtain education benefits; and if you did not use them yourself, you could convert them to the use of your spouse or your children. This bill closes a gap because the one thing that that bill did not do last year was to enable a combat veteran who was killed in combat to make that same transfer of education benefits to a spouse or children. This bill provides that expanded benefit for our fighting men and women. It was not in the bill when it left the House. It is now. If you vote against this bill, that's one of the provisions you will be voting against.

We also have additional money for military hospitals that the administration did not request. We have additional help for the auto industry. I didn't think that was a Federal offense to try to provide some assistance to that industry. And, yes, we have a significant amount of additional funding for pandemic flu. Now, we tried to put that money initially in the original economic recovery package. We did put it in when the bill left the House. It

went to the Senate and we were laughed at. People said, ``Oh, what does the flu have to do with the economy and with jobs?'' Well, Mexico found out when they had to shut down their entire economy for 2 weeks because of the turmoil in that country with the flu. It is now estimated that as many as one-third of Americans will be hit by that flu. This bill has billions of additional dollars to try and meet that challenge. And I would submit to you that the average American family has a greater chance of being hit by that flu than it does to be hit by any terrorist presently ensconced in Guantanamo.

Now, we are also told that the IMF funding is bad because it borrows money in order to give to other countries. You know, this is a tough reality; we have to participate in the world. And when the world economy becomes shaky, we have a responsibility to ourselves to try to stabilize that world economic situation. That is one of the roles that the IMF tries to play. It certainly does it imperfectly--and I've had many arguments with them in the past--but to say that our contribution to the IMF does not benefit us is to be ignorant of history and to be ignorant of how the world economy works.

The fact is that we created the IMF after World War II. Why? Because we saw what led up to World War II. We saw the world's financial system collapse in the thirties. As a result, in Germany, Hitler came to power and 50 million people died. We would kind of like to avoid that this time. And so what we're trying to do is to provide the President with all the tools he needs internationally to defend our economic stability and to stabilize the economy of our trading partners because our economy does not function and we do not create sufficient jobs in this economy unless we help create economic conditions in other countries so they can buy our goods. That's why we do it. It's called enlightened self-interest.

In addition, it has been suggested that somehow money that we appropriate to the IMF is going to go to Iran. Well, let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. Iran has not had a loan from the IMF since 1962. And under this legislation, the United States representative at the IMF is required to oppose any loan or assistance to countries such as Iran that have been designated by the Secretary of State as a state sponsor of terrorism.

The United States can effectively block loans that it opposes. We've got by far the largest block of votes of any single member. And I doubt very seriously that the IMF is going to approve any loan that we don't approve of.

One other thing. We've been told that somehow the President is endangering national security because he has not allowed the Congress to pass the Lieberman amendment with respect to the release of those pictures. The fact is the President sent to the conferees a letter and made quite clear that he will do everything in his power to prevent the use of those pictures. I want to quote one paragraph from his letter:

``I deeply appreciate all you have done to help with the efforts to secure funding for the troops and assure you I will continue to take every legal and administrative remedy available to me to ensure that DOD detainee photographs are not released. Should a legislative solution prove necessary, I am committed to work with the Congress to enact legislation that achieves the objectives we all share.''

Now, each of us can nitpick or object to certain specifics in this bill, but the great thing about democracy is that after we've had a chance to state our first preferences and fight for what we believe in, in the end we also have an obligation to reach consensus and move on. That's what this bill tries to do. It must be finished before we can move on to finish the rest of our appropriation bills and to get to the other huge items on the agenda, including health care and climate change.

I urge an ``aye'' vote for the bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.011

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

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2009 Iraq/Afghanistan Defense Supplemental Appropriations bill provides $105.9 billion, 77 percent of which would be to cover costs relating to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for the rest of this fiscal year. I voted for these funds because I chose to give President Obama time to implement his Afghanistan strategy and withdraw troops from Iraq. But it was not an easy decision.

