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 bip

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 a

mr. young, ms. granger and i offered several amendments. the first offered by ms. granger sought approval of the senate provision prohibiting the release of detainee photos. the second motion offered by mr. young insisted upon the higher house funding level for d.o.d. and milcon spending in this conference agreement. and the third motion, which i offered, insisted upon agreeing to section 202a and section 315 of the senate bill prohibiting the transferor release of guantanamo detainees. all three amendments were defeated in a party-line vote by the house conferees. as i prepare to close, let me 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 more than the house-passed bill and $15 billion more than the senate-passed level. again, we have increased funding for everything in this bill except for the troops. arguments have maintaining some level of fiscal responsibility certainl

granger. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. berman: pursuant to the order of the house and h.res. 522, mr. speaker, i ask for immediate consideration of h.r. 1886, the pakistan enduring assistance and cooperation enhancement act of 2009. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 66, h.r. 1886, a bill to authorize democratic, economic, and social development assistance for pakistan, to authorize security assistance for pakistan and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 522, the amendment in the nature of a substitute modified by the amendment pried in house report 111-143, is adopted and the bill is considered read. after one hour of debate on the bill as amended, it shall be in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, or her designee, which shall be considered read and debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided between the proponent and an opponent. th

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 positi