they are enemies of the united states. they are not people that have a right under the actions they have taken to have the protections that have already been so well discussed by mr. kingston and mr. lungren and others. . the fact that there's no money in this supplemental, as i understand to close out the facility is a good thing. and i'm glad the chairman and others worked to see it was not in there. this is a debate that's harder from the administration's point of view than it was during the campaign. troops in the field need our support. the house acted quickly. it was a large bipartisan vote to support the troops in the field, and where is that bill now? that bill's in the committee somewhere trying to figure out what else can be added to a bill designed to support our troops. people talking on those topics understand that the members of

the congress have a history of supporting our troops in the field, our troops in iraq, our troops in afghanistan and so suddenly, well, maybe we can also put more money in the international monetary fund. a fund that we would put that money in by increasing our debt. we all know that one of the sources of that debt right now is far -- foreign borrowing, borrowing from foreign countries. some of those countries we borrow from like china actually would then qualify to get the money back under the i.m.f. to borrow money from china to give it to china is not what we ought to be doing. if we were even going to talk about that it shouldn't be in a military supplemental. it should be in a bill focused on that specific promise that the president apparently has recently made and it deserves a debate of its own. i hope it does not come back to the floor as part of this bill. and i hope we get the job done of supporting our troops, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i'm

pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mike conaway. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. conaway: i want to speak briefly about the narrow aspect of the motion to instruct that would require us to recede to the senate language in the senate amendment that would restrict access to the photographs of detainees that have been swept up in the field of battle since 2001. these photographs are cessation in nature. they will be used to spur actions by radical jihadists that will be dangerous to our troops. if you remember back recently there was a cartoon that was very disrespectful to mohammed, and the reaction to that cartoon was irrational given the nature of what went on. how much worse will the action will be for the release of these photographs of these detainees being treated however

they were treated? general petraeus has said in his judgment that the release of these photographs will help recruit additional terrorists, additional jihadists to the team and they will be used to spur actions against our military, against our troops in the field that might not otherwise be there. and so i don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the release of these photographs in all likelihood will result in additional deaths and injuries to american troops that don't have to occur. the senate language would restrict acksess to these photographs which is the right thing. the white house said these photographs should not be released. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support our motion to instruct because it does make sense to not release these photographs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. we'd like to touch on the issue of gitmo as well. i've been there a couple of times. those people are well treated. particularly when you consider they are enemy combatants. they are part of a group that declare war on this country. and throughout the history of mankind when a group declares war on another group and the group on which they declared war it humane enough to take prisoners then they are held until the group says they are no longer at war. here there are people in this country, in the administration who do not understand that these people still want to kill us. look at the pleading of khalid shaikh mohammed. his words, we are terrorists to the bone. you release those people, bring them in the united states. we already heard from one case

that the supreme court majority is wanting to give them rights to which they are not or should not be entitled. and that's justice justice scalia said this opinion will cost american lives. that was a bold statement by scalia but he's right. we should not allow this to hurt american soldiers and american people and put innocent lives at risk even though it may get some applause overseas from people who would not mind seeing america disappear. and i want to touch very quickly on the photographs. we believe in america that guilty people should be punished and people who tortured are treated prisoners inhumanely have been punished and are being punished. but if those photographs are released iwill be blood on this administration's hands for punishing innocent soldiers who had nothing to do with it, and we should not have or allow

this administration to hurt innocent soldiers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: madam chairman, i yield two minutes to a member of the appropriations committee, mr. akin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mr. akin: i appreciate the opportunity to speak on the supplemental. it's actually something that i voted on not so long ago, but things have changed. things have changed democratically. it seems like the obama administration has -- it has changed dramatically. it seems like the obama administration has requested $108 billion, that is taking money away from defense and putting it into the international monetary fund. now, they call it the i.m.f. a lot of people don't know what the i.m.f. is, but here we're taking money away from our defense spending, away from our soldiers, away from our taxpayers and we're going to put it into this international monetary fund. and exactly what does that do?

