Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker besides myself. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, the gentleman who knows more about Afghanistan, I believe, than any other Member of the House, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as members of the Appropriations Committee began the process of writing this legislation, I was hopeful that the House would return to its traditional approach to considering appropriations bills under an open rule on the House floor. Unfortunately, that is not the case today. There are Members of both political parties who have thoughtful and well-intentioned amendments that ought to receive the consideration of the full House. An open rule would ensure that each and every Member has the right and the opportunity to make a good bill even better. But Members on both sides are once again being denied this precious right. There is one exception to this rule, however. To cover itself politically on a highly sensitive national security issue, the majority leadership has included an amendment offered by my chairman, David Obey, that is self-executed into the rule on this bill. However, the Obey amendment only pays lip service to protecting our citizens from the release of known terrorists from Guantanamo into the United States. Mr. Wolf, who is perhaps the most knowledgeable Member of the House on this issue, offered an amendment in the full committee last week which was defeated on a straight party-line vote. Yesterday, Mr. Wolf testified on his amendment at the Rules Committee and he was denied the opportunity to even offer his amendment today on the floor. I don't say this lightly, but on this issue the majority leadership of the House appears to be more sensitive to the rights of known terrorists than the rights of duly elected Members of this body. What a shameful exercise this has become. House Members were initially led to believe that this legislation would be kept at the President's original level of $84 billion to fund only the critical needs of the global war on terrorism. As presented today, however, this legislation has grown to $96.7 billion since it was submitted to the Congress 5 weeks ago. The Members know that we face many crises around the world deserving our attention and thoughtful deliberation. It was President Kennedy who a generation ago reminded us that, when written in Chinese, the word ``crises'' is composed of two characters: one represents danger; the other represents opportunity. If there is any doubt about what we are doing, let us be mindful that the supplemental provides the necessary resources for our soldiers and civilians to wage a successful battle on multiple fronts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. We know that the Taliban is now increasingly emboldened and the situation on the ground in Pakistan is, at best, fragile. Closer to our shores, the potential closure of Guantanamo has become a symbol of best intentions colliding head-on with political reality. Chairman Obey's decision to withhold funding for Guantanamo is the clearest indication to date that the Obama administration still has no plausible plan to deal with this complex national security issue. The President owes it to the American people and this Congress to provide a detailed plan for the potential relocation of detainees prior to any funds being appropriated for this purpose and prior to any detainees being transferred to our shores. As presently written, the legislation does absolutely nothing to prevent the release of detainees from Guantanamo into the United States, into our neighborhoods and communities, after October 1 of this year. These detainees, many of them well-known terrorists, trained by al Qaeda, would be released with no security risk assessment or even the prior notification of Members of Congress. Congressman Wolf and Congressman Tiahrt each had amendments addressing this critical national security issue, and both were denied the opportunity to offer their amendments on the floor. As a result, it is now only a matter of time before known terrorists will be brought to the United States on a permanent basis. Today, it is less clear, not more clear, what rights they will be afforded when they arrive and under what judicial system they will be tried. And, indeed, in many ways we will be treating them as though they were citizens of the United States. The insistence of the majority leadership to consider this legislation under a closed rule is disappointing because the bulk of this emergency supplemental was put together with very serious bipartisan cooperation. It is one of the rare instances in recent times when Republicans and Democrats have largely set aside partisan differences to do what is best for our country and what is best for our troops. I am deeply concerned about legitimate national security questions taking a back seat to political partisanship. But we must pass this legislation, even in its presently flawed form, to ensure that funds continue to flow to support our efforts to bring peace and stability around the world. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield the gentleman another minute.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a member of our committee.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire the time on both sides.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Brown-Waite).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I neglected the fact that I have one more speaker besides Mr. Rohrabacher. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins) 1 minute.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, as we close down this discussion, I want to take just a moment to, one more time, express both the chairman's and my deep appreciation for the very fine work that is done by our staff on both sides of the aisle, especially in this case, the defense subcommittee staff, but beyond that the leadership of the staff from the full committee as well. Mr. Speaker, we have all noticed by way of the media in the last several weeks that it is one thing to kind of wallow in rhetoric of the campaign trail when one is running for national office. It is an entirely different thing when you are elected President of the United States and then have to implement the policies that some of that rhetoric may affect. The recent discussion regarding intelligence, secure papers, should they be revealed or made public or not made public, is evidence that the President, our President Obama, is learning that reality very quickly. In the Guantanamo circumstance, the rhetoric said, We should close Guantanamo. I would suggest that as the President moves forward and really learns about these people who are largely trained by al Qaeda, who are committed to jihad and the destruction of our way of life, long before a plan comes forward, I'm sure the rhetoric will be considerably different, or the implementation will be considerably different than the rhetoric. From there, this bill is a bill that reflects largely funding for our national defense, great work done between both sides of the aisle regarding the needs of our military. Because of that, this bill must go to the President's desk. And I urge our Members to give an ``aye'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my colleague from California yielding me this time. I frankly had hoped that we would be bringing this bill to the floor today, the supplemental, following the traditional pattern of appropriations processes with an open rule so that we could come together and discuss some of these very key issues together in a positive way. And as the ranking member of the Rules Committee said, make what is a very good and bipartisan effort significantly better by addressing a few key issues that indeed are of great concern to the American people. I would specifically like to mention that the gentleman from Colorado