Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The debate over the Pelosi-Obey nonstimulus package has often focused on the nearly $1 trillion it will spend, much of it in ways that will not stimulate our economy or create badly needed jobs. It will, however, stimulate tremendous growth in the size and scope of the Federal Government and our national debt. Well-meaning people can disagree about this legislation, but the simple truth is that nearly 2 weeks after it passed the House, we are still discovering every day what exactly is in this package. The Senate just passed its own version this afternoon and I'm certain that Senators, too, will discover aspects of this bill in the coming days that they were simply unaware of when it came to a vote. What is most troubling is how some of the Federal agencies will distribute the massive amounts of funding provided for in this bill. For instance, agencies will use funding in the House-passed bill for these endeavors: $30 million for salt marsh harvest mouse habitation restoration in the San Francisco bay; $8 to $10 million for oyster restoration in the Gulf of Mexico; $600 million for the acquisition of plug-in vehicles, which are not made or currently available in the United States. Sadly, the list goes on and on. While these may be worthy endeavors, they certainly do not meet the test of being ``timely, targeted, and temporary.'' And they certainly do not belong in an economic stimulus bill. I had hoped when this process began that the House and Senate would embark on a bold new experiment--building a bipartisan consensus--to reflect not only the tone set forth by the President, but to live up to the expectations of the American people. Let's face it--my voters and your voters are sick and tired of the typical Washington finger pointing and want us to work together. The House leadership had a tremendous opportunity to use this legislation as a vehicle for bipartisanship. Much to my disappointment, the decision was made to forego bipartisanship in the name of expediency. I believe this expediency will prove costly over the long run. As the House and Senate prepare to conference separate versions of the stimulus package, it is absolutely essential that House Members and Senators know exactly what is included in the final conference agreement. It is for this reason that I am making this motion to instruct House conferees not to sign the final conference agreement unless the text of such agreement has been available to the conferees in an electronic, searchable, and downloadable form at least 48 hours prior to their approval. If the House is about to cast its approval of the largest spending bill in history, the least we can do is to ensure that Members have 48 hours to review what is in it. That is not an unreasonable request. To the contrary, it is the reasonable and responsible thing to do. While this motion limits public availability to conferees, I think any final agreement should, in practice, be available to the public in advance as well. Members have an obligation to their constituents to know the contents of the conference report before they cast their vote in what certainly will be one of the most important votes they will ever cast in this body. They should know--have a chance to know--what is in it. We ought not act in haste when spending almost $1 trillion of our taxpayers' money. I urge Democrats and Republicans alike to join me in supporting this motion to instruct conferees and provide that 48 hours I mentioned. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize a member of the committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), for 3 minutes.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. May I inquire of the chairman if he has any additional speakers. I'm going to reserve and yield back my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my friend yielding.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have many people who want to speak on the bill, but they don't happen to be present, and I am very anxious to hear the close. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I claim the time in opposition. I have no speakers in opposition. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, I am.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. LEWIS of California. The motion that I have is a very simple motion to invest an additional $36 billion in highways and an additional $24 billion in the Army Corps of Engineers construction, and reduce the overall costs of the bill by almost $104 billion. My friends, the more that people learn about this bill, the more they are questioning the price tag and its effectiveness. Not just our political leaders, but our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, our newspapers, and our constituents. This motion funds high-priority, immediate job-producing activities like highway construction and the Army Corps of Engineers water projects. These are absolutely ``shovel-ready'' infrastructure investments that will put Americans back to work now. The Corps of Engineers projects have been vetted, authorized, studied, planned and, in many cases, started. The added $24 billion in that motion will put people to work right away and will result in much needed improvement to our Nation's ports, levees, dams, and flood control measures. The same can be said for the additional $34 billion in highway funds in this motion. Our objective, Madam Speaker, is to put people to work right away. The additional $34 billion in highway funds in this motion begin to play that role. We are not pulling a number out of the sky, but responding to our States. About 6 months ago, our States were asked, and I quote, ``What can you do in 180 days if you had the funds? Our States responded, We can do at least $64 billion worth of work that will yield greater safety, plus additional economic opportunity for our communities. In addition to redirecting $60 billion into immediate job-creating programs, this motion will save taxpayers by reducing the overall cost of the bill by almost $104 billion. This motion does not strike all funds in the bill, but only strikes the untested, newly authorized or newly funded programs, but all funding that will not be available until fiscal year 2010, and later. It will also strike the most questionable job-creating programs in the underlying bill. This is our chance to make a wise decision to step back and give a hard look and make sure that the package we want to send to the President is really going to make a positive impact on the economy and not do more harm to the American people. This is our chance to send a more balanced bill forward, a bill with tax cuts, with relief for States, and with some purposeful, targeted spending guaranteed to put Americans back to work. Madam Speaker, I yield to the T&I ranking member and the coauthor of this motion, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the remaining time.

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