one minute. mr. smith: madam speaker, the national media have given president obama a free pass on the economy. . earlier this year they said we needed to pass the president stimulus package to keep the unemployment rate below 8%. since they passed the president's nonstimulus stimulus the econo has lost more than 1.5 million jobs and unemployment has jumped to 9.4%. despite the massive layoffs, the president claimed this week that the stimulus has saved jobs. the national media have allowed the obama administration to get away with spending jobs lost as jobs saved. and -- spinning jobs lost as jobs saved. and they've ignored the congressional budget office conclusion that the stimulus bill actually would reduce output, reduce output. the media should scrutinize the president's words and actions, not give him a free pass.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. we make great strides towards solving our future energy needs by focusing on a process that has been virtually ignored for the past eight years, research and development. time and again our economy has been pushed forward by a spirit of innovation. it has been pushed forward by a spirit that a century ago ignited an energy revolution started right in the heart of the 21st congressional district with general electric. less than half a century ago president kennedy announced the space race in response to sputnik. we now have that opportunity again. when one considers the global context, it's easy to see that the united states is falling woefully behind. we're going to consider the clean energy and security act which would create clean energy

jobs, cut global warming pollution. china's investing $12.6 million every hour towards clean energy. with this kind of deficit we stand to lose our place in the world as it relates to our energy security and that is a finished product we simply cannot afford to import. madam speaker, i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. blunt: to address the house for one minute and permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blunt: i thank you, speaker. earlier this week i talked about the principles that we need to follow for americans to have a better health care system. the first of those principles was to make quality health care coverage affordable and accessible for every american regardless of pre-existing conditions. today i want to talk less than a minute on why we need to protect our system from a government-run health care turnt. what that alternative would do

would eliminate coverage for more than 100 million americans who currently receive their coverage through their job. it would limit your choice of doctors and medical treatment options and it would result in the federal government taking control of health care. yesterday, the american medical association embraced all of those reasons not to have a public option, not to have a government-run option, not to have a government takeover of health care, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. pursuant to section 4-b of house resolution 5, 111th congress and the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the following members of the house to the house democracy assistance commission. the clerk: mr. price of north carolina, chairman. mrs. capps of california, mr. holt of new jersey, mr. schiff

of california, ms. schwartz of pennsylvania, mr. payne of new jersey, mr. pomeroy of north dakota, mr. farr of california, mr. ellison of minnesota, ms. hirono of hawaii, and ms. roibled of -- and ms. roybal-allard of california. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. madam, pursuant to section 4-b of house resolution 5, 111th congress, i am pleased to appoint the following members to the house democracy assistance commission. the honorable david dreier of california. the honorable john boozman of arkansas. the honorable jeff fortenberry of nebraska. the honorable judy biggert of illinois. the honorable bill shuster of pennsylvania. the honorable kay granger of texas. the honorable charles w. boustany jr. of louisiana. the honorable k. michael conaway of texas. the honorable vern cannon of nebraska.

i am pleased to fulfill their requests. signed sincerely, john a. boehner, republican leader. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. obey: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 2346 making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2009, and for other purposes. with the senate amendment thereto and agree to the conference asked for by the senate. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2346, an act making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2009, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> madam speaker, i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. lewis of california moves that the managers on the part of the

house at the conference on disagreeing votes of the two houses on the senate amendment to the bilh.r. 2346 be instructed as follows. one, to agree within the scope of conference the funding levels that will result in a total funding level in the conference report that does not exceed the total funding level provided in the senate amendment. two, to insist on the house funding levels under each account under title 1 of the house bill related to defense matters. three, to insist on the house funding levels for each account under chapter 9 of title 2 of the house bill related to military construction. four, to recede to section 1305 of the senate amendment related to detainee photographic records protection. five, to not record their approval of the final conference agreement within the meaning of clause a of house rule 22 unless such the text of the agreement has been available to the managers in an electronic, searchable and downloadable form for at least 48 hours prior to the time

described in such a clause. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 7 of rule 22, the gentleman from california, mr. lewis, and the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. obey, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: madam chairman, thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lewis: madam speaker, let me begin my remarks by saying that i'm pleased that until last week we appear to be following regular order by actually having an open meeting of house and senate conferees. as i -- and the vast majority of republicans have suggested several times through this process. we want this troop funding bill to be an up and down vote and ideally a bipartisan vote. i want to commend my colleagues, mr. -- chairman obey and chairman murtha, for producing a bill that

