[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 16, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H6865-H6885]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2346, SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

  Mr. OBEY. 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 545, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
June 12, 2009, at page H6683.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. 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. LEWIS of California. 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. OBEY. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. 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. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the ranking member.
  The distinguished chairman of the committee said we know what is in 
this bill. That may or may not be accurate, but we certainly know what 
is not in this bill. The conferees ignored the specific instructions of 
a bipartisan vote to include instructions to protect the detainee 
photos of alleged abuses that went on in our custody.
  Mr. Speaker, the protection of these photos, to prevent their 
release, requires a legislative fix, in my view. I don't believe the 
President has full authority to stand against the judicial branch, so 
we need to protect these photos from release.
  Even the court has recognized the validity of the claims of harm that 
would come from release of these photos, whether it is recruitment of 
additional jihadists or inflaming the current jihadists into doing 
things they might not otherwise have done, but also perhaps squelch the 
growing protests in Iran if we were to release the photos showing this 
abuse. Think back to the cartoon that was released in the Danish paper 
that insulted Mohammad and the overreaction to that cartoon. Think what 
the release of these photos would do to our relationships.
  The military leadership, Generals Odierno and Petraeus, both oppose 
the release of these photos. They have persuaded Secretary Gates and 
President Obama to change their original position, and they too now 
oppose the release of these photos.
  The release of these photos will serve no good purpose. They will get 
young

[[Page H6866]]

Americans hurt that don't need to get hurt. I am disappointed that the 
conferees did not include the instructions that we specifically gave 
them to protect these photos from disclosure.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this supplemental.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the finest whip Virginia 
has ever produced.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. America has the best 
military in the world. I think all of us who have traveled and who have 
seen the commitment of our Armed Forces are overwhelmed by their 
patriotism. The success of our military has much to do with the 
character and the courage of the men and women in uniform who fight 
every single day for our freedom.

