Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]  CSPAN  June 12, 2009 12:00pm-12:30pm EDT

12:00 pm
12:01 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary, the secretary: i am dreakted by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing.
12:02 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: i ask to address the house for one minute for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker. i yield to the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding. on monday, madam speaker, the
12:03 pm
house will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debate and 2 almost for ledge business. on tuesday the former members association will have their annual meeting on the floor at 8:30 a.m. and 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 10:00 a.m. for legislative business and on friday, as is usual, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. madam speaker, we will consider several bills under suspend the rules. a complete list of suspension bills will be noted by the end of the day. in addition we'll consider a conference report on h.r. 2346, the supplemental appropriation act, the 2010 commerce, justice, science, and related agencies appropriation act, and the 2010 homeland security appropriations act. i yield back. mr. cantor: madam speaker. i thank the gentleman. i'd say to the gentleman he's noticed two appropriations bills for next week.
12:04 pm
commerce justice science and homeland security appropriations bills. and madam speaker, i'd ask the gentleman does he expect the house as is its custom to consider these bills under an open rule? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. it certainly will be our intent to proceed with an open rule on the consideration of the commerce, justice, state bill. i guess it's science now bill. 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 house the opportunity to agree on a conversation -- 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's an
12:05 pm
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'm 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 get -- to utilize the time so we can effect the objective of passing these bills by the august break so we'll have time to finish them before the beginning of the fiscal year. i would tell my friend in addition to that there will be one, however, additional request that the chairman of the appropriations committee
12:06 pm
has made that -- with which i strongly agree and i think is fair to all the members and to the committee chairs and subcommittee chairs, and that is there will be a requirement for prepenning of amendment. there will be no selection in the c.j.s. bill of amendments, but there will be a requirement that they be preprinted and included in the record. if, however, i want to assure there is some problem with the record reflecting an amendment that has been prefiled but doesn't make it in the record, we would proceed as if that had been included in the printed record. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman. as the gentleman knows in 2005 this house did abide by a schedule such as the one he proposes and did so under an open rule on each bill. i'd ask the gentleman if given this preprinting requirement
12:07 pm
that we are proceeding under, if there is a need for a perfecting amendment that comes upon the adoption of an amendment, how is it that we will be necessarily guaranteeing that member's perfecting amendment the right to be heard? will there be a u.c. granted for such a perfecting amendment? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding. i have discussed this matter with the chairman of the appropriations committee and it is his view and i share this view that certainly in that instance a unanimous consent -- granting of unanimous consent would be appropriate. obviously if the circumstances change, and such an amendment were necessary, i think the gentleman will find that the chairman is inclined and i believe the subcommittee chairman will be inclined to give unanimous consent to achieve that objective. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, i'd say to the
12:08 pm
gentleman that the speaker of the house has announce add goal of considering the cap and trade bill on the floor prior to july 4 recess. i would ask the majority leader does he expect the speaker's goal to be met? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we certainly hope so. the speaker and i have both indicated with respect to the energy bill, which seeks to not only address the conservation of our energy and make 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 before -- the week when we left for the memorial daybreak, so it's been pending now for at least three weeks. it is our hope that we can move forward on this as early perhaps as the last week in june.