suggested that this is the last supplemental. I am sure that you have watched the House for all of the years you have been here, and I know that you are absolutely convinced that this will be the last supplemental, but I wouldn't want to suggest that others would perhaps consider that to be a bit naive. But in the meantime, I was most intrigued by another discussion I had with the gentleman in the Rules Committee when we were talking about Guantanamo. Indeed, Guantanamo is an issue that will become of greater and greater concern to the American public as we go forward from here. The rule does self-enact a proposal by the chairman of the full committee that addresses Guantanamo. There are a number of things it does not, however, address in its language form. And, indeed, an open rule would have allowed us to have discussion of the very thoughtful work done by our Members in the full committee. Those Members' products were rejected on a partisan vote in the appropriations process, unfortunately, and we should have a chance to address them here on the floor. I would like to share a few things that the chairman's amendment that is in the rule does not do. The rule includes language from Mr. Obey that, among other things, does not require the administration to conduct a risk assessment of the dangers of releasing Guantanamo detainees into American communities. It does not require any notification, including the Congress, Governors, State legislators, or local communities, as to when and where detainees will be released outright to the general public after October 1, 2009, and on and on I could go from there. I was very fascinated by the gentleman from Colorado's reaction. He said that is what our prison system is about. After all, we in Colorado have some serious people in prison; for example, the Unabomber. Well, I would suggest to the gentleman from Colorado, those criminals who are housed in Colorado and other States who are domestics who violated our law in a variety of ways--the Unabomber being a nut case, for example-- do not reflect the intensity and commitment of al Qaeda-trained terrorists who absolutely have dedicated their lives to trying to destroy our way of life. Those people in the hundreds potentially being released without any notification to the American public or to our governors and local legislators--it is unacceptable, unacceptable that we follow that path. And because of that, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the PQ and a ``no'' vote also on the rule.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One of the advantages of having spent a little time around the House of Representatives besides your hair turning gray is that I'm now the senior Republican Member of the delegation and thereby have the privilege of carrying this resolution on behalf of the Members of the House. So, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce H. Con. Res. 101 to accept the statue of Ronald Reagan from the people of California for placement in the United States Capitol. This bill authorizes the State of California to use the Rotunda of the Capitol on June 3, 2009, for a presentation ceremony. The Architect of the Capitol shall display the statue in the Rotunda. The current statue of Thomas Starr King will be relocated to a suitable place in Sacramento, California. I am honored to have both known and worked with Ronald Reagan both when he was Governor and, of course, as President of the United States. One of the great leaders of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan. His contributions on behalf of freedom around the world are unparalleled since the end of World War II. There is no more Cold War. There is no more Berlin Wall. There is no worldwide threat of Communist dictatorship because of the leadership of President Ronald Reagan. When the history of our time is written, the accomplishments of President Reagan will shine out. He made America the land of opportunity once again and brought the breath of freedom to millions of people around the world who had spent decades under the yoke of tyranny. His memory will live on among all the free and loving people around the world. Mr. Speaker, a statue of Ronald Reagan in the U.S. Capitol is a fitting tribute to one of the most significant leaders of our time. I urge swift passage of H. Con. Res. 101. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the committee.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chair, it's only fitting that we begin consideration of the Democrat budget resolution on April 1st. Like April Fool's Day itself, this budget is full of mischief and sleight of hand that will have Uncle Sam dipping his fingers into your pocket as if your wallet was his very own personal ATM. The President's budget request proposes huge spending increases now with only intentionally vague promises to make hard choices to cut spending in the future. All of this spending is couched in the same soothing rhetoric we heard during the stimulus debate--while kicking the can down the road on many tough decisions. As Daniel Hannan, a Member of the European Parliament, said in remarks last week, ``Perhaps you would have more moral authority in this House if your actions matched your words. The truth is you have run out of our money.'' While the House majority portrays their spending plan as a reduction from the President's request, the fact is this budget resolution represents more spending, more taxes, and more debt. The only proposed cuts in this plan are within the area of national defense, an ill- advised course of action as our country continues to engage in the Global War on Terror. Since Democrats assumed control of Congress, they have proposed increases of at least nine percent each year for non-defense discretionary programs. For next year, they propose yet another 11 percent increase and a 27 percent boost over the next five years. The proposed surge of federal spending represents the largest non-war government expansion since the New Deal. Domestic discretionary spending--including the spending in the stimulus package--has been hiked over 80 percent since just last year. As a result, Washington will run a budget deficit of 12.3 percent of GDP, by far the largest since World War II. Some in the majority will justify this out-of-control spending as a necessary, temporary response to a recession. But there's nothing temporary about it. After harshly criticizing budget deficits under President Bush--which averaged $300 billion annually--President Obama has proposed a budget that would run deficits through the roof for a generation or more. Three expected developments--the end of the recession, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and the phase-out of temporary stimulus spending-- would by themselves cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President's budget shows deficits averaging $600 billion a year even after the economy recovers from the recession and even after our troops come home from Iraq. That's not good enough. Between 2008 and 2013, the budget will add $5.7 trillion, or $48,000 per household, in new government debt. The annual interest alone would equal nearly the entire U.S. defense budget by the year 2019. On top of this mountain of debt, consider the unsustainable costs of paying Social Security and Medicare benefits to 77 million retiring Baby Boomers. Without real reform, the result is likely to be devastating tax increases for decades to come. These higher debt levels will accelerate an increase in interest rates. Higher interest rates will slow down the economic recovery by making it more expensive for businesses to invest and more difficult for families to afford homes and auto loans. This isn't economic, recovery, this is economic madness. To quote again from Daniel Hannan from the European Parliament, ``You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt.''

