tv [untitled] CSPAN June 16, 2009 10:00pm-10:30pm EDT
have come together, but there is not any question the gentleman has raised his concerns about water in central california at a level that has gotten almost the entire country's attention. if there was any way i commend this package to help solve the problem, the desperate need to get those pumps going to get water to the farmlands in the central valley, i would do so, but in this case, i am unable to vote. -- to help. >> i would hope that as we go through the process, i know you would help to get the point across that we have 40,000 people right now without jobs, 20% unemployment. these are very serious issues, and i would hope your committee would be helpful. >> as we go through our hearings, i might mention in a few days we will be discussing our agricultural problems and challenges and funding programs,
and one way or another, we are going to do everything we can. we appreciate his input. >> thank you, mr. lewis. >> mr. speaker, i do have one additional speaker, and i am proud to yield one minute to the republican leader, mr. boehner. >> the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> mr. speaker and my colleagues, i said earlier this year that when the president does what we think is the right thing for the american people, that he will have no stronger allies than house republicans. we believe the president has a responsible strategy in iraq and supported him. when this funding bill left the house, it left with a broad bipartisan majority, and as the bill is now considered after a conference with the senate, there are a couple of very troubling parts of this bill. first and foremost, the addition
of a $108 billion line of credit for the international monetary fund i think is unnecessary in this bill, and it is unnecessary because to ask our troops to carry money for a global bailout -- frankly, i think is unfair. there are only about $80 billion in this bill for our troops, and we are asking them to spend nearly $30 billion more to carry this global bailout now. i have got to tell you, we may have enough money in the united states to solve our economic problems, but i guarantee we do not have enough problem to solve the world's economic problems, and when you think about the fact that we do not have $108 billion to loan to the imf, what is going to happen here? the united states is going to go to china. we are going to r a $108 billion.
we are going -- we are going to give them $108 billion. they're going to give it to countries that do not like it that much. -- to not like as much. i would expect my constituents to say this is a bad deal and boehner would vote no, and i am going to vote no, because it does not belong in this bill. that issue should be debated on its own and voted on its own, and the second issue is the senate included language in their bill that would have protected these photos of detainees from being released. general petraeus and others have made it clear the release of these photos would endanger our troops. i believe it will also crippled the ability of our intelligence officials to do their job, and while it was supported in the house last week with another broad bipartisan vote, the language is not in the bill. the demands of the french left,
so i would hope that -- i would suggest to my colleagues this is not until i can support. i am going to do everything i can to help our troops. they are doing a marvelous job in helping to keep americans save, but not to make this bill with so many political gamesmanship is not what americans expect of their congress, so i would ask to stand up and say no to this bill and bring the bipartisan majority the past the first bill and take care of our troops the right way. this is not the answer. i yield back. >> the gentleman from california has four minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has 28 minutes remaining. >> mr. speaker, i believe that the chairman plans to close. he will be the last speaker on the side, so i yield back the balance of my time.
>> the gentleman from california yield the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. >> i yield myself the balance of the time. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, as i knew if the beginning of the debate, the site and represents last year's leftover business. it is the last item of last year's leftover business. we have been mired in a war for over seven years. the president's previous to this one has continually minimize the cost of that war by financing it on the installment 10. instead of providing a full estimate of the yearly cost to the war, he would ask to fund that war in six-month increments, and when he left office, there was still 16-month increments left to go that was not yet -- still one six-month
increments left to go that was not yet paid for, so this bill today in the process of supporting the president of the policies of trying to wind down fat war is providing the remaining funding for the fiscal year to help accomplish but -- accomplish that. in addition, this new president is trying to change the way that war has been breaking in afghanistan end by necessity, pakistan, which is tied to the afghanistan situation, and what he is trying to do is through military action, political action, and diplomacy -- he is trying to change the mix and gradually extricate ourselves from that conflict and stabilize that region politically in the process.
i doubt that will succeed, but this president, having inherited an awful mess both at home and abroad, has a right to try and fix the situation. that is what the american people in party elected him to do. this bill provides the financing to do that, and yes, it added some other items that were not on the bill when it left the house. it did had -- it did add something from the imf, for which our friends on the other side of i'll complain, but i point out, in 1999, the last time we voted on this, the majority party then were our friends of the other side of style, and the -- added imf funding to the transportation bill, and 162 republicans voted for it.
i find it interesting that today with the new president, they declined to provide the support. we also added something else. under the gi bill education proposal that congress passed last year, it had one remaining gaps which needed to be filled. that legislation said that if you serve your country in the military to sufficient length of time, you could and obtain education benefits, and if you did not use them yourself, you could convert them to the use of your spouse or your children. this bill closes the gap because the one thing the bill did not do was to enable a combat veteran who was killed in combat to make the same transfer of educational benefits to a
spouse or children. this bill provides that extended benefit for our fighting men and women. it was not in the bill when it left the house. it is now. if you vote against this bill, that is one of the provisions he will be voting against. we also have additional money for military hospitals that the administration did not request. we have additional help for the auto industry. i did not think that was a federal offense to try to provide some assistance to that industry, and yes, we have a significant amount of additional funding for pandemic flou. we tried to put that money initially in the original economic recovery package. we did put it in when the bill left the house. it went to the senate, and we were laughed at.
