[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15276-15281]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2346, 
                 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 545 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 545

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2346) making supplemental appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read.
       Sec. 2.  The Chair may postpone further consideration of 
     the conference report to such time as may be designated by 
     the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 545.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H. Res. 545 provides for consideration of the supplemental conference 
report, legislation that supports our military in the field in both 
Iraq and Afghanistan. This spending plan provides our troops with 
everything they will need during the remainder of this fiscal year, and 
the President has said this will be the last supplemental spending 
request he will send to Congress. I hope this will be the case.
  I, along with a majority of my colleagues, share the President's goal 
of winding down the war in Iraq and leaving behind an Iraq run by 
Iraqis. This conference report takes a step towards that goal by 
providing for the training of security forces, economic development, 
and diplomatic operations.
  We are also looking to secure Afghanistan, and this conference report 
provides for training of Afghan security forces and counterinsurgency 
measures in bordering Pakistan.
  Although there are no deadlines or timelines in this conference 
report, I think we share in the desire to have troops wrap up their 
missions abroad and return home to their families. It's my hope that we 
will see the beginning of that troop drawdown this year.
  This report also provides for a few key domestic economic priorities 
like the Cash For Clunkers program, which will allow Americans to trade 
in old vehicles for new ones with higher fuel efficiency.
  This conference report also includes $1.5 billion for response to the 
swine flu pandemic to help State and local governments but also to fund 
global efforts to track, contain, and slow down the spread of this flu.
  Although it is not perfect legislation, it provides some essential 
funding, and I will support it and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me begin by thanking my friend from Utica for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  I have to say that it's with extreme disappointment and sadness that 
I rise in opposition to this rule, having been very supportive of it 
when we had it just, it seemed, a few weeks ago.
  The underlying measure of the supplemental appropriations bill that's 
supposed to fund our troops began auspiciously as a wonderfully 
bipartisan effort. In fact, when the House first considered the funding 
measure last month, Republicans were very proud to have what was our 
first opportunity, Mr. Speaker, our first opportunity of this 111th 
Congress to consider a major bill that had been developed in a 
bipartisan way.

                              {time}  1445

  I noted on that occasion that the President's call for bipartisan 
action had previously been completely thwarted by the Democratic 
majority; and, frankly, the record proves that to be the case. But 
finally when it came to the issue of funding our troops, even the 
Democratic leadership that had thwarted efforts to follow the Obama 
directive for bipartisanship, we had concluded that they weren't about 
to politicize the process of funding our troops. While the bill that we 
considered last month was not perfect, it did accomplish the key issue 
at hand, adequately providing for the protection and welfare of our 
troops. And as I said, we were very proud to do it in a bipartisan way, 
something the President wants, something that the American people want, 
and frankly, it's something that I believe a majority of Democrats and 
Republicans in this House want. But unfortunately the Democratic 
leadership does not seem to have that same goal.
  Now the Democratic leadership is, unfortunately, back to what has 
very unfortunately been determined to be business as usual, which is 
concerning a measure which should have been as depoliticized as 
possible, considering it in an extraordinarily partisan way.
  The conference report before us actually cuts troop funding in order 
to pay for billions of dollars of additional non-troop non-emergency 
spending. This includes $5 billion for the International Monetary Fund 
in order to provide additional global bailouts. Now any country, Mr. 
Speaker, can apply for this money. So there's nothing to ensure that 
United States taxpayer dollars don't go to countries like Iran or 
Venezuela. The question of whether to provide this new IMF funding is a 
controversial one; and it may end up being a right decision; but it's 
one that should be fully debated, not air-dropped into a conference 
report. Again, whatever the outcome of that debate on IMF funding, it 
is clearly something that should not be considered as emergency 
funding. It should be part of the regular appropriations process, which 
we're in the midst of right now, where tough decisions are made, 
priorities are set, and a proposal to send $5 billion to the 
International Monetary Fund can be weighed against other priorities 
that Members of this House may have, like transportation funding or 
some other issue that it may be determined through the deliberative 
process is a higher priority.
  Mr. Speaker, our military is on the verge of running out of money. We 
all know that. That, frankly, is why we're here. The resources needed 
for our troops to conduct their mission and return home safely are 
nearly depleted. This, the issue of troop funding, is a true emergency. 
This is what this supplemental appropriations bill is all about--to 
protect and support the men and women in harm's way defending our 
country. The Democratic leadership, instead, chose to cut troop funding 
and load this bill up with other very controversial funding that does 
not support our troops. Republicans made it clear that we could not 
support a troop funding bill that does not, in fact, fully fund our 
troops. So the leadership on the other side of the aisle found itself 
in a dilemma. They had lost Republican support with their partisanship, 
their controversial programs and their cuts for troop funding. So what 
could they do? How could they win the votes necessary to pass this 
conference report?
  The obvious solution would have been to return to bipartisanship. 
It's what the President of the United States has called for; it's what 
the American people want; and it's what I believe a majority of 
Democrats and