accurately reflected the real needs and priorities of the troops deployed in iraq and afghanistan. while the house passed bill wasn't perfect, it did garner bipartisan support, including that of 168 republican members. unfortunately, what i'm hearing and reading about, the final deal that was struck between chairman obey and senator inowe way leaves me to believe that the final package will not enjoy the same bipartisan support. as reported the deal struck by the two appropriations chairmen would do the following. first, cut over $4.6 billion from defense and milcon -- from the house passed levels. further, it would increase foreign operations funding by $5.2 billion over the house passed levels and $2.6 billion over the senate passed bill. further, it would include $5 billion in funding for the

i.m.f. to secure a whooping $108 billion of loans and in essence the i.m.f. would be funded at levels some $30 billion above the troop funding level. so we have troop funding on the one hand that has been reduced, and we have a sizeable expansion of foreign aid. further, the bill includes $1 billion of new spending for what we have been calling cash for clunkers on the floor. that amount was not in the bill as it passed the house either. now, let me shift gears and briefly explain the motion before us. it's a straightforward motion that insists on the house funding levels of $84.5 billion for the defense and military construction portions of the supplemental. further, it also insists on the lower top line for overall funding levels of $91.3 billion contained in the senate passed bill for the entire supplemental.

further, it requires the text of the conference agreement be available in an electronic, downloadable and searchable form for 48 hours prior to consideration by the house. this language is identical to the motion unanimously adopted and subsequently ignored by my friends in the majority when considering the mass -- our massive stimulus bill. finally, this motion insists on the senate position regarding prohibition on the release of detainee photos sponsored by senator graham and lieberman. clearly, the focus of this supplemental funding bill should be on the troops, not i.m.f., not foreign aid funding, not cash for clunkers or just using the emergency circumstances to buy down f.y. 2010 spending. madam chairman, i urge the adoption of the motion. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman reserve his time?

mr. lewis: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. obey: madam speaker, i yield myself five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. obey: madam speaker, i don't particularly care how people vote on this motion. motions to instruct conferees are notorious and they have been for many years for simply being a device by which we either make political statements around here or express preferences. i don't really have any objection to either. i think it's legitimate -- a legitimate to -- thing to do in a legislative body. i intend to vote no on the amendment, but i don't have any problem with any member who decides that there are certain pieces of this motion that they would like to send a message to

the conferees on. so as far as i'm concerned people can vote anyway they want. mr. lewis: will the gentleman yield? mr. obey: sure. mr. lewis: we could probably bypass all this discussion and as you said expedite the schedule. i do want to recognize mr. lungren, but if you want to -- mr. obey: i think it would be a very good idea. it would make us have more time to do the real work. mr. lewis: you have the floor, mr. chairman. mr. obey: i thank the gentleman for his wise comments. let me simply say i don't have any objection to several provisions in this motion. i do have to say one thing, however. the effect of this motion would be to substantially increase the likely amount of money approved by the conference for the defense department and to substantially reduce the amount

of money provided for the state department. i have always had difficulty undering why people are willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to wage war but are resistant to spending a tiny amount in comparison in order to prevent war or to extraindicate ourselves from war. -- extracate ourselves from war. the conference report will probably exceed the numbers in this motion for bringing state department personnel more immediately into iraq, into afghanistan and into pakistan. we are trying to convert that operation from essentially a military operation to a much more balanced operation which includes much greater effort on the diplomatic side to extracate ourselves from that

war. it requires money, it requires facilities. you cannot as the -- as many military experts have said you cannot win this if you just deal with it militarily. so with that one point i would simply say, madam speaker, that i would reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman is ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lewis: madam chairman, i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from california, dan lungren, for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. lungren: i thank my ranking member and, madam speaker, i rise in support of this motion to instruct for the reasons articulated by the gentleman from california. but let me talk about another subject that is covered in this bill. and one that is of extreme importance. it goes to the question of how we handle those who are at

guantanamo at the present time. this issue has erupted around this country because people are beginning to understand the ramifications of closing guantanamo and bringing people here to the united states whose only connection to the united states is that they were caught on the battlefield with the intention of killing americans. . why is it important we keep guantanamo open or bring these people to the united states? we got a little bit of an insight why it's important by a report by a colleague of ours, mr. rogers from michigan, who when he was in afghanistan recently and visited our base there and went to the prison there where we are holding people who we actually captured on the battlefield, he observed the fact that now we have f.b.i. agents ma ran diesing -- ma yandaizing, that is giving miranda statements to those we found on the battlefield. in other words what, we have done is we have transposed the