12:09 pm
which would be immediately before the july 4 break. time will -- 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 probably knows, undoubtedly knows, we are 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. 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. and we hope that we can reach agreement and we'd like to reach agreement across the aisle as well if not all facets at least some facets of that bill. we know that i'm sure your side has considerations that will help us perfect a bill, i think
12:10 pm
we'll probably have some disagreements, nevertheless we hope to move forward together on this bill, both bills. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman. i'd like to ask a follow-up of the majority leader. specifically for the benefit of the members who serve on the ways and means and agricultural committee, will we anticipate that ty will have, those two committees will have an opportunity to hear and mark up the bill, the cap and trade bill? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i have discussed this matter with the chairman of the committee, 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 are going to actually go to a markup of the biller or try to perfect it in other ways, either on the floor or working with the energy and
12:11 pm
commerce committee, i don't think has been decided by either committee at this point in time. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, i now like to point out to the gentleman i believe as all of us know that our troops in iraq and afghanistan have spent the last 29 days waiting for this congress to authorize the funding that they need to execute their mission to maintain not only their own safety but the safety of us here at home. we have heard reports since last night that the war funding bill and its provision and primary mission of funding the troops has now been somewhat eclipsed by provisions which have no relation to protecting and supporting our troops in the field. so i'd ask the gentleman, could he confirm, number one, that $108 billion scored at the $5
12:12 pm
billion by the congressional budget office, whether that will be included, that money for the i.m.f., will it be included in the troop funding bill? number two, is -- are the reports correct which have indicated that the provisions prohibiting the release of detainee photos has now been stripped from the measure that we will consider, and thirdly, could the gentleman confirm that the report -- conference report coming to the house will now allow for the transfer of the guantanamo detainees into the united states? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as the gentleman recalls we had a relatively robust discussion about this last week. let me first of all say that the principal purpose of this bill was, is, and will be on tuesday the funding of our troops in the field, providing them with the resources
12:13 pm
necessary to complete successfully or pursue successfully the task we have 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 the -- our country and to the international economy generally, but also to the safety of our troops, very frankly. they are in deep poverty from which the terrorist vs. been recruited. to the extent w provide for the economies of these small troubled countries we might well be a safer world not only economically better off but from a security standpoint better off. so we -- perceive the i.m.f. as
12:14 pm
an integral part of the process seeking security. i might say the i.m.f. as i quoted last week very strongly supported by ronald reagan, very strongly supported by both bushes but particularly president bush the first. where they said investing in the i.m.f. 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 it's a loan guarantee. not a give away. so that we believe the i.m.f. is a very important part of it in answer to your question. the i.m.f. will be a part as i think the gentleman probably knows of the conference report that has been -- that will be filed perhaps later tonight. with respect to your second question regarding i guess your third question because the first was about the security of the troops, third question at guantanamo, let me first of all
12:15 pm
read a letter, 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 anything to the past, and the only thing it would do is further inflame opinion. the second circuit granted the government's motion that will stay the court order to release the detainees' photos and we will move forward to the supreme court to appeal the case he goes on to say, i deeply appreciate the effort you have shown to support the
12:16 pm
troops, i will continue to take every legal and administrative remedy to ensure the 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 uighurs have been released by the court because the court concluded there was no proof of terrorist activity by the uighurs. they've been released to bermuda.
12:17 pm
one iraqi detainee was returned to iraq, one chadean detainee was returned to chad and mr. gilanee, who i referred to earlier, has been transfered to new york city, where there's a standing indictment against him. he'll be tried for his role in the 1998 embassy attacks in tanzania, kenya, in which the father and brother of one of my constituents were killed, julian and jay bartlett. i'm pleased this gentleman, i use that term loosely, unfortunately, but this individual will be tried and brought to justice. all four of his co-conspirators have been found guilty and are serving out sentence in the u.s. supermax prison. it has been agreed that detainees will be brought here under the language as i understand it that has been adopted that detainees will be
12:18 pm
brought to the united states for no other purpose than prosecution. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i go back to the statement about the principal purpose of the war funding bill. that he said, if i can paraphrase, the intent of the bill is to fund our troops. so i am at a loss to understand why we have taken 25 days, we've had one strong bipartisan vote in this house with nearly unanimity on our side of the aisle to provide the necessary funding for our troops. siem at somewhat of a loss to understand why the delay. the gentleman speaks of the urgent need for us as u.s. taxpayers to fund a global bailout. and the gentleman said that there is indication that somehow if we address the issue of poverty that we will then be
12:19 pm
lessening the number of terrorists. i don't know, madam speaker, if all of us would agree with that or not. no question, reducing poverty is a laudable goal. but we are are also in the business here in washington of setting priorities. priority one should be the funding of our troops and to secure this country and its citizens and thank god we have our men and women in uniform there. they should be our priority in executing in terms of advocating for the safetied on fighting for the security of this country. so i'm still to use the gentleman's words from last week, confounded as to why it is we cannot have the i.m.f. funding go through regular order in this house. as you know, reports have indicated that actions have been taken by this administration, especially secretary geithner to cast a vote in favor of increasing
12:20 pm
access to money and credit for the member nations of the i.m.f. that is done without congressional approval. we're talking here specifically about the special drawing rights of nations at the i.m.f. we've also found out that the nation of iran will have the ability to fund -- to access funding of over $1 billion for this process. to me that calls for congressional oversight and action. it doesn't warrant delaying this bill, it doesn't warrant putting on the backs of our troops the funding of nations, frankly that providing support for the destruction of our efforts and endangering our troops on the ground in iraq and in the region. so i have a question to the gentleman of why it is so important that we go ahead and fund a global bailout when the primary mission is to fund our troops.