                              {time}  1715

  And what we can do, as Members of this Congress, to speak to that 
courage and that commitment on the part of those men and women is to 
stand up and to remove politics from bills affecting their ability to 
execute on their mission to protect us.
  Mr. Speaker, we can pass a bipartisan bill. This House has shown 
several weeks ago, we passed a bill with a 368-60 vote, clearly, a 
bipartisan bill sending the message that this Congress stood for our 
troops and nothing got in the way.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we now find a conference report that will 
make its way to this House that is vastly different from the bill 
approved in a bipartisan way.
  Number one, Mr. Speaker, the provisions in the conference report that 
will make its way to this floor seem to put the rights of terrorists 
before the security of Americans. When we see that this body somehow 
wants to remove language prohibiting the transfer of detainees at 
Guantanamo Bay to U.S. soil, when this House allows for that transfer, 
what that says is we are willing to take on untold risk at the expense 
of the security of the people that our troops are trying to protect.
  Next, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the conferees take out language that 
would prohibit the release of photographs that we know will endanger 
the lives of our troops. Our commander on the ground in Iraq, General 
Odierno, was very clear in his admonition several weeks ago when he 
said our troops will be put in greater harm's way, and specific units 
will have enhanced danger immediately, if these photographs are allowed 
to be released.
  And I know that the majority says that we've got protections, that 
the White House will stand up and not allow for their release. But at 
the end of the day, we have the ability to stop it and to act now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.
  Mr. CANTOR. And I ask that this House stand up, act now, and make 
sure that these photos don't make their ways to brochures for 
recruitment of al Qaeda or make their way on to Internet sites to help 
attract more terrorists in the fight against our troops.
  And lastly, Mr. Speaker, to burden our troops with $108 billion of a 
loan guarantee to a global bailout is not putting our troops first. 
That's putting politics before our troops, and that's unacceptable to 
the American people.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. 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. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, if the defense portion of the 
supplemental were considered as a stand-alone legislation it would 
receive my support and the majority of those on this side of the aisle. 
We recognize that we need to provide our deployed men and women, all 
volunteers, with the funding and resources they need to accomplish 
their important ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. But 
unfortunately, the majority has added items to this measure totally 
unrelated to these wars.
  First, the much-debated IMF provision, which interestingly enough, 
allows our country drawing rights for the first time in the history of 
the IMF.
  Secondly, the majority stripped language from this bill that would 
have prevented release of photographs of detainees, thus endangering 
U.S. citizens and members of our own Armed Forces overseas.
  Thirdly, the majority inserted watered-down language on the closing 
of Guantanamo Bay, allowing for these dangerous prisoners to be brought 
to the U.S. for trial 45 days after the Obama administration submits 
certain paperwork to Congress. These all represent reasons to vote 
``no,'' to send this legislation back to the drawing board, and to come 
back with a straightforward bill that supports our troops.
  But I want to use this time to talk about the direction of our 
national security funding, our defense spending. If you believe the 
administration, this will be the last supplemental appropriations bill 
to fund our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though our forces 
will remain in Iraq for a significant number of years and our efforts 
in Afghanistan are just now ramping up.
  The administration says it's putting such costs for future soldier 
needs into the base appropriations bill. However, it doesn't take a 
green eyeshade to determine that the administration's request, combined 
with the rate of inflation, essentially adds up to no growth. We're 
standing still. We're treading water.
  And in a world where the North Koreans threaten conventional nuclear 
war, Russia is becoming more resurgent and aggressive, and China is 
rapidly increasing its aggressiveness.
  For these reasons, I rise to oppose this conference report.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, could I please check and see 
how much time there is on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 17\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. And the gentleman from Wisconsin has 29 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Tom Cole, 
one of the fabulous new members on our side of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this conference 
report, and I do that with a heavy heart, quite frankly. When this 
measure was initially before us I supported it enthusiastically. And in 
my remarks I praised the President. I thought he'd made a tough 
decision and deserved bipartisan support. I praised the majority 
because they had brought us, I think, a very good and finely crafted 
bill. And frankly, I was proud of the minority because we stepped up 
unconditionally, supported the President, provided the votes that he 
needed to win and make a difference to have not just a bipartisan 
majority, but Republican votes that put us in the majority.
  I felt like we dealt with the President and the administration in 
good faith. And frankly, I don't think, since that point, that faith 
has been reciprocated. Over the course of the process as this 
legislation's moved through, IMF funding has been added. It scores at 
$5 billion but it's a considerably greater amount of money that will be 
deployed.
  We've had this issue with the photos. We've had the issue of 
detainees. And frankly, throughout that, there's been no effort to 
negotiate with our side of the aisle, which did provide the funding 
again, the votes needed to pass the original bill, you know, without 
condition. And frankly, it's almost as if there was assumption on the 
other side that we would either roll over or be blackmailed or be 
bullied into supporting the bill simply because of the military funding 
in it.
  And I wonder whether or not, in retrospect, it was worth losing 
literally dozens and dozens of Republicans that were prepared to 
support this bill in a bipartisan fashion in order to add these other 
measures which could have, frankly, been brought to the floor on their 
own.
  So I'm forced to urge the rejection of this conference report. I 
would hope that we could restore the military funding that was taken 
out. I would hope that we could strip the unrelated IMF funding, and I 
would hope that we

[[Page H6867]]

could practice once again the bipartisanship that led us to such an 
overwhelming success in the original bill. And if we go back to that 
method, I think that the President and the administration will be able 
to rely on continued bipartisan support in the tough decisions they 
have to make going forward.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. 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.

                              {time}  1730

  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.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the 
majority leader, and he is very eloquent at the microphone, but he 
forgot to mention a couple of things that, I think, the American people 
would like to know.
  For instance, 80 percent of this bill is helping the troops, but this 
is a war supplemental; 100 percent should be helping our troops. In 
addition to that, he did not mention that this is a 22 percent 
reduction from what was in the supplemental last year, so we're 
actually cutting funding to the troops by 22 percent over what we did 
last year, and we're just expanding our operation into Afghanistan. So 
I think that the people ought to really get the whole picture. The 
whole picture is that this is a war supplemental, and it's being cut 
over what we spent last year for the same type of legislation.
  Now, he mentioned the International Monetary Fund, the $5 billion for 
that. This is a war supplemental. This is not an IMF bill. It's going 
to create $108 billion in additional loaning capability by the IMF. A 
few of the countries that will benefit from this with Special Drawing 
Rights are people who are not our friends--like Venezuela, Mr. Chavez 
down there; like Iran, a terrorist state; Yemen; Syria; Zimbabwe; and 
Burma.
  So I would just like to say--and I would never admonish the majority 
leader, because he is a great man, and I really like him--let's get all 
of the facts out there and not just part of them.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. 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.)

