Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I just might mention that during the time that the chairman and I have worked together in the Appropriations Committee, we have talked many a time about process where we both happen to think it is very important. But the fact is that all three of these bills, the Defense bill, the MILCON and veterans bill, indeed, Labor-HHS, all passed this House separately. We could carry these bills in regular order. It is frankly a sham to suggest that it is a requirement to bring these packages together.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am going to be calling upon my colleague, who is the ranking member of the MilCon-VA bill in just a second. But I wanted to mention it is very interesting to see my colleague, the chairman, to use statistics and data for his own purposes. We have, over the last 12 years, had nine omnibus appropriations bills, and where those bills were put together in packages, I objected to that procedure all along the line. But, as a matter of fact, as a matter of fact, negotiations had taken place on the part of both sides of the aisle, and the President signed those bills. He didn't suggest he would be vetoing those bills. Data can be used for one's purpose, but we ought to be accurate and recognize that facts are facts. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), the ranking member of the MilCon-VA bill.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Labor and Education Committee, Buck McKeon from California.

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'm pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to Judge Carter of Texas, a member of the committee.

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

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. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Veterans Committee, Steve Buyer.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the committee.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Not on this portion, no.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I would speak just for a moment by way of saying that I think in many ways we have demonstrated if we are not careful with our rhetoric, we can undermine the opportunity we have for bipartisan consideration of very important work in the House. One of the most positive experiences I have had as a member of the Appropriations Committee has been to sit in that subcommittee that deals with Labor-HHS. I have been very, very impressed with the amount of nonpartisan, bipartisan support for fundamental research, for example. Earlier it was suggested that there is not that base of support. It is when we get this partisan confrontation on the floor that polarizes us that we tend to become confused about the real work that is positively done within our subcommittees. Madam Speaker, I must say I would hope that we can do all that we possibly can to try to bring both sides together relative to those research items that I feel have such high priority. Beyond that, I'm going to be later raising a question by way of a motion to instruct conferees that would suggest that the Labor-HHS bill ought to be dealt with by itself. Where the members of that subcommittee worked so hard and have such expertise in this arena to set their work out and complicate it with VA-HUD over issues that relate to veterans is absolutely undermining the appropriations process. So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee, Jim Walsh of New York.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I would yield to my colleague from Florida, former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Bill Young, for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I have one additional speaker to close.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, sir.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss what appears to be one of the most highly unusual decisions made by the leadership of the House by way of combining the Labor, Health and Human Services bill with Military Construction, VA, and all those programs that relate to veterans, and the DOD bills into one package to be sent to the President. It is my understanding that included in this package may be disaster funding relief that could affect wildfires in the West. There may be other popular items that the majority may attempt to air-drop into conference. In theory, the bill itself is supposed to focus upon health care for our citizens across the country, labor programs and education programs, not defense, not veterans programming or other related programs. This package would exclude any DOD bridged supplemental funding for our troops. Last year, a bipartisan group of Members demanded that the administration send a full-year supplemental request for activities related to the global war on terror. Now that the administration has provided the full-year request, the House and Senate leadership have refused to provide this critical funding for our troops who are serving in harm's way. Additionally, instead of moving the Labor-HHS bill, the DOD bill and the MilCon-VA bills through the process by regular order and holding separate conferences, this omnibus package would be carried as part of the Labor-HHS bill. Frankly, as I talk to my colleagues who know the appropriations process around this place pretty well, they can't quite believe why we're doing this. For each of these bills passed the House separately and individually, they've got programs that are highly supported. There is little doubt that regular order would work if the leadership would allow it to work. Let me be clear on this. The President has already indicated that he will sign a freestanding MilCon bill, and he will sign a freestanding Defense bill. Especially it's important to note that the MilCon bill includes funding for veterans as well, with a commitment for his signature. By not moving these bills individually, the majority is using our veterans as well as our troops essentially as political pawns. Yesterday, I had a conversation with the President's Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten. He clearly indicated that if this package makes its way to the White House, it will be vetoed by the President in this form. Apparently the President delivered a similar message to our Members and the press at the White House yesterday morning. Personally, I think it's outrageous that the majority is proceeding in this way with funding for our troops and our veterans simply to try to push through a 10-plus billion dollar increase in the Labor and Health and Human Services programs. To me, this is nothing more than essentially, at least some would describe it as political blackmail, as well as a poke in the eye to our troops, our veterans, our Members, as well as our President. To the Democrat majority who conceived this misbegotten, ill- conceived legislative strategy, let me say this: You are not only making a mockery of the legislative process, you are intentionally undermining a strong bipartisan desire to fund our troops, provide medical care for those troops, as well as provide funding for our veterans. This approach is kind of like the SCHIP package on steroids. And I believe that it, too, will fail. I do not intend to sign the conference report or vote for it when it reaches the floor. I will also be supporting the President's veto, should he decide to veto this package. Clearly, this is in excess, and it's a fundamental violation of what I think should be the tradition of the appropriations process. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's yielding me the time. I will not use anywhere near 10 minutes. But let me say that my colleagues have already expressed their support for the phenomenal work that has taken place over the recent years as we have learned from past tragedies like this. The law enforcement officials, local government, the State people with the Forestry Service in California, and the U.S. Forestry Service have been truly phenomenal. We have learned an awful lot. But I would mention two things. The first is that in terms of managing our forests, we usually find our way very quickly to develop those dollars that are necessary following a fire to respond to the immediate tragedy. Those dollars seem to flow almost upon our call. The dollars that, on the other hand, are much more difficult are those that involve managing the forest long term. It is so important that we recognize that the U.S. Forestry Service does all that they can, but they know full well that the great difficulty of getting the money for managing that which makes up the ground fire that can destroy a forest, literally can obliterate this territory when we are looking, must be a part of our Federal responsibility. There is little doubt that we will overcome this tragedy. Hundreds and hundreds of homes lost in my own district in and around Lake Arrowhead, California, tragedies for each of those families. But I would say beyond remembering that we must find the money for managing the forests. We also should talk to our constituents about the fact that when faced with a fire tragedy, the first thing that all of our people should do is to respond to those warnings that suggest, when they are called to evacuate, to evacuate. One life lost is too many, and the danger of attempting to overcome a fire near your home, indeed, is a critical decision. I would urge all of our citizens who are faced with this difficulty to respond to those calls for evacuation. With that, I appreciate very much my colleagues' response to our tragedy and I appreciate very much their help.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Parliamentary inquiry. Who controls the calendar? That is a parliamentary inquiry. The legislative calendar.

Mr. LEWIS of California. By what?

Mr. LEWIS of California. I think it is. It is asking about process and the procedure of the House. I beg your pardon. I don't do this very often.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.