Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday next for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Because I know the gentleman doesn't want to mischaracterize my remarks. I have never said we have changed our opinion. That has been our opinion expressed by our President, expressed by me and expressed by others, that we desire to work in a bipartisan mode. But the gentleman surely understands that there were, I can tell you, people on your side of the aisle who indicated to me that they wanted to vote for a number of the pieces of legislation that dealt with the stimulus; but the party pressure was so great to vote ``no'' that they didn't feel comfortable doing it. I may in private give you those names so you can check on the veracity of my representation.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER

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. 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. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker. You know Bob Michel was my Speaker. You've heard my story on going up to Ray LaHood and saying, Ray--this is 1995, John--and I said to Ray, who was presiding--you know, Ray presided a lot and was an excellent presiding officer. I went up to him and told him--we had about 197 votes at that point in time. I said, you know, I'll get you 197, you get 21 and we'll elect Bob Michel the Speaker. He smiled. It probably crossed his mind that that was a worthwhile endeavor but maybe he couldn't get there. But in any event, it's always a pleasure to be with Bob Michel and all of you; my former colleague in the Maryland delegation, Connie Morella, who is one of your officers in this organization; John Rhodes, with whom I served. John, thank you very much for the great service you gave to this country and that your father gave to this country and that you continue to give to this country. We're blessed by that. And all of you with whom I have served over the years. As a matter of fact, most of the people as I look around here, it was a great pleasure to serve with you. Marty Russo, of course, I served with him as well and that was a little more of a trial. Marty played golf yesterday. Dennis, he's really feeling badly. He shot six under par and he didn't win. He thinks it was fixed that the former Members were not allowed to win the tournament. He said, you know, what was the worth of playing in it. I'm very pleased to be here with you. I try to join you every year. Your ranks seem a little smaller this year than they have in years past. Maybe some folks will be coming in. I rose on the floor about 3 or 4 weeks ago just before the Memorial break and said, Look, when we come back, we're going to be more timely in the counting of the votes. We're going to try to keep the votes down to somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 minutes as opposed to, they were getting to average 25 minutes, which was, you do that over 10, 15, 20 votes over the course of a day, it really extends the day. The chairmen were having people waiting in their committees. We're struggling to get there. If I close it out--Alexis Covey-Brandt--Alexis, wave--she is now our floor director. And then sitting next to Alexis is someone I think probably all of you know, she is the granddaughter of a great American, a great Representative in this House, the former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, Catlin O'Neill, who represents the Speaker on the floor and helps manage the floor. We're pleased to be here with you. Dennis, you were very kind about reaching out in a bipartisan way. I lament the fact that when Bob Michel was here, we had reaching out more in a bipartisan fashion because both sides I think were inclined to do so. We had more golf tournaments, Bob, and we played more and spent more time with one another. I played golf yesterday with John Boehner. I drove the cart. He rode along. He scored well. I tried to stay in the hunt. John and I talked about trying to work things in a more bipartisan fashion, but very frankly as all of you have observed, the confrontation continues in a somewhat strident tone too often in this House. That was not so early on when I came here but frankly almost every decade it has escalated and that's unfortunate. But, on the other hand, I think Dennis is right. This may be the most productive 5 months that I've spent in the House. I don't mean that we haven't had other productive times--we have--but the agenda that we confronted as we took over at a time of crisis, with a brand new President, an historic President. 2008, an historic year. I think all of us are pleased that we were alive to watch what America did in 2008. I thought John McCain's best speech of the campaign was the night he lost. It was not only a gracious speech but it was a speech that tried to bring the country together in support of our newly elected President, and I thought it showed John McCain at his very best. Obama gave a speech that showed him at his very best. And frankly I think George Bush the next day, on Wednesday, gave a brief speech which showed him at his very best. And the three of them together showed America at its very best. I tell people that one of the proudest days of my service in the House of Representatives and of my country was on the day that was one of my most disappointing. And that, of course, was January 20, 2001, when my side clearly thought it had won the election, had received a half a million more American votes than our opponent, George Bush, but notwithstanding that, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States had brought the election to a close. And so as we sat there on the podium, I was about 10 feet from Bill Clinton, about 15 feet from George Bush, and within minutes--and it happened in seconds as you know--within minutes, the most power in one person that exists on the face of the Earth was passed peacefully, notwithstanding the extraordinary concerns that the then-incumbent President of the United States, who had that power in his grasp--it was in his grasp-- notwithstanding that, he released it peacefully, without a shot