[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14942-14946]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1200
                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, 
the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's 
schedule.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  On Monday, Madam Speaker, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for 
morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes 
postponed until 6:30 p.m.
  On Tuesday, the Former Members Association will have their annual 
meeting on the floor at 8:30 a.m. The House will then meet at 10:30 
a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On 
Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative 
business. And on Friday, as is unusual, the House will meet at 9 a.m. 
for legislative business.
  Madam Speaker, we will consider several bills under suspension of the 
rules. A complete list of suspension bills will be noted by the end of 
the day.
  In addition, we will consider a conference report on H.R. 2346, the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act on the 2010 Commerce, Justice, Science, 
and Related Agencies Appropriation Act and the 2010 Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act. And I yield back.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I would say to the gentleman that he has noticed two appropriations 
bills for next week: Commerce, Justice and Science; and the Homeland 
Security appropriations bills. Madam Speaker, I would ask the 
gentleman, does he expect the House, as is its custom, to consider 
these bills under an open rule? And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It certainly would be our intent to proceed with an open rule on the 
consideration of the Commerce, Justice and State bill--I guess it's 
Science now. The intent, of course, as the gentleman knows based upon 
our discussions, is that we will finish all 12 appropriation bills 
individually between now and the 30th of July. This will give the 
Senate and the House the opportunity to agree on a conference report on 
the 12 appropriation bills and hopefully enact those bills and send 
them to the President prior to the onset of the fiscal year October 1. 
If we do that, of course, it will be unusual, and it is an ambitious 
schedule. But because of that, it will be necessary for us to consider 
these bills in an effective, but also efficient, fashion and stay 
within time constraints that will allow us to accomplish those 12 bills 
within that time frame. I am hopeful that as Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis 
proceed and the subcommittee Chairs proceed, that we can agree on that 
occurring.
  As the gentleman and I have discussed, we will see how the first bill 
goes, or the second or third, and hopefully they will go in that 
fashion. The only constraint that we want is to utilize the time so we 
can effect the objective of passing these bills by the August break so 
we will have time to finish them before the beginning of the fiscal 
year.
  I would tell my friend that, in addition to that, there would be one, 
however, additional request that the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee has made--with which I strongly agree and that I think is 
fair to all the Members and to the committee Chairs and subcommittee 
Chairs--and that is that there will be a requirement for preprinting an 
amendment. There will be no selection in the CJS bill of amendments, 
but there will be a requirement that they be preprinted and included in 
the Record.
  If, however, I want to assure the gentleman, there is some problem 
with the Record reflecting an amendment that has been prefiled but 
doesn't make it in the Record, we would proceed as if that had been 
included in the printed Record.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  As the gentleman knows, in 2005 this House did abide by a schedule 
such as the one that he proposes, and did so under an open rule on each 
bill.
  I ask the gentleman if, given this preprinting requirement that we 
are proceeding under, if there is a need for a perfecting amendment 
that comes upon the adoption of an amendment, how is it that we will be 
necessarily guaranteeing Members' perfecting amendments the right to be 
heard? Will there be a UC granted for such a perfecting amendment? I 
yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I have discussed this matter with the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, and it is his view--and I share that view, certainly--that 
in that instance granting a unanimous consent would be appropriate. 
Obviously, if the circumstances change and such an amendment were 
necessary, I think the gentleman will find that the chairman is 
inclined--and I believe the subcommittee chairman will be inclined--to 
give unanimous consent to achieve that objective.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the Speaker of the 
House has announced a goal of considering the cap-and-trade bill on the 
floor prior to the July 4 recess. I would ask the majority leader, does 
he expect the Speaker's goal to be met? And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We certainly hope so. The Speaker and I have both indicated, with 
respect to the energy bill, which seeks to not only address the 
conservation of our energy and making us energy independent, but also 
seeks to address the global warming challenge that confronts our globe, 
to pass that legislation in a timely fashion. It passed out of 
committee, as the gentleman knows, the week when we left for the 
Memorial Day break, so it has been pending now for at least 3 weeks.
  It is our hope that we can move forward on this as early, perhaps, as 
the last week in June, which would be immediately before the July 4 
break.

[[Page 14943]]

Time and circumstances will dictate whether or not that is possible, 
but we certainly do hope to consider that in the near term.
