Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman from the Rules Committee raising these very, very important questions. Our membership should know, and I think the American public will want to know, that one of the reasons to have a meeting in the dead of the night to make changes in this package is because this package, in the name of helping children, is designed to do much more than that. As a matter of fact, the SCHIP program, in its original form, was an excellent program, working very well to help children who are uninsured, on the margin of poverty. The design of this bill is to expand that program into eventually all children and pushing them off of private health care, et cetera. The real plan here is to set the stage for a movement of the next gigantic step in the direction of what should be called ``Hillary Care,'' national socialized medicine. Literally, that's what they're about. The program has been working very well. It does need some additional funding. These States do not need the opportunity to expand these programs not just to illegals but to children who presently, in high percentages, are already in private health care systems. Their design is obviously a design that goes way beyond the stated purpose for this bill. I appreciate my colleague yielding.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak on this matter, but the rhetoric has gotten my attention enough that I thought I should share with the American people as well as my colleagues my early experience in public affairs. I will never forget running for a school board, and people were talking about the Federal Government's beginning to get involved in education. I remember saying to those people, let us be very, very careful about going to Uncle Sam to finance our schools when traditionally that is the highest of State responsibilities, and they cooperate with local districts to provide for our schools and control them. Uncle Sam then gave only 10 cents on the dollar for education, and those who gave the 10 cents wanted to tell us more and more what to do in our local school districts. All these years later, I must say it's like 50 years later, we continue to want to tell people what to do in their local schools, and we're now giving them 90 cents on the dollar. Those who are talking about free gifts for people who are providing for educational activities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, eventually the folks who are sending their children for school, one way they will pay for that education, one way or another. For you could, in those days, I'm not sure what the figure is now, but in those days you could take every family that made $100,000 or more, and anything above that $100,000, tax it 100 percent, and you could run the government for 30 days. The people are not stupid. They know, as you're playing games with them suggesting, oh, Uncle Sam has a free lunch here some way, the folks that you're talking to are having to pay the bills in the final analysis regardless, because all those rich people, you tax them 100 percent, and they will not run your government more than 30 or 60 days. And who pays for the rest of it? Another point that is very important, in my view, the rhetoric that suggests that the Federal Government should do everything centers around the reality that the Federal Government has a responsibility to provide for the national defense, make an effort to provide security and freedom in the world, and then make sure our local government and our State governments are healthy. They are not healthy if you so discourage industry that they leave the country in order to be able to get their work done and produce the products that we need. Those rich oil companies that you're talking about, they're leaving the country. The light bulbs we were talking about earlier, they're all made in China. It's about time we recognize that Uncle Sam does not have every answer. I'm going to vote ``no'' on this bill, in spite of what the gentleman from California said earlier. I have the privilege of being the ranking member on the committee, but I'm going to be voting ``no'' because it is about $2 billion over the President's budget request, and the agencies around know they don't need as much money as you folks want to spend on them. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, the motion I have at the desk is a motion to recommit to recognize the fact that right now this country faces a crisis on its borders. Illegal immigration not only affects those of us who represent States on the border, it is a pervasive problem across the country. The Homeland Security Appropriations bill that passed the House earlier this summer included significant increases for more Border Patrol agents and other border protection efforts. The homeland security bill represents an important piece of our immigration enforcement system, but it does not fund all of it. It is this bill that funds prosecution and incarceration of the most violent criminal aliens, such as drug dealers, human traffickers and gang members. It is this bill that provides critical assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies that are on the front lines of the immigration problem. As we increase our border enforcement efforts in the Department of Homeland Security, we must make sure that the Department of Justice has the funds it needs to fully prosecute and incarcerate all of the criminal aliens arrested by the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In addition, until the Federal Government is able to secure its borders, we must provide our local governments with sufficient resources to reimburse them while they protect our communities. Because my colleague from California, David Dreier, former chairman of our Rules Committee, has been most involved in this issue and is on the point of our attempting to find a solution in California, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Dreier to round out this discussion.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, and I won't use any more time, I appreciate very much Mr. Dreier's assistance in this matter. I urge very strongly that all Members vote ``aye'' on this motion to recommit. Madam Speaker, I yield back my time.