well, that allows some of our good friends like iran and venezuela to access this money to build their country and their programs and to use, according to the dictates, the way they run their country. this is not only competitors but they are countries that do the most they can to cause us trouble. so why in the world do we want to levy more taxes on our taxpayers, take the money that was for defense and give it away to our enemies? doesn't make any sense. this should not be included in the defense supplemental. this should be about taking care of our men and women in uniform. it should be about taking care of the equipment and the needs and the education and training that they need. not about giving money away to the international community to be used in who knows what way by who knows what country. so as strong as i am on defense, i've always been a strong defender, i have been on the armed services committee

for nine years. i have three sons graduating from the naval academy, but this will not stand. i will not vote for a supplemental that's giving money that should go to our soldiers to some foreign country. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the motion to instruct. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. lewis: madam chair, if i could inquire of my colleague, do you have additional speakers or -- mr. obey: just one, myself, briefly. mr. lewis: i'll then, madam speaker, take a moment to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. obey: i think you have the right to close. mr. lewis: i do have the right to close. i'd love to listen to you and see what i have to say. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized.

mr. obey: does the gentleman have only one remaining speaker? ok. thank you. then i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. obey: madam speaker, i had not wanted to take a lot of time here today, but i am moved to take a couple of minutes to respond to a couple of things i heard on the floor today. we heard several lectures about the president's fiscal policy and his economic policy and his international economic policy. i find it kind of difficult to find economic lectures from the same folks who have driven this country's economy into the ditch. the president has inherited a very dicey situation. both internationally and domestically. it is always hard in life to clean up other people's messes. it is especially hard to do that when you have the responsibilities as heavy as

those that weigh on the shoulders of the president of the united states. i don't understand why he should be expected to take lectures from the people who helped put the economy into the ditch or for that matter to take lectures from the same people who brought us the most unnecessary war in america's history. people who took $6 trillion in projected budget surpluses and turned them into the largest deficits in the history of the republic. and now they are sniping at virtually everything that the president does to try to deal with both his international challenges and his domestic challenges. i don't think anybody wants to see any of those prisoners at

guantanamo, quote, released into the united states. i do think we have a legitimate question about where they should be tried and where they should be imprisoned after they are found guilty. and because we wanted to have more specific answers from the administration on that score, this committee has already removed all of the money that could be used to close guantanamo until we do get a specific plan from the administration. having said that, i would suggest that the average american family is much more in danger of being hit by the flu pandemic than they are of actually being hit by any

person who would be imprisoned in a maximum security prison here in the united states. i frankly would be kind of interested in seeing some of those terrorists expos to the wonderful -- expose to the wonderful charms of some of our prison inmates in our own prisons. i don't think they would like the experience very much. but nonetheless, that is not what is at issue here. what is at issue is simply whether or not we will get about our business of going to conference and producing a supplemental appropriation bill that will meet the basic needs of our troops, that will meet our basic diplomatic necessary its as well, and that's why i think there's a problem with this motion. this motion by the time it sets

aside money for military construction and defense, this motion would not leave us with enough money on the table to respond sufficiently to the pandemic flu problem. it would not leave us with enough money on the table to deal with the necessity to provide assistance to mexico in order to deal with the drug problem there which is certainly a national security threat to us. and it certainly would not leave us with sufficient funds to strengthen and buttress our political and diplomatic activities in afghanistan and in pakistan. it would not leave us with enough money, for instance, to fully fund the funding for the new embassy in pakistan which is desperately needed, given the fact that we just had a bombing at the pearl hotel where most of the american

diplomats stay. we need to protect diplomats such as much as we need to protect soldiers. and that's what the conference will try to do if we can ever get to it. so i would simply say, madam speaker, as i said earlier, i intend to vote against this motion but i am not going to be particularly bothered if other people want to vote for it because they support one piece or another of this proposal. i myself would probably support, too, the provisions in here but not all of them. so members are certainly free to vote however they prefer. this is a place where we like to state our first preferences as often as possible but sooner or later we have to compromise, and that means most of us, including the ranking member and the chair will not be able to get all of the first preferences that we would

