Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I will just speak on the point of order. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit that I was about to present is quite simple. The motion will ensure that we continue to provide funding for our troops in harm's way until Congress takes the necessary action to pass a bridge fund or a full-year war supplemental.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I really don't have any other speakers, but I did want to apologize to my colleague and take just a moment to do that. If, indeed, I have lectured the gentleman, I certainly would want to apologize to the House for that, for the House knows he's never lectured us or anybody else. Now I'm not certain what may have gone on in his own caucus, but certainly he doesn't lecture us. And if my quoting his own words takes the term ``carping,'' I guess it's difficult not to quote him exactly, and if that's carping, so be it. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I am, in its present form.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the last time that Chairman Obey and I were on the floor together, I was heard to quote our friend, Will Rogers, and it had to do about sometimes we talk more than we should. I was intrigued by the fact that while he advised us to never miss the opportunity to shut up, that recently in Latin America there's discussion among Latin leaders in which a fellow by the name of Chavez kept talking and talking and talking, and this is by way of suggesting that we don't really have to keep talking today. I think it was the King of Spain, David, who said, ``Por que no te calles?'' If I could repeat that, ``Por que no te calles?'' That is, if we don't talk too much, we'll be all right here today. Mr. Speaker, it is kind of hard to believe that Christmas is less than 2 weeks away and that David Obey provides me with material for my own presentation one more time. While most Americans are Christmas shopping and decorating their Christmas tree, Congress continues to stumble its way to completing its business for the year. Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go, so we find ourselves today considering yet another continuing resolution. It was just 1 year ago the House passed a series of continuing resolutions to ensure the continuation of government funding programs into the new fiscal year. My friend Chairman David Obey came to the House floor as the ranking member during that debate to criticize Republicans in the House and Senate for their failure to pass the annual spending bills by the end of the fiscal year. He spoke of the breakdown in the budget process and vowed that things would be different under a Democratic majority. We are now only, I say, 74 days in the new fiscal year, and once again the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee is on the floor decrying the breakdown of regular order. The only difference is that David Obey is now Chairman Obey, and I'm the committee's ranking member. The breakdown of regular order, particularly in the Senate, is largely to blame for our failure to complete our work in a timely manner. Earlier this year, my chairman was absolutely beating us all over the room because of our failure to pass bills at the end of the year. The Senate leader held up our bills. Mr. Obey knew that we'd passed all of our bills in the House by July 4. The year before we'd done the same thing, and all the bills had been signed by the President. And lo and behold, Mr. Obey finds himself. Frankly David, I thought you had much closer relationships with the Senate than I, but here we are. The breakdown of regular order, particularly in the Senate, is largely to blame for our failure to complete our work in a timely fashion. The President has been very clear all year long that he would veto any spending bill or any omnibus package that exceeded his budget request. All told, the House-passed spending bills exceeded the President's budget request by $23 billion, and yet the Democrat majority chose to dismiss or ignore the President's clear intent, that is, until now. A short time ago, Chairman Obey instructed the committee staff to prepare an omnibus spending bill and pare spending back to exceed the President's request by $11 billion. Not included in this total, there was over $7 billion being designated as emergency spending. Just in the last several days, maybe even hours, the Democratic leadership finally got the message. They came to the realization that the President was, indeed, serious. So it all appears that, after months of work by our exhausted committee staff, work can finally begin on a spending package that the President may be able to sign. I say may be able to sign because the President has not yet seen the details of the omnibus package that will come forward. For good measure, let me make very clear the President will veto any omnibus spending package that contains any controversial policy provisions, any gimmicks or any consequential budgetary sleight of hand. I urge Chairman Obey to resist the urge on his part to add any so- called contingency spending anywhere in this package, as it may lead to a presidential veto. I'd like to close by quoting my friend, Mr. Obey, from a past CR debate. He said, and I quote, ``We are here today with not a single dollar having been appropriated to any government program that has anything whatsoever to do with the domestic operations of this government. That is a disgraceful performance. And so we are left with the choice of passing this continuing resolution or having the government shut down.'' Again, my friends, these are the words of Chairman David Obey from last year, then Ranking Member Obey. They are particularly meaningful