Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk's reading essentially explained what my motion to recommit is all about. Essentially for the House's better understanding, we provide simply discretionary flexibility to school districts to use funding in these titles to make certain that they know well the backgrounds of those people who will be working with and around children. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Nevada (Mr. Porter) because he spent a good deal of time in this arena, and his district is adjacent to mine in the beautiful downtown Nevada. We understand some of the same difficulties we are facing.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chair, I rise for two reasons. First, this has been a long and very difficult bill on the floor. I think the House should recognize the fabulous work of both Mr. Obey of Wisconsin and my colleague from New York (Mr. Walsh). They endured all this. Congratulations for a good job. Further, I believe we ought to extend our appreciation to the Chairwoman who has done a wonderful job and a fair job in the process, Mrs. Tauscher of California.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to both Chairman Obey and my ranking member, the gentleman from New York, for the cooperative spirit in which they worked to produce this bill, a very difficult bill in the final analysis. With that, I would like to say to Mr. Obey I very much appreciate his ongoing cooperation as we try to work on all the bills in the appropriations process this year to make some sense out of a very difficult year. I would also like to express my deep appreciation for the fabulous work done by the staff of this committee. And having gone that far, Madam Chairman, let me say that the fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies bill, Labor-HHS, 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. In fact, House Republicans have shown the American people over the past 12 years that we recognize the importance of these programs. With history as our witness, we have demonstrated our commitment not in words but in action. It should not be forgotten that it was House Republicans who demonstrated a commitment to fundamental research by doubling the budget of National Institutes for Health. It was House Republicans who bolstered the discretionary budget for the Department of Education by 72 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars. Even with our unquestionable dedication to the programs in this bill over the last 12 years, Republicans stand accused by the Democratic majority of shortchanging fundamental research, shortchanging education, and according to the rhetoric of the day, shortchanging our very future. This rhetoric diminishes all that we do as elected officials, and it does not serve the Congress or our country well. The primary difference is that Republicans believe that we must balance the benefits of these worthwhile programs with the fact that the American taxpayer must pay for them. I know that Chairman Obey feels very strongly about the Labor-H bill. He is now working two full-time jobs as chairman of the full committee and chairman of this subcommittee. He has also devoted one-half of the $20 billion or so increase over the President's budget request in the fiscal year 2008 302(b) allocation to the priorities contained in this bill. The fiscal year 2008 Labor-H bill is $10.2 billion over the President's budget request and $6.6 billion over the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. Chairman Obey has said repeatedly that it is necessary to increase the subcommittee allocation dramatically to make up for the past funding shortfalls. But I remind the chairman that these programs have grown by $85 billion over the last 13 years. When Labor-HHS Chairman Neil Smith, a Democrat, presented his bill in 1994, total discretionary budget authority totaled $65 billion. If he had predicted in 1994 that this 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. By any objective standard, whether you are Jerry Lewis or David Obey, $85 billion is a healthy increase, and today the committee is poised to spend an additional $10.2 billion under the mistaken notion that throwing money at our Nation's problems will cause them to fade away. While many of these programs are popular on both sides of the aisle, a $10.2 billion increase is not without consequence, particularly when this bill contains what can rightly be considered lower priority and duplicative programs. For example, the committee-reported bill provides $420 million in 2-year advance appropriations for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Most objective observers will agree that providing these resources may be nice to do, but it hardly measures up to providing health care services to the poorest of Americans in terms of its priority. Furthermore, there are a host of programs in the bill that duplicate activities that are funded elsewhere, not just in this bill but in other appropriations bills as well. For example, this legislation continues three programs that deal with violence prevention; one in the Labor Department, another in the Department of Health and Human Services, the third in the Department of Education. There are additional programs within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice that serve exactly the same purpose. Little real oversight was conducted to ferret out unnecessary and wasteful spending on these duplicative programs. Yet another example is the funding the bill provides within the Administration for Children and Families for community economic development. According to this very committee report, these funds are intended to support employment, training, and