my experience has been that politicians who are consistent are people who happen to be very, very lucky. i don't have the luxury of pursuing my own agenda. anyone in this position, as mr. lewis knows when he chaired the committee, i think any chair of this committee or this conference on either side of the capitol, we don't have the luxury of pursuing our own agendas, we're too busy trying to broker other people's agendas. this is one of those times when i think we may have a difference in judgment about what is necessary to pass this bill, but i think the drop -- i think that dropping this language at this time is necessary to pass the bill. >> mr. chairman. >> mr. alexander. >> may i comment on the issue? >> sure. i means in -- at this point, it's a house matter. but we're always happy to hear from a senator.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my -- i do appreciate your recognizing me. i was on the floor of the senate when the senate amendment was being written. it was written with discussions with the president. the president supports the amendment. the senate agreed to it unanimously. the conclusion was arrived at because of the extraordinary statements of general petraeus and general odierno about the effect of the release of these photographs. and how they might endanger the lives of servicemen and women. the language of those two

commanding officers was filed by president obama in his brief in the second circuit court of appeals in new york in support of his position that these shouldn't be released. the words that general petraeus used were further endanger the lives of soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors, civilians and contractors serving there. general odierno used similar words, it will put u.s. forces, civilians and iraqi partners at risk of being severely injured, killed or kidnapped that got the attention of democratic senators and republican senators. these generals spoke to secretary gates who i understand had a different position at first, changed his mind, talked to the president and what we were told was that if we did not enact this legislation in this bill, that the risk of those pictures being released before we could

do anything else was very great and the risk of endangering our troops was extraordinary. now the chairman has mentioned we might be able to act if the second circuit took a position in opposition to the president's position. he's an experienced leader of the congress and has excellent judgment in these matters, but i believe it's just as likely the second circuit could make a ruling and order the pictures released immediately, before the congress could act and then irreparable damage would have been done and it would be our responsibility for having made that decision. so mr. president -- mr. chairman, i would conclude by asking that the comments of the declarations of general odierno and general petraeus filed by the president in the second circuit court of appeals urging that these pictures not be released be included in the record of this hearing and i

would respectfully urge that we take the president's word that we accept the unanimous consent of the senate and the vote of the house by 267-152 to instruct its conferees to concur and that we don't take this risk. we don't take -- we cannot be sure that if we do not act the pictures won't be released. what we can be sure of is that if they are released and we fail to act we will have taken an action or failed to take an action that will result in harm to our service men and women. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, i was moved by both the senators, senator mcconnell and senator alexander's discussion of this issue, you described it as a house matter. i believe the house has made its own decision. i think we'll see by a vote

that it's different than that which you are concluding. unless aisle mistaken that the second circuit has already acted, they've upheld the lower court's decision, i can't speak for the aclu, but i can speak for my members in the house we feel strongly that this bill was designed to be a bill to support the troops and without this amendment, i think we're going exactly the wrong direction. i urge that members at least on this side to support ms. granger's amendment. >> does the gentleman -- is the gentleman from california saying he'll vote for the bill if this amendment is in the bill? >>ville to see what else -- >> the greatest danger we face is not passing this bill. we have money for the shortfall, we have money for military pay shortfall stop-loss t.b.i. not passing the bill is the greatest danger. it has to be passed by july 1. we don't have the votes in the house. i just voted the -- if the

gentleman would yield, i voted with him. i was in the forefront of trying to eliminate the torture. we wanted to go to the field manual. i agreed with senator mccain we wanted to go to the field manual and eliminate torture. our subcommittee has been on the forefront of that issue. in this issue, we agree you shouldn't release the photos. the point is, we have to pass the bill. we reached a compromise here, we'd like to see a bigger bill, we'd like to see a little different but the senator is tough and we did the best we could do. so i -- i would urge we vote against this legislation. this amendment. >> mr. chairman. >> senator. >> i had not intebbeded to speak on this -- intended to speak on this but i support the senate position. i don't believe that this matter should be in this bill. it's a freedom of information act. having said that, i've come to

