ning. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cantor: thank you and i yield to the majority leader. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want the members to understand the context in which we find ourselves. i have indicated, and i've had discussions with both mr. boehner and mr. cantor and mr. lewis with reference to the appropriation bill that none of us like the omnibus appropriation bills. in order to pass appropriation bills individually, you have to take appropriately significant time. but if you take so much time that you can't possibly get them done, then you are left at the end of the day with an omnibus appropriation bill, which nobody likes. in discussions with mr. boehner and mr. cantor and mr. lewis, mr. obey and i have tried to

come to an agreement. on time constraints. there was a discussion on the floor during the course of the rule between mr. obey and mr. lewis with respect to the time constraints and at that point in time, that was not possible. subsequent to that, there were further discussions between mr. obey and mr. lewis in which there seemed to be some progress, perhaps that was possible. as a result we proceeded with the preprinting requirement i know some people felt was an unnecessary constraint, but it is, after all, the opportunity to give notice to members what amendments can be anticipated. but i know i've discussed it on your side of the aisle you felt that was an imposition. we felt it was an open rule

because the amendments were not specified. notwithstanding that disagreement, there were 127 total amendments. one amendment just now that mr. schock, my good friend, he and i have a good relationship, we've traveled together, i think he's a good member, he offered we accepted it. notwithstanding that, it took 20 minutes of debate and would be stouget a vote. if you multiply 25, say 15 minute vote. if you multiply that by 127, you come to a high number, making it impossible for us to complete the appropriations process by the end of this jewel. if we don't finish it by the end of july we won't have the opportunity to conference with the senate and therefore would not be able to complete the process in a timely fashion. i don't know whether that's the objective of some, but it is certainly not my objective. as a result, i was not here but

mr. obey felt it necessary for us to go to the rules committee for the purposes of constraining time so that in a body of 435 people in which everybody has an opportunity to do five minutes and perhaps get to some -- get yielded some additional time from somebody else who takes five minutes, it would be impossible to complete 10 amendments, much less 127 minutes in a time frame we agreed to in a unanimous consent request in 2006 and 2005. in fact, on this bill, the average number of amendments that were offered when you were in the majority was 30. the average number. high 46, and in 2004, 16 amendments were offered 10, republican, and six democrats. in other words, your bill you

offered more amendments to your bill than we offered to your bill. we would like to proceed in a fashion that is reasonable, that prosides for opportunities for amendments to be offered, but we also believe that it is our responsibility to assure that the appropriations process is completed. so when the gentleman asks me what -- when mr. obey asked that the committee rise, it was at that point in time the intention to go to the rules committee to provide for amendments in order, not all 127 amendments, i can't predict how many amendments, there are a lot of duplications in this that and to provide for, however, time constraints within which we can do our business. we do not think that's unreasonable and we don't think it's unfair. i will tell you in 2007, we proceeded for 10 bills without time constraints and from our

perspective we thought we had an agreement we would use the same time that we gave to you in 2006 when you were in the majority and were controlling, we gave to mr. lewis. notwithstanding that we believe we went at least 53 hours over time, that is 53 hours longer than the unanimous consent constraints that we gave to you when you were in the majority and we were in the minority. as you know, the last two bills were very contentious because we did, in fact, pursue them under a rule. i want to say to the members, particularly who are new that while appropriations bills have historically been open, they have historically not taken -- as a matter of fact, some of the biggest bills have taken the shortest times, the labor health bill and the defense bill. i served on the appropriations committee from 1983 until i became majority leader 2 1/2 years ago.

i'm fairly familiar with the procedures under which we operate. i tell my friend the republican whip that the reason for rising was to give us the opportunity to go to the committee, the rules committee and to provide for, as i said, time constraints in which we can effectively complete this bill. i want to say people -- we did not expect to have votes, we had votes, your side believed that we ought to have votes, so we had oa vote to rise. -- we had a vote to rise. but we have made efforts to try to reach agreement to provide a process in which we could complete the appropriation bills. very frankly, we think that in years past, there have been a lot of amendments that have been offered, not for the purpose of the substance of the amendment but for delaying the ability to get our work den. that may be -- work done.

we've been in the minority ourselves we understand the frustration that economists, but my responsibility as the majority leader and the manager of this floor is to provide for the completion of our appropriations process one at a time so that we can consider them on their merits and then hopefully pass them individually, have them signed, and it would be my hope to have them signed before the beginning of fiscal year. that's our thought. and plan. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, i would first of all respond to speak to the issue of the 127 amendments having been filed. and i think that it's certainly a result of and perhaps the unintended consequences of imposing a preprinting requirement. as the gentleman and i have discussed, many of our members felt it necessary to file, prefile their amendments to preserve their right to proffer

an amendment. without necessarily having the intention of following through with offering that amendment. there are several amendments that are duplicative. there are many amendments our members already said they would not offer. so i would say to the gentleman, it is hard for us on this side of the aisle to stand here and accept the notion that somehow, 30 minutes into the debate, on page two of line seven of the bill, in discussion of the first republican amendment, that that was where you drew the line and decided that the tactics by us were going to be dilatory. it seems to me, i would say to the gentleman work all due respect, that there was some preconceived notion that this was the direction in which the majority was going to head regardless.

