Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, my colleague Ken Calvert and I want to express our love and admiration for Jan and Ed Slevin. The congressional schedule may not allow our attendance at their 50th anniversary, a celebration that is taking place on June 20. Both Ken and I want our colleagues to know much more about this outstanding couple and their decades of public service. So together, we are asking consent to include remarks in the Record reflecting their lives together and their contribution to our Nation.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my colleague from New Jersey yielding this time, and I won't even take that much time. I rise today to recognize the fact that there may be an amendment later this evening that will address the Marine Corps Training Center at 29 Palms. It's very, very important for the House to know the significance of that facility, the role it plays in the great work of the Marine Corps. The design here is to try to improve and help with that work. Mr. Chairman, I rise first to congratulate Chairman Ike Skelton and ranking member and former Chairman Duncan Hunter for working together in a bipartisan manner to craft an excellent National Defense Authorization Bill. As you know, this is Duncan Hunter's last authorization bill and I honor his many years of service on the Armed Services Committee and his unfailing support of our men and women in uniform. Mr Chairman, unfortunately an amendment has been made in order to strike an important project that would benefit all the marines and their family members who are stationed or who pass through Twentynine Palms marine base. This project is the Lifelong Learning Center. Phase I of the Life Long Learning Center, LLLC, project at the Marine Corps base Twentynine Palms provides a facility to help marines and their families fulfill their educational goals. The project will replace older, undersized facilities with a 17,000 square foot, three-story building which will include classrooms, office spaces, a computer room and other supporting infrastructure. When completed, the LLLC will facilitate more than 40 higher education classes with an anticipated enrollment exceeding 1500 students per term. U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, CA, May 22, 2008. Subject: Life Long Learning Center--Twentynine Palms Hon. Mr. Lewis, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Lewis. The Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) is a remote, isolated base that is both home for about one third of the 1st Marine Division and other units assigned to I Marine Expeditionary Force, and is a service level training installation. The installation has worked hard over the years on innovation and best practices as evidenced by our state-of-the-art training capabilities, demonstrated excellence in energy conservation, improvements in quality of life for our people, and installation management. We are now determined to improve the educational opportunities for the 12,000 Marines, their families and the civilians who serve at this remote outpost. The Life Long Learning Center (LLLC) project is critical to the success of our education initiatives. MCAGCC's current educational facilities are single story, 1950 era barracks scattered throughout the base that have been converted into classrooms. These facilities do not meet the needs of our educational programs. The LLLC will provide a modern facility that will meet all our requirements in one centralized location. The project, as we have submitted in the Military Construction program, will be constructed in two phases. The first phase is a 17,000 square foot, three-story building which will include classrooms, office spaces, a computer lab and other supporting infrastructure. When completed, this facility will provide space for more than 40 higher education classes with an anticipated enrollment exceeding 1500 students per term. The second phase will provide a library. We are committed to continuing education for our Marines and Sailors. Not only do we get better Marines and Sailors, we also set them up for success as they return to their civilian communities. Teaming with local school systems, MCAGCC bas brought the expertise of the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) to assist with local educational challenges. While focused on military dependent children, there are a number of programs that will benefit our local community, to include teacher training and DoDEA provided AP courses. In this remote and isolated location, employment opportunities are limited for spouses and dependents. This facility will allow us to expand education opportunities as an alternative to employment. MCAGCC is the single largest employer in the Morongo Basin and access to a quality workforce is critical to our mission. We provide multiple workforce development education and training programs. I am convinced that improved education programs will benefit the overall workforce, enhance the quality of life in this region and ensure we are able to continue to train our Marines for combat as our current civilian workforce ages and retires. The state-of the-art educational facility provided by the LLLC will provide Marines and their families the opportunity to work on their career goals as well as prepare them for life after the Marine Corps. It is my highest quality of life initiative and I truly appreciate your assistance in helping us support the Marines and Sailors preparing to defend this great country of ours. Sincerely, M. G. Spiese, Brigadier General.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank my colleague from Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have only one good thing to say about the Democrat majority's budget resolution. Unlike the only other budget-related legislation considered by the House this year, at least this resolution, the budget resolution, follows regular order, not like the Appropriations Committee process this year. Having looked at this budget in some detail, my advice to working families is simple: Hold on to your wallet. For the first time in history, the proposed discretionary budget will exceed $1 trillion. Think about that. $1 trillion. This bloated budget blueprint is a clear demonstration that the Democrat majority in Congress is keenly focused on dipping into your pockets to take more and more of your hard-earned money. This budget shows that the Democrat majority will raise taxes without hesitation to support its addiction to spending. And it shows that Democrats in Congress are not interested in making difficult choices, setting priorities or rooting out waste in government spending. While our constituents struggle to keep up with their budgets, to fill their automobiles with gasoline, to buy groceries, for example, Democrats want to spend and tax to continue their dance in the majority.