The war in Afghanistan has entered its eighth year without clearly defined objectives and an exit strategy. With a deteriorating security situation and no comprehensive political outcome yet in sight, some experts view the war in Afghanistan as open-ended. Had the Bush Administration not shifted its focus to the unnecessary war in Iraq, we may have already brought Al Qaeda and the Taliban to justice. I believe President Obama made an error by ordering an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan before first completing a detailed review of U.S. Afghanistan policies. Continuing the vaguely defined strategies of the Bush Administration is not acceptable.

The President did finally lay out a strategy for Afghanistan in late March of this year. It made some significant improvements to the Afghanistan strategy, but fell short in other areas. For example, I was pleased to see a regional approach, ``treating Afghanistan and Pakistan as two countries but one challenge,'' and a commitment to ``devote significantly more resources to the civilian efforts in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.'' These are significant improvements over the Bush Administration's approach.

Unfortunately, the President's new Afghan strategy fails to set clear benchmarks for the Afghanistan and Pakistan governments and fails to lay out the consequences of not meeting the benchmarks. It is not surprising that the President has also failed to set benchmarks for the Pentagon and State Department too.

Thankfully, the supplemental bill lays out detailed benchmarks for Afghanistan and Pakistan and the President must report back to Congress on the:

(1) Level of political consensus and unity of purpose across ethnic, tribal, religious and party affiliations to confront the political and security challenges facing the region.

(2) Level of government corruption and actions taken to eliminate it.

(3) Performance of the respective security forces in developing a counterinsurgency capability, conducting counterinsurgency operations and establishing population security.

(4) Performance of the respective intelligence agencies in cooperating with the United States on counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations and in purging themselves of policies, programs and personnel that provide material support to extremist networks that target U.S. troops or undermine U.S. objectives in the region.

(5) Ability of the Afghan and Pakistani governments to effectively control the territory within their respective borders.

In addition, I am an original cosponsor of the McGovern bill that simply states, ``Not later than December 31, 2009, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report outlining the United States exit strategy for United States military forces in Afghanistan participating in Operation Enduring Freedom.'' I firmly believe that the United States is best served by outlining a clear exit strategy that the American public can support and that the Afghani public can be reassured that we have no long-term desire to occupy their nation.

Unfortunately, President Bush's disregard for the complexities of Afghanistan and the damage that came from his disregard may make this war unwinnable. We also must not forget that the Soviet military, with over a hundred thousand troops on the ground, lost decisively in Afghanistan. Today, our troops are fighting some of the very same warlords who defeated the Soviets with our covert support.

As you may know, Secretary of Defense Bill Gates, removed the commanding general of Afghanistan in a bid to change the-on-the ground strategy in Afghanistan. With a new White House strategy, a new commanding general, and 21,000 additional troops, I believe this is now President Obama's war.

The bill also funds the continued presence of our troops in Iraq. Despite the continued bursts of violence in Iraq, I am thankful the President has committed to a responsible redeployment of troops out of Iraq. This bill recognizes and supports President Obama's plan to withdraw all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq by August 31, 2010 and all U.S. military forces by December 31, 2011. The bill continues to prohibit the construction of any base for the permanent stationing of U.S. forces in Iraq and U.S. control over any oil resource of Iraq. To ensure accountability, the bill directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress every 90 days that includes:

1. How the Government of Iraq is assuming responsibility for reconciliation initiatives;

2. How the drawdown of military forces complies with the President's timeline; and

3. The roles and responsibilities of remaining contractors in Iraq as the U.S. mission evolves.

The bill does some very good things besides funding wars for Afghanistan and Iraq. I am very supportive of the $534 million for additional pay for more than 170,000 troops who have had their enlistments involuntarily extended since Sept. 11, 2001. These funds allow for payments of $500 per month for every month a soldier was held on active duty under ``stop-loss'' orders. The average payment should be above $4,000. Stop loss orders were used by the Bush Administration to avoid tough decisions on deployment and troop increases, creating a de facto draft for current soldiers. These payments are a good step to honor the sacrifice unfairly asked of these brave men and women.