[[Page 15277]]

Republicans in this House would like. But instead, the Democratic 
leadership chose to push the contents of this bill as far to the left 
as they possibly could in the hopes of picking up support from the 
fringes of their own party. Having left the middle ground, the fringe 
was the only place left to go.
  So how did they appeal to the very, very extreme left? First they 
watered down language related to moving terrorists to U.S. soil from 
Guantanamo Bay. Well, Republicans have supported much stronger language 
to ensure that no terrorists are ever moved to or set free on American 
soil. The original language would have at least required consultation 
with Congress and slowed down the process until we could act 
definitively to ensure the protection of our communities. But 
inexplicably, as Democrats, Republicans and Independents across the 
country have voiced their outrage over the prospect of having 
terrorists potentially released on American soil, today's conference 
report further weakens the already weakened language. It leaves our 
neighborhoods even more vulnerable to the movement of Gitmo terrorists. 
Furthermore, the Democratic leadership removed protections to ensure 
that information that could put our troops in danger would not be 
released. Many on the far left opposed these protections, so the 
Democratic leadership bartered for their support of this bill by 
stripping them out completely. Without those protections in place, our 
troops in the field will be subject to even greater harm. This was the 
price the Democratic leadership paid in order to negotiate with the far 
left rather than return to the bipartisanship and common sense that had 
guided earlier debates on this funding bill.
  To see just how far out of the mainstream this approach is, Mr. 
Speaker, look no further than the vote on the motion to instruct 
conferees that we had just this past Friday. It was a Republican motion 
which handily passed the House by a vote of 267-152. Mr. Speaker, by a 
vote of 267-152, this House called for a clean bill that restores full 
funding for the troops and keeps in place the protections to prevent 
the release of information that could potentially endanger our troops. 
That strong bipartisan vote just this past Friday in favor of this 
motion indicates how much support there is in this House for a clean, 
bipartisan full troop funding bill. For those of us who naively thought 
that the funding of our troops was the one issue that could not be 
politicized, this is a very, very sobering moment. Clearly the 
Democratic leadership cannot help themselves. Even when bipartisanship 
would be the easy choice, they were compelled to move in the exact 
opposite direction.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, demand a 
clean troop funding bill, one that fully provides the resources they 
need, one that is stripped of all extraneous controversial non-
emergency funding and one that includes full protections for American 
communities as well as our troops in the field.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that this 
bill does provide for the troops; and it provides very well for our 
troops because that is the most important thing that we, as Members of 
Congress, can do. It provides $1.9 billion more than requested for 
MRAPs and $2.5 billion above the President's request for U.S. troops. 
Those are the kinds of things that we need to do as a Congress to make 
sure that our troops are provided for.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I have a question to my friends, and that is: How do we 
support the troops by keeping them in a war that's based on lies? How 
do we support the troops by keeping them in another war which keeps 
expanding and they're getting shot at from all sides? How do we support 
the troops by festering a war on the Afghan border with Pakistan and 
putting them in even more peril because they don't have the support?
  How do we support the troops? We support them by bringing them home. 
That's what we should be appropriating money for, not to keep them 
there. Beyond that, isn't it interesting--we've got another $80 billion 
here for war, but we don't have money to keep people in their homes 
because there are still 13 million Americans who are losing their 
homes; we don't have money for the 50 million Americans who don't have 