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Iowa for yielding me this time. I must say that I came to the floor with great expectancy that we were discussing something that would actually provide gas price relief. Instead, we have another study that reviews the question of cartels and their impact upon prices of gasoline or oil in the United States presuming that unilaterally America, one way or another, can control what other countries do in terms of their partnerships known as cartels. I must say that it's very clear that there are any number of avenues that can be followed, that should have been followed formerly that can affect the availability of crude oil in the United States. We have a huge, huge domestic supply. In my own State, California, you have heard a bit today about a thing called the Pelosi premium. Frankly I'm not excited much about the Pelosi premium. The fact that the gentlelady from San Francisco is now the Speaker of the House is significant to California, but her district, just like mine, must be suffering as much as everybody with the price per gallon of gasoline at the pump. So together, we've got to try in California to find policy and program that will bring about change. For example, for a long time for appropriate reasons we've been very sensitive about offshore drilling in California because of our beautiful Pacific Coast. We also now know that there are technologies developed and available beyond the site line that could cause us to at least take a look at how we tap that crude oil far off of our coast as a potential alternative supply. Without supply to meet the demand, America is not going to have independence from the Middle East. Look to the south. The gulf region has tremendous potential in terms of future crude development. Could we not have developed policies that are foreign policies dealing with Latin countries to help them technologically better tap those sources so in spite of what goes on in Florida or in Texas or otherwise near the gulf, we could be reaching out in ways to allow that crude oil to become available here in our domestic supply and thereby put pressure on OPEC. The technology that is developing relative to what we do with shale has tremendous potential in terms of tapping our reserves. We know that takes time but it also takes priority. Instead of phony cartel bills, where are the bills that bring forward those policy changes and add to the research, as well as the specific funding for technology to reach into those reserves? My friends on the floor have talked about the fact that it would take 10 years for us to effectively tap resources in Alaska, but for 10 years, those same people have been resisting our tapping into those resources. If we'd begun 10 years ago, that crude oil would be online right this moment, putting pressure on the process to allow us to meet our demand more effectively here at home rather than depending upon those overseas. So, Mr. Speaker, it's time we got onto the policies in both bodies that make sense for America, and I appreciate the time.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize my colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, for 2 minutes. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the Republican Policy chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kingston from Georgia.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of keeping this wonderful dialogue going on, I yield the gentleman from Georgia 1 additional minute.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I very much appreciate your recognizing me to respond to my friend, David Obey. I am going to speak just a little bit out of order, for two of my colleagues on the floor, David Obey, the chairman of the committee, and my colleague, Mr. Murtha, the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, have shared with me, I thought, over some years, the traditional order of this House. I've seen how the committee system works, especially in the Appropriations Committee, making certain that all Members, Democrats and Republicans, had an opportunity to provide input. And now to have us move so far away from that traditional order by way of this process today is a great disappointment to me. I can't help but wonder if maybe there is some lack of commitment to regular order that I had never perceived before. For example, my colleague from San Diego, the chairman of the VA Subcommittee, if he had been given an opportunity, could have marked up and had hearings and otherwise on the VA portions some time ago. This supplemental came from the President well over a year ago. We have had plenty of time to exercise the process in the way that maximizes Members' involvement, remembering that those Members are elected to represent their people at home. And so the procedure we are going through today has undermined that representative process. I think many of my colleagues, particularly those who serve with me on the Appropriations Committee, know that I have a great deal of respect for the senior Senator from West Virginia, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Robert Byrd. While he and I may disagree on issues from time to time, it is fair to say that we both share a deeply held love and respect for this institution. Senator Byrd also reveres the established traditions and precedents of the committee he leads. He understands that we will only truly know what is in the supplemental if it is exposed to the light of day through the regular order committee process. No one, not even the Senate majority leader, is going to tell Senator Byrd to abdicate his devotion to regular order or his responsibility as chairman of his beloved Appropriations Committee. Unfortunately, the adherence to regular order has now been completely abandoned on the House side of the Capitol. Both Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi, the sole authors of the House supplemental before us today, have dismissed as ``a nonissue'' those bipartisan voices calling for full committee consideration of this critically important legislation. In conversations with both Republicans and Democrats in the House, it is widely felt that the Democrat leadership has unfairly and wrongly circumvented the House Appropriations Committee process. Further, the House majority has chosen to proceed under a closed rule, eliminating any and all amendments on the House floor, and is intent on bypassing a conference committee with the Senate. In effect, the Democrat leadership has eliminated every conceivable opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to represent the views of their own constituents. I find this sadly ironic, for it