today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the most outstanding individuals I have come to know in my 30 years in Congress, Dr. James Slater of Loma Linda University Medical Center, who pioneered the development of the proton beam cancer therapy. When Loma Linda University Medical Center in my district recruited Dr. James Slater to develop a radiation oncology program in 1970, they gained a unique expert in the field of radiation therapy. Before he became a physician, Dr. Slater's main interest was physics. With a profound understanding of the way radiation works on the human body, Dr. Slater set out to find a way to gain more control of the process and reduce the toll this therapy takes on patients. He became convinced after nearly 15 years of research that the best way to accomplish this was through proton beams, which had been tested in research laboratories but never developed as a permanent medical therapy. After meeting with scientists and physicians from around the world, Dr. Slater began looking for a partner to develop the technology for a proton-beam treatment center. When private industry declined to take the challenge, he turned to Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) near Chicago, which had been actively involved in research on the potential for medical technology. In 1986, the medical center and Fermilab--backed by the Department of Energy--agreed to build a proton-beam treatment center at Loma Linda. One of the most marvelous experiences I've had as a member of Congress came in 1987, when Dr. Slater and his team came to my office to lay out the plan for a new way of treating cancer tumors. I was quickly convinced that his idea was fabulous, and his ability to bring together the medical, technical and operational experts was superb. During a hearing before the House Energy Appropriations Subcommittee, my colleagues agreed. Many members had family or close friends who had been afflicted with cancer, and they were eager to help find a new treatment plan. Major funding was approved and the center opened in 1990. Thanks to the dedication of the medical center and the support of Congress and Department of Energy, Dr. Slater's vision has become a reality in the past 20 years. More than 11,500 patients have received treatment for prostate cancer, brain tumors, and other forms of cancer. A research program is promising new ways to treat breast cancer early and possibly avoid mastectomies in many cases. Another program has helped the National Aeronautics and Space Administration research the effects of space radiation and design better equipment for astronauts. Since 2003, four more proton-beam treatment centers have opened in other areas of the country. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to tell my colleagues that Loma Linda University Medical Center has decided to honor this pioneering medical scientist by naming the proton beam treatment center in his honor. There is no doubt that this honor is richly deserved, and memorializes a true visionary and benefactor for thousands of cancer patients in the future. Please join me in congratulating Dr. Slater on receiving this honor, and thanking him for his dedication to opening new horizons in the fight against cancer.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I had planned to make a 10- minute, maybe even a 20-minute speech this evening expressing my concerns about the Labor-HHS conference report. However, given the late hour and Members' desire to join their families for the Thanksgiving Day holiday, I will submit my written statement for the Record. As I do so, Madam Speaker, I am reminded of the words of my friend Will Rogers, whose statue stands outside the door of this very Chamber. He said, ``Never miss a good chance to shut up.'' With that, I urge a vote to sustain the President's veto, and I yield back the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, here we are on November 15th and only two appropriations bills have been sent to the President--only one of which was enacted. I must confess that I find it quite ironic that the majority party spent the better part of the beginning of this year criticizing Republicans for not getting our work done in a timely fashion when now those same critics find themselves in an identical, or perhaps even worse, situation. For those of us who serve on the Appropriations Committee, this will be the sixth time we have voted on this bill this year. Six times! It is the fourth time the full House will have voted on it. The fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies bill reflects a fundamental difference in opinion on the level of funding necessary to support the Federal government's role in education, health, and workforce programs. Regardless of that disagreement, House Republicans agree that many of the programs funded in this bill are vitally important. The majority party would have the public believe otherwise. The recent rhetoric we have heard with respect to the president's veto of this bill diminishes all that we do as elected officials, and it does not serve this Congress or our country well. It is targeted at raw, base emotions rather than fact. It is intended to mislead the American people. It is, in short, intended for political gain. The primary difference between the parties on this bill is that Republicans believe we must balance the benefits of these worthwhile programs with the fact that the American taxpayer must pay for them. The vetoed bill that we are being asked to consider today is nearly $10 billion over the President's budget request and $6 billion over the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. It represents roughly half of the $22 billion the majority