any health care; we don't have money to save jobs; we don't have money 
to save our steel mills and our auto plants. What we have is, we have 
money for war.
  Support the troops indeed. America has to start taking care of things 
here at home, and we can't do it by continuing to support wars that are 
based on lies. The Democrats took control of the Congress based on an 
opposition to the war. We should be opposing this war instead of 
deferring to the President. We have the constitutional obligation under 
article I, section 8 of the Constitution to decide whether a war should 
continue or not. We should end it here. We shouldn't be continuing it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my 
friend from Utica who made it very clear that he believes that troop 
funding is their priority; but yet this measure reduces by $4.7 billion 
the level of troop funding that we had in the bipartisan bill passed 
just last month and transfers it to the IMF. So, in fact, this measure 
does cut troop funding.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to the new 
ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the very 
distinguished gentleman from Santa Clarita, California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from 
California (Mr. Dreier) for yielding the time.
  As the ranking member on Armed Services, I rise in opposition to this 
rule and to the war supplemental conference report for one simple 
reason. It will endanger our troops in harm's way. Compared with the 
clean troop funding bill that passed the House with bipartisan support 
in May, this package cuts $4.7 billion from defense that we passed at 
that time to create room for a $105 billion global bailout loan 
program.
  What should be a clean military funding bill has become a means for 
the President's promise to provide more foreign aid to the 
International Monetary Fund. Those funds will eventually make their way 
to countries that are less than friendly to the United States at the 
expense of programs to support our troops. And even more disturbing is 
the decision by conferees to reject the motion offered by Republicans 
to prohibit the release of detainee photos that could exacerbate 
tensions in the very regions our troops are fighting.
  Mr. Speaker, let me read to you a statement about those photos by 
General Petraeus, commander of U.S. Armed Forces throughout the Middle 
East:
  ``The release of images depicting U.S. servicemen mistreating 
detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, or that could be construed as 
depicting mistreatment, would likely deal a particularly hard blow to 
U.S. CENTCOM and U.S. interagency counterinsurgency efforts in these 
key nations, as well as further endanger the lives of U.S. soldiers, 
marines, airmen, sailors, civilians and contractors presently serving 
there.''
  General Petraeus is correct, and we should stand with our troops in 
the field and prohibit the release of these photos. We should not leave 
it in the hands of ACLU lawyers or at the mercy of activist judges.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this package and insist that it be 
brought back immediately with Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham's 
language to prohibit release of these photos.
  Finally, the Senate-passed troop bill included language prohibiting 
release or transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to U.S. soil. 
Unfortunately this conference report does not prohibit the transfer or 
release of detainees after October 1 of this year. This is a huge 
mistake. I fear we're already beginning to open Pandora's box. We've 
already begun importing terrorists. These Guantanamo detainees are 
trained to

[[Page 15278]]

foment dissent among Americans, and we should do everything possible to 
keep them away from our local military bases and our prisons.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and the 
conference report so we can quickly make these necessary changes to 
protect our troops in the field and bring back a clean troop funding 
bill.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. I want to talk about a clearly necessary provision in this 
bill, the fleet modernization provision; but I do want to say just two 
things briefly to comment on what has been said here by the minority.
  I really think they are looking for reasons to vote ``no'' no matter 
how illegitimate they are.