[[Page H6868]]

  Mr. PENCE. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the military 
supplemental bill that is before Congress today. I was pleased to join 
many of my Democratic colleagues in supporting the bipartisan military 
supplemental bill that passed this House earlier in this Congress.
  It seems to me, when it comes to providing our soldiers with the 
resources they need to get the job done and to come home safe, it's the 
right time to set aside politics as usual--the partisan divide--and go 
forward to the best of our abilities in a united front. We did that, 
but I cannot support this military supplemental bill today. I see it as 
a disservice to the taxpayers of this country and as a disservice to 
those brave men and women who defend us every day.
  You know, in the midst of difficult economic times, it's easy for 
some people to forget that we are a Nation at war, and it's easy to go 
back to politics as usual and to spending as usual; but with American 
soldiers in harm's way, we must never falter in our effort to make sure 
those soldiers have everything they need to get the job done and to 
come home to us and to their families safely.
  Emergency war funding bills should be about emergency war funding. 
This legislation, which includes $108 billion in loan authorizations 
for a global bailout for the International Monetary Fund at a time when 
this government has run up a $2 trillion annual deficit I believe does 
a disservice to taxpayers and to those who defend us. Passing a $108 
billion global bailout on the backs of our soldiers is just not right.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report. Stand with our 
troops. Stand with the American taxpayer. Stand against one more 
bailout. Let's reject this bill tonight, and let's come right back to 
this floor here tomorrow and bring a clean emergency war funding bill, 
in a bipartisan fashion, back into the legislative process.
  It is time for us to reject this legislation, to reject the changes 
that were made in the United States Senate, to get our soldiers the 
resources they need, and to do it in a way that serves the broadest 
possible interests of the American taxpayer.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), a member of our leadership.
  Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report precisely 
because it is about our troops. The bill that left this Chamber with 
broad bipartisan support was 100 percent about our troops, and it is 
precisely now why it is only 80 percent about our troops. We should not 
allow for that 20 percent reduction to delude us that somehow this is a 
better bill.
  I had the opportunity today to read in the detroitfreepress.com that 
the Treasury Department had said that $10 billion in loan guaranties to 
auto manufacturing suppliers was a nonstarter. They didn't have it. I 
come here tonight. I hear that we have $108 billion for the IMF.
  This is not only about our troops. It is about the hardworking men 
and women who put money into the Federal Government not only to defend 
our troops but to defend their own way of life and their own prosperity 
and to make sure that it's here when they get back.
  Of the $108 billion going off to the IMF, I did not hear of anyone at 
the IMF losing their jobs in a painful restructuring. I did not hear of 
anyone at the IMF being asked to take reductions in their lifetimes of 
hard-earned health care benefits. I did not see anyone lose anything 
from the IMF for the $108 billion underwriting by the U.S. taxpayers; 
but for $85 billion, I did see back home in Detroit people losing their 
jobs under a painful restructuring. I saw retirees losing health care 
benefits. I saw dealerships closing. I was told this was necessary. I 
was told by this administration that we've got to be careful not to put 
money into a sinkhole. Well, this is also about equity.
  When those troops come home, when they come home to the Midwest, when 
they come home to my Michigan, I will look them in the eye and say, 
``As long as I have been here, I have defended and supported our 
troops, but I have also made sure that, when you came home, you came 
back to the American opportunities that you left behind to defend us.''
  As for the future that the majority leader has talked about, I don't 
have to speculate. Let me read you a statement:
  If people tell you that we cannot afford to invest in education or in 
health care or in fighting poverty, you just remind them that we are 
spending $10 billion a month in Iraq.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield the 
gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. McCOTTER. If we can spend that much money in Iraq, we can spend 
some of that money right here in Cincinnati, Ohio, and in big cities 
and in small towns in every corner of this country.
  That was candidate Barack Obama.
  I would never take money from funds appropriated for our troops and 
use it for domestic spending. I have said that before; but if you're 
going to add $108 billion to fund a conference report for our troops, 
then spend it here in the United States. Spend it on the men and women 
who support our troops every day. Spend it on their families so they 
stay employed. Do not send it to the IMF. I oppose this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes 
to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it was a proud moment for us to be able to 
come together in a bipartisan fashion here in the House, as put 
together in the House, and support the supplemental for the troops; but 
to add this mess that's coming down here from the conference that the 
Senate stuck in--over $100 billion for the IMF? I mean they're loaning 
money that they get from us and that we're going to have to borrow from 
China in order to give it to countries that hate us and that would love 
to see us go away. That makes no sense.
  If we are going to add this additional burden onto the American 
taxpayer, which is going to work counter to the troops who are out 
there, who are putting their lives at risk, why not just bring them 
home and not pay our enemies all that extra money and just call it a 
wash? If we're going to give money that we're going to have to borrow 
from the Chinese, let's just call it a wash and bring our troops home 
instead of funding our enemies. That's ridiculous. We should not go 
there. Let's stop this, and let's get back to the good bill we had in 
the House before.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of our time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 8 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. 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. OBEY. 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. LEWIS of California. 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.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. NUNES. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I would be happy to yield.