the conclusion that if this measure is involved, we don't have the votes. if that's the case, we should remind ourselves that what is pending before us is $80 billion for our troops who are standing now in harm's way, serving us. it also involves a matter of grave concern to all of us, swine flu. experts tell us we should be watching ourselves this fall. this bill will tell the people of the united states we are prepared for that. it also involves $10 billion for counterterrorism. and i would hope we can proceed on the main subject before us, therefore i'm urging my colleagues to vote no. much as i support the position

taken by the senate, because i believe the national security can be better served with the passage of this bill. >> mr. chairman. >> yes. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much and i must say i have a tremendous respect for the members of the senate and i think what they have said here today is right on target. you know, what the president has to say is very, very important. what the second court of appeals may or may not be important. when the constitution created the three branches of government, article 1 created the legislative branch. not the judicial, not the executive, but the legislative branch. i don't want to become a rubber stamp to either one of the

other two branches. i think that the senate position as stated by every senator that spoke, including senator inouye, although he was going to vote a different way, i think was right on target. i think it's important that we don't appear to be giving the terrorists, those who threaten us, those who are our enemies, giving them more propaganda to lie about and spread their lies around the world. i think the granger amendment is in perfect order. i hope that the senate would -- that we would pass it, the senate will agree, as they have spoken out strongly, this is just more than an issue of releasing pictures. this is an issue of claiming the authorities and the responsibilities of the legislative branch of government which were created by the first article of the

constitution. i hope that the members on the house side will vote for the granger amendment. >> could i ask my former colleague from the house appropriations committee if he'd yield for a question? is that appropriate? mr. young of florida. >> sure, absolutely. >> it appear it is me that we are facing a problem identified by the chairman and it's not an uncommon problem in the business we are in, where there's a good reason for a vote and a real reason for a vote. on the merit the senate's in the same position as the majority who voted for the motion to instruct that we would deny, we'd go along with the president and deny the release of these photographs. but the question is, by congressman murtha, gets to the heart of it. if the 276 housemens who voted for this -- house members who

voted for this bill are not willing to support it, it seems they're inserting a poison pill into this bill. i ask congressman young, if we went along with your proposal to insert this language, can you give me personal assurance you will then support this bill when it comes to the floor of the house? >> you and i have worked togget on some very important issues over the time and you know what your answer to that question would be. let's see what the conference committee comes up with. that's what the conference committee is all about. is to come together between the house and senate and try to reach an accommodation we can go back tour respective houses and ask for support. this is -- you talk about a poison pill, that the only one poison pill. there's another poison pill in here that could cost votes in the house and everybody on this side of the conference understands what i'm talking

about system of our job is to try to work it out. try to get a package we can both go back and enthusiastically support. i don't think we're there yet. i appreciate your colleague, senator gregg, raising the issue of rule 28, the so-called burden rule, there are some other rule 28 issues we're going to be dealing with before we finish this conference. so the answer is, i couldn't answer that question until we have completed our work. but thank you for asking it. >> i'm -- i'm informed we're likely to have a vote within the house within a few minutes, so i'd like to put this question, if we could. those in favor of the amendment -- sufficient seconds? clerk will call the roll. >> mr. obey. >> no. >> mr. murtha. >> no. no.

>> mr. edwards. >> no. >> mr. lewis. >> aye. >> mr. young. >> yes. >> ms. granger. >> aye. >> the votes are three ayes, five nays, the motion is not agreed to. is there another amendment? >> shouldn't we go to the senate side? rather -- i'm not sure all three of our members -- >> i think we had an understanding we would deliver -- the senator is shaking his head yes we had an understanding we would deal with house amendments first. >> if the senator is agreeing to leave themselves out of the discussion -- >> they're not being left out, they'll be able to bat cleanup. are there further amendments?