                              {time}  1500

  Regarding this issue of the release of photos, the President has 
said, ``I will continue to take every legal and administrative remedy 
available to me to ensure the DOD detainee photographs are not 
released.''
  Secondly, on the IMF, a commitment was made at the G-20, and this 
carries out the U.S. commitment. It is not a believable position to 
vote ``no'' on this bill for that reason.
  But I want to say a few words about the fleet modernization proposal 
that Representative Sutton, who is here, has worked so hard on with a 
large number of people.
  There is clearly a crisis in the automotive industry. The 
administration has stepped up to the plate with a plan. That plan is 
being implemented. It's very difficult. There is a lot of pain 
involved. It's being carried out.
  What hasn't happened effectively is work on the demand side. That's 
what's lagging here. Sales were down very substantially these last 
several years. There was an uptick in May, but still the annualized 
level is far below even a few years ago. And the sales are down not 
only for the domestic industry but also for the transplants: for 
Toyota, down 41 percent from last May; Honda, 42 percent; Nissan, 33 
percent. So there is an effort to make sure there is effective 
restructuring for the domestic industry.
  We have to work on the demand side, and this today answers that need: 
a voucher for consumers worth $3,500 to $4,500 to help them pay for 
more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. It will incentivize approximately 
1 million new car and truck purchases. So anybody who votes ``no'' on 
this supplemental is voting ``no'' on this provision, and that would be 
a serious mistake.
  It is critical that this Nation retain a strong domestic auto 
industry, and this effort on the demand side is a critical piece of 
that effort.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. LEVIN. This has not been an easy effort. There have been 
disagreements in different ways to go about it. And I simply want to 
say to those who have been in the lead, and especially to 
Representative Sutton, this would not have happened without the 
dedication of herself and others who have been determined that there be 
continued, in this country, a strong domestic auto industry. It's that 
clear. Other countries have stepped up to the plate. They have provided 
support. This is now a necessary implementation of this effort.
  So I plead with people on the minority side to listen, to step up to 
the plate, to not look for arguments or excuses to duck. There is no 
ducking the need for a strong domestic automotive industry, not only 
for Ohio, not only for Michigan, not only for Illinois, not only for 
Indiana, but for the entire United States of America.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture, I don't have any further 
requests for time. I would inquire of my friend whether he has any 
further speakers?
  Mr. ARCURI. Yes, I have an additional speaker.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman 
for his leadership and really thoughtful conversation on what is a 
challenging time for America.
  I rise to support the rule and want to express both my support and 
concerns for aspects of this legislation. But I will speak to the 
seeming overall opposition of our friends on the other side of the 
aisle, and I would hope that in their deliberation they have given a 
thoughtful assessment of the analysis of opposition.
  We are dealing with some very difficult times. I opposed the war in 
Iraq and remain opposed. I do, however, want the opportunity to be able 
to stand down in order to safely have our soldiers redeploy. I want to 
see the standing up of the Iraqis and resources to allow them to 
proceed in their own defense and to bring our soldiers home as heroes.
  I also want us to make good on the promise we made to Afghanistan. 
America is good at keeping her promise. Her soldiers have never stepped 
away from promoting the ideals of democracy and liberty and freedom, 
and the Afghan people are in need. They need the collaboration of the 
NATO forces and the United States. They also need to have 
reconstruction and the empowerment of women and the protection of their 
children.
  And so the part of this legislation addresses that question. It is a 
recognition that many of us opposed the Iraq war and are asking, as we 
have been asking for so long since the horrific tragedy of 9/11 when we 
found that those terrorists, horrific terrorists came from the inner 
parts of Afghanistan, and we abandoned Afghanistan. We did not pay 
attention to them. And so it is important now to ensure that we do it 
in the right way, that we don't maintain an extended force in 
Afghanistan but we help in a collaborative way for the Afghan people to 
stand up and to fight the terrorists and to reestablish institutions 
that will help them build their society, both with respect to education 
and social services. And so part of this legislation does include that 
funding.
  Our eyes have been on Pakistan. There is a regional effort. Secretary 
of State Clinton and the President have worked to appoint Ambassador 
Holbrooke to be an envoy, and he has been in those camps where you have 
seen 2\1/2\ million people be displaced. We cannot abandon them now. We 
must provide the opportunity for them to return to a rebuilt region. 
These are individuals who have fought for their freedom, who left the 
Swat area because they did not want to be overtaken by insurgents, the 
Taliban, who want to undermine a system of democracy and, yes, 
terrorists.
  One man fled with 13 of his children, living in a tent. He said now 
his home is occupied by Pakistan soldiers. He's willing to sacrifice 
and live homeless because he wants freedom. The resources that we now 
have will allow that to happen, and that is vital.
  We also realize that there are areas like Chad, the Congo, and places 
that are near collapse that we are providing for peace-keeping dollars 
that are so very important in helping the U.N. Chad is near collapse 
because it is near Sudan, and many of those who have fled the 
persecution are there.
  From the gulf coast region we have fought consistently to provide 
reimbursement for Galveston and Houston and the regions that have still 
been struck and still sacrificing and still living under the shadow of 
Hurricane Ike. We have the resources to put people in housing and to be 
able to correct the wrong of that terrible storm but yet the inability 
to move as fast as we like pursuant to the work that was not done in 
the last administration.
  I think it is important that we are supporting the International 
Monetary Fund because we cannot stand by while we speak the language of 
reconstruction and rebuilding and not provide that for particular 
support. So there is a value in the hard work of our colleagues.
  But I do believe it is important to revisit an issue that impacts 
many States: the sidestepping of the President's mission on stimulus 
dollars. And