[[Page H6869]]

  Mr. NUNES. I have a question for the gentleman because I know he has 
spent a lot of time on approps. I know you're from California, and 
we've talked a lot about the water issue in California.
  Because this bill is going to go to the President and become law, 
this is one of our last opportunities to actually make law and get 
pumping levels back up to historic levels so we can provide water not 
only to San Joaquin Valley, but also to Los Angeles and San Diego. Do 
you think there's any possibility we could amend this bill and get 
something changed here so it will go to Obama's desk?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. 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.
  Mr. NUNES. Well, I would hope the gentleman would yield again.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Sure.
  Mr. NUNES. As we go through the approps process, I know you will be 
helpful in trying to get the point across that we have 40,000 people 
right now without jobs in the San Joaquin Valley, long food lines, 20 
percent unemployment. These are very serious issues, and I would hope 
that your committee will be helpful.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. 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. NUNES. Thank you.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I do have one additional 
speaker, and I am very proud to yield 1 minute to the Republican 
leader, Mr. Boehner.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I said earlier this year 
that when the President does what we think is the right thing for the 
American people, that he will have no stronger allies than House 
Republicans. We believe that the President has a responsible strategy 
in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and we have in fact supported him.
  When this troop funding bill left the House, it left with a broad 
bipartisan majority. And as this bill is now considered, after a 
conference with the Senate, there are a couple of very troubling parts 
of this bill.
  First and foremost, the addition of a $108 billion line of credit for 
the International Monetary Fund I think is unnecessary in this bill. 
And it's unnecessary because to ask our troops to carry money for a 
global bailout, frankly, I think is unfair. There is only about $80 
billion in this bill for our troops, and here we're asking them to 
spend nearly $30 billion more to carry this global bailout.
  Now, I've got to tell you, we may have enough money in the United 
States to solve our economic problems, but I'll guarantee you we don't 
have enough money to solve the world's economic problems. And when you 
think about the fact that we don't have $108 billion to loan to the 
IMF, so what's going to happen here? The United States is going to go 
to China, we're going to borrow $108 billion, we're going to give it to 
the IMF, and they're going to give it to countries, most of whom don't 
like us very much.
  Now, I would suspect that most of my constituents would say, This is 
a bad deal, and, Boehner, we expect you to vote ``no.'' And trust me, I 
am going to vote ``no.'' But the fact is, it doesn't belong in this 
bill. That issue should be debated on its own and should be voted up or 
down on its own.
  The second issue is that the Senate included language in their bill 
that would have protected these photos of detainees from being 
released. General Petraeus, General Odierno, and others, have made it 
clear that the release of these photos will endanger our troops. I 
believe it will also cripple the ability of our intelligence officials 
to do their job. And yet while it was supported in this House last week 
with another broad bipartisan vote, the language isn't in the bill; 
it's been taken out at the demands of the fringe left. And so I would 
suggest to my colleagues that this is not a bill that I can support.
  I'm going to do everything I can to help our troops. They're doing a 
marvelous job on our behalf in helping to keep Americans safe. But to 
load this bill up with this kind of political gamesmanship is not what 
the American people expect of their Congress.
  So I would ask my colleagues to stand up and say ``no'' to this bill. 
Let's bring back the broad bipartisan majority that passed the first 
bill and take care of our troops the right way. This is not the answer, 
though.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 4 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Wisconsin has 28 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. 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

[[Page H6870]]

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:

                              {time}  1800

  ``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.

