Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I continue to yield.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield, certainly.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I do so to yield to those who would like to continue this conversation. I'm glad to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. LEWIS of California. By way of me, certainly.

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.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, there are few Members of Congress who have more open territory than I do in my district. There is enough space there to put four eastern States easily and have room left over. I have rural schools and problems that very much reflect the concerns that have been expressed here. But at the same time, I must say to the chairman and to the House, I was sitting in my office observing the discussion early when the Doolittle amendment was up. I was about to come to the floor because the chairman of the full committee was beginning a discussion regarding who taxes too much or too little, and who spends too much and too little, and we will have that conversation as we go forward. But that is what caused me to want to come to the floor. In the meantime, Mr. Doolittle had a very specific problem that was going to be taken care of, and it was objected to because it was legislating on an appropriations bill. Because of that, I am going to be pretty tough on this. The reason I reserved in this case, even though it affects my own district, it is my intention to ask that the amendment be stricken.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I could. I understand the point that the chairman is making, and I am very appreciative of it. The bill, as you know, was slushed with an awful lot of money above and beyond what we anticipated. Before we got the last $3 billion we had a fine bill. It strikes me that as we were slushing, we might have put some money in this category if we were so concerned about it. But in the meantime, there is little doubt that because of the need for consistency here, if we are going to be striking language in the fashion that I saw as I was sitting in my office, selectively, then it seems to me we ought to try to at least raise the flag of consistency, and it is my intention to do that here. Point of Order

Mr. LEWIS of California. At your will, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment in this case imparts direction, so I insist upon my point of order.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate both the chairman and the ranking member for a fabulous product that is reflected in this bill. The Interior appropriations bill is, by tradition, one of the most bipartisan bills among all of the bills that our committee considers each year. The House is, indeed, fortunate that the work of this subcommittee this year falls to Chairman Norm Dicks and Ranking Member Todd Tiahrt. They are not only good friends, they are capable legislators who recognize the value of bipartisanship. Clearly they do not agree on each and every single piece of this bill relative to policy or funding; but nonetheless, when they disagree, they recognize the value of communication and sharing information. What makes this relationship even more valuable is it also extends to the professional staff on both sides of the aisle. The working relationship of Chairman Dicks and Mr. Tiahrt, coupled with a reasonable allocation, could produce a very fine product. In this instance, however, an excessive subcommittee allocation has thrown this bill out of balance. More money does not always guarantee a better bill. In this instance, in fact, just the opposite is true. This subcommittee allocation for this bill is $27.6 billion, a $1.9 billion increase over the President's budget request, and $1.2 billion increase over the enacted fiscal year 2007 Interior bill. This subcommittee allocation represents exactly the kind of unfettered spending that so closely identifies the differences of philosophies between House Republicans and House Democrats. And who is going to pay for this increased spending? In fiscal year 2004, 50 percent of the total Federal tax burden was shouldered by the 65 million households earning between $24,000 and $65,000 a year. The vast majority of these taxes are being paid by individuals between the ages of 45 and 54, and with incomes between $55,000 and $77,000 a year. These are middle income families, many of them from the sandwich generation shouldering the financial burden of supporting both young children and aging parents. Middle income families end up paying the bill for expanded government. The 302(b) allocation for this bill guarantees years of payments middle income families do not want it and cannot afford. Mr. Chairman, the Interior bill has great potential of being a truly bipartisan bill. My hope is that Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Tiahrt will work with their Senate counterparts in conference to fashion a conference report that the House can support and the President will sign.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Thank you very much. Madam Chairman, to Zach Wamp, I want to express my feelings about your work on this bill in a couple of ways. First, those of us on the committee who have watched this process go together, Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Zach Wamp working together, frankly, seeing people develop a relationship in a job that involves the real business of the House. It is the bill that funds our appropriations process. While it's not the largest bill, it's very important to the fundamentals here. But I have never been quite so impressed as I watched them working with our very fine professional staff, to see them also bring along Members of the Appropriations Committee addressing this bill in a very special way. I wish the entire House could have observed the Appropriations Committee as we discussed Emancipation Hall the other day. Jesse Jackson was magnificent. The interplay between he and the chairwoman and Zach Wamp was worthy of the Appropriations Committee, but very much a reflection of the very best of this House. I couldn't have been prouder than I was observing that conversation within appropriators. With that I want to congratulate you very much for this product. It's a tremendous reflection of our work.