Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. By what?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Right, by a majority decision, which means essentially the Speaker's office, but nonetheless, that's interpretation. Presuming that what you said is correct, that majority decision can set this bill when they wish to, including the middle of October, if they wish to; is that correct?

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.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee often talks about thoughts and wisdom of Archie the cockroach, but today I am reminded of the words of Yogi Berra, ``It's deja vu all over again.'' It was 1 year ago that the House passed the first of several continuing resolutions to ensure the continuation of government-funded programs in the new fiscal year. My friend, David Obey, came to the floor as the ranking member during the debate to criticize Republicans in the House and the Senate for their failure to pass the annual spending bills by the end of the fiscal year. He spoke of the breakdown of the budget process and vowed that things would be different under a Democrat majority. We are now 4 days away from the end of the 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 am a mere struggling committee ranking member. At this time last year, we had sent President Bush two appropriations conference reports. This year, not one appropriations conference meeting has taken place between the two bodies, even though there are bills available. When we passed the first CR last year, my hope was it would provide strong motivation for Congress to complete its work in regular order. I was hopeful that our colleagues in the Senate would complete their work so we could send to the White House the remaining individual conference reports before the end of our legislative session. I come to the floor today with the same hopeful expectation that the Senate will soon complete its work. But, based on recent history, I'm not holding my breath. My appropriations colleague, Senator Cochran of Mississippi, could not have been a better partner as we attempted to bring regular order to the appropriations process. Unfortunately, Chairman Cochran was poorly served by his own leadership. The breakdown of regular order in the last Congress, indeed the failure to get our bills done, was placed squarely at the feet of the former Senate majority leader who failed to schedule floor time for the consideration of appropriations bills. One year later, the failure of the appropriations process can be laid squarely at the feet of the present Senate majority leader. The House has passed each of its spending bills; and, while I believe these bills spend too much, the House Appropriations Committee has kept its word by completing its work. During my tenure as chairman, the Appropriations Committee was strongly committed to bringing to the floor individual conference reports for each and every bill. I did not then support, and do not now support, an omnibus spending bill in any form. But that is exactly the direction in which the Democrat majority is now moving. I am convinced that moving bills individually is the only way for us to control government spending. Lacking regular order, there is a tendency for spending on the remaining bills to grow out of control. That challenge is particularly acute this year with the Democrat majority writing and passing spending bills that exceed the President's budget request by about $23 billion. We are today passing a CR that continues for the next 6 weeks Federal programs under the terms and conditions established in the 2007 fiscal year resolution. In 6 weeks, I am afraid we will be here once again to pass yet another continuing resolution, and that will lead us well into the free-spending holiday season. My colleagues, we are moving ever closer to a massive year-end omnibus spending bill. That course of action would be an admission of failure on the part of this Congress. At this moment, there is still time for Democrats and Republicans to find common ground on spending. There is still time for the House and the Senate to complete its work in regular order. There is still time to pass and send to the White House individual conference reports. But we must act now. I would like to close by quoting my friend, Mr. Obey, from a past continuing resolution debate: ``This continuing resolution is a monument to institutional failure. This Congress is failing to meet even the most basic and minimal expectations that the country has for it by way of doing our routine business. This is governing in a pitiful way,'' Mr. Obey said, ``and I wish that I could say something more positive about it, but, indeed, I cannot.'' Mr. Speaker, and I would say, ``Madam Speaker,'' if I could find the gentlelady on the floor, ``Madam Speaker, this is deja vu all over again.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, this simple motion is to recommend or recommit. It is a sense of the Congress resolution that recognizes the service of General David Petraeus as well as all other members of our Armed Forces. It expresses our appreciation for his personal sacrifices and those of his family as well as the sacrifices of those who served in the Armed Forces and their families. Further, this sense of the Congress resolution condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the unfair personal attacks made by the advocacy group, MoveOn.org, on the character, integrity and professionalism of General David Patraeus. Such unwarranted attacks should be strongly condemned by Republicans and Democrats alike in the House. I strongly urge a ``yea'' vote on the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to know if Mr. Obey wanted to continue speaking or I can yield back my time. I'm ready to yield back the balance of my time. I just wondered if you were ready to yield more time.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate very much my colleague yielding me this time. Very much I appreciate their making this effort to recognize and remember those people who lost their lives on 9/11 6 years ago. I couldn't help, as I listened to the discussion today, to remember ironically that the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations was meeting, with full membership from both sides of the aisle, just downstairs from the Chamber. At the time the plane crashed in Pennsylvania in that open lot, with us was John Murtha of Pennsylvania. It was in his district where that plane crashed. The irony, as many know but I cannot help to mention it, that John Murtha is the chairman of the subcommittee at this very moment. At the time, we together recognized that the most important work of the Appropriations Committee perhaps takes place in that committee room, the Defense Subcommittee room. And in this circumstance, when that plane crashed, which indeed likely was headed for the Capitol, that's the best speculation, if the Pennsylvania crash had hit the Capitol, we might very well have lost that entire committee. There are ironies in all of this. As we remember those who lost their lives, let us remember the threat of terror to our very way of life is taking place around the world.