party in this Congress wants to spend over what the president requested. When Labor-HHS Chairman Neil Smith--a Democrat--presented his bill in 1994, it totaled $65 billion. If you had predicted in 1994 that the very same bill--which largely covers the same agencies today as it did then--would increase by $85 billion over the next 13 years, the Chairman of the full Committee--who happened to be David Obey--probably would not have believed it. Let's put that into perspective. In 1994 the Defense bill spent $242 billion. The Defense bill signed just this week spends $459 billion. That is an 89 percent increase over thirteen years for a function that is quite clearly and constitutionally the primary responsibility of the Federal Government--defending our home, our citizens and our way of life against foreign threats. This bill contains a 130 percent increase since 1994--it has more than doubled in size! By any objective standard--whether you are Jerry Lewis or David Obey--that is a healthy increase. And today, the House is being asked to override the president's veto and spend nearly $10 billion more than was requested and $6 billion more than last year under the mistaken notion that throwing money at our nation's problems will cause them to fade away. Under the mistaken notion that the Federal Government is the panacea-- That government health insurance is the answer for the uninsured; That the judgment of bureaucrats in Washington who contribute only 9 cents of every dollar spent to educate our children is superior to the judgment of parents and local school districts who face very different circumstances across our country; That job training is somehow the responsibility of the Federal Government rather than of schools, private employers and individuals. I contend that government is not the long-term solution. While government offers safety net programs that I support, these programs are and should be short-term solutions to help our fellow citizens move toward self-sufficiency. These programs are meant to be a hand up, not a hand out. As we move forward with consideration of these FY 2008 appropriations bills, Members of Congress ought to be aware that voting to override the president's vetoes on this and other appropriations bills--in short, voting to support this majority's spending spree--will increase the average annual burden on the individual taxpayer by roughly $3,000. That is $3,000 that cannot be used to buy food, to save for college, to pay for health insurance, or, for that matter, to contribute to public television. Finally, I must express my dismay at remarks made by the chairman of the committee with respect to the fate of member projects if this veto is sustained. I would hope that my colleagues do not take the bait on what I consider an inappropriate threat that suggests that members care more about pork than they do about bad fiscal policy.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, because of unusual circumstances, I would choose at the floor well to yield control of the time to the former chairman of the committee, the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee, Bill Young of Florida.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Would my colleague yield?

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the Speaker's help in this matter, but in the meantime, I appreciate my colleague yielding. Mr. Speaker, the wheels have finally come off the appropriations process. One need only to look at the sorry state of affairs in which we find ourselves as we address these appropriations bills. Earlier today, the House passed a Transportation-HUD appropriations conference report that is $3 billion over the budget request. The President has said he will veto this legislation. Tomorrow the House will vote to sustain the President's veto on a bloated Labor-HHS bill that is $10 billion over the budget request. That will essentially send the bill back to the drawing board. And if that is not enough, consider this. It is now 3 days after Veterans Day and there is still no sign of the majority moving to considered the MilCon-VA bill, a freestanding bill identical to the MilCon-VA conference report that was removed from the Labor-HHS conference report by a point of order in the Senate, by the way, in the other body. That bill was introduced by Congressman Wicker this week. This legislation, which the President said he would sign, could be brought to the House floor today. It now appears that a Democrat majority has no intent of bringing this legislation to the floor before Thanksgiving. The appropriations process this year has been reduced to what Shakespeare might refer to as ``a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.'' For all of the time and energy put into these bills this year by Members and our overworked, highly professional staff, the end result thus far is all sound and fury and very little to show for it. That leads us to the legislation we are now considering, the so- called bridge fund. Frankly, that legislation is so ill-conceived and damaging to our troops, I hardly know where to begin. First, let me say that we learned that this bill would be considered by the Rules Committee while we were waiting for the Rules Committee hearing on the THUD conference report to begin last night. I was given no notice whatsoever, nor was I provided any opportunity to testify. It is a sad state of affairs when the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee isn't even given the courtesy of paper notice to testify on legislation as important as this. I can't imagine the wails and screaming I would have heard last year if the ranking member had been put in that position. The House is being asked to consider a funding