being fired, without demonstrations in the streets on that day, and America showed the world once again that it was a nation of laws. That was a proud day, I think, for all of us, a wrenching day for those of us who were on the losing side on that day but a proud day for our country. All of us in this Chamber have had the opportunity to serve in the people's House, the repository of that power to make the laws that govern, not of men but of laws. And so I always take the opportunity to thank all of you. And we lament the fact that we've lost--I'm not sure how many people we've lost. John, I am sure there will be a recitation of that and a remembrance of those we've lost. But one person with whom I had the opportunity and I think most of you had the opportunity to serve, we lost. In doing so, we lost a great spirit, not just a great former Member of the Congress. I'm not going to read all of it but I remember him quoting Teddy Roosevelt on a relatively regular basis. I've got the whole quote, but I'm just going to read you a few lines of it: ``It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.'' I choose like I choose ``all men are created equal'' to consider ``man'' in that sense generic--for human beings. It goes on to say: ``The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.'' And then it concludes: ``Who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.'' All of us got in the arena. We put our egos on the line. Sometimes those egos can be severely bruised in this business internally and certainly externally. But we got in the arena because we knew that that is where you could make a difference, for the people that were your neighbors, for your family and for your country. And for that, I think Americans honor each and every one of you, and I thank you for having learned from you, been impressed by you, using in many cases you as an example of how we ought to work together. It's easier when you get out of Congress, I think, to adopt that premise, because you then look not so much on the differences but on the similarities. Far too often as human beings we look at the differences, that which divides us, as opposed to that which brings us together, the values that we have in common. John, before you came in, I mentioned the fact that you and I played golf together. We had a great time. We spent 4 or 5 hours riding around the course together, enjoying one another, learning from one another. John's really a student of golf. He was helping me be a little better than normally I am. But we need to learn from those experiences and learn from people like Bob Michel, who lived life in Congress teaching all of us that. So I thank you for staying active, keeping the faith, providing ongoing examples that simply being elected is not the only way to serve. You continue to serve in so many positive roles. I know on behalf of the Speaker, I know John will speak for himself, we welcome you back to this Chamber which meant so much in your lives and to which you meant so much in your service. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. You know, I read that and of course I hope all of you know the person I was referring to was Jack Kemp--who reflected, I think, John--I served with Jack on the Appropriations Committee for a significant period of time, and Jack always had that positive spirit, that hand reached out to include rather than to exclude. We miss Jack Kemp. He was a great servant in this House and a great servant of his party and a great servant of his country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First, I want the Members to understand the context in which we find ourselves. I have indicated--and I have had discussions with Mr. Boehner, with Mr. Cantor and with Mr. Lewis with reference to the appropriations bills--that none of us likes the omnibus appropriations bills. In order to pass appropriations bills individually, you have to take appropriately significant time, but if you take so much time that you can't possibly get them done, then you are left at the end of the day with an omnibus appropriations bill which nobody likes. In discussions with Mr. Boehner, with Mr. Cantor and with Mr. Lewis, Mr. Obey and I have tried to come to an agreement on time constraints. There was a discussion on the floor during the course of the rule between Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis with respect to time constraints, and at that point in time, that was not possible. Subsequent to that, there were further discussions between Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis in which there seemed to be some progress, perhaps, that was possible. As a result, we proceeded with the preprinting requirement that, I know, some people felt was an unnecessary constraint, but it is, after all, the opportunity to give notice to Members of what amendments can be anticipated; but I know that I've discussed it on your side of the aisle, and you felt that was an imposition. We felt it was an open rule because the amendments were not specified. Notwithstanding that disagreement, there were 127 total amendments. One amendment just now was offered by Mr. Schock, my good friend. He and I have a good relationship. We've traveled together, and I think he is a good Member. We accepted. Notwithstanding that, it took 20 minutes of debate and was going to be subject to a vote. Now, if you multiply, say, 25 minutes--and we had a 15-minute vote. If you multiply that by 127, you come to a pretty high number, making it impossible for us to complete, in my view, the appropriations process by the end of July. If we don't complete it by the end of July, frankly, we won't have the opportunity to conference with the Senate and, therefore, will not be able to complete the process in a timely fashion. I don't know whether that's the objective of some, but it is certainly not my objective. As a result--I was not here--Mr. Obey felt it necessary for us to go to the Rules Committee for the purposes of constraining time. In a body of 435 people in which everybody has an opportunity to do 5 minutes and to then, perhaps, even get yielded some additional