[[Page 15279]]

the State of Texas is a poster child for that. $3.2 billion was taken 
from the moneys that should have been utilized for the education of our 
children. One of my school districts alone has lost $155 million 
because it has been replaced or reordered or snuck under or left 
somewhere in what we call a ``rainy day fund.'' We need to fix this. We 
have an opportunity going forward to be able to fix it, but I would 
like to fix it now.
  So I hope that we will be in the midst of discussion, the 
congressional delegation of Texans who believe that our children must 
come first. And we must follow the vision of President Obama, who said, 
Save a job and create a job. And so we are saving teachers' jobs and 
helping them if we fight to get that $3.2 billion from Texas where it 
needs to be.
  The underlying bill is an important bill, but the Texas children are 
important as well.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I just plan to close debate if the gentleman 
has concluded debate.
  Mr. ARCURI. I have one more speaker.
  Mr. DREIER. I reserve.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his 
leadership on the Rules Committee and for the time.
  I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill. But as 
we prepare to send the war supplemental to President Obama, I would be 
remiss not to express the deep concerns I have about the bill not 
including an exit strategy for military operations in Afghanistan.
  And while I support the supplemental, I am also strongly supporting 
Representative McGovern's bill to require an exit strategy from 
Afghanistan. Fairness requires it. Our brave soldiers need to know that 
we have a plan and that we're looking out for them. And out of fairness 
to the 185,000 soldiers who have been subject to the stop-loss policy 
since September 11, 2001, the supplemental that we're about to pass 
today will provide $500 per month in monthly payments.
  And the use of stop-loss has prevented mothers and fathers from 
returning home to their children, from families and friends from 
gathering for the momentous occasions that mark their lives. They have 
gone above and beyond the expectations of their country. So I'm proud 
to have worked with my colleagues to create the Stop Loss Compensation 
program and to ensure its funding in this bill.
  And I am pleased that we are also funding the bipartisan CARS Act 
program which Representative Levin spoke of a moment ago. That bill was 
passed overwhelmingly by this House just last week. And while it's 
called the CARS Act, it's about far more than just cars. It's about the 
environment and it's about people. It's about consumers, and it's about 
the millions of families in this great Nation who depend on the 
strength of our auto and related industries for their livelihood, to 
put food on the table, to get health care for their children. It's 
about our friends and our neighbors, and it's about our communities 
that depend on auto jobs for their tax base, to support schools and 
police, firefighters and other city services.
  And I'm also proud to say that we have worked on language in the bill 
to allow that SAFER grants that are used to hire firefighters can be 
used now to rehire and retain much-needed firefighters.
  This bill provides stop-loss payments for those who protect us 
bravely overseas. It funds the consumer-environmental beneficial CARS 
Act to help shore up the 3 to 5 million jobs in our auto industry that 
Americans depend upon for a living, and it provides for more adequate 
staffing for firefighters who bravely protect us at home.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that deserves support. And with that, I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been a fascinating debate that has taken place. 
It began with some very thoughtful comments from my friend from Utica 
talking about the need for funding for our troops, and I laude him for 
referring to the fact that that is the priority of this measure.
  We then listened to, on our side, the distinguished new ranking 
member of the Committee on Armed Services, my friend from Santa Clarita 
(Mr. McKeon), talk about the priority of funding for our troops.
  And then we listened to speeches made by our colleagues, and there 
was barely a mention of the issue of troop funding.
  We just heard our colleague talk about firefighters. Hey, I'm from 
southern California where we have fires, and we have horrible fires. 
Loss of life and property is something that regularly takes place 
there. It's a very, very important issue. It's an issue that should be 
considered under the regular appropriations process under the 
leadership of my California colleagues, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Obey, not in 
a troop funding bill.
  Then we listened to our very good friend from Detroit talk about the 
automobile industry, a serious challenge that we, as a Nation, are 
trying to address. I personally believe that the notion of continuing 
to see the government more and more involved in this area is not the 
right thing to do, but it's a debate that will go on. And yet our 
friend, Mr. Levin, was talking about the issue of the automobile 
industry in this troop funding bill.