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, title II of the bill requires HUD to rescind $1.3 billion in the funds that the Congress provided in 2007 or prior years. Frankly, HUD cannot meet this rescission without doing great harm to the most vulnerable of our population, those low- income individuals who are elderly, low-income, disabled persons and homeless families and individuals. As much as 40 percent of the homeless population in this country, Mr. Speaker, as much as 40 percent, are veterans. Congress has always provided the section 8 program with full funding, knowing that if not all the funds were used, they would be recaptured and rescinded and used by the Congress for other high priority programs. However, this bill states categorically that if funds for the section 8 program are more than actually get used by the Public Housing Authority, they may not be recaptured or rescinded, even though they are clearly in excess. Let me quote the report accompanying this bill: ``The Department is not permitted to recapture these reserves for the rescission.'' Just where is the Department expected to go to get these funds? The answer is very simple and very unfortunate. They would, first and foremost, eliminate funding for the construction of facilities that provide assisted living for low-income elderly persons, for low-income disabled individuals and homeless shelters, as well as other permanent housing for the homeless. Let me repeat, other permanent housing for the homeless, as much as 40 percent of the homeless population are veterans. These funds are not in excess. Quite to the contrary, they are very much in use. But construction programs spend out slowly and so the funds are there waiting to be applied towards various stages of construction. Unlike the section 8 funds, these funds would never be in excess. They are simply in the pipeline, fully obligated or committed to specific projects and ready for use. So when HUD takes these funds, it means that facilities for these vulnerable groups will be eliminated. HUD has no other choices since there are no other programs with this much money still available from 2007 or prior years. Mr. Speaker, however you look at it, this is a very bad outcome and every measure must be taken to prevent cutting programs that serve the most vulnerable, especially programs that serve the homeless veterans. My motion to recommit does just that. It protects those programs from being slashed as sacrificial lambs to a new policy that says excess voucher funds are more important than building facilities to house the elderly and disabled and homeless, especially homeless veterans. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the former chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee and a tireless advocate for housing programs that serve vulnerable populations.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank my friend from California for representing the people of Inyo County so well since I had to leave them in the last redistricting. I intend to support your position.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Is that Ronald Reagan on a mule?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Indeed, this territory was a part of my district for some time, and the people are incredibly wonderful people. They reflect the best of the American West. And there is no doubt that they are the best and they are there in the West in no small part because of the mule. I must say that the gentleman is making a very, very important point. It is a long, long ways away from somebody else's district to become an expert in terms of a subject like this. It causes me just to smile, and so I intend to help the gentleman if I possibly can by voting ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Could it possibly be? Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak on any of these earmarks, but the discussion that has gone on between the chairman and the gentleman from Arizona I was listening to upstairs, and it struck me that there needed to be some addition to this discussion. The suggestion that earmarks exploded as of the time the control of the Congress changed in 1995 and began to expand, et cetera, et cetera, is accurate, accurate, but for reasons entirely different than the gentleman from Arizona either realizes or understands. It is a fact that the other party controlled the Congress for 40 years, and over all those years their chairmen, their subcommittee chairmen, their very high-ranking Members around here with years and years of power had developed very solid relationships with the second and third level in the various agencies around this town. And there weren't earmarks; there were phone marks. Key staff and otherwise were instructed to call those second- and third-tier people within the agencies and let them know what they thought the priorities should be. There wasn't a need for legislative earmarks because phone marks had a very significant impact upon the process. And we tend to ignore that reality. When the majority did change, the new majority found that that second and third level of bureaucracy weren't nearly as responsive to people with Rs after their name, or Republicans, and thus they began giving some specific direction as to what their priorities were, thus the term called ``earmarks.'' Further, I think the gentleman does his party a disservice by suggesting that this was our fault. The reality is that even the earmarks where they are represent in the neighborhood of 1 percent of all the discretionary spending available in the appropriations process, and that while the Constitution says that appropriations should begin in the House of Representatives, to suggest that Members having ideas as to what priorities ought to be and even putting it in legislation is wrong, it seems to me, in connection with that, the gentleman is wrong. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I asked for time simply to have a discussion with Mr. Turner, if I might, regarding his amendment. Mr. Turner, in ancient history I had the privilege of chairing this subcommittee, and during those early years I was very, very concerned with what was happening within the total housing programming, what happens to the money as it flows to communities, et cetera. The focus then was upon section 8 housing. I will never forget my trip to New Orleans to try to see what was happening with money we sent there over a lot of years to the Housing Authority. I met with the Inspector General in the offices of the FBI to discuss what I had seen and some of my concerns. The FBI guy who was there listening to our conversation was heard to say, Congressman, if you really want to get a handle on this, I would suggest that one of the things that you might do is put enough money into the Inspector General's office so you can have a full-time inspector general here in New Orleans, for this fellow flew in from Houston to talk with you today. I heard a while ago that there had been added monies to the Inspector General's office since Katrina. I have no idea what that means in terms of the real volume, et cetera, but I do perceive that there is an ongoing problem across the country. So this discussion, or my reason to talk with you, is I admire very much what you're about. I would hope also, as you go about it, that you work very closely with the chairman and ranking member about finding another source of money. The issue is a very important one, but I'm not certain just how well off the Inspector General is. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, let me say that it is my intention to support the gentleman's amendment. I would urge the chairman to consider doing the same as we search for an offset somewhere else. But in the meantime, the issue is a critical issue. It is spreading across the country like wildfire. We are going to see an awful lot more of this challenge, not less of this. So I appreciate the gentleman's effort. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Is it untoward for me or someone to ask for unanimous consent that this vote be a 2-minute vote rather than a more extended vote?