time from somebody else who takes 5 minutes, it would be impossible to complete 10 amendments, much less 127 amendments, in a time frame that we agreed to in a unanimous consent request in 2006 and in 2005. In fact, on this bill, the average number of amendments that were offered when you were in the majority was 30, the average number. There was a high of 46. In 2004, 16 amendments were offered--10 Republicans and 6 Democrats. In other words, for your bill, you offered more amendments to your bill than we offered to your bill. We would like to proceed in a fashion that is reasonable and that provides for opportunities for amendments to be offered, but we also believe that it is our responsibility to ensure that the appropriations process is completed. So, when Mr. Obey asked that the Committee rise, it was, at that point in time, the intention to go to the Rules Committee to provide for amendments in order, not all 127 amendments--I can't predict how many amendments. There are a lot of duplications in that--and to provide for, however, time constraints within which we can do our business. We do not think that's unreasonable, and we certainly don't think it's unfair. I will tell you that, in 2007, we proceeded for 10 bills without time constraints. From our perspective, we thought we had an agreement that we would use the same time that we gave to you in 2006 when you were in the majority and were controlling. We gave this to Mr. Lewis. Notwithstanding that, we believe we went at least 53 hours overtime. That is 53 hours longer than the unanimous consent constraints that we gave to you when you were in the majority and we were in the minority. As you know, the last two bills were very contentious because we did, in fact, pursue them under a rule. I want to say to the Members, particularly who are new, that, while appropriations bills have historically been open, they have historically not taken--as a matter of fact, some of the biggest bills have taken some of the shortest times--the Labor-Health bill and the Defense bill. I've served on the Appropriations Committee from 1983 until I became majority leader 2\1/2\ years ago, so I'm fairly familiar with the procedures under which we operate. So I tell my friend, the Republican whip, that the reason for rising was to give us the opportunity to go to the Rules Committee and to provide for, as I said, time constraints in which we can effectively complete this bill. I want to say to the Members that we did not expect to have votes. We had votes. Your side believed that we ought to have votes, so we had a vote to rise, but we have made efforts to try to reach agreement to provide a process in which we can complete the appropriations bills. Very frankly, we think that, in years past, there have been a lot of amendments that have been offered, not for the purpose of the substance of the amendment but for the purpose of simply delaying the ability to get our work done. We've been in the minority ourselves. We understand the frustration that exists; but my responsibility as the majority leader and as the manager of this floor is to provide for the completion of our appropriations process one at a time so that we can consider them on their merits and then, hopefully, pass them individually and have them signed. It would be my hope to have them signed before the beginning of the fiscal year. That's our thought and plan.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me reiterate what the gentleman knows to be the case. He and I have discussed this matter on at least three different occasions. They were, I think, friendly discussions. The gentleman indicated that he did not believe an agreement was possible on the time constraints. Mr. Boehner indicated that to me as well, so it's not as if we haven't had significant discussions about this. You also, in fairness, did indicate to me that the preprinting requirement would be something that your side would take umbrage at. Mr. Obey, I think correctly, said both sides like notice of actions that are to be taken on the floor. In fact, when we take notice, when we do less than 24 hours, you rightfully believe that's inappropriate. I agree with you on that, and we try to do that. Sometimes we don't make it. But the fact is that this is not as if we haven't had some discussions over at least the last 2 months about this issue. And from my perspective--I don't want to speak for Mr. Obey, who has spoken with Mr. Lewis as well--but over the last 2 months I have seen nothing that indicated to me that time constraints would be agreeable to your side of the aisle, not from you, not from Mr. Boehner, not from anybody else, not from Mr. Lewis, who on this floor just hours ago indicated that there would not be any time agreements possible. So in that context, I am in a position where, if that's the case--and you may well be correct that 127 wouldn't be offered, but very frankly, our experience in 2007--now, in 2008, the appropriation process was attenuated, as you know. It upset you and disappointed me that we didn't have bills. The reasons for that, obviously, dealt with mainly the Appropriations Committee fighting about energy, as you know. One can blame one another for that, but in any event, it didn't go forward. Nobody was pleased that we didn't consider the bills individually, and we ended up, as you well know, earlier this year doing an omnibus appropriation bill. We did omnibus appropriation bills frequently when you were in charge of the House, as well. Neither side liked that then or when we did it. So I tell my friend, the intention is going to be to try to construct time frames--and we would be glad to have further discussions with you on those--which will allow for these 12 bills to be done in the time available to us between now and July 30. Because if we don't get them done, I guarantee you that when we get back in September, with 21 days left to go, we will not be able to conference these bills and get them done. That is a practical matter. For those of you who are new, I will tell you that. For those of who have been here, you understand that that's the case.