I also support some of the foreign aid in the bill. The $660 million for bilateral economic, humanitarian, and security assistance for the West Bank and Gaza represents an important

commitment to the Middle East peace process. In addition, the bill includes $889 million for United Nations peacekeeping operations, including an expanded mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a new mission in Chad and the Central African Republic. Finally, the bill includes $700 million for international food assistance to alleviate suffering during the global economic crisis.

Finally, I was pleased that the conference agreement provides $7.7 billion for efforts to address a potential pandemic flu. The total includes $1.5 billion for the Health and Human Services Department and the Center for Disease Control to supplement federal stockpiles, develop and purchase vaccines, and to expand detection efforts, and $5.8 billion in contingent emergency funds. Of the $1.5 billion, $350 million was set aside to assist state and local governments in preparing for and responding to a pandemic.

Unfortunately, the conference agreement included a $108 billion loan to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). I objected to this loan because Congress should not be in the business of bailing out Central and Eastern European nations that lost money speculating in highly deregulated financial markets and now are indebted to European banks.

The $108 billion loan to the IMF is an unreasonable and irresponsible burden to place on the backs of American taxpayers. They're already paying through the nose for the $700 billion blank check passed by Congress for ``too big to fail'' banks. For the record, I voted against the bank bailout. And, now, Congress is returning to the American taxpayers hat in hand for a rescue package to bailout European banks.

The fact that we continue to run annual deficits means the Federal Reserve will print the $108 billion or borrow it from China. In other words, the U.S. will borrow funds from China to, lend to the International Monetary Fund, which will lend to a Central or Eastern European country to help rescue a foreign bank caught in the credit bubble.

We should be focusing on economic recovery at home rather than loaning billions of dollars to the IMF to rescue troubled European banks. I vehemently oppose the inclusion of the $108 billion for the IMF in the War Supplemental bill. Had this provision been voted on separately--as it should have--I would have voted against this provision.

Reluctantly, I voted in favor of this bill because it reversed the Bush Administration's irresponsible approach to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will continue to watchdog the IMF and look for opportunities to rein in their misguided attempt at restructuring poorer nation's economies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we at least for now appear to be returning to regular order on appropriations bills as we deal with this emergency supplemental that is before us. However, I must confess to being disappointed at the turn this final product has taken in recent days as compared to where we began with our original House-passed bill. The majority has chosen to go to the high-dollar level for every account in this conference report, except as it relates to the primary purpose of the legislation, the critical troop funding in the Department of Defense and Military Construction accounts.

My understanding of the final conference agreement is that it cuts the House level for DOD and MilCon by $4.6 billion. More disconcerting is that the final package includes $5 billion for IMF funding that was not a part of the original House package. This $5 billion for foreign aid will secure a whopping $108 billion in loans.

Mr. Speaker, I must say, this is such an important message and important piece of legislation, I think it is important that our constituents, as well as our colleagues, pay careful attention to this debate.

In essence, in this package the IMF is funded at a level almost $30 billion more than what is provided for our troops, which supposedly was what this bill was all about. What began as a troop funding bill has become a means of fulfilling the President's promise to provide more IMF funding, or foreign aid, for international bailouts.

If that isn't bad enough, the conference agreement also includes $1 billion in emergency spending for the Cash for Clunkers program that was not a part of either the House or the Senate package, nor was it requested by the President.

I understand the conferees have dropped the Graham-Lieberman-McCain language relating to the release of detainee photos. The conferees have also significantly watered down language relating to the release or transfer of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. This is an issue that is and will continue to be of great concern to many of us, as well as the American people.

Just last week, the President approved having a Guantanamo detainee transferred to New York City and ordered the release and transfer of four Uyghers to Bermuda. The President appears to be racing to move these detainees to their new homes before Congress can act substantively on the issue of closing Guantanamo.