why don't we just suspend the clerk's reading of the amendment and why don't you simply explain it. >> that is perfectly all right with me. mr. chairman and our colleague, this amendment is very simple. it says that the final report of the conference committee will not report less funding for our troops, less funding for the war on terror, less nunding in the defense part of the bill and the military construction part of the bill than was passed by the house. it tries to avoid that $4.6 billion reduction in the defense moneys that we -- that the house approved to pay for the i.m.f. program. >> mr. murtha. >> as much as i appreciate -- this is a boinch bill the whole way through, it passed in the house. naturally, i'd like to have seen more money for many of these things, the military pay

shortfall, fully funded, t.b.i., more money than the president asked for. amputee -- some of the programs, some of the weapons programs were cut back, but everything else was fully funded and i would oppose the amendment. >> mr. chairman. >> are there further comments on the amendment. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to at least have a closing statement. before you go to a vote. >> sure, but let me see if there's any other comments. >> that's fine. i want to make sure -- >> i want to clarify, mr. lewis had spoken in opening comments about cuts in military construction was mentioned there, i want to say for the record, compared to the president's budget, there's a 14% increase in what this conference approved over the president's budget request of $2.3 billion we fund $2.7 billion to support the troops in iraq and afghanistan. >> the gentleman is recognized to close.

>> mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. murtha is exactly right this the defense part of this bill was put together in a bipartisan fashion, all of the members of the subcommittee had an opportunity to be involved. mr. murtha also mentioned the -- some of the things it does or almost does. let me tell you what it doesn't do. we know the problem with the mrap's. we all pushed as fast as we could to build more for iraq. but that's not a good vehicle for afghanistan. there are 110 fewer mrap a.f.v.'s this the lighter -- a.t.v.'s, the lighter vareabout designed especially for afghanistan's rugget the rain, 110 fewer if we pass this bill with the reduction. there are three fewer blackhawk helicopters, we could probably

work with that, two fewer chinook helicopters, these helicopters are really important. because of the capability that they have to reach higher altitudes and in afghanistan, we are dealing with higher altitudes. three fewer ah1z helicopters, $190 million less for u.a.v.'s. let me take a minute on u.a.v.'s. some of the u.a.v.'s, the preddor specifically, was a creation oaf the congress. the military didn't want to build the predator but congress insisted, our subcommittee insisted. the terrorists in iraq feared the predator more than any other weapon we have because it can find them, it can track them, and it can kill them. we're going to take $190

million out they have -- out of the bill if we don't go back to the original house position for less reapers and less sky warrior quick reaction u.a.v.'s. i think that this -- i think that we should end up in a conference with the numbers for defense that mr. murtha and the subcommittee in a bipartisan method and a bipartisan procedure agreed on that were necessary and important. thaufpk. >> i thank the gentleman. i assume you want a roll call vote. clerk will call the roll. >> mr. obey. >> no. mr. murtha. no. >> no. >> no. >> mr. edwards. >> no. >> mr. lewis. >> aye. >> mr. lewis a. mr. youngful >> aye. >> ms. granger, aye. >> on this motion, there are

three ayes and five nays. the motion is not agreed to. are there further amendments? >> there is, mr. chairman, you have my amendment. >> why don't you explain it and the clerk will suspend reading. >> as we try to move the house side back to regular order, we have made some progress. but as you can see from the amendments we have not. i move that in lieu of the language proposed in section 14103 of the conference agreement, the house rescind language in the senate section in their entirety they prohibit the transfer, release or iven cars ration of any guantanamo detainees who are within the united states and require the administration's to submit a comprehensive plan of threat

assessment for guantanamo detainees. as we all know, the montana signed the executive order to close guantanamo in january. more than four months later, there is still no evidence of a plan to carry out this order and no consultation with the congress. the senate bill included language which put in place a strict prohibition on transfers and releases of guantanamo detainees in the united states which passed by a vote, as i understand it, of 90-6. both the house bill and the current proposed conference language significantly weaken that restriction and would allow dangerous individuals to be brought to the united states. meanwhile, the administration is withholding information from the congress and the public and racing to move detainees before the will of congress can be put into law. on tuesday, ea suspected

plotter of the bombings in africa arrived in new york for a trial. there's some indication he's being held somewhere near manhattan in a facility some people are concerned about, relative to its security. yesterday, the government of palau, announced it would accept some of the uighur detainees. press accounts release -- link the announcement to a $200 million payoff for palau. the uighur detainees are affiliated with a known terrorist group and receive training in camps run by a affiliate of al qaeda. this morning, the administration announced that four uighur detainees have been resettled in bermuda. the guantanamo detainees include committers of some of