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to extend my support for the fiscal year 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill. The bill, as recommended by Chairman Murtha and Mr. Young, is a clean bill. It is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill. This bill provides almost $460 billion for our Nation's defense, an increase of $39.7 billion over the fiscal year 2007 appropriations. It funds the country's priorities during a period where we find ourselves developing a force structure for the future and carrying out a Global War on Terrorism. The bill provides balance with support for development and deployment of near-term capabilities, while investing in the future through robust science and technology efforts. In particular, the bill: Continues the establishment of a strong missile defense against the threats of our adversaries; Furthers the revitalization of our human intelligence efforts, a critical capability lost in the 90's, while maintaining our technical intelligence assets; Focuses the evolution of tomorrow's blue water navy; Grows the force structure necessary to meet the operational demands and reduce the burdens carried by our military families; Addresses the health care needs of our soldiers; and, Does all of these things while providing the necessary resources to train and equip today's forces that are currently in harm's way. I believe, however, that it may be more important to appreciate what this bill doesn't do rather than what it actually does. This bill doesn't bog us down in the useless exercise of academic debate on issues better discussed elsewhere. It doesn't step into the authorizations world with misguided attempts to solve issues associated with topics like Iraq or detainee policy. And, most importantly, it doesn't delay providing our men and women in uniform our unqualified support and the resources they need to complete their mission successfully. I strongly urge my colleagues to preserve this quality of the bill before us today. Over the years that I have been privileged to serve on the Appropriations committee, we have made every effort to leave partisan politics at the door. We have teamed up in a bipartisan fashion to do what is best for the country. This bill follows that longstanding, time-honored tradition. For us to get our work done--for us to be successful--it must remain that way. National security demands that this bill focus on the needs of our troops. In its current form, this bill does that. National security also demands that Congress move swiftly. The House is doing its part and I would urge our colleagues in the Senate to join us in moving this bill--and others--quickly. Mr. Chairman, I urge the swift adoption of this Defense Appropriations bill.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I would be happy to yield to my chairman.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Mr. Young is exactly correct. I don't stand to take credit for all kinds of extra earmarks. But as long as we are talking about it, the gentleman has heard the Predator mentioned a number of times. I think the gentleman knows that the bureaucrats don't necessarily have all the answers, whether those bureaucrats happen to be in the Education Department or they happen to be in the military. Back when we were looking at the Predator, the idea of an unmanned aerial vehicle, it was pretty clear that the Air Force was much more interested in programs where planes were flown by men than in new ideas. The Predator came along, an unmanned aerial vehicle concept, and I had to take credit, my goodness, credit that year when this became implemented for some $40 million of an earmark to advance the RDT&E, the research and development. If that $40 million had not been appropriated, Predator would not have been available in Bosnia. Now, since then Predator has gone forward and done many a thing, and I suppose I should be taking credit for hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of earmarks. But in the meantime, the military does not have all the answers to all the ideas, and, indeed, neither does the Department of Education.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Upon examination of this program, the last time we discussed this a year ago and took the Members' time in a very late evening, approximately 50 of your colleagues joined in your concern about this program. It is a fabulous program, using the money very well, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is most interesting that we would have this discussion this evening. It is not my intention to spend a lot of time on this, but, nonetheless, last year we had a discussion about another project entirely near the Marine base, and I asked the gentleman if he had ever been to the Marine barracks in Washington, D.C., and he had not. In this case to even suggest that there isn't an interest in education within the families that make up our services across the country and the world causes me almost to smile if it wasn't so painful to think that he didn't understand how important this could be to military families. This program involves a model center, developing methods for attracting and training, developing teachers and otherwise, to encourage young people to be involved in math and science. It has now affected literally tens of thousands of students all across the country. It has had a tremendous impact upon military families who are interested in these programs. It has attracted NASA, playing a major role in the fundamental center of the success of this educational effort. Retired employees from companies like JPL volunteer time to help in this effort because it is having an effect upon science education all across America, including literally, literally, hundreds, if not thousands, of student in Arizona alone. Last year we had this discussion. I don't want to take a lot of time, only to say that after the discussion, 50 of my colleagues decided to vote against this program and well over 300 of my friends, our colleagues, thought it was a worthwhile effort. It is indeed one of the models for attracting kids of military families dramatically to math and science across the country, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's recommendation.

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, before going to the business at hand, let me say to my colleagues that that moment of silence earlier was something that each of us should take home with us in our hearts this evening. That which has happened in Minnesota is an obvious tragedy to the people affected, those who lost their lives, those who were injured, and, indeed, those we don't know about. In turn, it is a reflection of the reality that across the country we have infrastructure exactly like that in Minnesota that we should all try to raise in terms of the priority of our attention. Indeed, that kind of crisis will come again, and we need to pay attention to it soon. Mr. Speaker, with that, this motion to recommit would send the bill back to the committee and report the bill back promptly with an amendment that prohibits any funds in this act from being used to employ a person who is not authorized to be employed in this country and prohibits funds from being used for rental housing assistance to a person who is not authorized to receive such assistance. There is nothing, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing dilatory about this motion. This is not a political piece of chicanery. It only requires that funds in this act be implemented in accordance with the current law and to ensure that sufficient diligence be employed by the USDA and its partners to ensure that these current requirements are followed. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to be allocating funds and subsidizing individuals who are not in our country legally. Similar amendments have been adopted in several appropriations bills passed by the House this year. Had there been regular order on this bill, I am sure they would have been adopted on this bill as well, that is, those individuals who would suggest that we should not have people who are not legally in this country being subsidized. Now, you are going to hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle that this will kill the bill. That is absolutely not the case. As has been demonstrated by their actions today, they can go to committee, pass these amendments, and then waive procedural issues to bring this bill back to the floor tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``aye'' on this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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