time. >> i yield to the finest whip virginia has ever produced. >> i think the gentleman from california. i rise in opposition of this bill. america has the best military in the world. i think all of us who have traveled, who have seen the commitment of our armed forces are overwhelmed by their patriotism. the success of our military has much to do with the character and courage of the american men and women in uniform who fight every single day for our freedom. what we can do as members of this congress, to speak to that courage and that commitment is to stand up and remove politics

from bills affecting their ability to execute on their mission to protect us. mr. speaker, we can pass a bipartisan bill. this house has shown several weeks ago -- we passed a bill with a 368-60 vote. clearly a bipartisan bill sending the message that this congress stood for our troops and nothing got in the way. unfortunately, mr. speaker, we now find a conference report that will make its way to this house that is vastly different from the bill approved in a bipartisan way. number one, mr. speaker, the provisions in the conference report that will make its way to this floor seemed to put the

rights of terrorists before the security of americans. when we see that this body somehow wants to remove language prohibiting the transfer of detainee's at guantanamo bay to u.s. soil. when this house allows for that transfer, what that says is, which are willing to take on on told riske at the expense of the security of the people that our troops are trying to protect. next, mr. speaker. we have seen the conferees take out language that would prohibit the release of photographs that we know will endanger the lives of our troops. our commander on the ground in iraq was very clear in his

admonition several weeks ago when he said, our troops will be put in greater harm's way and specific units will have enhanced danger immediately if these photographs are allowed to be released. i know that the majority says that we have projections that the white house will stand up and not allow for their release. but at the end of the day, we have the ability to stop at and to act now. >> i yield the dome and another minute. >> i asked that the house make sure that this of -- that these photos do not help attract more terrorists in a fight against our troops. lastly, to burden our troops with $108 billion of loan guarantee to a global bailout is not putting our troops first.

it is putting politics before our troops. it is unacceptable to the american people. i yield back. >> the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve his time. >> i yield two minutes. >> mr. speaker, as the defense portion of the supplemental were considered as a stand-alone -- a majority of those on the side of the aisle would recognize that we need to provide the men and women with the funding and resources they need to accomplish their important ongoing missions in iraq and afghanistan. unfortunately, the majority has added items totally unrelated to these wars. first, the much debated imf provision that allows our

country drawing rights for the first time in history of the imf. the majority stripped language from this bill that would prevented there -- that would have prevented the release of photos. the majority inserted water down language on the closing of guantanamo bay allowing for these dangerous prisoners after the obama administration submit certain paperwork. these all represents reasons to vote no to send this legislation back to the drawing board and the comeback with a straightforward bill that supports our troops. i want to use this time to talk about the direction of our national security funding in defense spending. this will be the last supplemental appropriations bill to fund operations in afghanistan and iraq. even though our forces will remain in iraq for a significant number of years, our efforts are

just now ramping up. they're putting such costs in the base appropriations bill. it does not take a green eyeshade it to determine that the administration goes a request combined with the rate of inflation essentially adds up to no growth. we're standing still, treading water. in a world where the north koreans threatened conventional nuclear war, russia is becoming more aggressive, and china is rapidly increasing its aggressiveness. for these reasons, i rise to oppose this conference report. >> the time has expired. the gentleman from california. >> could i please check and see how much time there is? >> the gentleman from california has 17.5 minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has 29 minutes remaining.

>> i yield 3 minutes to one of the fabulous new members of our appropriations committee. >> i think the gentleman for yielding, and thank you for that generous praise. i rise today in opposition to this conference report. i do that with a heavy heart. when this measure it is initially enforced, -- when this measure was initially in force, i supported dramatically. i praise the majority. they have brought us a very good and finely crafted bill. i was proud of the minority, because we stepped up and supported the president, provided the votes he needed to win and make a difference to have not just a bipartisan -- a bipartisan majority. i feel like we dealt with the

administration and the majority in good faith. over the course of the process for this legislation to move through, imf funding has been added. it is more money that will be deployed. we had this issue of the photos. we had the issues of detainee's. throughout that, there has been no effort to negotiate to provide the funding to pass the original bill without condition. frankly, it is almost as if there is an assumption on the other side that we would either roll over or be blackmailed or be bullied in supporting the bill simply because of the military funding in it. i am wondering if it was worth losing dozens and dozens of republicans that were prepared to support this bill and a bipartisan fashion in order that at these other measures which could have been brought to the floor on their own.