                              {time}  1515

  Then I listened to our friend from Houston, Texas, talk about Darfur, 
one of the most troubled spots on the face of the Earth, an issue that 
does need to be addressed, and the challenges of meeting the needs of 
children in Texas, a very, very important issue, but not as part of a 
troop funding measure.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said, through the very thoughtful work of the 
Appropriations Committee last month, we came to this floor with what 
President Obama and I believe a majority of Republicans and Democrats 
in this House would like to see us achieve, and I know the American 
people would like to see us achieve, and that is bipartisanship.
  Bipartisanship is a word that is used all the time around here, all 
the time. Everyone talks about the need for bipartisanship, how 
important it is. The Speaker in her opening address here to the 
Congress as we began the 111th Congress talked about how she wanted to 
work in a bipartisan way. We Republicans say we want to work in a 
bipartisan way.
  But this bill that emerged from the House Appropriations Committee 
was the first time, the very first time in this 111th Congress that we 
were able to see a bipartisan work product emerge from the Democratic 
leadership, and I congratulated them on that, and I have done that when 
we considered the bill, and I would like to be able to do it today.
  But, unfortunately, this bill has crumbled from what it was intended 
to be, a bill to support funding for our troops. It in fact included a 
reduction by transferring money that was intended in the House-passed 
bill to be funding for our troops to the International Monetary Fund.
  Now, I will say that that may be a worthwhile cause as we deal with 
the economic challenges that exist here in the United States and around 
the world. But, again, Mr. Speaker, that is something that should not 
be considered as an emergency funding measure. It is something that 
should be considered under the normal appropriations process, so that 
we can make a determination whether increasing by $5 billion the 
funding for the International Monetary Fund is more important than 
transportation priorities here in the United States or other priorities 
that we have.
  So, some might like to say that this bill is just a continuation of 
what we considered last month. But, Mr. Speaker, it unfortunately has 
gone a long way down from where we were, creating the potential, the 
potential for us to not be able to prevent with absolute certainty the 
terrorists from Gitmo ending up in the United States. There is no 
guarantee that that will happen.
  On the IMF, on the IMF, there is no guarantee, no guarantee in this 
measure that funding requests could not be