prefer. so with that if the gentleman's prepared to close i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin yields back his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i fore one am looking forward to a -- i for one am looking forward to a number of celebrations. one of the celebrations that i hope to participate in the near future involves the gentlelady who happens to be the speaker at the moment. we have sale bration when we reach the point would stop presuming that every problem in the world can easily be set aside because it can blame the past president about this. as i remember, i think we had a vote in the house in which there was broadly base bipartisan support, for example, in support of the then president for the war in iraq. and an item that's not directly in this bill today dealing with guantanamo, if i'm not

mistaken, that issue would not be before us if the current president would commit to his closing guantanamo. that's creating this horrendous problem. setting all that aside, as i close, madam speaker, the bill before us or the item before us is an item that involves the conference that's about to take place between the senate and the house, having to do with the supplemental funding that was designed originally to give support to our efforts in afghanistan and iraq. . my consternation is that it appears as though we have setaside that bipartisan support for the convenience of the leadership. indeed we'll have a conference with the senate that involves two things. a significant reduction of about $5 million in the money available to support our troops. and above and beyond that for all intents and purposes, about that sum of money is transferred for foreign aid, for funding for i.m.f. providing access to all kinds of

countries who are not friendly to the united states by way of funding that would be supported by our taxpayers. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to instruct. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. lewis: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair -- the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: i object to the vote on the grounds a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. mursuent to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

>> every weekend's filled with books and authors on "book tv." look for our entire schedule job at booktv.org. >> here is our present policy. we are anxious, willing, eager to stop the bombing just as we're eager to stop the war. >> telephone conversations from the final months of lyndon johnson's final months of presidency. his pick for supreme court justice. listen saturday morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span radio, in the washington baltimore area at 90.1 f.m. online at c-spanradio.org.

and on x.m. satellite radio channel 132. >> how is c-span funded? >> private donations. >> taxpayers. >> i don't really know. >> from public television. >> donations. >> i don't know where the money comes from. >> federally. >> contributions from donors. >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span. no government mandate. no government money. >> u.s. house gaveled out just moments ago. they'd finished up debate on a republican motion to instruct conferees on the 2009 war spending bill. again, those conferees meeting later this afternoon. we'll have live coverage of that on c-span3. prior to that vote we understand according to -- according to the gallery on the hill that there is some problem with the electronic voting system. we'll have live coverage of the house when they gavel back in, including that vote.

more debate coming up on aid to pakistan. we understand the speaker, speaker pelosi says the house will consider a resolution later today on the house floor that condemns the shooting that occurred at the holocaust museum in washington yesterday. all of that coming up later in the u.s. house. we'll have it live for you. and also today, again, the war supplemental spending bill, the vote on the republican motion still ahead. we talked to a reporter on capitol hill who's been covering debate on the hill. >> joining us is josh rogin of "congressional quarterly." how have democratic leaders worked out key differences between the house and senate versions of the war spending bill? >> well, a lot of the compromises fall somewhere between the house version and the senate version. but on two key provisions, one regarding to release photos of detainees at guantanamo bay and both democratic leaders have come up with compromises that will not likely to please

republicans. they've decided not to restrict them as part of the supplemental conference report. something that republicans are very upset about. and on guantanamo bay it seems like they're going to allow the transfer of detainees for trial only. and that's another thing that the republicans are short to object to in today's conference session. >> in terms of the photo provision which will not be allowed in the version according to the -- according to your answer there, but it faces some opposition on the senate side, is that correct? >> sure. that provision which would have barred for three years the release of the photos of the alleged abuse was added by senators lieberman and graham into the senate version of the bill. they promised to obstruct all action in the senate if that is not included in the conference report and house republicans are also making a procedural move to try to force a vote on that very issue right now on the house floor. and we're going to have to see how that plays out and whether that holds up progress on the bill. >> what about president obama on this issue?

