154. with one member voting present. the bill is passed, without objection the motion to reconsider is laid out on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and agreeing to h.res. 232 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 232, resolution recognizing and commending the toys for tots

literacy program for its contributions and raising awareness of illiteracy, promoting children's literacy and fighting poverty through the support of literacy. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reis laid on the table -- reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask to address the house for one minute for the purposes of inquiring about next week's schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker and i yield to the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman from virginia for yielding. on monday, the house will meet at 12:30 -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. will members kindly clear the well? the gentleman will proceed. mr. hoyer: on monday the house will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business but votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday, this transparency issue has parently come up again. on tuesday the house will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour debate and 12:30 for elective business. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative businessment on friday as is usual the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. we'll consider several bills under suspension of the rules. the complete list of the suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. in addition, we will consider representative betty sutton's bill, the consumer assistance to recycle and save act of 2009 and

h.r. 2410, the foreign relations authorization act, for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. h.r. 1886, a pakistan enduring assistance and cooperation enhancement act of 2009. we'll also expect to consider a conference report on h.r. 2346, the supplemental appropriation bill. i was hoping it to consider that tomorrow but discussions between the senate and the house have not been concluded. i yield back. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman and, mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman that he just referred to and announced that we would be considering the war funding supplemental conference report next week. and i'd ask the gentleman, does he expect that the very controversial senate-passed provision providing for the i.m.f. money to be included in the conference report? mr. hoyer: my friend yield? i thank the gentleman for yielding. as you know, the senate added

the i.m.f. funding to the bill. it is a loan guarantee. we expect the probability is there will be no out of pocket money for the united states but there is a going guarantee to the i.m.f. as you know, the g-20 met, our president obviously participated in that meeting. the g-20, 19 other leaders of major nations in the world, talking about how we can bring not only each individual country out of the recession and in some cases depression that some countries are in, that there was a need to invest sums in assisting particularly smaller poorer countries to try to recover from the devastation that's occurred by, in some cases, the very sharp economic down jrn turn of the larger more prosperous countries. .

the g-20 agreed that they would come up with $500 billion. the united states, the wealthiest of the g-20 by far, has a 20% share of that. the president agreed the united states would with the g-20 meet its part of the obligation that had been agreed upon. since the senate included that and the answer to the gentleman's question is i fully expect that to be in the supplemental that we consider on the floor. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman that the belief on our side is that the purpose of the war funding bill should be to provide our troops with the support they need not this controversial global bailout money. mr. speaker, i'd say more than that what we believe is currently from the reports is that the bill would eliminate $5 billion from the defense

spending directly for our troops and provide that $5 billion credit towards the guarantee that the united states would have to provide to the i.m.f. mr. speaker, even further we understand that in this provision in the bill, in essence we would be providing for more money for foreign countries in terms of a global bailout than we would be for our own troops. even more troubling part to many of us, mr. speaker, is the fact that the i.m.f. program allows eligibility for countries like iran, venezuela, zimbabwe, burma, and others. and that these countries, mr. speaker, are not necessarily in pursuit of policies that help the national security of this country and given the fact that our president has said, we don't have the money, how is it, mr.

speaker, and i'd ask the gentleman, does he think that we ought to be delaying the funding of our troops by including the provisions that we just spoke of? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the gentleman's premise is incorrect. none of us on this side think we ought to delay this bill. none of us. we believe that the troops need the funds. our president has asked for the funds. we are for passing those funds. very frankly in the senate as you know they add add lot of extraneous matters. -- added a lot of extraneous matters. some republicans added extraneous matters we are not happy about on this side of the aisle. large sums of money which have nothing to do with the troops. they were added because those members of the senate who happen to be very high ranking republicans believe those matters are very important. furthermore, let me say to the gentleman we just honored a

president that you believe was a great president of the united states. we honored him yesterday with a statue. i know you'll be interested in some quotes from that president. i have an unbreakable commitment to increased funding for i.m.f. ronald reagan, september 27, 1983. he went on to say, in that same speech, the i.m.f. is the linchpin of the international financial system. he went on to say on july 14, the i.m.f. has been a cornerstone of u.s. foreign economic policy under republican and democratic administrations for nearly 40 years. that was of course in 1983. i suggest to the gentleman it has continued for the years, 26 years after that. and it remains, he said, a

cornerstone of the foreign economic policy of this administration. another president on september 25, 1990 said this, george bush, president of the united states, the i.m.f. and world bank given their central role in the world economy are key to helping all of us through this situation by providing a combination of policy advice and financial assistance. september 25, 1990. he went on to say, as we seek to extend and expand growth in the world economy, the debt problems faced by developing countries are central to the agenda of the i.m.f. the international community's strengthened approach to these problems has truly provided new hope for debtor nations. i would suggest to you also that 11 of the members, which is to say approximately a little over

