we began as a united bipartisan house seeking to support our troops.we have ended this process by appeasing the very members who opposed this emergency funding in the first place. a strong support our troops, but cannot support an international bailout for regimes disguised as a troop-funding bill. >> the gentleman from wisconsin. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. i would note that in 1999, the last time we voted on the imf, it was attached to the transportation bill. but hundred 62 republicans voted for it. they did not have a problem at that time. -- 162 republicans voted for it. they did not have a problem with it at that time. >> the gentleman for texas is recognized for two minutes. >> we know what is in this bill. we know what is not in this bill. the protection of these detainee photos -- i do not believe the president has full authority to stand against the judicial branch. we need to protect these photos from release. we need to recognize the validity of these claims the deal with the harm associated with the release of these voters.

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. i

we began as a united bipartisan house seeking to support our troops, but have ended this process by apiecing the very members who oppose this emergency funding in the first place. i strongly support our troops, but cannot and will not support an international bailout for hostile regimes disguised as a troop funding bill. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the conference report to accompany h.r. 2346. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. obey: i yield myself 30 seconds. i would note in light of the gentleman's comments on the i.m.f., in 1999, the last time we voted on it, the i.m.f. funding was attached to the transportation bill and 162 republicans voted for it. they didn't seem to have any problem at that time. and i find it interesting that today with a different president, they do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman res

united states. this bipartisan resolution was introduced by representatives ron klein of florida and henry brown of south carolina, along with the could he chairs of the boating caucus,. house resolution 410 honors the 59 million boaters in the united states. as evidenced by the bipartisan co-sponsors to this resolution, american boaters span all across american boaters span all across the country, including my

bipartisan bill. as a matter of fact, i think in the united states senate and the house it passed by a voice vote. why did it take 2~1/2 years and two congresses? because we understand, we understood at that time the delicacy of what we were attempting to do. we were attempting to modernize the agency and to maintain the gold standard. at the end of the day no member of the house or the senate offered an amendment to give the f.d.a. jurisdiction over tobacco. and in 1998 that bill bill law. -- that bill became law. every member knew it wasn't worth of risk of giving them the responsibility of tobacco after spending 2~1/2 years to protect the gold standard. we're not that forgotful. don't forget our commitment to make sure the gold standard of the f.d.a. is intact. don't jeopardize it by giving them tobacco. don't let our kids be sold short by producing a bill that doesn't do the education they need to do the education so they never pick up a tobacco product. don't lock the adults who choose to use risky products, give them an opportunity to have less harmful products. that can be only done one way

do not think you can get a bill through the united states senate on a bipartisan basis that the americans will support. they can run over us here in the house. we have reached out and offered better solutions. it is unfortunate. the american people want this done in a bipartisan way. >> if there was a building came to the floor now, with any republican votes for it? >> i will leave the vote counting to the whip. i would have to stretch my imagination to think of one who would vote for the most bizarre plan i have seen. i cannot wait for the cost figures to come out. >> will your side doing it can to slow down -- to slow it down? >> i do not know what course of action we are to take. there's a lot of time between now and then forced to do everything we can to protect the american people's wallet. they want to raise taxes, spend more money, and increase the debt. i came here to fight against that. >> [unintelligible] [laughter] >> there is still time to get your copy of c-span's 2009 congressional directory. it has district maps and how to contact committees and congress'caucuses. >> as this year's supreme court term comes to an end, chief ju

house. but so many attorneys who are members of the united states senate would block that. well, why can't we come together again in a bipartisan way and say, look, we can agree that part of the cost of medicine, cost of health insurance is the fact that medical practitioners order so many unnecessary and in some cases, madam speaker, harmful tests, draw too much blood, an m.r.i. and ct scan the next day and standard x-ray the next day, because they are trying to cover the possibility that someone would say, well, why didn't you order this or why didn't you order that? we have gotten to the point where everybody who shows up in the emergency department anywhere across these great 50 states with a headache is going to get a $1,200 ct scan instead of a blood pressure check and aspirin and come back to my office in the morning. this is an area in which we could clearly come together in a bipartisan way and hash out, well, if the california version of tort reform is not acceptable, how about a medical tribunal, a group of independent people looking at the claim and saying whether or not it has merit? there are so many things we cou