12:21 pm
i yield back. 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's 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 the amendments. as the gentleman knows, when we pass the bill through the house, it did not have the i.m.f. funding in the bill. the senate added to the bill. it was a subject of the conference report. president of the united states has asked for the i.m.f. funding. we happen to agree with the president of the united states that the i.m.f. funding is appropriate funding and does in fact, as i will restate for the gentleman, we believe add a security component to the troop
12:22 pm
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 president reagan was the president of the united states in 1984. there's no expectation in my opinion that iran, while it may be eligible technically, will get money, as it has not for a quarter century. i will 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 criticism of communism and despotism. he went on to say, the i.m.f.
12:23 pm
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 will, with 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 of the world and they sit down together in an attempt to try to bring the global economy back to vie brancy, 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% vote on this and this is about a 20%
12:24 pm
contribution the president agreed. to the other 19 nations agreed to come up with 80% of these dollars. all of them agreed that this is in the best interest of restoring our global economy and i suggest to you stabilizing the security situation that confronts the international community. president bush 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 i.m.f. 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 i.m.f. and the world bank, given their central role in the world economy are key to hoping -- helping all of us through this situation by providing a
12:25 pm
combination of policy advice and financial assistance. george bush said that on september 25, 1990, a time economic stress internationally. for the same reason 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. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i think as the gentleman knows, we're probably going to have to leave this topic and just agree to disagree. it's very concerning, given the new times we are in and frankly the facts and information has come forward about the special drawing rights about the fact and knowledge that we have at this point knowing u.s. taxpayer dollars will help facilitate countries like iran, venezuela, burma, and others to access more money to do what it is that they think is in their
12:26 pm
interest and certainly not in the interest of the u.s. but i would like to turn the gentleman's attention back to his statement about the intention of this bill and the primary purpose of the war funding bill which again to loosely paraphrase was to provide for troop safety and security and that's the underlying purpose. and the gentleman indicated that the president has already taken the same position that most of us, i believe, in this house have taken so far as these photos are concerned. and thes release -- release of the photos of the detainees. and so i'm again at somewhat of a loss to understand why it is that even if the white house and the president himself has sided with what i think the majority of the american people feel as well as the members of this house, why it is that we are doing the opposite in the text of the report that we will be voting on. i would say to the gentleman,
12:27 pm
commander ray odierno, commander of the multinational forces in iraq, someone i'm sure the gentleman has had the occasion to meet, and i as well, who we know is a well respected and serious leader of our troops. he said, just a few weeks ago, i strongly believe the release of these photos will endanger the lives of u.s. soldiers, airmen, marines, sailor, and civilians as well as the lives of our iraqi partners. certain operating units are at particular risk of harm from release of the photos. and he went on to describe those particular risks that are specific. the gentleman, i think, can agree with me, it is not in the interest of securing the safety of our troops for us to remain silent or for us not to take
12:28 pm
congressional action, ensuring that nothing occurs for us to possibly harm our troops in this bill. that is why i ask the gentleman again, how have we sat here and delayed consideration of the bill because now we had to ensure inclusion in the bill, the stripping of the provision which provides the safety of our troops. i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. maybe one of the answers is we have less enthusiasm on this side of the aisle for interposing in cases that the court is considering. i was called back on a sunday by your side of the aisle many years ago to do exactly that. it ended up having no effect. there are a lot of people on my side of the aisle who believe the objective that is being sought, which the president of the united states and general
12:29 pm
odierno agrees with the commander in chief, that these photos ought not to be released, 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 foy ark the freedom of -- foia, the freedom of information act, but the president has made clear, the commander in chief, and general odierno agrees with the commander in chief, has said he's going to take steps to make sure the photos are not released. they believe rerelease of the photos may have an adverse consequence on the safe i have to our troops. the president of the united states and general odierno are both in agreement and the president of the united states is taking actiono


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on