[[Page H6871]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.001



[[Page H6872]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.002



[[Page H6873]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.003



[[Page H6874]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.004



[[Page H6875]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.005



[[Page H6876]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.006



[[Page H6877]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.007



[[Page H6878]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.008



[[Page H6879]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.009



[[Page H6880]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.010



[[Page H6881]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.011



[[Page H6882]]

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of reasons to vote for this 
bill. The bill funds our withdrawal from Iraq, stop-loss compensation 
for our troops, a more robust pandemic flu response, extends the 21st 
Century GI Bill of Rights education benefits to children of members of 
the armed forces who die while on active duty, additional international 
food and refugee assistance during the current global economic crisis, 
and other worthy programs as well. But candidly, those issues are 
ancillary to the real issue before us: this vote is essentially about 
whether or not we support current Administration policy in Afghanistan 
and Pakistan. I hope the President does not let the country down on 
this.
  Does the Congress want to support and fund the President's new 
military plan? Looking back at this vote from the future, it will be 
seen as a vote on the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Will a vote for 
this bill move us closer to a peaceful resolution of the conflict in 
southwest Asia?
  In this dangerous, complicated world it is never clear how to advance 
peace, prosperity, and justice for ourselves and the rest of the world. 
We Members of Congress are called on to exercise our best judgment, and 
in my best judgment what the President has done so far in Afghanistan 
is not the way forward, and the President will have to change the 
policy. The President is doing much good at home and abroad, and I want 
to support him wherever I can. However, he so far has not changed the 
policy in Afghanistan in a way that shows he has learned the lessons of 
Iraq. Nevertheless, I am willing to give him the opportunity to operate 
from a position of strength in forming that new policy.
  The chairman of the full committee has suggested that he is willing 
to give the President a year to turn things around in Afghanistan and 
Pakistan, but no more than that--an argument that has considerable 
merit. The problem, though, is that the President's new policy may not 
be new enough--not enough of a clean break with the past policy that 
placed excessive reliance on the use of force to solve what are by 
definition political problems. We should take a lesson from Iraq where 
it was not an American troop surge that reduced violence, but rather 
empowering local provincial forces. And as in Iraq, it will be a 
reduced American combat presence that will ultimately allow the country 
to find some peace. So-called surgical strikes--with inevitable 
civilian casualties--and remote assassinations will not remove the 
threat of militant extremists.
  Our understanding of Afghanistan is inadequate and our poor 
intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan limits our ability to carry 
out any strategy. We are moving forward in Afghanistan with too much 
military bravado and too little genuine understanding. Other countries 
are opting out of combat, not because they are cowards, but because 
they do not see the situation the same way. Some of us have asked for a 
plan of success or a plan of withdrawal before sending another wave of 
soldiers. We have received no such plan.
  As with other tragic wars without a clear plan of how to get out, I 
fear we may be taking a first step that will be followed by sending 
soldier after soldier to redeem our sunk costs. Alexander the Great, 
the Mongols, the Mughals, the British, the Soviets--all their military 
interventions in this region ended badly because they misread the 
people and the history of this region. I am giving the President the 
benefit of the doubt on this request by supporting it, with this 
caveat: my patience has limits.
  I will not support an endless military commitment in this region. 
Reading between the lines, I suspect I see the letter Q in 
Afghanistan--as in quagmire. If a year from now I do not see 
unambiguous indicators of success--fewer civilian casualties, Afghan 
and Pakistani security forces in the lead on the security mission, 
genuine progress in rebuilding Afghanistan's shattered infrastructure 
and civil institutions--I will not support further funding for 
operations and will support only measures that will bring our forces 
home, and quickly.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. 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