25%, of the votes, republican votes in the united states senate, supported this legislation in this bill. so it came to us in a bipartisan fashion from the united states senate. our president has indicated that the united states of america will in fact participate with the other 19 leading industrial nations of this world in trying to lift out of the mire of economic distress some countries that -- whose distress will impact our recovery as well. that is why i say to my friend, no one, no one, no one wants to delay this bill. i would hope that we have the 368 votes that voted for this bill the first time it passed intact when it comes. and be consistent with the principles enunciated by ronald reagan and george bush in the 1990's. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank

the gentleman. first of all there is obviously a delay in this bill. we were expecting it to see the bill and the war splemental for our troops to come tomorrow and i'd ask the gentleman, number one, does he know the amount of support given to the i.m.f. back when ronald reagan made those quotes? and is it -- mr. hoyer: would the gentleman yield on that question? mr. cantor: i will. let me finish, mr. speaker. that's number one. is it appropriate in the war spending bill for the taxpayers of this country to be guaranteeing $108 billion to the i.m.f. when we are only providing our troops $80-some billion? that's more than we are providing our troops for a global bailout. and that's the first line of questioning, mr. speaker, i'd ask the gentleman. secondly, does he expect to produce more than the 200 votes that the gentleman's side produced on the first go-round on this supplemental bill

because if not, then he would need to have some support from this side of the aisle. mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman "the new york times" has pointed out, may 27, hezbollah, the shiite militant group, has talked with the i.m.f. and the european union european union about continued financial support. so is he aware that this money that we are affording the i.m.f. to extend to countries who are in need would include countries where hezbollah would have some impact on the disbursal of those funds? i yield. mr. hoyer: the last time iran got money from the united states of america was 1984. you recall who was president of the united states in 1984, i'm sure. that was the last time iran got money from the united states -- excuse me from the i.m.f. from the i.m.f. with respect to your second observation, the gentleman knows

how the i.m.f. works. the gentleman knows the united states is involved as are the other countries in overseeing the distribution of i.m.f. funds. there is no intention and there will be no action, certainly that the united states would support, to give any assistance, i don't know whether they have talked to the i.m.f. or not, the gentleman may have more information on that issue. mr. cantor: reclaiming my time. i tell the gentleman, "new york times," may 27, 2009, hointpointed out hezbollah the shiite militant group involved in lebanon and its government had talks with the i.m.f. to discuss the possibility of extension of credit. are we not, i'd ask the gentleman, affording the i.m.f. the ability to extend credit to groups such as that in countries such as that, as well as the potential for countries to access the credit, including iran, venezuela, simbabway, burma, etc. we are very, very concerned.

there is a real possibility that some of the world's worst regimes will have access to additional resources that will be providing to the i.m.f. is he not concerned about that? i yield. mr. hoyer: of course, we are all concerned about the fact that any money would go to those regimes. the fact of the matter is the i.m.f. could have given to very bad regimes during the reagan administration or the bush administration. the reason the reagan administration and first bush administration, and although don't have a quote from the second bush administration, the second bush administration as well was a supporter of the i.m.f. as the gentleman perhaps knows. the fact of the matter is the united states will play a very significant role in the decisionmaking of the i.m.f. because we are a very significant contributor. it is a red herring from my perspective to raise the fact that money could go somewhere. of course money could go somewhere, any money that we appropriate could go to -- if

the gentleman is going to reclaim his time, the gentleman asked me a question. money could go any place. it could go to a bad place. we don't want it to go to a bad place. i don't think any of the 19 other nations want it to go to hezbollah or other organizations that might be negative in the use of that funds as far as we are concerned. what we do want, however, that's what ronald reagan was talking about, that's what george bush was talking about, that's what president obama is talking about, we do want to see the international economy rebound as well because it impacts on us as we impact very severely on it. that is why the g-20 made this determination. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. just say, mr. speaker, he points out the difficulty that the u.s. taxpayers will have in holding accountable this congress and the i.m.f. for the direction of

that spending. and given the unprecedented economic situation this country and its taxpayers are facing, it is the belief on our side of the aisle that we ought not be extending the ability to the i.m.f. to extent $108 billion when the primary purpose of this particular piece of legislation is to provide support for our troops and let's get on with it, mr. speaker. i would say to the gentleman. now, mr. speaker, i would also say to the gentleman that today the speaker of the house acknowledged that she is continuing to receive national intelligence briefings from the c.i.a. mr. speaker, as the gentleman knows the speaker has made serious allegations about the c.i.a.'s truthfulness to congress in the briefings. as the gentleman also knows, the speaker of the house is one of only four members of this body who receives the highest level

of briefings from the c.i.a. in accordance with the practices of this body and our oversight capacities. these briefings, mr. speaker, are an essential part of the house's oversight responsibility of the nation's intelligence and in fact our national security. so i'd ask the gentleman that in accordance with the customs of this house shouldn't the house temporarily designate a replacement for the speaker in these briefings to maintain the integrity of our oversight? i yield. mr. hoyer: absolutely not. nobody's questioned the speaker's integrity. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i would respond to the gentleman. if the speaker has alleged that there is untruthfulness, if there is a lack of canneder -- candor on the part of those giving the briefings, isn't it somehow compromising in those

briefings the national security of our country? i yield. mr. hoyer: absolutely not. there is no belief i think of anybody in this house, i hope, and i certainly do not believe that in any way the speaker has ever nor would she ever compromise in any way the security of our country, the security of our troops, the security of our people. period. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd respond to the gentleman and say what has changed? because the speaker has made very serious allegations about the veracity of the briefings that are given by the c.i.a. and if we are to believe that she is correct, shouldn't we be eitherer having an investigation of those allegations or is it that she has now changed her mind and believes that the briefings are worthwhile because we can count on the veracity of the information given in those briefings? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i must say i really have difficulty following the nt