  In addition, as the gentleman undoubtedly knows, we also have under 
consideration the health care bill, which the President has made a very 
high priority and which we have made a very high priority. So that bill 
will also, we hope, be considered prior to the August break.
  So those two bills are major pieces of legislation that we hope to 
consider, but I don't want to give an exact date on those because they 
are complicated pieces of legislation. We hope that we can reach 
agreement on--and we would like to reach agreement across the aisle as 
well--if not all facets, at least some facets of that bill. I'm sure 
your side has considerations that will help us perfect a bill. I think 
we will probably have some agreements, but, nevertheless, we hope to 
move forward together on both bills.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I would like to ask a followup of the majority leader, specifically 
for the benefit of the Members who serve on the Ways and Means and the 
Agriculture Committees. Will we anticipate that those two committees 
will have an opportunity to hear and mark up the cap-and-trade bill? 
And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have discussed this matter with the chairmen of both committees. 
Certainly they will have the opportunity. Whether they will avail 
themselves of that opportunity I can't say at this point in time. What 
I mean by that is that there are clearly concerns that both committees 
have and have been expressed. But whether or not they're going to 
actually go to a markup of the bill or try to perfect it in other ways 
on the floor or in working with the Energy and Commerce Committee I 
don't think has been decided by either committee at this point in time.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I now would like to point out to the gentleman, as all 
of us know, that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have spent the last 
29 days waiting for this Congress to authorize the funding that they 
need to execute their mission to maintain not only their own safety, 
but the safety of us here at home. We have heard reports since last 
night that the war funding bill and its provision and primary mission 
of funding the troops has now been somewhat eclipsed by provisions 
which have no relation to protecting and supporting our troops in the 
field. So I would ask the gentleman, could he confirm, number one, that 
$108 billion--scored at $5 billion by the Congressional Budget Office--
whether that money for the IMF will be included in the troop funding 
bill? Number two, are the reports correct which have indicated that the 
provisions prohibiting the release of detainee photos has now been 
stripped from the measure that we will consider? And thirdly, could the 
gentleman confirm that the conference report coming to the House will 
now allow for the transfer of the Guantanamo detainees into the United 
States?
  And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As the gentleman recalls, we had a relatively robust discussion about 
this last week.
  Let me, first of all, say that the principle purpose of this bill 
was, is, and will be on Tuesday the funding of our troops in the field, 
providing them with the resources necessary to complete successfully or 
pursue successfully the task that we've given them and to provide for 
their safety and well-being to the possible extent we can. So that was 
the intent, it is the intent, and will remain the intent.
  Now, let me make a suggestion that providing for some of the poorest 
nations in the world to be more successful economically will not only 
be beneficial to our country and to the international economy 
generally, but also to the safety of our troops, very frankly. It is, 
obviously, in deep poverty and frustration from which many of the 
terrorists that we have seen have been recruited. To the extent we 
provide for the economies of these small, troubled countries, we may 
well be a safer world, not only economically better off, but from a 
security standpoint better off. So we perceive the IMF as an integral 
part of a process of seeking security.
  I might say that the IMF, as I quoted last week, very strongly 
supported by Ronald Reagan, very strongly supported by both President 
Bushes, but particularly President Bush the First, where they said 
investing in the IMF was an investment in the well-being of the 
international community and our own country.
  As you indicate, the $108 billion scores at $5 billion because it's a 
loan guarantee; it's not a giveaway. We believe that the IMF is a very 
important part of it, and in answer to your question, the IMF will, in 
fact, be a part--as I think the gentleman probably knows--of the 
conference report that will be filed perhaps later tonight.
  With respect to your second question regarding--well, I guess your 
third question because your first was about the security of the 
troops--the third question of Guantanamo, let me, first of all, read a 
letter, a paragraph of a letter dated June 11 to Mr. Obey and Mr. 
Inouye, the Senate chairman of the Appropriations Committee, from 
President Obama.

                              {time}  1215

  He says, On May 13 I announced I would resist the release of 
additional detainee photos because I did not believe it would add any 
additional benefit to our understanding of what happened in the past 
and that the most direct consequences of releasing them would be to 
further inflame anti-American opinion and put our troops in greater 
danger. Earlier today the Second Circuit granted the government's 
motion that will stay the earlier court order to release the detainees' 
photos, and we will now move forward with a petition to the Supreme 
Court to appeal the case.