[[Page H6883]]

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.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in stroll support of H.R. 2346, the 
FY09 Emergency Supplemental Conference Report. This legislation 
provides the resources our military, diplomatic, and development 
personnel need to make our nation more secure.
  The Obama administration's policy to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda 
in Afghanistan and Pakistan is critical to prevent the region from 
being a base for terrorist plots against the United States and our 
allies. H.R. 2346 provides $3.8 billion for economic security 
initiatives in the region and funds our diplomatic and development 
personnel and their security.
  I welcome the administration's efforts to forge a lasting peace 
between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This legislation provides 
economic, humanitarian, and security assistance to the West Bank and 
Gaza to encourage stability and political moderation. It ensures that 
Hamas and other terrorist organizations do not receive taxpayer funds 
and conditions funds for a potential Palestinian unity government on 
all its ministers publicly recognizing Israel's right to exist, 
renouncing violence, and adhering to past agreements.
  The conference agreement provides $420 million to help Mexico fight 
violent narcotraffickers with surveillance aircraft, helicopters, and 
law enforcement equipment, and to support rule of law programs, 
bringing to $1.12 billion the total appropriated in 2008 and 2009 for 
these purposes.
  The bill exceeds the President's request for assistance programs and 
diplomatic operations in Iraq to ensure a smooth transition from the 
military mission to a civilian-led effort.
  The bill includes $5 billion to provide the IMF with the resources 
necessary to respond to the global economic crisis. This funding is a 
central component of a comprehensive economic strategy to protect 
American families and jobs.
  In addition, the bill addresses significant humanitarian and 
development priorities by providing $225 million to address the growing 
displacement of civilians in Pakistan and to help refugees in other 
countries; $836.9 million for peacekeeping; $256 million for countries 
impacted by the global financial crisis, including Haiti and Liberia; 
and the House-passed level of $100 million for the Global Fund to Fight 
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report 
to H.R. 2346, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009.
  The agreement reached by the House and Senate negotiators provides 
our troops needed equipment on the battlefield and adequate pay for 
their service through the remainder of the 2009 fiscal year, 
compensation of $500 for every month they were forced to remain on 
active-duty for longer than planned since 2001, funding to fulfill 
President Obama's promise to end the Iraq War, support for refocusing 
our military and civilian operations in Afghanistan, and assistance for 
new counterterrorism, economic, and diplomatic initiatives in Pakistan.
  In addition, this legislation contains much-needed funding to respond 
to urgent humanitarian crises involving refugees and internally 
displaced persons (IDPs). While I thank the Committee for including 
this assistance, I am hopeful such funding is just a sign on more to 
come. I am especially hopeful the U.S. will continue to respond to the 
dire needs to Iraqi refugees and IDPs, the largest refugee crisis since 
Palestinian Diaspora of 1948.
  I would also like to thank Chairman Obey for providing $1 billion for 
the program authorized by the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save 
Act (also known as ``cash-for-clunkers.'') I was pleased to cosponsor 
and help craft the cash-for-clunkers legislation which will result in 
meaningful reductions in vehicle fleet carbon emissions and fuel 
consumption, while providing much-needed stimulus for our ailing 
automakers and economy.
  Finally, as a long-time supporter of the Department of Health and 
Human Services and front-line public health agencies such as the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, I am pleased that the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act includes $1.5 billion for these Federal 
programs, along with an additional $5.8 billion in contingent emergency 
appropriations for priority efforts to respond to the pandemic flu. 
Further, it provides $350 million to assist State and local 
governments, who play an important role in protecting the public, in 
preparing for and responding to a pandemic.
  After the recent outbreak of H1N1, which has been confirmed in 75 
countries, it became apparent that the United States must work swiftly 
to ensure our readiness. The funding provided in the bill will allow 
the United States to take important steps forward in protecting 
Americans from a dangerous outbreak, including the expansion of 
detection efforts, shoring up Federal stockpiles, and securing 
sufficient vaccinations.
  I thank Chairman Obey, the Appropriations Committee, and the 
conference negotiators for including these provisions, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the Conference Report to H.R. 2346.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, we live in difficult times. Families 
continue to struggle to make ends meet. Two major American auto 
companies have crumbled before our eyes. And the US faces threats from 
groups and individuals across the globe who endeavor to do us harm.
  Today, the bill before us--hopefully the last war supplemental 
funding measure of its kind--attempts to tackle at least one of these 
looming problems.
  It finances the targeted strategy President Obama has crafted to 
minimize security threats to the United States and stabilize one of the 
most volatile regions of the world. The Supplemental's provisions on 
Afghanistan and Pakistan focus on preventing them from becoming failed 
states and safe havens for terrorists.
  It is also a needed course-correction from the Bush Administration's 
policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan--one that makes ending 
corruption and improving governance, not projection of military force, 
the top priority.
  The President has asked me--personally--to support this measure.
  And I will support it for three reasons. First, this bill funds a 
very clear strategy in Afghanistan and limits the military mission 
there. Second, it provides the means to end the combat mission in Iraq 
and requires the Secretary of Defense to report on troop drawdown 
status there.
  Third, there is no funding for US troops to Pakistan--only non-
military aid and counter-insurgency training to enable Pakistani forces 
to defeat the ominous Taliban threat inside their borders. It rightly 
focuses on programs that can and should succeed, rather than open-ended 
engagements that lack achievable goals.
  Governance is the key--providing the Afghan and Pakistani people an 
alternative to the false promise of safety and security offered by 
insurgent groups who are in fact terrorizing local populations. Earning 
the trust of the people of those countries is crucial--reforming the 
police, cleaning up the court systems and targeting corruption are 
necessary to restore confidence.
  One of the most important provisions contained in this bill is the 
requirement that the President submit a report to Congress within