During last week's conference meeting, Mr. Young, Ms. Granger and I offered several amendments. The first, offered by Ms. Granger, sought approval of the Senate provision prohibiting the release of detainee photos. The second motion, offered by Mr. Young, insisted upon the higher House funding level for DOD and MilCon spending in this conference agreement. And the third motion, which I offered, insisted upon agreeing to section 202(a) and section 315 of the Senate bill prohibiting the transfer or release of Guantanamo detainees. All three amendments were defeated in a party-line vote by the House conferees.

As I prepare to close, let me make one additional point. Much has been made about the total cost of this emergency supplemental. I note for the record that the final conference agreement is $106 billion, which is $14 billion more than the President's request, $9 billion more than the House-passed bill, and $15 billion more than the Senate-passed level.

Again, we have increased funding for everything in this bill except for the troops. Arguments about maintaining some level of fiscal responsibility certainly ring hollow when we lard up a troop funding bill with taxpayer dollars to support foreign aid for hostile governments and cash for cars past their prime. This is a troubling pattern that is being repeated in many of our funding bills this year.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that a process that began in a spirit of bipartisanship has concluded in such a partisan manner. We began as a united, bipartisan House seeking to support our troops, but have ended this process by appeasing the very Members who opposed this emergency funding in the first place.

I strongly support our troops, but cannot and will not support an international bailout for hostile regimes disguised as a troop funding bill.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the finest whip Virginia has ever produced.

I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) a member of the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations.

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

Mr. Speaker, could I please check and see how much time there is on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Tom Cole, one of the fabulous new members on our side of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), a member of our leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I must mention I have only got one speaker remaining, so I would like to inquire of my colleague from Wisconsin just the status of his circumstances: You would be the person to close?

I will have to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I have one additional speaker.

As long as you're giving me all of this flexibility, just let me mention that, as we began this process on this bill, both my chairman and I were very pleased by the fact that there was broadly based bipartisan support for giving the kind of assistance to our troops that is fundamental to our success in the Middle East. To have that package now come back from conference in the shape of being a bill that has reduced the President's request for troop funding by approximately $4.7 billion and, in turn, has a cost factor of some $5 billion for the IMF is most disconcerting to this Member.

I may have two additional speakers since my colleague here is standing.

I would be happy to yield.

The gentleman is asking a very, very important question, and I will try to be straightforward in my response. This is a conference report in which both the House and the Senate have come together. The gentleman has raised his concerns about water in central California at a level that has gotten almost the entire country's attention. Indeed, if there were any way I could amend this package to help you solve this problem, the desperate need to get those pumps going to get water to our crops and the farmlands in Central Valley, I would do so. But, unfortunately, in this case, I am unable to help, but stand ready to try.

Sure.

As we go through with our hearings, I might mention in just a few days ahead we will be discussing agriculture problems and challenges to funding for programs for the 2010 year. Indeed, one way or another, we are going to do everything we can to help the gentleman. So I very much appreciate his inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I do have one additional speaker, and I am very proud to yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner.

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

I rise in strong support of this legislation. Eighty percent or more of this bill is to support the young men and women, and some not so young, whom we have sent in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan to confront terrorism. We passed that bill. We passed it with 368 votes.

It then went to the Senate, and the Senate amended the bill and added additional funding for the IMF, the International Monetary Fund. That did not squeak by on some partisan vote. In fact, more than two-thirds of the Senators voting on that issue, including approximately 25 percent of the Republicans voting on that issue, voted to include the IMF. Why? Because, like Ronald Reagan, President George Bush in the 1990s, President George Bush in 2008, because they believed that the IMF itself was an important asset in the seeking of security by the United States of America.