and i -- i furthermore, madam speaker, say to the gentleman, it was our intention and the gentleman and i have spoken about this it is our intention to practice some good faith and to ask the majority to engage with us, allow our members to come to the floor to deliberate in the context of the only constitutional duty of this body which is the expenture of taxpayer dollars to allow our voice to be heard. i hardly think, madam speaker, that the decision to close this process after 30 minutes, to close this process after just the first republican amendment is at all being made in this decision -- and this decision is at all being made in good faith. i ask the gentleman again, what is it -- what is the thinking

of the majority here? the first appropriations bill, the first republican amendment, how is it that we can expect good faith debate? our members complied with your rule, unprecedented, the gentleman speaks to prior years. and the number of amendments that came up on this bill and others. he knows as well as i that the preprinting requirement was not in place. this is the unintended consequence of a preprinting requirement, the 127 amendments. we have had that discussion. there will not be discussion and debate and votes asked for 127 amendments. so we stand here in good faith and want to engage with the members on your side of the aisle, so i ask the gentleman, what is it, what is the intention tonight to go back to rules? how is it that our members who have already been told their amendment will be accepted now

how should they proceed? i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: let me reiterate what the gentleman knows to be the case. he and i have discussed this matter on at least three different occasions. they were i think friendly discussions. the gentleman indicated that he did not believe an agreement was possible. on the time constraints. mr. boehner indicated that to me as well. so that it's not as if we haven't had significant discussions about this. you also in fairness did indicate to me that the preprinting requirement would be something that your side would take umbrage at. mr. obey, i think correctly, said both sides like notice of actions that are being taken on the floor. in fact, when we do less than 24 hours, you rightfully believe that is inappropriate and i agree with you on that we

try to do that, sometimes we don't make it. but the fact is that this is not as if we haven't had some discussions over at least the last two months about this issue. and from my perspective, i don't want to speak for mr. obey, who has spoke within mr. lewis as well, but over the last two months i have seen nothing that indicated to me that time constraints would be agreeable to your side of the aisle. not from you, not from mr. boehner, not from anybody else, not from mr. lewis who on this floor just hours ago indicated that there would not be any time agreements possible system of in that context, i am in a position where if that's the case and you may well be correct, 127 wouldn't be offered, but our experience in

2007, now in 2008, the appropriation process was attenuated, as you know. it upset you and disappointed me that we didn't have bills. the reasons for that obviously dealt with the appropriations committee fighting about energy, as you know, one can blame one another for that, but in any event, it didn't go forward. nobody was pleased that we didn't consider the bills individually and we ended up, as you well know, early this year doing an omnibus appropriations bill. we did omnibus appropriations bills frequently when you were in charge of the house as well. neither side liked that then, or when we did it. . the intention is going to construct time frames and we would like to have further discussion with you which would allow these 12 bills to be done in the time frame available to us between now and july 30.

if we don't get them done, i guarantee you, when we get back in september with 21 days left to go, we won't be able to conference these bills and get them done. that is a practical matter for those who are new. for those who have been here, you understand that's the case. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, madam speaker. i would respond, first of all, to the discussion that we have had over the last two months as to whether an agreement was possible. it is unprecedented. in years past in the appropriations process, time agreements were arrived at once the number of amendments were known. and we worked out the agreements and debate ensued thereunder. we did not know prior to the deadline and cutoff of preprinting requirements as to how many amendments there would be. so we do know now how many

amendments there will be. but, madam speaker, what sticks with us and not very well, is your decision to cut debate off on page two, line seven of the bill after the first republican amendment. madam speaker, again, with all due respect, that does not speak in good faith about the majority's intention to allow us the opportunity to speak to the issues surrounding the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. that is not good faith. we stand here in good faith. as the gentleman and i have discussed prior, we want the opportunity to show you that we can conduct debate in good faith, deliberate on the people's business and not be shut out smearlly. and it is very hard for us to accept that the majority had any

intention of allowing debate if we shut it off after 30 minutes and the first republican amendment. so i say to the gentleman, we stand here and we ask you to allow us to proceed this evening , allow us to demonstrate good faith so that then the majority can then match that good faith and we can proceed in this house in normal course in the appropriations process. and i yield comback. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. there being no pending question, under clau

five republican members joined but all -- it joined all but two democrats. the measure also includes spending from the international monetary fund and money to fight the h1n1 virus. we will show you some of that debate. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute. this is the last of last year's business. we have a huge amount of work that we have to do before the august recess. we have to pass all 12 appropriations bills. we have to make time on the schedule for health care reform, for the military authorization bill, for a historic climate change legislation. >> suspend. the gentleman from wisconsin deserves to be heard.