was Nancy Pelosi in 2006 who outlined the new Democrat majority's governing philosophy. And I will quote her: ``Bills should come to the House floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee markups.'' As the body knows full well, we have had not an open process, let alone full and fair debate. Nor have we had any amendment process. Nor have we had any hearings whatsoever. So, I ask the Speaker, what has changed? In an October 20, 2006 press release, then-minority leader Nancy Pelosi wrote in a letter to then-Speaker Hastert, ``The voice of every American has a right to be heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on the floor.'' My colleagues know that I have expressed grave concerns about Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey being the sole authors of this legislation without any input from other Members with considerable expertise in these subject matters. I am not alone in expressing this concern. Last week, my dear friend and colleague, Marcy Kaptur, voiced her displeasure with Chairman Obey and her own leadership. She said, ``Leadership, by keeping the supplemental too close to the vest and not going through a committee markup, has failed to engage the broader membership. It does disenfranchise the voice of people who don't come from leadership locations.'' I just happen to be the ranking member on this full committee. I saw the text and the heart of this proposal only yesterday in the early part of the afternoon. They have had it for months in the works, but have chosen to ignore entirely the minority in this connection. My colleagues know that I have expressed grave concern about this process before. The House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, has said that it is disingenuous for Republicans to speak out over the Iraq war supplemental bypassing the Appropriations Committee process. He suggested that the House Republicans, while in the majority, had engaged in similar practices. This argument would be convenient if it were, in fact, true. However, we all know that facts are stubborn things. According to the April 29 edition of the Politico, ``There have been about three dozen emergency spending bills in the past 20 years, and a handful has passed without input from the Appropriations Committee, including billions in Hurricane Katrina aid and post-September 11 funds. But none of the Iraq war funding bills has bypassed the appropriations panel in the process.'' Have there been occasions where supplemental spending bills have not been considered by the full committee? Sure there have. But on those rare instances, such as the aftermath of September 11 and so on, there was bipartisan consensus on the need to act quickly. And we did so by working together. In no circumstance, to my knowledge, did either the Republican majority or the Democrat minority that preceded it ever deny either the opposition party or even members of its own party a seat at the table in writing such critical legislation. Yet here we stand today, debating the merits of a bill that only a handful of Members have even seen. Very, very few Members know what is in this legislation. I ask you, anybody in this room, have any of you, besides David Obey, had a chance to really read this bill and know what's in it in detail? You're going to be asked to vote on it anyway, regardless of that lack of input. Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats, deserve to have their voice heard. By the end of the day, not one Member will have an opportunity to offer an amendment or propose any alternative ideas to this body for a vote. What are Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey afraid of? This is the fifth time since January 2007 that this majority has brought a supplemental appropriations bill to the House floor under a closed rule, violating the entire tradition of the appropriations process. In order for the people's voices to be heard, it is fundamental that the representatives' voices are heard. What is happening here is that we are beginning to lay a pattern to destroy the representative process that allows the people to be heard through the people they send here to represent them in the first place. Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey have effectively said to virtually every Democrat and Republican serving this great body: ``Your voice is irrelevant, and your input is not welcome.'' Again, what are Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey afraid of? I believe this practice of circumventing our traditional committee process and ignoring the voices of rank and file Members and their constituents is detrimental to the health of the legislative process. It puts in place a process wherein a handful of powerful legislators become ``the Great Deciders'' of what should or should not be included in this almost $250 billion spending bill. This is not the ``House of the Few Great Deciders.'' It is the ``People's House.'' It is the House of Representatives. We fail to recognize this at our great peril. On May 24, 2002, my friend and my chairman, Mr. Obey, said, and I quote, ``What a shame, when the legislative process is corrupted to polarize a product that should have been used to forge national unity.'' These words are particularly true today as Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi put partisan interests ahead of the interests of the Members of the House and ahead of the people of this country. We can do better. And ladies and gentlemen, we must do better. We can do better, and, ladies and gentlemen, we must do better. Vote ``no'' on this package and send it back to where it belongs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Florida, Bill Young.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, Mr. Wamp from Tennessee.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield 1 minute to my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. LEWIS of California. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I will just have a few seconds. I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. As of this moment, we have one additional speaker. I may take 10 seconds to close or something like that.

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

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New York, Jim Walsh.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I would yield myself 10 seconds. The chairman of the committee could have raised this 6 months ago since the bill has been around for a full year, but he chose to use political rhetoric today rather than really carry out his responsibilities. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise). (Mr. SCALISE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers). (Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)