[[Page 15280]]

made for countries like Iran or Venezuela.
  So, Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of things that this troop 
funding bill has ended up addressing, and it was made very clear by an 
overwhelming majority of the remarks that came from our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this rule, so that we can come back and pass in this House 
what 267 Members last Friday said that they wanted to have passed, and 
that is a clean bill that funds our troops and ensures that we won't 
have terrorists in the United States, that ensures that we will not be 
dramatically expanding a wide range of other programs.
  So vote ``no'' on this rule, and, if by chance it passes, I urge a 
``no'' vote on the conference report itself, because we can do better.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from the 
Rules Committee for his management of this rule and also for talking 
about what I think is ultimately the most important thing with respect 
to this bill, and that is, of course, our troops.
  There are many of us who opposed the war in Iraq. I was one of them. 
I continue to oppose it. There are many of us who believe that the 
funding that this bill contains should be greater. I think on both 
sides of the aisle there is agreement that we should do as much as we 
possibly can. And there are things about this bill that clearly are not 
perfect. But we can't allow the perfect to get in the way of the good.
  This bill is a good bill. Let's not deprive our brave sons and our 
daughters, their husbands and their wives, of what they need to return 
to their families safely. This is not about what is right or what is 
wrong. This is about what we as a country, what we as a Congress, need 
to do, and that is to make sure that our troops, our sons and our 
daughters, the people who put their lives on the line each and every 
day, have all and each and every thing they need.
  Some people may argue it is not enough, but we need to give them 
everything that we possibly can. Voting ``no'' simply because you think 
it is not enough is not a solution. That absolutely is not a solution. 
We need to do everything we can to ensure that our soldiers have what 
they need.
  With that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the 
rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there is much good in this conference 
report on the FY09 supplemental. I support the IMF monies and I 
certainly support the funding to respond to the H1N1 flu virus.
  But I will vote ``no'' today on the final bill for the same reason I 
voted ``no'' on the original supplemental. This supplemental is 
primarily a war funding bill. It includes a huge escalation of our 
military involvement in Afghanistan: an escalation without benchmarks, 
conditions, or most importantly, without an exit strategy.
  I hope all my concerns about Afghanistan are wrong. There is a 
different team in the White House no--who I believe are trying very 
hard not to repeat the mistakes of the previous Administration.
  President Obama and others have said there is no military solution in 
Afghanistan, only a political solution. I believe this, too. So I am 
very concerned when we put billions of dollars building up the U.S. 
military presence in Afghanistan without a clear mission and without an 
exit strategy.
  Just as I insisted that the Bush Administration provide Congress with 
clear benchmarks and an exit strategy for Iraq, then we should the same 
with this Administration for Afghanistan.
  I am not advocating an immediate withdrawal of our military forces in 
Afghanistan. I understand that our humanitarian mission may have to be 
protected in the near term. All I am asking for is a plan. If there's 
no military solution for Afghanistan, then please, tell me how we will 
know when our military contribution to the political solution has 
concluded.
  I suspect that the votes are in place to pass this supplemental 
conference report. But I am deeply concerned. I'm concerned that we are 
moving ahead with a significant military escalation in Afghanistan 
without any real debate or any sense for how we will eventually bring 
our troops home.
  Some have suggested that we have that debate at some point in the 
future. I respectfully disagree. I am not and never will be an advocate 
for ``cutting and running'' from Afghanistan. But we need to provide 
the American people and the people of Afghanistan a clearly defined 
mission, which includes a clearly defined plan for departure.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, in response to the devastating attacks of 
September 11th 2001 our nation was forced to take strong and decisive 
action in Afghanistan and throughout the world with the Global War on 
Terror to protect and defend the values and national interests of the 
American people. For eight years, Congress has dutifully provided the 
resources our troops need to carry out the will of this nation.
  Today we are considering H.R. 2346, the FY2009 War Supplemental 
Appropriations bill, to once again provide these resources our troops 
require. Sadly Congressional Democrats have chosen to use this vitally 
important funding bill to advance the Obama administration's reckless 
national security and economic policies. I cannot support a bill that 