bill that reflects the priorities of Speaker Pelosi and a deeply divided, extremely left- leaning Democratic Caucus. It attempts to bridge these widening divisions over the war in Iraq through providing funding only on the condition that troops are withdrawn beginning 30 days after the bill's enactment. Our troops are badly in need of funding to continue their mission, but this legislation ties the hands of our Commander in Chief during a time of war, places military decisions in the hands of the politicians, and micromanages our combatant commanders in whom we place the ultimate responsibility for prosecuting military actions. If the majority's goal is to end the war or withdraw our troops, then that should be addressed in separate legislation. The majority cannot have it both ways, pretending on the one hand to support our troops while on the other hand undercutting our ability to prosecute their mission. Men and women of good conscience can disagree about the war in Iraq, but on one thing we must all agree: Our men and women in uniform must continue to receive our unqualified support and the resources they need to complete their mission successfully. By appeasing the wishes of the Out of Iraq Caucus, the Democrat majority has chosen to place partisan politics above the lives and well-being of our troops in harm's way. This action is reckless and irresponsible. There is absolutely no reason why a clean bridge fund could not have been included within the DOD conference report which the President signed yesterday. Again, the Democrat majority chose to place politics ahead of our troops. My colleagues, consider carefully the consequences of our actions here today. Passage of the bridge fund legislation in its present form will signal to the insurgents and terrorists that the United States doesn't have the political will to continue supporting the fledgling Iraqi democracy. Al Qaeda and other enemies of freedom will simply lay in wait until our troops are withdrawn. And with the collapse of this fragile democracy, our efforts, and the sacrifices of our troops, will have been for nothing. There is no question that the President will veto this bill. In the meantime, our troops will face the uncertainty resulting from the majority's mixed signals and lack of a clear commitment. I urge my colleagues to support our troops and oppose this legislation.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEWIS of California. In its present form, I am.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate very much my colleague yielding, and I rise also to pay tribute to one of the great Americans who provided a level of leadership in terms of public policy in this House like few have and most would want to be. Gus was a wonderful friend over time, and his best roommate, a guy by the name of Frank Baca served us in and around the Vatican for some years, a wonderful guy as well. They lived a short distance from our house. My bride and I used to walk in the park and run into Gus often. The conversations were about the House first, briefly, but then from there the fact that the best thing about this place, if we will let it, it is a place where people of great difference can become very dear and warm friends. Gus Hawkins was one of the great Americans to ever serve in the Congress. While he has passed, it is a tribute to America that we can have men and women in the House of Representatives of the style and class of Gus Hawkins. I appreciate my colleague yielding.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate very much my colleague yielding. And before making the remarks I have in mind, I want to extend my congratulations to the chairman and the ranking member for a very thoughtful effort to put together a very reasonable bill, while it is a bit over the funding levels of the President, and as a result of that I'll probably vote against it. I had not planned to speak on this bill, for I had an understanding from the other side that maybe neither the chairman or the ranking member would spend too much time speaking. I must say that some years ago it was my privilege to chair this subcommittee, and I took that responsibility very, very seriously. I know that the chairman of the committee has been very frustrated with me this year as I've suggested, more than one time, that the solution on the other side to every problem, it seems, is to throw more money at it. And the chairman just was wringing his hands a bit about the section 8 funding in this bill and suggesting we certainly should be doing a better job. Well, let me say, Mr. Speaker, we absolutely should be doing a better job. And back then, when I had a chance to chair this subcommittee, I spent some time with then-Secretary Henry, under a different administration than this one, and he and I went to section 8 housing circumstances and both wrung our hands with some frustration about the way many of those housing authorities are operating and the way they're using the money that we send out there to help the poorest of the poor have a chance for reasonable housing. We found that there were some serious questions to be raised, and that led to a thing called the Housing Fraud Initiative. And we gave extra money to the Inspector General of the Housing Authority, and the Inspector General went around the country, and, indeed, found serious problems in any number of housing authorities about the way the money was being spent that supposedly was designed for the poorest of the poor. It is not a fact that those housing authorities automatically respond in a way that would reflect the best use of our money. And if that's an illustration, indeed, the chairman has made my point. We don't solve problems by just throwing money, especially if we're not willing to follow the money and see if it's getting to the people we pretend to want to help in the first place.