business development opportunities for low-income residents in poor communities. Services that are already provided by the Department of Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Economic Development Administration. Surely the majority party could have met the very highest priority needs in this bill such as community health care centers or programs providing funding to educate youngsters living in poverty by eliminating duplicative programs or curtailing spending on lower priorities. Instead of making the tough choices between high- and low- priority programs or eliminating the duplication, this bill takes the easy way out: just spend more money. The budget resolution adopted by the Democrat majority earlier this year and the appropriations bills that we are now considering spend some $23 billion more than the President requested. As we move forward with consideration of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills, Members of Congress ought to be aware that the average additional burden on the individual taxpayer to finance the spending spree outlined in the majority's budget will amount to roughly $3,000 to the individual taxpayer, $3,000. I know it is difficult for many Members to oppose substantial increases in these popular programs; however, I remind Chairman Obey and our colleagues that these increases are not without consequence. Make no mistake about it. Excessive spending will force the American taxpayer to shoulder the burden of this extra spending. And if past is prologue, we will continue to pass this debt along to future generations. As we complete consideration of our work this week, the House will have approved an additional $20.4 billion in spending above the President's budget request for the next year. This level is $36.4 billion above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. So where is the Appropriations Committee in terms of getting its work done this year? It is July 17 and the House has five bills left to complete. The Senate has yet to take any of its bills to the floor and likely will not this month. Based on the present pace in both bodies, I have grave concern about our ability to complete our work this year through the regular order process. Chairman Obey is fond of pointing out that the process in the House this year has been delayed by having to complete action on the fiscal year 2007 bills. It is no surprise that he often fails to mention the role that the Senate played in this equation. The Senate failed to complete its work last year, and today history is repeating itself. It is ironically unfortunate that the same type of legislative train wreck is likely to occur again this year. The scenario is becoming more and more apparent with each passing day. While it is only July, if past experience is any guide, a warning is in order. Once again the Senate is showing absolutely no inclination or ability towards moving appropriations bills, setting up the inevitable end-of-the-year omnibus strategy. My colleagues, it has not yet been stated in so many words, but this is, or soon will become, the strategy to complete our work this year. And mark my words, not only will most of our appropriations bills end up in an omnibus, it will be a well-adorned Christmas tree filled with plenty of legislative goodies, perfectly timed to coincide with the holidays. I want to be very clear about this, an omnibus is absolutely the wrong and fiscally reckless approach to completing this year's work. It would inflate the budget deficit, reward bad behavior, and negate any semblance of fiscal discipline demonstrated by this body in recent years. Short of passing our conference reports individually, the best alternative would be to once again pass a clean year-long continuing resolution at the current rate of fiscal year 2007 levels, and without Member projects. That is, of course, an undesirable option. But if at the end of the process the House and the Senate cannot complete their work in a responsible fashion, passing a clean CR will be the best option remaining to complete this year's work. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, the purpose of this motion to recommit is simple. It recommits the bill back to committee to make clear that the funding provided to the IRS in this bill is only available to administer, implement, and enforce existing tax laws. The majority party's budget plan includes implementing the biggest tax increase in history, and this motion would prevent that from taking place. While the economy is not functioning perfectly, the indicators show that the economy is strong. GDP in 2006 was 3.4 percent above 2005. Capital investment increased by 6.8 percent in 2006. Unemployment is at 4.6 percent. Tax receipts increased by 11.8 percent in fiscal year 2006, on top of fiscal year 2005's increase of 14.6 percent. So while Congress and the administration have lowered taxes, the economy has grown and the tax revenues have increased. Implementing new tax increases, as the majority party's budget proposes, will have a chilling effect on our economy and the American family as more of their hard-earned money comes to Washington. While the deficit, which is estimated to be $244 billion in fiscal year 2007, is very troubling, tax collections are at an all-time high. Instead of increasing taxes to address the deficit and possibly reversing economic growth and further burdening the American family, I believe we must put more focus on controlling spending, both mandatory spending, and discretionary programs as well. This motion will prohibit the IRS from implementing new taxes, protecting the American family and our economy. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit. Madam 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. LEWIS of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEWIS of California. I simply want to say to the leader, I very much appreciate your taking the time to make those expressions. They've done a fabulous job on this bill, and it's an illustration of what can happen when we work so well together.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. You have not. I would suggest to the gentleman that probably one of the most important things that a Member of Congress should do is to go to the Marine barracks. On 13 Friday evenings annually, approximately 45,000 people enjoy absolutely the best of our Armed Forces displayed by the marches that take place on the Marine barracks on those Friday evenings, a phenomenal, phenomenal experience for those people who care about our Armed Forces, but also know the historic role that Washington, D.C. has played in terms of supporting and building our military. 8th Street is known as Barracks Row because of the Marine barracks. But over a number of years, indeed generations, Barracks Row, 8th Street, had deteriorated very, very significantly. The commercial values had all but been eliminated. And right in the heart of it was this fabulous headquarters of the National Marine Corps known as the Marine barracks. It seemed to some of us some time ago that it was very logical to take advantage of that location and the Naval Yard's distance just to the south of it and indeed perhaps even create a Georgetown on Capitol Hill. Over a number of years, with help on both sides of the aisle, the Congress has re-established Barracks Row as a phenomenal spot on Capitol Hill. Today, its commercial value has skyrocketed. It is having a phenomenal impact on the community. The allocation this year for continuing that process is approximately $500,000. We spend in this bill something like $650 million in our Capital Support funds overall. This is a minor piece of all of that. Indeed, Georgetown on Capitol Hill is a very, very worthwhile project. It has been immensely successful. The return on the Federal investment that has taken place over the years is difficult to measure. But it is truly immeasurable in my mind's eye. The contribution it has made to the capital is a very significant one. This amendment essentially would rifle shot at that very project. It is a project we all should, Members of the House, along with our staffs who work and live here, should be very proud as a result of this Federal expenditure. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me say that the Marine barracks are only a small piece of Barracks Row, as the gentleman has suggested. The plaza at the end of Plaza Row is one of the pieces that needed to go together to make this truly a very successful venture on Capitol Hill on behalf of our responsibility to make certain that Capitol Hill, beyond just our presence here, is a successful and vibrant community. There is absolutely no question that what has happened on 8th Street has been a phenomenal change in the region. It goes beyond the Marine barracks, all the way to the Naval base. I think Members know that not very far away, a new baseball stadium is in the process of being developed. It is going to be a phenomenal region, and this is only one small piece of it. I know the gentleman spends most of his time in commercial ventures in Arizona. I would suggest he might want to go to 8th Street and take a look at the restaurants. I might even buy you a meal there. It would be a wonderful exposure to a fabulous piece of our Nation's capital, and the Congress can be proud of the contribution they have made here. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Have you ever attended the Silent March that takes place on Friday evenings at the Marine barracks?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am the named sponsor of this amendment that Mr. Flake refers to. Before I continue with any comments about the amendment per se, I would like to, if I could, have a brief colloquy with the gentleman from Arizona. Has the gentleman from Arizona spent very much time on Barracks Row, this new commercial center that you refer to?

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Have you been to Barracks Row, had a meal there perhaps?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Have you been to the Marine barracks which are located on Barracks Row?

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I find this conversation to be very interesting, and I noted that there is a tendency not to accept authorizing language in this instance because of a very specific problem, and because the authorizing committee has not acted. I, frankly, think there are a number of circumstances, including the next amendment that is even more significantly an authorizing problem that probably ought to be stricken as well. But if we are going to be consistent here, let's be consistent. And, indeed, I would be more than willing to join my colleague in communicating with the authorizing chairman in connection with this. But perhaps the time to draw a line is now and say we are not going to authorize in this bill and then see how they respond to us. Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Mr. LEWIS of California. I'll be happy to continue to yield, but I'd like to take some time as well.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, no issue in this bill is more important than our striving towards energy independence, and to discuss that by way of our motion to recommit, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), my colleague who is an expert on energy policy.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I am opposed to the bill.