>> well, it says that president obama actually worked with graham and lieberman to craft the language of the amendment. so in that respect he's pretty much for it. he's not getting into the middle of the legislative fight because it pits him against his own party. and with republicans, which is an awkward position, so he hasn't been speaking on it recently. but we can say that he supports the provision. >> $5 billion was added to the bill for the international monetary fund after the house passed its version. how is this going to fair when the conference gets together this afternoon. >> it will be in the conference report. this is why republicans in the house have pledged to oppose the bill and mass and this is also why democrats were forced to scuttle the photo provision in order to get the support of liberal democrats who opposed the bill because now they need

all the votes they can get because no republicans will vote for the bill. >> if the conference is meeting on thursday afternoon you write that leaders are waiting until next week to bring up a vote. why is that? >> well, the assumption is that they just haven't been able to corral enough votes to pass it without enough republican support. they've been whipping this all very hard all week. a lot of liberal democrats say they won't vote for the bill for other issues. many of them are opposed to the war. they don't believe the war has enough specific or the plan for ending the war is not available. it's been a tough road for them. my take is that they will get more votes. >> you talked about senators graham and lieberman in the photo provision. any other concerns on the senate side? >> sure. there's going to be a concern of the overall nonspending bill. the president said he didn't want a lot of addons, a lot of earmarks. but the longer the bill stayed in negotiations the more things got added to it.

another thing was a cash for clunkers program. this is $1 billion to encourage people to trade old cars for fuel efficient vehicles. there are military airplanes and stryker vehicles and other ground vehicles that were not requested by the administration. these have bipartisan support but at the same time republicans are sure to be upset that the top line of the bill is a lot more than was originally anticipated. >> what is that top line? what is the tally so far? >> well, that's the $64,000 question. the request was about $84 billion. various versions of the bill came about $91 billion and $97 billion. the total could be $100 billion or $105 billion. >> josh rogin of "congressional quearltly" on the supplemental war spending bill. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> and when the house gavels back in a vote on a republican motion to go to conference on that war spending bill.

having some problems in the electronic voting system. we'll have live coverage when they gavel back in. also today a bill on the u.s. aid to pakistan. speaker pelosi said the house will also consider a resolution later on the house floor that condemns the shooting that occurred at the holocaust museum yesterday. and the speaker held her weekly briefing. we're going to show you what we can until the house gavels back in. >> good morning. yesterday we were all deeply shaken by the news of the violent attack at the holocaust museum. it reminds us of the valiant work of people who strive to

protect us here, whether it's the tourists who visit, the press who covers it, members of congress, the embassies, the administration. they do so with great courage. we had our own gibson and chestnut, those two words mean a great deal to us here. now steven johns. later today we will have a resolution on the floor, hopefully to be a comfort to his family and also to talk about how despicable this act of violence was. it's really sad. earlier this week we met with the president at the white house when he announced his pay-as-you-go initiative. it was with great excitement

that we heard his statement. just as a little history, maybe even ancient history to some of you, that means before you were born history, in 1982 at the democratic mid term convention in philadelphia congressman george miller introduced a resolution for pay-as-you-go. it was -- it passed. it became part of the democratic platform that year. it took until 1990 for it to become operative here when president bush was president of the united states. throughout the 1990's it was how we operated. pay-as-you-go. and the last four budgets of president clinton were in balance or in surplus. we have to return -- you know what has happened in the eight years intervening in terms of the reversal of that under president george w. bush. but now happily democrats are

coming together around this concept. for many years it has been the central organizationing purpose of the blue dogs, fiscal discipline, fiscal responsibility. and -- but i want you to know that their -- there are initiatives from all the caucuses for pay-as-you-go. i sent a letter to chairs of the committee to ask them to subject everything under their scrutiny, under their jurisdiction to the harshest scrutiny to find savings, whether it's waste, fraud, abuse, duplications. we'll save $10 billion below the president's budget in that respect. and as our appropriations bills go forward, they will implement that direction. health care reform will be part of how we address reducing the deficit. health care reform is entitled reform ashe