universe in which these people are being detained from one of a combat atmosphere to one of a criminal proceeding in the united states. now, why is that important? it's important because this is for the -- papping for the first time in the history of the united states. we did not do this during the revolutionary war. we did not do it during any war we fought. not the civil war, not world war i, not world war ii. if we had followed this same thinking in world war ii, our courts would have been overwhelmed. people forget we had two million p.o.w.'s that we held during world war ii. over 400,000 of them in the united states. never was it thought that they had all of the rights under the constitution. but this question has basically been treated by federal courts in the past with this perspective.

the connection you have to the united states is what determines your coverage under the constitution. that's why someone coming over the border illegally doesn't have the right to all of the constitutional protections because the only connection to the united states is trying to get in illegally. here we have people sitting at guantanamo whose only connection to the united states is that we have reason to believe that they wanted to kill americans. anywhere in the world. and so now what we are saying is , if we take them from guantanamo and put them in the united states, they have a connection to the united states. they were brought here involuntarily and the legal arguments that for years have presented a barrier from them obtaining all constitutional rights, that barrier is pulled down. so while this bill has language in it, this conversation report as it's being worked on, has

language in it with respect to guantanamo, i don't think we have focused in on what this means. yes, there's a concern about the threat they may pose to americans, and that arises out of the fact some say well they could escape from the prisons. then we are told we have these prisons they can't escape from. it is more than that. it is they may be released at the direction of federal judges. the only reason they would be released is that they somehow now have access to all of our constitutional rights. so the american people need to understand that we may have a president who says, no, we don't want to release them. we have an attorney general testified no, we are going to make sure they are not released. does the gentleman have a couple minutes? mr. lewis: i yield two additional minutes. mr. lungren: the attorney general can testify before our committee as he did two weeks ago they are going to take all steps to make sure people aren't released in the united states who are suspected terrorists.

they cannot promise that. once they bring them to the united states and the judgment of the federal courts is they are now under the protection of all constitutional rights. we no longer are talking about them as illegal enemy combatants. who never before have gotten the protection of the geneva convention. the geneva convention in part says, will you have these protections so long as you act under the laws that have been recognized for warfare. one of them is wear a uniform. one of them is don't attack innocent civilians as a particular strategy and tactic. so what we are doing is we are turning it all upside-down and we are saying somehow we are protecting our values by doing something we have never done before. we are jeopardizing the national security interest of the united states. we are putting americans, innocent americans at risk by

doing this. i will be happyp to yield. mr. lewis: i very much appreciate the point the gentleman is making. it's an important one. the issue per se has almost been denied by the other side when we have these discussions in committee and otherwise. it should be known by your public and my public that four of these people were released to bermuda just this morning we learned. that's a british entity. but what's next? our territories? we know that gi lanny -- galina was sent to new york for trial. these people, very dangerous people, could be released in the united states. i would be glad to yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. lungren: i appreciate that. here's what people have to  understand. there is a difference between holding someone to try them for war crimes or any other crime. and then you do have them within a criminal justice system. in the past it's been a military

tribunal. remember what happened when abraham lincoln was assassinated? we established a military tribunal here in the district of columbia that actually tried those individuals and they were executed. that was a military tribunal. for what? murdering a president of the united states. in time of war. now what we are saying is, those rights were not sufficient. if that were to happen today, suddenly we say we have to do it now within the context of the full pana pli of constitutional rights, and we are directing that voluntaryly saying we are going to close down guantanamo. if anybody has looked at the prisons and jail system across the united states and compared it with guantanamo, it is of the highest standard of any of our incarceration units there is. guantanamo happens to be a place that is not sovereign american territory, that's the important

distinction. i thank the gentleman for his time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: it's my intention to yield to mr. frelinghuysen. i'd like to make this point to the speaker as well as to the members. the words just spoken were the words of the former attorney general of california, dan lungren. i would suggest all of us read them with care in the congressional record. i'm proud to yield four minutes to my colleague, rodney frelinghuysen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for four minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: madam speaker, thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong support of the motion to instruct conferees providing for supplemental appropriations for ongoing operations in afghanistan and iraq. my colleagues, i support the portion of these instruction that is would require the secretary of defense to certify if the release of photographs of detainees would endanger citizens of the u.s. or members of the armed services. we send our soldiers, sailors,

