product that has taken place as compared to where we began when the house passed its bill. it appears that the majority has chosen to go to higher dollar level for every account in this conference report except as it relates to the primary purpose of the legislation, the crittedcal troop funding in the department of defense and military construction sections. my understanding of the final agreement is that it cuts the house level for d.o.d. and mill con by $4.6 billion. somewhat disconcerting is that the final package includes $5 billion for imf funding that was not a part of the original house package and will go to many countries who are less than friendly to the united states. that's a great concern to a sizeable number of members at least in my own conference.

. . nor was it requested by the president. the conference appears to have dropped the grand lieberman-mccain it's also my understanding that the conferees have significantly watered down

language relating to the release or transfer of detainees at guantanamo. we all know the difficulty of the commitment the president made in connection with guantanamo, but there are real problems in implementing his commitment. this is an issue i think we'll be struggling with for some time now, i'm not sure anyone has answers as to how we get through that. earlier this week, the president approved having a guantanamo detainee transfered to new york city. it's my understanding that that individual is in a facility around manhattanning and there are serious questions about the security of the facility. it's an inkling of the difficulties we have. i don't know how the courts will handle that case in new york. courts and the justice department have been known to do strange things from time to time. just this morning, the president ordered the release and transfer to have four

uighurs to bermuda. bermuda is still part of the british empire. it would appear, i understand that that took place without discussion with the chinese and the chinese are a bit upset about this. it could lead to a trades problem between those two countries because of the circumstance. the president appears to be racing to move these detainees before congress should enact anything into law, including this bill, but indeed, the uighur problem is a reflection of the guantanamo commitment. before we can conclude today's conference, my house minority colleagues and i would like to be recognized to offer three motions. the first will insist upon higher house funding for d.o.d. and milcon. the second would insist on agreeing to 202 a and 315 othe

senate bill preventing the release of guantanamo detainees. the third and final motion will seek approval of the senate provision prohibiting the release of detainee photos. i'd like to make one additional point. much has been made about the total cost of this emergency supplemental. i note for the record that the final conference agreement is $106 billion, which is $14 billion more than the president's request, $9 billion than the house-passed level, and $15 billion more than the senate level. let's not pretend we're concerned about the total cost of this package. arguments about maintaining some level of fiscal responsibility ring hollow when we lard up the troop funding bill with taxpayer dollars to support foreign aid for hostile governments and cash for cars past their prime.

in closing, mr. chairman, it is a shame that a process that began in a spirit of bipartisanship in the house has concluded in this manner. i must say in the past i've experienced considerable levels of ongoing communications between the senate and house as we've gone forward with packages like that. that sort of regular order is not the way professionally the place ought to be handled. it expedite ours process and i preesht recognition and yield back my time. >> mr. chairman, i'm pleased we're meeting today to finalize this supplemental. it's important we provide the needed resources for our men and women in the military forces and that we do so in a timely manner that does not compel the department of defense to delay procurements or take other inefficient actions to sport our troops. it's a positive sign, i think,

that we're meeting as a conference committee in the regular order. i hope we'll continue to resolve differences between the house and senate on the individual fy-2010 bill. i think the proposed conference agreement represents a fair compromise between the house and senate positions. i regret that some provisions in neither bill have apparently been added to the conference agreement and without casting judgment on whether the so-called cash for clunkers program is good policy, it's unfortunate that a new billion-dollar program is being created without any opportunity for debate or amendment in the senate. i know there are two members of this conference, senators collins and feinstein who hoped to offer an alternative proposal during senate consideration. i wish they and other senators could be afforded that opportunity. i'm also told there's other new legislation dealing with the federal retirement system that may or may not be part of the

conference agreement. this is something we learned of only today that apparently has significant impact on spending but we know virtually nothing about it. addition of these new items makes the conference report vulnerable in the senate and may jeopardize our efforts to fund the troops in a timely manner. there may be other issues we'll discuss further today. other issues have been difficult issues for the conference. i thank the two distinguished chairmen for their good faith efforts to reconcile the positions of the two bodies on these and other issues. >> i'd like to comment on a portion of the bill that