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding me this time and rise simply to say that one of the most important things for all of us to recognize on both sides of the aisle is that the American public is absolutely sick and tired of seeing us doing purely partisan battle in the name of serving the public. Over the years, if there's an arena where we have come together in a totally nonpartisan way, it has been in support of our veterans. To hear my friend, my colleague from Texas, this evening painting veterans affairs programs in partisan terms, as though this is a partisan political game, would cause our colleague Sonny Montgomery to turn over in his grave. Absolutely he would find this style unacceptable. Our veteran service organizations know an awful lot better than we do how important it is that we strike a nonpartisan tone. In this arena we have the opportunity to come together, Democrats and Republicans, on behalf of the American people. I urge us to get back to that pattern that says this is not a partisan game. We all, Democrats and Republicans, support our veterans. The record has already been laid out that will make that very, very clear to anybody who would but take the time to read it. Above and beyond that, Madam Speaker, it is very likely that this package will be vetoed by the President, largely because the President is trying to strike a tone which says you don't solve every problem that faces the American public by way of simply throwing money at those problems. There are those who think that government is the only solution and the only way to get to an end is by throwing mud at the wall and hoping some will stick. In the arena that involves fundamental and basic research leading to better health care for all Americans, when we played a nonpartisan role, we have gotten very, very positive results. I think the public recognizes that the sooner we can get this House to come together and bring our people together, the more progress we are going to make. It's long past due that we recognize that we do our best work by going to the subcommittee level and setting aside partisan politics, knowing full well that our Appropriation Committee works extremely well with the give-and-take and compromise that happens at the subcommittee level. Some way this year in this House we have gotten away from this. If we continue on this pattern, I predict that we are going to destroy the Appropriations Committee as we know it. Now, one more thing. The President will veto this bill. I predict his veto will be sustained. Then this House will come back and hopefully in a nonpartisan way, I say to my friend from Texas, in a nonpartisan way pass a bill that reflects all of our support for America's veterans.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I can't help but mention that the preceding discussion must be very enlightening to Americans across the country who may be interested in what we have to say here. It's always been my personal belief that the vast percentage of problems that we face as a people have very little to really do with partisan politics if we can get people together at the subcommittee level to really talk with each other about finding solutions, but clearly, clearly, Madam Speaker, it has to be apparent to almost everybody who had listened today that one side of the aisle in this body seems to believe that the only solution to every problem around is to throw more money at it. That clearly is not the case. Many a solution is found by way of people working together, not just throwing money at some wall. Madam Speaker, in this motion to instruct conferees, I really repeat the point that the subcommittee members who work within the Labor-HHS community have great expertise in the programs within this arena. They spend a lot of energy and time applying themselves to that work. Today we're in a process where we're going to tie that piece of work to a combination of two other bills. It's totally unnecessary. The Defense bill passed the House by very sizeable bipartisan numbers. Indeed, the MilCon-VA bill did the same. To suggest that we can't go forward with Labor-HHS as a separate product, I think this is a very unhealthy reflection on the work of that subcommittee. This motion says the conference can only conference the Labor-HHS bill. They cannot consider adding Defense, MilCon-VA, or other matters outside the scope of the Labor-HHS conference. The Members who serve on the Labor-HHS subcommittee should be making decisions in an open conference regarding the disposition of programs and funding levels in that bill, not other appropriations bills related to the troops, veterans, or other items outside the scope of that conference. Members serve on subcommittees and have the expertise I suggest because they work within those subcommittees. The people on Labor-HHS, very talented in their work, spend relatively little of their time in the Defense arena, as well as the arena that deals with MilCon and veterans. To air-drop Defense appropriations conference reports and the MilCon- VA bill into this process is absolutely unprecedented, in my view, and is a disservice to our Appropriations Committee. Politicizing these bills and circumventing the normal practice of this and other committees does nothing more than undermine the American people's faith in their government. Let's move beyond purely partisan politics and send the President a freestanding Labor-HHS bill, as well as individual Defense and MilCon- VA appropriations. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I think maybe there are two or three.