Mr. HOYER

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. HOYER. Will my friend yield on that question?

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday June 16, 2009, for morning- hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I pause today to honor the memory of Stephen Tyrone Johns of Temple Hills, Maryland, who died yesterday defending the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum against an anti-Semitic gunman. Although the gunman appears to have been a hardened denier of the Holocaust, his crime only brings home the high value of that museum of remembrance, which preserves the historical memory of a people whose communities and institutions have so often been the target of terroristic violence. That memory is preserved, in ways large and small, by the dedication of people like Officer Johns. In the wake of yesterday's killing, Mark Blumenthal, an on-line editor, shared the story of his wife's visit to the Holocaust Museum: ``She arrived at the end of a busy workday, in a rush, just a few minutes before closing time. Unfortunately, given the late hour, they had run out of the candles usually provided in the Hall of Remembrance for visitors to light and leave in the niches of the outer walls. Already feeling emotional . . . she broke down sobbing. A staffer nearby immediately came to her assistance, asking if she needed help. She explained, and the gentleman asked her to wait. He soon returned with a candle, explaining with a conspiratorial wink that he kept his own special supply for such emergencies.'' In gestures as simple and kind as that, and acts as courageous as officer Johns's, we can find ways to carry on the duty of memory. Yesterday's crime may have been intended to scare us away from the Holocaust Museum; may it fail. May visitors return in force to bear witness to yesterday's loss and to the historical facts whose denial remains, in the words of President Obama, ``baseless . . . ignorant, and . . . hateful.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman continues to state his position. I continue to tell him that his reasoning confounds me; and, therefore, I find it not worthwhile to repeat it for a fourth time.

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman's reasoning continues to somewhat confound me. The fact of the matter is, I am hopeful that the intelligence agencies are, in fact, giving accurate assessments of what they believe to be the situation as it relates to America's national security interests to the Speaker and to any others that they might brief, including myself from time to time. I expect that to be the case. I think the Speaker expects it to be the case. I'm sure that every other person being briefed expects it to be the case. I certainly hope that it is the case. But whether it is the case or not, the gentleman's logic, therefore, that the Speaker shouldn't listen I don't follow.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I must say, I really have difficulty following the gentleman's reasoning, with all due respect. The fact of the matter is that we have oversight. I see Mr. Hoekstra on the floor. I don't know that Mr. Reyes is on the floor. But we have a mechanism for oversight of the CIA and of our intelligence units. My presumption is that intelligence oversight is, in fact, working. I certainly hope it's working. My expectation and belief is that it is working. The fact of the matter is that a number of people on both sides of the aisle have raised questions from time to time with respect to the information they have received. Vice President Cheney on television just the other day made some allegations with respect to information that he had received. The fact of the matter is that it seems to me that the gentleman somehow interprets the fact that somebody in an intelligence agency may have given wrong information--may have--that somehow the receiver of the information is the guilty party. I cannot follow that reasoning, I tell my friend from Virginia.

Mr. HOYER. Absolutely not. Nobody has questioned the Speaker's integrity.