senator cochran just referred to. on january 14, senator collins and senator schumer and i introduced a bill, the thought and goal of which was pretty sirm sill -- simple, that was to encourage people to purchase more efficient automobiles with a voucher. and that became known as cash for clunkers. this is something we'd worked on for a long time, some of us that did the cafe bill in the senate, thanks to senator inoue , it was added to the energy bill and we were able to achieve a 10 mile over 10 year improvement in fuel efficiency in automobiles. it was a big victory. because we began this in 1993 and hadn't been able to achieve any improvement in the cafe standards. the cash for clunkers bill, and i must say this, is a product

of the house, is not based on improving fuel efficiency. it helps deter, prevent, diminish fuel efficiency. it really is in structure a bailout for the automobile industry. secondly there is no funding mechanism. senator collins and i had a funding mechanism which took it off of the stimulus. now, this goes right on the deficit. it's true in the bill it's reduced to four months, but it is a billion dollars. we strongly believe it doesn't make very good sense. let me give you a couple of reasons. first, it would allow a guzzler to be junked and a new guzzler purchased, essentially reimbursed by the taxpayers. a fuel efficiency improvement of one meager mile per gallon is all that's needed to qualify

for a $3,500 voucher in the house bill. the long-term goal of reducing oil dependency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions was really essentially shoved aside for this, which is aimed to clear existing inventories on automobile companies lots. the second major flaw is the fact that it excludes any used automobiles. now, there are many people that can't afford to buy a new car, but they can afford to buy a used car. our bill extended this concept to used car vehicles, used cars, as well. this bill clearly does not. senator collins and i have discussed this and we had thought we might do an amendment which would improvement the mileage of -- of the car to be purchased by

simply one mile. just a simple amendment. it must be said, our bill as originally intended had 32 to -- 32% to 38% more savings in oil, gasoline and prevention of global warming gases entering the atmosphere. i cannot support a cash for clunkers that goes on the deficit, that i don't believe does anything really to improve mileage efficiency, and is simply another bailout. i know people feel differently about this. but if you would, i would like the opportunity for senator kohl livens to make, as my co-sponsor to make a couple of remarks. >> mr. chairman, thank you, mr. chairman. i want to echo the comments senator feinstein has made. we worked very hard in the senate to come up with a

bipartisan bill that would have produced real environmental benefits, helped consumers, and given a boost to the automobile industry. it was a win-win from every perspective. unfortunately, thee version of cash for clunkers that has been included in the conference report does not begin to achieve the environmental benefits of the bill that senator feinstein and i have been advocating. as she's indicated, our version would save 38% more oil than the version that is in this conference report. it would make a real difference in helping to reduce our depend -- our dependence on foreign oil. it would get older, polluting vehicles off the road. unfortunately, the version that

is in the conference report seems to be aimed at simply stimulating automobile sales. now that's a goal that i share as well, but this bill first and foremost was supposed to be an environmental measure. and i think it's unfortunate that taxpayer dollars would be given to someone who traded in a ford f-150 for a hummer. yes, you heard me right. a hummer. getting 16 miles per gallon. and yet a lower income consumer who traded in a gas guzzler for a 2-year-old ford focus, which gets 27 miles per gallon would not receive assistance. so that does not strike me as the right direction in which to go. furthermore, toicht emphasize

the point that all versions we had put forth for consideration were paid for. i had proposed using tarp money that had already been set aside for the automobile industry to pay for this, to accommodate some concerns for the other side of the aisle we came up with a proposal to allow o.m.b., with congressional consent to use some of the funds set aside in the stimulus bill. but instead, what we have here is a proposal that is not paid for. so i'm disappointed in what's produced and i'm disappointed we have not had the opportunity of a full debate on this issue to try to forge a compromise bill that would both improve our environment and help stimulate the economy and that would help low-income consumers who may be interested in a used

car. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman. just one question. the version that's in here, does this allow us to take u.s. tax dollars to buy japanese and german and swedish and chinese cars? >> i can answer that question. >> i thought you might. >> the answer is, to be direct -- >> and korean. >> and the reason is, you would have a big w.t.o. problem if you did not. and i believe the house bill has adapted itself to that and included that. the point is, there are plenty of american cars that are eligible under this. there are also foreign-owned