it was said, what does flu have to do with the economy, with jobs? mexico found out when they had to shut down their entire economy for two weeks because of the turmoil in that country with the flou. it is now estimated that as many as 1/3 of americans will be hit by the flu. this bill has millions of additional dollars to try to meet that challenge, and i would submit to you that the african -- the average american family has a greater chance of being hit by about flow than he does today -- to be hit by that flu than he does fight any terrorist in guantanamo. wheeler also told the imf funding is bad wheat -- we are
also told the imf funding is bad because the pros money to give to other countries. this is a tough reality -- because it borrows money to give to other countries. this is a tough reality. we have to produce a bit in the world, and one world economy become shaky, we do we have to participate in the world, and when the world economy becomes a shaky, we have a responsibility to help stabilize the situation, and that is when will the imf tries to play. it certainly does it in perfectly, and i have had many arguments with them in the past, but to say that our contribution to the imf does not benefit us commo is to be ignorant -- -- does not benefit us is to be ignorant. the fact is that we created the imf after world war ii. why? because we saw what led up to world war ii. we saw the world's financial
system collapse in the 1930's. as a result, in germany, hitler came to power and 50 million people died. we would like to avoid that this time, so we are trying to provide the president was all the tools he needs internationally to defend our economic stability and to stabilize the economy of our trading partners, because our economy does not function, and we do not create sufficient jobs in this economy unless we help create economic conditions in other countries so they can buy our goods. that is why we do it. it is called enlightened self- interest. in addition, it has been suggested that somehow money we appropriate to the imf is going to go to tehran. let me tell you something, mr. speaker. a rhondda's not have a loan from
the imf since 19th -- iran has not had a loan from the imf since 1962, and under this legislation, the united states representative is required to propose a loan of assistance to countries such as mayor ron reduce such as iran that have been designated as a sponsor of terrorism and -- to countries such as iran that have been designated as a sponsor of terrorism, and i doubt very seriously the imf the sword to approve any loan we do not approve of -- is going to approve any loan we do not approve of. one other thing. we have been told some of the president is in danger in national security because -- somehow the president is endangering national security because he has not allow the congress to pass the lieberman amendment with respect to the release of those pictures. the fact is the president sent a
letter that made quite clear that he will do everything in his power to prevent the use of those pictures. i am going to read one paragraph from his letter. "i deeply appreciate all you have done to secure funding for the troops and assure you i will continue to take every legal and administrative remedy available to me to assure the photographs are not released. should the legislative solution prove necessary, i am committed to work with the congress to enact legislation that achieves the objectives we all share." each of us can object to certain specifics in this film, but the great thing -- in this bill, but the great thing about democracy is after we have had a chance to state our first preferences and fight for what we believe in, in the end, we also have an obligation to reach consensus and move on.
that is what this bill tries to do. it must be finished before we can move on and finish the rest of our appropriation bills and get to the other huge items on the agenda, including health care and climate change. i vote for the bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> members went on to approve the $106 billion in additional spending for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. five republicans joined the majority in supporting the bill, which passed 226 to 202. 32 democrats voted against it. one house returns at 10:00 a.m. eastern, they will continue on a bill to fund the commerce and justice departments along with nasa and other science programs. live coverage here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> there's still time to get your copy of the 2009 congressional director with information on house and senate
members, the cabinet, supreme court justices, and governors, plus district maps and how to contact committees and caucuses. it is $16.95 online at c- span.org/products or call. >> on tomorrow morning's "washington journal," new financial regulations. two members of congress, dave camp of michigan and brad sherman of california and flint leverett discusses whether ahmadinejad really one iran's election. -- really won iran's election. friday night is the annual radio and tv correspondents dinner, and we will bring it to you live from washington. this year's eve and will be hosted by actor and humorous john hodgeman.
you can watch it live at 9:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. today, patrick leahy talked- about dozen nomination of judge sotomayer to the supreme court and the confirmation hearing. senator leahy is introduced by the president of the leadership conference of civil rights. this is 35 minutes. [applause] >> good morning. it is indeed a good morning. i am privileged to be the professor of public interest kalashnikov year at the university of the district of
columbia -- of public interest here at the university of the district of columbia. for those of you who do not know, the leadership conference is the premier civil and human rights coalition with over 200 national organizations working to build an america as good as its ideas, so today, the introduction of this year's lecturer is a very special honor for me. there are few individuals, and i can honestly say without fear of contradiction, even fewer in congress who exemplify his integrity, his passion, and commitment to building an america where that we all want to live in. ted kennedy is one. john lewis is another, and so is
the man i am privileged to introduce this morning, senator patrick leahy of vermont. [applause] a is the son of irish and italian parents in vermont, a state where his parents once used to see signs like "no irish need apply" or "no catholics need apply," during a less oppressive era, i suspect patrick leahy knows what it feels like to sometimes feel like an outsider in the land of your birth. i believe it is a major reason why he speaks out so loudly against injustice, whether it takes place inside or outside our country. it is probably the trait nanaimo's did mire. -- the trade i most admire.