>> speaker, they're not going to miss much. >> the gentleman may proceed. >> as i was about to say, mr. speaker. i think we ought to get on with it. i think everybody understands that we need to get on with it and get on with this year's basis. i reserve the balance of my time. >> i yield myself for as much time as i may consume. i am very pleased that we have, at least for now, a return to regular order. >> we are not in order. members, please take your conversations of the floor. -- off the floor. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i am very pleased that we appear to be returning to regular order on appropriations bills. however, i must confess to being

disappointed at the turn this final product as taken in recent days as compared to where we began with our original house- passed bill. the majority has a majority -- has chosen to go on for a high dollar level with every account in this conference report except as it relates to the primary purpose of the legislation. the critical troop funding in the department of defense and military construction accounts. my understanding of the final conference agreement is that it cuts the house level for dod and military construction by $4.6 billion. more disconcerting is that the final package includes $5 billion for imf funding that was not part of the original house package. this $5 billion for foreign aid will secure a whopping $108 billion in loans.

in essence, the imf is funded at a level almost 30 billion -- >> the house is still not in order on the democratic side. >> the gentleman is correct. please take your conversations off the floor. the german from california. >> i think the speaker. -- i think the speaker. -- thank the speaker. it is important that our colleagues pay careful attention in this debate. in this package, the imf is funded at a level almost $30 billion more than what is provided for our troops, which is supposedly what this bill is all about. what began as a troop funding bill has begun eight -- has became a means to provide financial aid for bailouts.

if that is not bad enough, the conference agreement also includes $1 billion in emergency spending for the cash for clunkers program that was not part of either of the house or senate packages. nor was it requested by the president. i'm understand the conferees have dropped at the graham- lieberman-mccain language relating to the detainee photos. they also have watered down language for detainee's at guantanamo bay. this is an issue that is, and will continue to be, of great concern to many of us as well as the american people. just last week, the president approved having a guantanamo detainee transferred to new york city, it ordered the release and transfer of four uighers to bermuda. the president appears to be

releasing detainee's to their new homes before congress can act substantially. mr. young, mr. granger, and i offered several amendments. the first offer by mr. granger prohibited the release of detainee photos. the second a motion offered by mr. young had funding for dod and milcon spending. the third motion of the senate bill prohibited the transfer or release of guantanamo detainees. all three amendments were defeated in a party-line vote by the house conferees. as i prepared to cope -- to

close, let me make an additional point. much has been made of the total cost of this emergency supplemental. i know for the record that the conference agreement is $106 billion, which is $14 billion more than the president's request, $9 billion more than the house-passed bill, and $15 billion more than the senate- passed. we have increased funding for everything except for the troops. arguments about maintain some level of fiscal responsibility certainly rang hollow when we bring up the truth funding bill. this is a troubling pattern that is being repeated in many of our funding bills. in closing, it is a shame that a process that began in a spirit of bipartisanship has concluded in such a partisan manner. we began as a united bipartisan

house seeking to support our troops, but ended this process by appeasing be very members who oppose this emergency funding in the first place. i strongly support our troops, but cannot and will not support a bill of four hostile regimes disguised as a troop funding bill. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. >> i asked in its consent that all members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report. >> without objection. >> i yield myself 30 seconds. i would simply note that in light of the gentleman's comments, in 1999, the last time we voted on it, a hundred 62 republicans voted for it. -- 162 republicans voted for it.

they did not seem to have a problem with it at the time. today, with a different president, they do. >> i yielded two minutes to the gentleman from texas. >> i proceed to cheer for the two minutes. -- i appreciate the chair for the two minutes. conferees ignored the specific instructions of a bipartisan vote to include instructions to protect the detainee photos. it requires a legislative fix in my view. i did not leave the president has full authority to stand against the judicial branch. we need to protect these photos from release. armen, the release of these photos whether it is a recruitment of additional geodesy -- jihadists, and mice

close the growing protests if we release these photos showing the abuse. in the overreaction to the cartoon, think of what the release of these photos will do to our relationships. the military leadership both oppose these photos. they have persuaded secretary gates and president obama to change their position. they now oppose the release of these photos. it will serve no good purpose. it will give young americans hurt. let disappointed that they did not include the instructions we give them to protect the photos. i yield back. >> the gentleman from its costs and reserves as time.