car, many of which are manufacturered in this country, incidentally, that this would apply to as well. >> thank you. >> i want to associate myself with the comments made by senator fine steib and senator collins relative to the appropriateness of doing it in this matter -- manner. we've already spend $83 billion on the automobile companies now another $1 billion which is essentially subsidy. it doesn't deal with the environmental issues at all, dealing with the difference between trading in a car that has very low mileage for a car that has significantly higher mileage. in addition it's not paid for. it's inexcusable that this was actually passed on the same day the president came out for pay-go. i mean, the inconsistency of that is rather blatant. this should be paid for. i congratulate senator feinstein and senator collins for suggesting that.

as you know, in the senate -- in the senate, at least, it would be subject to two major points of order, rule 28 and rule 44. i would hope that either one would succeed and that would put this bill in jeopardy or at least have to restart it again or make it into a ping-pong event, none of comm is a good idea for our troops. our troops in afghanistan and iraq should not find that their support is conditioned on a bill to buy clunkers here in the united states that's unpaid for and which has virtually no environmental impact. at this time, i'd like to move to strike title 13. i so move. >> mr. chairman. >> i believe that has to be voted on our side first, mr. chairman? >> you have a motion on your side. i don't know if you want to put it or continue other comments before -- >> i'd like to speak to the

amendment, if i could. or to the motion. >> we have an agreement to permit the house to bring up three amendments. >> what the senator is saying is that in the interest of order, we had talked ahead of time and determined that it might be better if we disposed of the three house amendments first and then we can move the senate amendments. >> i would reserve, but i'd like to protect my right to -- >> absolutely. senator mcconnell? >> i too, would have a motion. i gather we can sort of put it in the qumbingts ueue for late her may i go ahead and address? >> sure. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i noticed in both the opening statements members raised the issue of the detainee

photographs. we know that the president, general petraeus and general odierno all feel the release of the photographs would endanger our troops. in the senate -- in the senate, senator lieberman and senator graham offered an amendment. i believe it was accepted without dissent. there is an overwhelming view in the senate that these photographs should not be released. consequently, i'm perplexed that it appears as if there's some sentiment on the other side of the capitol, maybe even majority sentiment, given the nature of the markup to this point, that the amendment be deleted. i would like for you to have the opportunity to hear from the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, who

also happens to be a member of this committee, and is sitting right down the table, to further underscore the bipartisan nature of support for the amendment guaranteing that our troops not be endangered by this sort of gratuitous act of releasing detainee photographs that none of the people leading our troops feel would do anything other than endanger the lives of our soldiers. i don't know if i have the ability to yield to the senator from california, but i'd like to suggest that she be called upon for a few moments. >> thank you. let me be brief. i do not believe that anything positive will be gained by the release of these photos. i believe that much negative will be gained by the release of these photos. i think it's pretty clear that the president has made substantial changes to the treatment of detainees through executive order.

and we have passed detainee treatment act of 2005 which dramatically stipulates the rules and regulations for the treatment of detainees. so the only thing that's gained, in my view, and i believe -- i think if senator bond were able to be here, he's the vice chairman of the senate intelligence committee, he would agree. the only thing that will be gained is more hatred, more jeopardy for our men and women in the field, more difficulties in iraq, more difficulties in afghanistan, and more difficulties in pakistan. i think it is possible for the intelligence committee to be able to review these. they should, in my view, be classified, and it's one thing if photos had never been released, but they have. we know what the problems were. we took action to solve the problems.