i am forced to urge the rejection of this conference report. i would hope that we can restore the military funding that was taken out. i would hope that we could strip the unrelated funding, and i would hope that we could practice the bipartisanship that let us to an overwhelming success in the original bill. if we go back to that method, i think the president and the administration will be able to rely on continued bipartisan support going forward. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> i think the chairman for yielding. i rise in strong support of this legislation. 80% or more of this bill is to support the of men and women, and some not so young.

we have set them in harm's way in iraq, afghanistan to confront terrorism. we passed the bill with 368 votes. it then went to the senate. the senate amended the bill and added additional funding for the imf, the international monetary fund. that did not squeak by on some partisan vote. in fact, more than two-three -- 2/3 of the people voted on the issue, including approximately 25% of the republicans voted to include the imf. why? because, like ronald reagan, president george bush in the 1990's, presidents george bush

in 2008, because they believe that the imf itself was an important asset in the seeking of security by the united states of america. we did not put it in that bill. it was supported by 2/3 of the united states senate, the president of the united states when he met at the g-20. he pledged that we would play our part in trying to bring the security that this country has paid so dearly to achieve. our share is approximately 20%. the other members of the g-20 will be putting up 80%. why? because they, too believe it

advances the security of their countries. they also believe it lifts up the poorest nations of the world. not iran, which hasn't got any money since 1984. not hezbollah. no discussions with them. the united states would clear the way and -- would clearly weigh in to stop such funding. with a bill that seeks security and peace. i suggest to you that it is my belief that if it were a republican president asking for this, this bill would pass with some 368 votes again. why?

because democrats would join in the republican president as we have in the past and say this is for america's security. for international security. this bill does some other things. we have a pandemic flew. -- flu that is now level that the world health organization says is 41 years historically in the context. the administration has said because of that, we need additional funds for vaccines. we did not have that in our bill. clearly, there is not a member of this house that is not one to take care of the health of our people. i might say that although he does not carry a lot of weight on your side of the aisle, jim

leach has strongly endorsed this effort for the same reason ronald reagan who we are just the other day -- who we honored just the other day. i am going to quote ronald reagan for you if i can find it real quickly. ronald reagan said this. the imf is the linchpin of the international financial system. that is ronald reagan. he went on to say, i have an unbreakable commitment to increase funding for the imf. that is not a democrat. that is a conservative leader. he led this country and was strongly supported by this country. i want you to know that i supported ronald reagan and

emotion -- on most of his security initiatives because i believed that we needed to make america strong group. and tell our adversaries that we were prepared to invest in the security of our country. in doing so, they decided they could not compete. the first president bush said that the imf and world bank were crossroads of our cooperative efforts. remember the responsibility -- speaker gingrich said, we have an obligation to work with the international monetary fund. this is not a partisan issue. it but i suggest it has been made a part as a reason to try to embarrass democrats. to make it seem like we cannot pass funding. we can and we will. i urge you to join us.

i urge you to forget the partisan rhetoric. i urge you think of ronald reagan and george bush and the second george bush in the new gingrich and some of the other republican leaders that i will not take the time to ". they have said that this is a critical component of our security apparatus. we all know how the legislative process works. the other body, it does so by 2/3 vote. it as legislation. the president believes it is good legislation, and many in this house do as well. what we have added it? we did not. but it is here. do not use this addition by the united states senate as a reason to say i cannot go --

votes for what 80% of this bill does. it supports this -- it supports the men and women deployed abroad in the defense of freedom in the furtherance of our security. i will tell you, my friends, on numerous occasions, as most of you know who have served with me, i put my card in the slot, i come to this well, or raise my voice on behalf of republican presidents who sought to further the security of this country. i am proud of those votes. i asked you to join me today to support our troops, support our national security, to support propping up countries that will be the -- that will for the the ability -- without economic

opportunity. in to be recruited by those who will undermine the -- undermine their lives. i urge my colleagues, this is a vote for america. for its interests, and its troops. do not delude yourself that this is not a vote to support the troops. 80% + of this bill is about the american servicemen and women in harm's way. stand up for them. >> mr. speaker, --

>> i have great respect for the majority leader. i forgot -- he forgot to mention a couple of things at the american people would like to know. 80 percent of this bill is helping the troops. this is a war supplemental. 100% should be for the troops. this is a 22% cut from the troops over what we did last year. we're just expanding our operations into afghanistan. i think people don't really get the full picture. this is a war supplemental, and it is being cut over what we spent last year for the same type of legislation. he mentioned to the international monetary fund, the $5 billion for this.