Now, we didn't put it in that bill. But it's supported by two-thirds of the United States Senate, supported by the President of the United States, who, when he met with the G-20, pledged to play our part in trying to bring the security that this country has paid so dearly to achieve. Our share is approximately 20 percent. The other members of the G-20, 19 nations, will be putting up 80 percent. Why? Because they too believe this is enhancing the security of their countries and also what they think it does to lift up the poorest nations of the world. Not Iran, who hasn't gotten any money since 1984 when Ronald Reagan was President, the last time Iran got money from the IMF. Not Hezbollah, no discussions with them. The United States would clearly weigh in to stop such funding; properly so.

So we have a bill that seeks security and peace, and it's two-pronged now, not one. And I suggest to you that it is my belief that if it were a Republican President asking for this that this bill would pass with some 368 votes again. Why? Because Democrats would join in the Republican President's request, as we have in the past, and say this is for America's security, for international security, and we'll support it.

Now, this bill does some other things. We have a pandemic flu, swine flu, H1N1 flu, that is now at a level that the World Health Organization says is 41 years historically in the context. And the administration has said, because of that, we need additional funds for new vaccines.

We didn't have that in our bill. Clearly, there's not a Member in this House that doesn't want to take care of the health of our people. I might say, although he doesn't carry a lot of weight on your side of the aisle, that Jim Leach has strongly endorsed this effort; for the same reason, Ronald Reagan, who we honored just the other day. Just the other day we heard so many people say what a great leader Ronald Reagan was.

I'm going to quote Ronald Reagan for you, if I can find it real quickly. Ronald Reagan said this: The IMF is the linchpin of the international financial system. That's Ronald Reagan. He went on to say, I have an unbreakable commitment to increased funding for IMF. That's not a Democrat. That is a conservative leader that you revere, who led this country, and was strongly supported by this country.

And I want you to know that I supported Ronald Reagan on most of his security initiatives, as my good friend Jerry Lewis knows, because I believed that we needed to make America stronger and to tell our Soviet adversaries that we were prepared to invest in the security of our country.

I think, in doing so, they ultimately decided that they couldn't compete, and glasnost and perestroika came about.

The first President Bush said this: ``The IMF and the World Bank are at the crossroads of our cooperative efforts.''

Remember the responsibility of Speaker Gingrich when he said in 1998: ``We have an obligation to work with the International Monetary Fund.''

This is not a partisan issue, but I suggest to you it has been made a partisan reason to oppose this bill and to try to embarrass Democrats, very frankly, that we can't pass funding. We can and we will. I urge you to join us. I urge you to forget the partisan rhetoric. I urge you to think of Ronald Reagan, of George Bush, of the second George Bush, of Newt Gingrich, and of so many other Republican leaders who I won't take the time to quote, who have said that this is a critical component of our security apparatus.

We did not have it in our bill, but we all know how the legislative process works. The other body, particularly when it does so by a two- thirds vote, adds legislation. The President of the United States believes that's good legislation, and very frankly, I believe it's good legislation, and many in this House do as well. Would we have added it? We didn't, but it's here.

Do not use this addition by the United States Senate as a reason to say, ``I can't vote,'' for 80 percent of this bill supports those young men and women and, as I said, some not so young who are deployed abroad in the defense of freedom and in the furtherance of our security.

I will tell you, my friends, on numerous occasions, as most of you know who have served with me, I have put my card in the slot or have come to this well or have raised my voice on behalf of Republican Presidents who sought to further the security of this country. I am proud of those votes. I am proud of that voice. I ask you to join me today to support our troops, to support our national security, to support propping up countries that will be the repositories of economies that will further the ability of terrorists to recruit in countries that find themselves without jobs, without economic opportunity for their young people and that will have them turn and be recruited by those who would undermine their lives and would recruit them as terrorists.

So I urge each one of my colleagues: This is a vote for America, for its interests and for its troops. Do not delude yourselves that this is not a vote to support the troops. Eighty percent plus of this bill is about American servicemen and women in harm's way. Stand up for them.