  He goes on to say, I deeply appreciate all you have done to help with 
the effort to secure funding for the troops, and I assure you that I 
will continue to take every legal and administrative remedy available 
to me to ensure that the DOD detainee photographs are not released. 
Should a legislative solution prove necessary, I am committed to 
working with the Congress to enact legislation that achieves the 
objectives we share.
  With respect, lastly, Mr. Whip, to the detainees, as you know, one 
detainee was, in fact, transferred to the United States, to New York, 
for the purposes of trial. That is not unusual. As the gentleman knows, 
many terrorists have been tried in the New York District Court in which 
this trial will occur. In addition to that, four Uyghurs have been 
ordered released by the court because the court concluded there was no 
proof of terrorist activity by the Uyghurs. They've been released to 
Bermuda.
  One Iraqi detainee, Mr. Sadkhan, was returned to Iraq. One Chadian 
detainee was returned to Chad. And Mr. Ghailani, to whom I have 
referred to earlier, has been transferred to New York City, where there 
is a standing indictment against him. He'll be tried for his role in 
the 1998 attacks in Tanzania and Kenya in which the father and brother 
of one of my constituents, Edith Bartley, were killed, Julian and Jay 
Bartley. So I, for one, am pleased that this gentleman, and I use that 
term loosely, unfortunately, but this individual will be tried and 
brought to justice.
  All four Biscoe conspirators have been found guilty and are serving 
out sentence in the U.S. supermax prison. It has been agreed under the 
language, as I understand it, that has been adopted that detainees 
would be brought to the United States for no other purpose than 
prosecution.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  And, Madam Speaker, I would respond by going back to the gentleman's 
original statement concerning the principal purpose of the war funding 
bill, and that he said, if I could paraphrase, the intent of the bill 
is to fund our troops. So I am at somewhat of a loss to understand why 
we have taken 29 days. We've already had one strong bipartisan vote in 
this House with

[[Page 14944]]

nearly unanimity on our side of the aisle to provide the necessary 
funding for our troops, so I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand why 
the delay.
  The gentleman speaks of the urgent need for us, as U.S. taxpayers, to 
fund a global bailout, and the gentleman said that there is indication 
that somehow if we address the issue of poverty that we will then be 
lessening the number of terrorists. I don't know, Madam Speaker, if all 
of us would agree with that or not. No question, reducing poverty is a 
laudable goal, but we are also in the business here in Washington of 
setting priorities. Priority one should be the funding of our troops 
and to secure this country and its citizens. And thank God we have our 
men and women in uniform there. They should be our priority in 
executing in terms of advocating for the safety and fighting for the 
security of this country.
  So I am still, to use the gentleman's word from last week, confounded 
as to why it is we cannot have the IMF funding go through regular order 
in this House. As you know, reports have indicated that actions have 
been taken by this administration, especially Secretary Geithner, to 
cast a vote in favor of increasing access to money and credit for the 
member nations of the IMF. That is done without congressional approval. 
And we're talking here specifically about the special drawing rights of 
nations at the IMF. We have also found out that the nation of Iran will 
have the ability to access funding of over a billion dollars through 
this process. To me, that calls for congressional oversight and action. 
It doesn't warrant delaying this bill. It doesn't warrant putting on 
the backs of our troops the funding of nations, frankly, that are 
providing support for the destruction of our efforts and endangering 
our troops on the ground in Iraq and in the region.
  So I have a question to the gentleman of why it is so important that 
we go ahead and fund a global bailout when the primary mission is to 
fund our troops.
  And I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  The gentleman articulates a number of premises that I reject, I don't 
agree with. Nobody is putting anything on the back of the troops. The 
gentleman has been in this body for some period of time, and he knows 
that from time to time the other body adds amendments to bills and it 
is incumbent upon us to consider those amendments. As the gentleman 
knows, when we passed the bill through the House, it did not have the 
IMF funding in the bill. The Senate added it to the bill. It was a 
subject of the conference report. The President of the United States 
has asked for the IMF funding. We happen to agree with the President of 
the United States that the IMF funding is appropriate funding and does, 
in fact, as I will restate for the gentleman, we believe, add a 
security component to the troop funding that is the primary purpose of 
this bill.