places our citizens and military servicemembers at risk, as well as 
advances irresponsible economic policies that put our economy at risk.
  The detainees currently housed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are among the 
world's most dangerous, hardened terrorists. These detainees 
masterminded the September 11th terrorist attacks, plotted numerous 
terrorist attacks around the world, and killed American troops and 
civilians. In developing a policy to deal with such dangerous people, 
though, the Obama administration has focused on one single goal: close 
the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Although the facility at 
Guantanamo Bay is the world's most secure prison, the administration 
has instead developed a two-pronged plan to abandon these facilities 
and bring detainees to the United States either for release into our 
streets or release into our prisons.
  I do not want terrorists to come to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, or any 
American town. Bringing detainees to Fort Leavenworth would conflict 
with its primary mission of being the educational center of the Army 
and is impractical from a facilities and logistical perspective. Most 
importantly, it would place the citizens of Leavenworth, Johnson 
County, and the greater Kansas City metro area at unnecessary risk.
  Unfortunately, this policy, which is designed to placate anti-war 
activists, fails to address the serious national security concerns that 
are clearly seen by the American people. In multiple opinion polls, the 
American people overwhelming reject the notion of bringing terrorists-
detainees to the U.S. They know that bringing terrorists to our street 
or prisons places our nation at risk.
  Democrat leadership has rejected the views of the American people and 
included a provision to create a process for the administration to 
bring terrorist-detainees to the United States. This provision provides 
little of the protections and guarantees the American people expect. 
Let me be clear, this provision will do nothing to prevent the Obama 
administration from moving terrorists from a secure military facility 
to our hometowns.
  In addition to placing American citizens at risk, this legislation 
also places American military servicemembers in harm's way by the 
removal of the bi-partisan Lieberman-Graham amendment. This critical 
amendment would have blocked the release of photographs of individuals 
captured or detained by the U.S. military during overseas operations. 
Senators Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) who sponsored 
the original amendment, clearly stated, ``the release of the photos 
will serve as propaganda and recruiting tool for terrorists who seek to 
attack American citizens at home and abroad.'' Even President Obama has 
said that the release of these photographs would ``put our troops and 
civilians serving our nation abroad in greater danger.'' Instead of 
acting in the best interests of our troops, however, Congressional 
Democrats have sided with the extremist left and lawyers from the 
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) by removing this important 
provision.
  Although Congressional Democrats left out language to prevent 
terrorists from being brought to our shores and to protect our troops, 
they found room to add two unrelated provisions that continue this 
administration's favorite cure-all for our economic woes: bailouts.
  Perhaps most concerning, the War Supplemental Appropriations bill 
contains a $108 billion loan authority for the International Monetary 
Fund (IMF)--a Global Bailout. Unrelated to the war effort, this Global 
Bailout represents a ten-fold increase in the U.S.'s current IMF 
contribution to fund an expansion of IMF lending. In addition, through 
the IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), countries that oppose U.S. 
values and national interests would receive access to additional hard 
currency. Iran will receive a benefit up to $1.8 billion, Syria $305

[[Page 15281]]

million, Venezuela $3.2 billion, and Sudan $202 million. I find it very 
disturbing that Democrats would use a war spending bill to prop-up 
state sponsors of terrorism.
  Finally, I object to the ``Cash for Clunkers'' provision included in 
H.R. 2346. The automobile manufacturers have already received $110 
billion in bailouts from the federal government. Yet, Congressional 
Democrats have decided to funnel another $1 billion in bailout dollars 
to the very same industry. I have opposed the bailouts from the 
beginning. Instead of enacting real solutions to address this economic 
crisis, Democrats are again pushing their tired, old ideas of more and 
more government spending. Bailouts and more government spending have 
proven ineffective in jump-starting the economy. These are the wrong 
solutions for our economy, and however well-intentioned, will only 
prolong our economic woes.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill. 
As currently written, this bill offers the wrong solutions to real 
problems. It places our citizens, troops and economy at risk. H.R. 2346 
should instead return to the Conference Committee and focus on funding 
our troops and keeping the American people safe.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________