[[Page H6884]]

the next year assessing the success of the Af/Pak policy--the extent to 
which the Afghan and Pakistan governments have supported 
counterinfurgency operations and governance reforms, and the ways in 
which they effectively governing the shared border region.
  The oversight measures contained in this bill will ensure that the 
mission is focused and that our goals are met. Investments are specific 
and intended to funs a finite objective.
  But this measure funds more than our engagements abroad. It provides 
$7.7 billion for H1N1 pandemic flu preparedness and response efforts--
most of which will be used to expand our ability to detect the virus 
and supplement vaccine stockpiles. While this pandemic has not been as 
extreme as initially expected, many scientists fear that H1N1 could 
recur--in a stronger form--next year. This is a strategic investment in 
the federal government's contingency planning efforts.
  Finally, the legislation honors America's wounded warriors, providing 
funds for health and rehabilitation programs.
  I have long opposed conducting US military operations ``off the 
books.'' President Obama is committed to ending this practice, which I 
believe is necessary to making sure our missions are effective and 
Americans can understand the real trade-offs involved.
  Statement on Conference Report of HR 2346, FY 2009 War Supplemental 
Appropriations 15 June 2009
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference 
report on the War Supplemental Appropriations. I wonder what happened 
to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who 
voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the 
previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have 
changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed 
hands. I find this troubling. As I have said while opposing previous 
war funding requests, a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the 
war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the 
power of the purse.
  This conference report, being a Washington-style compromise, reflects 
one thing Congress agrees on: spending money we do not have. So this 
``compromise'' bill spends 15 percent more than the president 
requested, which is $9 billion more than in the original House bill and 
$14.6 billion more than the original Senate version. Included in this 
final version--in addition to the $106 billion to continue the wars in 
Afghanistan and Iraq--is a $108 billion loan guarantee to the 
International Monetary Fund, allowing that destructive organization to 
continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt elites and promote 
harmful economic policies overseas.
  As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the 
Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends 
billions of dollars overseas as foreign aid. Included in this 
appropriation is $660 million for Gaza, $555 million for Israel, $310 
million for Egypt, $300 million for Jordan, and $420 million for 
Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for 
``peacekeeping'' missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent 
overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders and 
nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a ``potential pandemic 
flu.''
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the best way to support our 
troops is to bring them home from Iraq and Afghanistan. If one looks at 
the original authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan, it is 
clear that the ongoing and expanding nation-building mission there has 
nothing to do with our goal of capturing and bringing to justice those 
who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Our continued 
presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us more safe at home, 
but in fact it undermines our national security. I urge my colleagues 
to defeat this reckless conference report.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I opposed the 2001 resolution 
authorizing the use of force because I believed it gave President Bush 
and any future President a blank check to wage war anywhere on the 
globe, starting in Afghanistan.
  Unfortunately, we will be unable to avoid such ill-fated actions in 
the future until we repeal the 2001 authorization.
  Today, nearly eight years later, I oppose the supplemental 
appropriations bill for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq because it 
continues us down the path of open-ended military escalation that can 
lead to war without end.
  I oppose this $94 billion supplemental because:
  It favors military activities over diplomatic, development, and 
reconstruction efforts by a ratio of 8 to 1;
  It does not include an exit plan for Afghanistan;
  It does not require the fully funded redeployment of troops and 
military contractors out of Iraq within 12 months; and
  It does not include the strong regional approach the situation 
demands including a strong nuclear non-proliferation effort in 
Pakistan.
  Madam Speaker, it is time we maximize our nation's ``smart power'' by 
increasing our use of diplomatic, development, and reconstruction 
activities.
  Unfortunately, the supplemental appropriations bill does not reflect 
a fundamental shift in direction.
  Therefore, I cannot support it.
  Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of myself and my four 
colleagues from the U.S. territories to express our concern with 
Section 14103 of the Conference Report on H.R. 2346, the Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, 2009, relative to a funding prohibition on the 
release or transfer of individuals currently detained at U.S. Naval 
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
  Today, my colleagues and I have written a letter to President Barack 
H. Obama to convey this concern. I submit the text of our letter for 
print and inclusion in the official Record.