  Secondly, I reject your premise that somehow this money is going to 
go to people who are going to harm us. In fact, of course, as I told 
you last week, the last time Iran, which you mentioned, received money 
was when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States in 1984. 
There is no expectation, in my opinion, that Iran, while it may be 
eligible technically, is going to get any money, as it has not for the 
last quarter of a century.
  I would reiterate what I said last week in quoting Ronald Reagan, no 
individual who wanted to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Very 
forthright in his confrontation of communism and despotism. He said, 
``I have an unbreakable commitment to increase funding for the IMF.'' 
As I cited to you, he said that on September 7, 1983. He went on to 
say, ``The IMF is the linchpin of the international financial system.''
  The gentleman and his side of the aisle continue, in my opinion, to 
misrepresent what is intended by that funding. The President of the 
United States, whether it was Ronald Reagan, George Bush the First, 
George Bush the Second, or any other President, that goes to an 
international meeting with 19 of the other large industrial nations in 
the world and they sit down together and attempt to try to bring the 
global economy back to vibrancy and agree that, in part, what is needed 
is some assistance to the poorest nations in this world who are 
themselves being dragged down and, in the process, adversely affecting 
the global markets generally agree to make a substantial commitment of 
loan guarantees available. As the gentleman knows, the United States 
has about a 20 percent vote on this, and this is about a 20 percent 
contribution that the President has agreed to. The other 19 nations 
agreed to come up with 80 percent of these dollars. All of them agreed 
that this is in the best interest of restoring our global economy and, 
I suggest to you as well, stabilizing the security situation that 
confronts the international community.
  President Bush said--and this is the last quote I'll give. You may be 
tired of hearing these quotes, but your side of the aisle has been 
making a great hue and cry as if IMF is some specious, dangerous 
pursuit. This is not a bailout. This is an assistance to people to try 
to grow back and be positive, contributing members of the international 
global marketplace.
  George Bush said this: ``The IMF and World Bank, given their central 
role in the world economy, are key to helping all of us through this 
situation by providing a combination of policy advice and financial 
assistance.'' George Bush said that on September 25, 1990, a time of 
economic stress internationally for the same reason that President 
Obama and the 19 other industrialized nations of the world agreed that 
this was an appropriate step to take.
  I would hope the gentleman would urge his party to support this, 
consistent with the principles of Ronald Reagan and George Bush.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I think, as the gentleman knows, we are probably going 
to have to leave this topic and agree to disagree. It is very 
concerning, given the new times we are in, and, frankly, the facts and 
information have come forward about the special drawing rights about 
the fact and knowledge that we have at this point knowing U.S. taxpayer 
dollars will help facilitate countries like Iran, Venezuela, Burma, and 
others to access more money to do what it is that they think is in 
their interest and certainly not in the interest of the U.S.
  But I would like to turn the gentleman's attention back to his 
statement about the intention of this bill and the primary purpose of 
the war funding bill, which, again, to loosely paraphrase, was to 
provide for troop safety and security, and that's the underlying 
purpose. The gentleman indicated that the President has already taken 
the same position that most of us, I believe, in this House have taken 
so far as these photos are concerned and the release of the photos of 
the detainees. So I am again at somewhat of a loss to understand why it 
is that even if the White House and the President himself have sided 
with what I think the majority of the American people feel as well as 
the Members of this House, why it is that we are doing the opposite in 
the text of the report that we will be voting on.
  And I would say to the gentleman, Commander Ray Odierno, General 
Odierno, Commander of the Multinational Forces in Iraq, someone that 
I'm sure the gentleman has had occasion to meet and I as well, who we 
know is a very respected and serious leader of our troops, he said just 
a few weeks ago, I strongly believe the release of these photos will 
endanger the lives of U.S. soldiers, airmen, marines, sailors, and 
civilians, as well as the lives of our Iraqi partners. Certain 
operating units are at particular risk of harm from release of the 
photos. And he went on to describe those particular risks that are 
specific.
  The gentleman, I think, can agree with me it is not in the interest 
of securing the safety of our troops for us to remain silent or for us 
not to take congressional action ensuring that nothing occurs for us to 
possibly harm our troops in this bill. That is why I ask the gentleman 
again, how have we sat here and delayed consideration of the bill 
because now we had to ensure inclusion in the bill the stripping of the

[[Page 14945]]

 provision which provides the safety of our troops?