you can occasionally see it in his eyes as you see hihim speakf the dangers of checks and balances for civil liberties in the name of national security, and with the kind of criticism he has turned over the years from people like dick cheney, including some language i will not repeat here, it is obvious he has been remarkably effective. even with senator leahy himself want of being a target of terrorism during the wave of anthrax attacks of 2001, leading to his being under 24 hour a day police guard, he never set aside his principles, and he continued to speak out for balancing safety with freedom and against irrational hatred of fallen 9- 11. he was with us when the
leadership conference held a vigil at the national japanese- american memorial to patriotism to join us and speaking out on behalf of arab-americans who were being scapegoats in many of the same ways japanese americans endured 60 years earlier. in that same environment, he put politics aside and fought to make the patriot are more protective of civil liberties and later was one of only a handful of senators to vote against israel because it clearly was not striking the right balance. speaking of hate crimes, i should point out that with the killing last week of officer stephen tyrone jones of the holocaust museum, it appears we may be seeing a new, perhaps boulder phase of the hate crime problem, and i know senator leahy, who has long been one of
our strongest allies in an effort to pass a stronger hate crimes law would agree to the need for more aggressive congressional action. as chairman of the senate judiciary committee, senator leahy will be presiding over the confirmation proceedings for confirmation sonia sotomayer sonia sotomayer -- for sonia, who i am thrilled to learn is -- to know is currently to be the first female hispanic member of the supreme court. i will hear more when senator leahy takes the podium in just a moment. i should make one final point. senator leahy reason to reestablish the judiciary subcommittee on human rights and law -- recently reassembles the judiciary's the committee on human rights and law, a move that i hope will eliminate an artificial distinction between what we usually referred to as domestic civil rights and what we call global human rights.
the first that we should take is to restructure the u.s. civil rights commission, but i will save the for another day. before coming to washington, pat leahy was a state's attorney in vermont for eight years. he was first elected to the senate in 1974 and has the distinction of being the first and only democrat in vermont's history to ever hold that office. he also has an even more interesting distinction of being the first and only u.s. senator to ever be endorsed for reelection by his own opponent. [laughter] very former fred couples -- dairy farmer fred tuttle. let's hear it for fred. this happened in 1998 and obviously speaks volumes of how proud of the people are to have
happily he represents them. please welcome -- please join me in a warm welcome for senator patrick leahy of vermont. [applause] >> thank you. thank you all very much. it is great to be here. michael, i told you earlier, i you remind me so much of your late father, and of course dean broderick and especially my dear friend wade henderson, the longtime president of leadership conference on civil rights and now the professor of public interest law here, i have to
tell you, i have worked on so many things, and it is kind of funny in the judiciary committee. you can see when these debates are going on. i am ready to tear out little bit of hair i have left, and i will look over, and wade will be in the back and looked at me and smile was the thumbs up, and i say, let's keep this going. we are going to win eventually, and we usually do, so it is great to see the students here. you're going to law school of such an exciting time. you have the president who is committed to restoring the role of the united states around the world of such important issues as human rights and economic recovery. i think when he was asked by some students, french and german students in europe, they said, was barely changed in america? he said, i am a man named barack hussain obama.
how much janes did you expect? i see it when i go abroad and people want to -- how much change do you expect? i see it when i go abroad and people want to shake my hand. the week after changing plane thin -- in paris, before the french would be hostile to us. are you an american? yes, i am an american. i am so happy for america. ok. [laughter] i think when i was in law school i was inspired by another young president, john kennedy, who was president when i was at law school, senate had the privilege of working with his youngest brother ted kennedy for the past 35 years of some of the most pressing issues of this country, and next month, the senate judiciary committee is when to hold hearings on
president obama's historic -- is going to hold hearings on president obama [pause] stored nomination of judge sonia sotomayer -- historic nomination of judge sonia sotomayer as supreme court justice. one question was asked, are we going to get her confirmed? you had better believe it. [applause] just think of the number of firsts in her nomination. she is the first nominee in well over a century to have been nominated to three different federal judiciary offices by three different presidents, george h. w. bush to the district court common president clinton -- district court, president clinton and now
president of, to the supreme court, and of course, -- president obama to the supreme court, and of course she is the first hispanic to the supreme court. being first is not easy. some of you may be the first in your family to attend law school or even college. i know my family came in 1852 vermont, and that -- i became the first ladto received a secod degree. judge sotomayer was only the third and third class of women admitted to princeton. she went on to excel at law school. she began her legal career as a prosecutor in new york city' and the d.e.a. of manhattan wrote a wonderful op-ed piece in the new york times of what a