                                   Washington, DC., June 16, 2009.
     President Barack H. Obama,
     The White House,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We write to respectfully request that 
     your Administration not release or transfer any individual 
     who is currently detained at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo 
     Bay, Cuba to any territory of the United States.
       The Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 2346), which is 
     expected to be approved by Congress later this week, 
     prohibits the use of funds made available in the Act to 
     release or transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo Bay 
     to the 50 states or the District of Columbia. However, the 
     Act technically does not prohibit the use of funds to release 
     or transfer such individuals to any of the U.S. territories.
       Although we have no reason to believe that your 
     Administration intends to release or transfer any detainees 
     to the U.S. territories, we write to express our concern 
     about any decision in this context that may treat the 
     territories differently than the 50 states or the District of 
     Columbia. The safety of the U.S. citizens and nationals 
     residing in the territories is no less important than the 
     safety of their fellow Americans residing in the 50 states. 
     We are certain that your Administration fully subscribes to 
     this view and, therefore, that you will treat the territories 
     the same as the 50 states and the District of Columbia with 
     respect to the release or transfer of individuals detained at 
     U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       We thank you for your attention to this important matter.
           Sincerely,
       Pedro R. Pierluisi.
       Madeleine Z. Bordallo.
       Donna M. Christensen.
       Eni F.H. Faleomavaega.
       Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  I wanted to come down to the House floor to let the troops know I 
support them and how much I appreciate the work they're doing around 
the world. I have been to Afghanistan and to Guantanamo Bay this year 
to see the work they're doing, and it is tremendous. We should all be 
proud of their effort.
  Unfortunately, today's vote misuses critical funding for our troops 
to push through billions in foreign spending. People in east Tennessee 
question why we're giving $5 billion and over $100 billion in loan 
guarantees to the International Monetary Fund to bail out other 
countries when we have so many needs right here at home.
  Additionally, because this legislation designates everything as 
``emergency'' spending, this spending is not offset and breaks the 
already-inflated spending caps. The way I see it, the only emergency I 
see is that a month has passed and the Democrats haven't added a few 
billion to our already record deficit in new spending.
  I urge members to defeat this bill and force the Democratic 
Leadership to bring us back a clean supplemental that supports the 
troops.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of 
the conference report will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the motion 
to suspend the rules on House Resolution 366.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 202, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 348]

                               YEAS--226

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)

[[Page H6885]]


     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sestak
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--202

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Farr
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Massa
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Alexander
     Berkley
     Kennedy
     Lewis (GA)
     Sullivan
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1827

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________