and to further buttress those who wish to do those nation -- do this nation great harm i think makes no sense at all. >> chairman obey, i don't know if there are other senators who want to address the issue, but if i could go ahead and offer the motion and put it in the queue for whenever you think it's appropriate. >> i don't really much care how it's approached but the fact is that to try to facilitate things, we had agreed earlier we'd take the three house amendments first and then we'll be happy to move to any amendments we have on the senate side. what i think, rather than arguing about which amendment ought to go first, we simply ought to have the amendments offered and speak to them and vote on them. i think that's the way to get our business done in the shortest possible order. >> mr. chairman, if you'd yield, i don't want to in any way -- one of our amendments

does address this area. we can vote on this but i don't have any resistance going to yours, mr. mcconnell. >> why don't we proceed with the young amendment first. >> the granger amendment is right on target for this discussion. >> you have the ability to call up any of the amendments -- >> what i was thinking to do, since senator mcconnell has the amendment apparently the same subject area that would be the subject of kay granger's who i call on next, i'm not sure we ought to be preempting him, but it's up to you. >> i don't see anyone preempting anybody, you can vote on the amendment twice. politicians are often redundant, shouldn't surprise anybody. >> mr. chairman work that i would certainly yield to senator mcconnell if he wants to move forward. >> i would prefer to speak to the agreement we had with

senator inoue and i would prever to move -- >> we did have a lot of discussions but not too often were they conclusive. in the meantime, i'd be happenity by to call on ms. granger. >> ms. granger, do you have an amendment? would you be so kind as to present it. >> i have a an amendment, i move the house proceed to the senate amendment relating to -- it simply insists on the senate position, here again we find ourselveses on the same side, the departments of state and defense and more importantly our commanders in the field as senator mcconnell said, it could be a recruiting tool for terrorists and could incite violence against our troops. the aclu already has entire

case files as well as photos, very few times does the congress have the opportunity to save lives in this case we could. >> if we could keep it down to a low roar so the gentlewoman can be heard. >> thank you. i would say we don't want to give our enemy a weapon to use against our soldiers, so let's give the president oh this legal -- the president the legal authority he needs to protect our troops. i have the motion, i think everyone has that. >> let me simply respond by saying this -- i don't know of anybody on this conference committee who is in favor of releasing the photos. there may be some, i'm not one of them. i would -- i really believe if those photos are released, that they would undo much of the good will that the president has generated by his activities and his comments in the middle

east over the past 10 days. having said that, i believe that it is premature to include this amendment in this bill. the president indicated he's strongly committed to preventing disclosure of these photographs. he has announced he would resist the release of additional detainee photographs. but as you know, there is f.y.a. litigation proceeding at this time. the administration has a pending motion in the second circuit court requesting a say of the release order and the decision on that motion is expected imminently. the admgs also has the ability

to seek relief from the supreme court and it seems to me that the legislative provision which simply divides support for this bill simply complicates the matter in a way which is not necessary at this time. i think there are a huge number of issues that have the potential of derailing this bill and this is one of them, if it's not handled with some delicacy. i would be the first, the court makes -- brings down a decision which is at variance with the administration's wishes, i would be the first to suggest we immediately pass the legislation if it is necessary to give the president whatever authority he needs to see to it those pictures are not released. so i think in the interest of passing this bill, we ought to

drop this controversial ladgewadge for a moment -- >> mr. chairman, may i just make one -- >> after i finish. i would like to see us drop this language with the understanding that if there's a need to proceed in short order, we have the capacity do that. i cannot imagine we could not act that quickly if it became a necessity. senator mcconnell. >> i'm sorry, i didn't mean to interrupt you. on your point of complicating the passage of the conference report, that is something i'm concerned about if we don't have the language in. senator lieberman and senator graham and -- graham and others feel very, very strongly that there's no good reason not to protect the troops when you have such overwhelming opposition to the release of photographs by virtually everybody who knows anything about the subject, including yourself. you indicated you also don't believe they ought to be released. the only way to make sure that

doesn't happen is to include this amendment. s that bill we know is going to pass here shortly. pass if it doesn't have this provision stripped from it which greatly compounds our problem on the senate side on a bipartisan basis in getting this extremely important measure into law, out of the congress and down to the president. >> senator, the problem with that is that as i read -- excuse me. as i read the situation in the house, there are a lot of people who look at this issue not just in terms of these pictures, but in terms of, in effect, doing an end-around foya. -- foia. it creates a tremendous impediment in their mind to supporting of this bill. i want -- senator gregg mentioned earlier the lack of consistency demonstrated by one of the provisions in