  And I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Maybe one of the answers is we have less enthusiasm on this side of 
the aisle for interposing in cases that the court is considering. I was 
called back on a Sunday by your side of the aisle many years ago to do 
exactly that. It ended up having no effect.
  There are a lot of people on my side of the aisle who believe that 
the objective that is being sought, which the President of the United 
States and, to this extent, General Odierno agrees with the Commander 
in Chief that these photos ought not to be released, as I pointed out 
to you in the paragraph that I read from the President's letter. In 
fact, the court has stayed the release of those pending a review by the 
Supreme Court of the United States. This matter is under consideration. 
There was general concern about obviating FOIA, the Freedom of 
Information Act, generally as opposed to specifically. But the 
President has made it very clear, the Commander in Chief, and obviously 
General Odierno agrees with the Commander in Chief on this issue, that 
he is going to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that these 
photos are not released, to the extent that he and General Odierno both 
agree that the release of those pictures may, in fact, have an adverse 
effect on the safety of our troops. So what I simply respond to the 
gentleman is that the President of the United States and General 
Odierno are both in a agreement and the President of the United States 
is taking action to effect that agreement.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker.
  I would simply point to the vote taken yesterday in the House on the 
motion to instruct conferees, 267 Members of this House support the 
inclusion of the language barring release of the photos. So I am at a 
loss to understand the thinking behind this action when we bring this 
report to the floor that strips that language.
  Not only the majority, by far the Members of this House on both sides 
of the aisle said that they think that language is important. The 
American people do. It is counterintuitive to think at all that 
Congress should not take action to secure the safety of our troops and 
stop the release of those photos.
  Lastly, Madam Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, we have 
been somewhat dismayed again about the clouding of the issues and the 
underlying principle of this bill, which is to fund our troops and 
provide for their safety, and we've seen this process delayed over 
unrelated items. It is unfortunate. And I'm hopeful that our troops are 
not getting the wrong message, that somehow their safety, security and 
the funding of their efforts doesn't come first.
  I would just lastly like to ask the gentleman: How is it that when we 
left the House and we had the broad bipartisan support of the 
provisions which fenced off the money so that we would not endanger the 
citizens and the communities of the targeted facilities that the 
detainees from Guantanamo would come to that we took that fencing off 
of the money to preclude the funding of shipping terrorists here, to 
now say that we're going to be safer, it is a better policy for us to 
try and achieve the rights and protect the rights of the terrorists at 
the potential expense of endangering U.S. citizens?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. As the gentleman knows, there's no money in here for 
transferring. The $80 million that was requested was not included in 
the House; was not included in the Senate; it's still not included. The 
bill prohibits current detainees from being released in the continental 
United States, Alaska, Hawaii or D.C., as the gentleman knows. It 
prohibits current detainees from being transferred to the current 
United States, Alaska, Hawaii or D.C., except to be prosecuted and only 
after Congress receives a plan detailing: risks involved and a plan for 
mitigating such risk; cost of the transfer; legal rationale and court 
demands; and a copy of the notification provided to the Governor of the 
receiving State 14 days before a transfer with a certification by the 
Attorney General that the individual poses little or no security risk.
  In addition, the bill provides current detainees cannot be 
transferred or released to another country unless the President submits 
to Congress 15 days prior to such transfer: the name of the individual 
and the country the individual will be transferred to; an assessment of 
risks posed and actions taken to mitigate such risks; and the terms of 
the transfer agreement with the other country, including any financial 
assistance.
  Lastly, it requires the President to submit a report to Congress 
describing the disposition of each current detainee before the facility 
can be closed.
  But let me say in the final analysis, many Republicans, including the 
former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, adviser to a number of Republican Presidents, said on a news 
program almost a year ago now that he believed that Guantanamo ought to 
be closed; he believed it should have been closed yesterday when he was 
speaking. That was a year ago. The President of the United States has 
indicated he thinks Guantanamo ought to be closed. There is 
disagreement on that. I understand that. But if it's going to be 
closed, a plan has to be effected for the purpose of dealing with those 
who are at Guantanamo, and the President is working on such a plan. The 
Congress in both bodies made a determination until we have such plan, 
we're not going to take action to facilitate that. That's what I think 
the conference agreement sets forth, and I think it sets forth 
protections that can give the American people a confidence level.