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I guess you all know that we didn't have to be here today debating yet another extension of a continuing resolution and we certainly didn't have to wait until the fiscal year was almost half over to complete a package of spending bills addressing funding for 2009. And yet here we are, 157 days into the new fiscal year, passing another short-term CR while our work on 2009 bills remains unfinished. Unfinished. What a shame. Madam Speaker, what a shame. Had the Appropriations Committee been allowed by the Democrat leadership to do its work this year, we could have easily passed each of the 12 spending bills. Each of the bills would have benefited from Members offering ideas, debate. We actually do have talented Members on both sides of the aisle at the subcommittee level, not allowed to participate in the process. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, liberal or conservative, your rights as a duly elected Member of this body have been belittled by a majority leadership that believes absolute power flows from the top. Members should have had the opportunity to do what they were elected to do, shape legislation and make sure that their own voices and the voices of their people are heard. Instead, virtually every Member of the House has been shut out of the process of writing this massive $410 billion spending bill that will govern how taxpayer dollars are spent for the remainder of this year. The sad irony is that while the House passes another CR that keeps the government running, the Senate is doing what the House could only dream of doing, offering and debating amendments to the omnibus bill. It is no wonder so many Members of the House aspire to serve in the Senate. The Senate is the only place left in the U.S. Congress where legislation is still considered under a reasonably open process. The Senate has wisely observed what the House has failed to recognize: Not one of the nine bills in the omnibus spending package was ever debated or considered in the House or the Senate. Six of the nine bills in the omnibus were never debated or considered by the full House Appropriations Committee. Senators are doing the right thing by attempting to improve this legislation, which is busting at the seams with too much spending. The Senate's action last night sends an unmistakable signal that spending fatigue has finally set in. Certainly not in the House, but in the Senate spending fatigue has finally set in. Senators from both parties recognize what the House leadership failed to observe, that the spending in the omnibus is excessive and goes far beyond what our public believes is reasonable and responsible. Omnibus funding represents a $32 billion or 8 percent increase over last year for the very same agencies and programs. This represents the largest annual Federal Government spending increase since President Carter served in 1978. There is a storm brewing out there in the hinterlands, fueled by the public's disdain over the free-for-all spending of the Congress. Hundreds of billions of dollars directed to the stimulus package, Wall Street, auto makers, and the line of folks with their hands out continue to grow. Where does the spending end, Madam Speaker? It has been said completing the omnibus is merely completing last year's unfinished business. But what a wasted opportunity it is to demonstrate to the American people that this Congress and this administration ``gets it,'' and that we are ready to roll up our sleeves and address government spending going forward. Again, where does the spending end? The Members of the House have had enough of the ``my way or the highway'' legislative process that has governed the formulation of the omnibus, the stimulus package and every supplemental bill passed over the last couple of years, and I believe the majority of our Members have had it with the proliferation of spending that will come to define the 111th Congress under this majority. Madam Speaker, each of us recognizes that extending a CR one more time is an admission of our failure to complete our work on time. It will surely pass, but let's not lose sight that this is simply doing our work in the worst possible way. Again, it didn't have to be this way. In closing, Madam Speaker, let me say that I don't believe this is Chairman Obey's fault. While we may disagree over policy and funding levels, we both believe that it is time to get our appropriations process back on track. I look forward to working with the chairman this year and I am hopeful that together we can embrace an open process that allows for the full participation of the Members on both sides of the aisle. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the Republican Conference chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, my classmate, Dan Burton.