this is a war supplemental bill. this is not an imf bill. a few of the countries that will benefit from this with special drawing rights are people. iran, a terrorist state. i would never and admonish the majority leader. let's get all the facts out there, not just part of them. >> the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman continues to reserve this time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. >> i rise in reluctant opposition to the bill and from

of congress today. i support the bipartisan military supplemental bill that passed this house earlier this congress. it seems that to get the job done and come home safe, is the right time to set aside politics. i cannot support this supplemental bill today. i see it as a disservice to the taxpayers of this country, and a disservice to those brave men and women and defend this every day. it is easy for people to forget that we are at war and go back to politics as usual. with american soldiers in harm's way.

emergency funding bills should be about emergency war funding. this legislation, which includes $108 billion in loan authorizations for a global bailout for the international monetary fund when this country has run up 83 trillion -- $3 trillion annual deficit, passing a $108 billion global bailout on the backs of our soldiers is just not right. i urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report. stand with our troops. stand with the american taxpayer. stand against one more bailout. let's reject this bill tonight and come right back to this bill here tomorrow and bring a clean emergency war funding bill in a bipartisan fashion back into the legislative process. it is time for us to reject this legislation, reject the changes

that were made in the united states senate, and get our soldiers the resources they need, and do it in aserves the e interests of the american taxpayer. tleman from wisconsin continues to reserve his time. >> mr. speaker, i yield 2 minutes to the member of our leadership. >> the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. >> i rise in opposition to the conference report. precisely because it is about our troops. the bill that left this chamber with broad bipartisan support was 100% about our troops, and it is now why it is only 80% about our troops. we should not allow for that 20% reduction to delude us and make us think this is a better bill.

i had an opportunity to read in the detroitfreepress.com that $10 billion in loan guarantees to autumn manufacturing suppliers was a nonstarter. they did not have it. we have $108 billion for the imf. this is not only about our troops. it is about the hard-working men and women that put money in the federal government to defend our troops and defend our own way of life in our own prosperity. i did not hear about anyone taking a reduction in health benefits. i did not see anyone lose anything from the imf from $108 billion underwriting by the taxpayers. i did see back home in detroit, people lose their jobs under a

painful restructuring. i saw dealerships closed, and i was told it was necessary. i was told we had to be careful not to put money into a sinkhole. when the troops come home to the midwest, i will look them in the eye and say, as long as i have been here, i have defended and supported our troops. i have also made sure that when you came home, you came back to the american opportunities they left behind to defend us. as the majority leader has talked about, i do not have to speculate. if people tell you we cannot afford to invest in education or health care, you just remind them that we're spending $10 billion a month in iraq. if we can -- >> gentlemen's time has expired. >> i am proud yield the gentleman an additional minute. >> we're spending $10 billion a month in iraq.

we can spend some of that money right here in cincinnati ohi, o. that was candidate barack obama. i would never take money for domestic spending. i have said that before. but if you're going at $108 billion to fund the conference report for our troops, then spend it here in the united states. spend it on the men and women who support our troops every day so they stay employed. do not send it to the imf. i oppose this bill. i yield back. [applause] >> the gentleman from california. >> i am proud yield two minutes to my colleague, mr. gomer from texas. >> it was a proud moment for us to be able to come together in a bipartisan fashion and support

the supplemental here in the house as put together in the house for the troops. but to add this mess that is coming down here that the senate stuck in over $100 billion -- they're loaning money that they get from us that we are going to have to borrow from china to give to countries who hate us and would love to see us go away. that makes no sense. if we are going at this additional burden on to the american taxpayer which is going to work counter to the troops that are out there putting their lives at risk, why not just bring them home and not pay our enemies all that extra money and: awash -- call it a wash.

if we're going to have to borrow from the chinese, just call it a wash, bring our troops home instead of finding our enemies. we should not go there. let's stop this and get back to the good bill we had in the house before. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve his time. 7.5 minutes remaining. the gentleman has eight minutes remaining. >> i have only one speaker remaining. i like to inquire if my colleague from wisconsin -- the status of this circumstance? and who would be the person to close? i will have to reserve the balance of my time. >> the agenda from california reserves the balance of his time. the denim and from wisconsin --

the gentleman from wisconsin. >> we have the right to close, and we have one remaining speaker. >> the gentleman from california. >> as i indicated, i have one additional speaker. as long as you're giving me all this flexibility, just let me mention that as we began this process in this bill, both mai chairman and i were very pleased by the fact that it was based on bipartisan support to give the kind of assistance to our troops that is fundamental to our success in the middle east. to have the package now come back from conference in the shape of being a bill that has reduced the president's requests for troop funding by approximately $4.7 billion and in turn has 5 million