  Let me say something additional to the gentleman. I'm older than the 
gentleman. When I was a child, approximately 4 or 5 years of age, I was 
living in Mexia, Texas. My father, born in Denmark, served in the U.S. 
Army. He was in his forties and wasn't sent overseas. He was the 
finance officer at a POW camp in Mexia, Texas. Mexia, Texas is a town 
of about 7,500 people--apparently then and now. I asked somebody about 
it just recently. There were 4,000 Nazi troops in a POW camp in Mexia, 
Texas. They were kept there. They were not necessarily terrorists. We 
need to take special precautions.
  But in the pursuance of the policies enunciated by the President of 
the United States when he ran for office, when he was substantially 
elected by the American people, he told them exactly what he thought 
ought to be done. He is pursuing what he said to the American people he 
would do. He is doing it in my opinion in a thoughtful way that will 
protect the American public and will bring to justice those who have 
committed international crimes. I think that is something that we are 
trying to work through.
  I want to reiterate. The gentleman has now mentioned so many times 
that we have allowed the funding of the troops to get caught up with 
other issues. Surely the gentleman, I know, does not mean, because he's 
been here long enough to know, that when the House and the Senate and 
the Presidency were in the hands of his party, the funding of the 
troops got tied up from time to time with other issues. That's the 
nature of the legislative process. But I'm hopeful that the gentleman, 
because he's so focused on getting this money to the troops quickly, 
will urge all of his colleagues on Tuesday to join with us in voting to 
fund the troops.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman and his plea for support in his 
bill, knowing good and well that this bill did not go out of this House 
without some support from Republicans that were necessary for its 
passage in its original form.
  I would just say to the gentleman and thank him for his description 
of the POW camp in Texas. But here we are dealing with individuals who 
are not necessarily soldiers of war, they're enemy combatants, an 
entirely different set of circumstances that we have today.

[[Page 14946]]


  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield on that question?
  Mr. CANTOR. I will yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  He and I are probably two of the strongest supporters in this body. 
Those POWs were part of a regime that killed 6 million people. I remind 
him, and the gentleman doesn't need reminding of that, but these were 
not simply soldiers of a regime that was pursuing a war that you and I 
might view in a different way.
  Mr. CANTOR. Reclaiming my time, I would just say to the gentleman, as 
he does know, there were applicable provisions at law which govern the 
treatment of soldiers at war and there is a much less definitive, more 
nebulous environment in which we are to look towards enemy combatants, 
which is my point. Because with the trial of enemy combatants on U.S. 
soil, we are confronting, as the gentleman knows, cases of first 
impression at every turn, and we are confronting uncertainty as to the 
disposition of these cases which brings up potential harm for U.S. 
citizens.
  I would just go back to the gentleman's plea that he would like to 
see us support this bill. If the primary purpose is to maintain, 
promote the security and safety of our troops and provide them with 
funding, it is a reach for me to understand how allowing for a release 
of photos, how allowing for the transfer of enemy combatants--
terrorists--to U.S. soil furthers that end.
  So I would say in closing, Madam Speaker, if the gentleman is 
satisfied with deferring to the White House and deferring to this 
President on the very core purpose of securing this country at all 
levels and doesn't feel the Congress should take affirmative action, 
then I believe his support of this bill is well put. But it is 
certainly the opinion of many of us in this House as indicated by votes 
as late as yesterday that we can do better, that we can take action to 
secure our troops, get them the money they need and get rid of the 
unrelated items in this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. I simply want to observe, as I pointed out in the five or 
six points I made, particularly that current detainees cannot be 
transferred or released to another country without notice to us, nor 
can they be released here in the United States without further action. 
So that the gentleman's premise is, I think, not correct, that this 
President has the authority to, or the intent to release people at this 
time in the United States before or after trial.
  Having said that, I would say, the gentleman continues to talk about 
the add-ons, but I will tell the gentleman, as the gentleman knows, 
over 80 percent of this bill deals with the funding and security of our 
troops and the prosecution of the effort to defeat terrorism. Over 80 
percent of this bill. It is in that context that I would hope the 
gentleman would see his way clear to urging his colleagues to join with 
us in passing this needed legislation.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his 
suggestion and counsel, and I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________