the most horrific acts against the u.s., including 9/11 and the cole bombings in africa. director muller of the f.b.i. deafed that bringing the detainees to the u.s. involved serious risk to american security. the administration is ignoring or disregarding these risks and stone walling the congress. we need to stop the administration from bringing more detainees into our country. in addition, my motion would restore language included in senate section 315 requiring a detailed threat assessment of the risk to the american people resulting from the transfer or release of each of these individuals. that language passed the senate by a vote of 92-3. this motion is that the house

receive language prohibiting the movement of detainees to the united states in requiring comprehensive threat assessments. all this language passed overwhelmingly in the senate. mr. chairman, i urge adoption of my motion as i express my appreciation for the work of the senate. >> i thank the gentleman, mr. murtha. >> i appreciate what the gentleman is saying. we have two million people incarcerated in the united states. two million. more than any other country in the world. we have 20,000 in hard core prisons. we can handle this. i mean, you know, i have no question we can handle these folks being in our system. the biggest problem we have is what happens because they've been incarcerated so long in so many couldn't i are -- countries and so many people in their countries have a

disapproval in the united states because they feel they haven't got an fair trial in some cases. this -- let me tell you something. we took the money out in our subcommittee, we said, look, you've got to have a plan before you do anything. reprogram the money after you have a plan. that's what we said. we believe that. we don't think other language is even necessary. i oppose the amendment and would ask for a no vote. >> any other comments? >> no reason to beat this to death, i'd like to have a vote. >> let me just say before we do vote, i want to point out that the money to pay for any resettlement of these prisoners or movement of these prisoners or closing gitmo has already been removed and with respect to the gentleman that moved -- that was moved to new york, let me point out that is a very special case. there were four previous people whomp involved in the kenyan bombing who were already tried. this case goes back to 2001 and

the reason they had to bring him up for trial is because the clock was ticking on the -- they didn't want to lose their opportunity to prosecute him on speedy trial grounds. they had no choice if they were going to prevent him from getting out of the system they had no choice but to proceed against him. in that action, in fact, they were defending the security of the country, not neglecting it. i would urge a no vote and the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. obey. >> no. >> mr. murtha. >> no. >> no. >> mr. delauro. >> no. >> yes. mr. yawning, aye. nsgreanjer. >> aye. >> on this vote, there are three ayes, five nay the motion is not agreed. to are there any other amendments on the house side? if not, mr. senator, it's your

show. >> may i request a short recess? i think we'd like to regroup and discuss a few matters. >> sure. how long would you suggest? >> 15 minutes. >> 15 minutes. fivene, we're recessed for 15 minutes. >> we have votes in the house so we will vote and join you shortly. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> i would like to just say something before i turn it over to our frevends on the other side of the capitol. if you want to find a reason to argue against this proposed agreement, it's easy to do so. we can argue about the i.m.f., we can argue about gitmo. we can argue about senate and house earmarks, we can argue about cash for clunkers or anything we want to argue about.

those issues are all important. but we've got a new president. and that president has inherited a crisis at home. and a godawful mess abroad. i oppose the war in iraq. i am highly skeptical of the administration's plans in afghanistan and pakistan, not because i fault their plans, but because i don't think that either of those governments, either the afghan or pakistani government is in any way a reliable reed to lean on in dealing with that problem. i also am skeptical about provide funds for i.m.f. i chaired foreign operations subcommittee for 10 years. i shoveled more i.f. money through this congress than anybody i think in the history of this congress. but i'm concerned that if we provide i.m.f. funding at a

time when our western european allies are not practicing economic policies which are sufficiently expansive, that it will in fact minimize the impact of that i.m.f. funding. so i'm dubious about that too. i'm also dubious about cash for clunkers, i frankly agree with senator feinstein on the nature of that program. but we have a huge amount of unfinished business in front of us. we've got 12 appropriation bills that both chambers would like to finnish regular order, in regular time. we've got health care that we hope to deal with to finally put to bed an issue which has plagued us since the 1940's. we've got climate change legislation which we need to deal with. we've got financial systems reform. and this bill represents the