marines, and airmen abroad to protect our security. we owe it to them to make sure we do not do anything that puts them in needless jeopardy. and i also strongly support the notion that we need to endorse a higher house funding levels for defense and military construction. absolutely needed. if we can believe the administration and the congressional leadership, this will be the last supplemental bill to fund the needs of our soldiers in iraq. and may i add, their mission, those soldiers' mission, expanded mission in afghanistan. personally i find that hard to believe. this supplemental should not be considered in a vacuum. what should not be lost in all of this is that our president is proposing a defense budget that barely keeps up with inflation and specifically contains a significant cut in our ballistic missile program. at a time when north korea and

iran are testing their capabilities and quite honestly testing our resolve. and lastly, madam speaker, i have concerns about the expanded spending authority of the international monetary fund. who would be eligible to tap that fund? in terms of drawing rights. what's more bizarre is that under the recent agreements that i have been reading, that we have been reading about, the united states of america now is eligible. should we say like other third world countries torques have its own drawing rights. which is totally bizarre and inappropriate. madam speaker, our first responsibility as members is to protect our constituents, including those in the military. this motion to instruct helps achieve that mission and other important missions. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes

to my colleague from the committee, jack kingston. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i stand in support of this amendment and certainly appreciate the gentleman for introducing it. but i wanted to talk specifically about the guantanamo bay prison and why that's important, because i strongly believe that if we did not have it we would need to invent it. it is that important to american securitier. mr. lungren has talked about it a little bit. we have had about 500 prisoners there who have been processed and released and sent back to their countries either to be detained in their countries or to be watched by host countries. 12% of those have actually gone back into combat, which is disturbing. but we have had 500 prisoners move in and out. we've got about 240 left, and they are the worst of the worst. these are folks who were

basically caught in an act of war trying to kill american citizens. and our foreign allies, particularly those in europe who have given so much criticism about closing guantanamo bay, none of them have opened up their doors and said, aid, we'll take these sunday schoolteachers and boy scouts because they know they are not sunday schoolteachers and boy scouts. not closing down guantanamo bay is the right thing to do. but i also wanted to talk about the points mr. lungren made about the miranda rights of prisoners. prior to 9/11, america generally treated acts of terrorism as breaking the law. the case in point, the 1993 bombing of the world trade center or the u.s.s. cole. these were not seen as act of war. therefore the perpetrator of those crimes got lawyers. they had miranda rights.

they had all the courtesies of the u.s. government, the u.s. justice system. that is not what we need to be doing right now. after 9/11 we realized that these acts of terrorism weren't just technical but strategic acts of war and therefore we have moved over to let's treat soldiers as they are. war criminals. mr. lungren mentioned the assassins of abraham lincoln were tried by a military tribunal. it's the same situation when president roosevelt was president. we found six nazi spies onlyly -- on long island. and i believe five of them were executed, a sixth one cooperated. it was all through a military tribunal. what is it that president obama sees that president lincoln and president roosevelt and really all our entire u.s. judicial

history, all the judges, have signed off on it. why is that -- it that suddenly we want to go over to afghanistan and iraq and give miranda rights to prisoner of wars. therefore -- curve 30 more seconds. mr. lewis: i yield an additional minute. mr. kingston: i thank the chairman. therefore the first thing they are going to be trying to say is i am not going to say anything until you give me lawyer. then they are going to come home to america and they are going to be all lawyered up. it is going to cost taxpayers money. it's going to hurt our investigations and our interrogations. we are not going to be able to get the intelligence that we need, the background information that will prevent future terrorist attacks, because there was a lot of criticism by this administration about the bush-cheney administration, but i'll say one thing about it. during 9/11 and i think those of us on the floor, most were here then, we felt assured that we would have another attack on

american soil. that did not happen. and i remember those dark days. we all felt like there would be another domestic attack. that was prevented and in part because of what we were able to find out from prisoners who were being held and detainees at guantanamo bay. i want to make those points, madam speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i'm proud to yield three minutes to my colleague from missouri, roy blunt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for three minutes. mr. blunt: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i certainly want to talk about the comments that have already been made on guantanamo. it's a facility that should be be kept opened. clearly a campaign promise is easier to make than the reality of the world we live in. nobody wants these people. nobody in my state, nobody in any neighboring state, other countries don't want these pe