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I'd like to yield to my colleague, Mr. Blunt.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I would like to recognize, if I can, Roy Blunt for whatever time he may consume. And I will ask to strike the last word to do so.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Wolf and Madam Chairman, I can't tell you how much I respect the work that the two of you have done together, and to join on the floor with my friend Jessie Jackson in expressing support for this bill, indeed, is a privilege. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today to support H.R. 2764, the State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2008. I want to express my appreciation for the work of Mrs. Lowey as well as Mr. Wolf. They are a demonstration project of what we can do when we set partisanship aside and work together on behalf of really our responsibility to lead in this world. This bill is the primary legislative vehicle through which Congress reviews the U.S. international affairs budget and influences our foreign policy. It provides a total of $34.243 billion including $10.76 billion for State Department operations, international broadcasting, and related agencies, and $23.62 billion for foreign assistance programs. The total is $2.95 billion over last year's level and $700 million less than the President's request. This bill addresses critical issues such as the AIDS pandemic, Child Survival and Health programs, anti-narcotics programs, and our efforts in the global war on terror. Mr. Chairman, it is important that we realize what a critical role this bill plays in the well-being of the world and the security of our Nation. The United States is the last remaining superpower and the sole voice of freedom and democracy around the world. What we do in this bill saves the lives of countless numbers of people in nations that are less fortunate than ours. These funds stabilize fragile democracies around the globe and help our allies in the global war on terror. Now, I know most Members feel they weren't elected to support international assistance programs. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I am sure there are many Members who feel that the United States should dramatically reduce the amount of money we spend around the world and focus our resources on domestic priorities. This sort of isolationist point of view has no place in today's shrinking world. One needs only to look to Europe as an example of a once powerful and influential nation withdrew its resources from around the world and focused inward. What has since been termed as the ``French model'' resulted in massive inflation, high unemployment rates within the country, and severe internal crises. The United States should not follow the ``French model,'' a misguided path that essentially has caused the French to disappear as a powerful force in the world. I remember as a young man attending UCLA I was fortunate to participate in a program that preceded the Peace Corps called Project India. As I joined other young students in traveling to villages around a country where poverty and ever-present caste systems were always visible, I was struck by the importance that personal freedom and opportunity have on the human condition, especially if you had the good fortune of being born in the United States of America. Today, India has outlawed the caste system and is the largest democracy in the world, as well as our strong ally in the global war on terror. I am particularly pleased that in any congressional district there are large numbers of my constituents who are actively involved, advocating for increases in our international assistance program. In recent meetings with the Results Group, with CARE, Bread for the World and others, I have noticed that more and more people are beginning to understand that they, too, have a role in our role for leadership in the world. Theirs are the voices from the grass roots, a perspective that we need as Americans to recognize that we must continue to lead in the world, for indeed, without our leadership, the poor of the world will suffer most. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this fabulous demonstration of work on both sides of the aisle together.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I am.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, this motion involves bold direction to provide the funds necessary to fund all aspects of the security barrier needed to protect our borders. When I say ``all aspects,'' I mean fencing, tactical infrastructure and technology, any and all tools needed by the Department of Homeland Security to secure our porous borders. Under this motion, the funds in the bill would have to be allocated as necessary to meet the goals of the Secure Fence Act, which was passed by this body in the last Congress by a vote of 283- 138. Before we can consider so-called immigration reform, we must get our priorities straight and secure our borders. DHS's Secure Border Initiative, or SBI, is working. In FY 2006, we ended the flawed practice of catch and release. In FY 2007, we reduced the apprehension of illegal immigrants along the border by almost 50 percent. Let's take the next step in FY 2008 with the funding provided in this bill and ensure that border security is more than just a term politicians throw around, that it becomes a reality. 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. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of the UCLA Athletic Program which recently won its 100th championship, making it the first Division I school to do so. The UCLA men's tennis team won the first NCAA championship for the Bruins in 1950 and the last 57 years have been witness to an unprecedented record of success. These championships have not been confined to just a few sports. Some of the multiple championships include 19 men's volleyball, 16 men's tennis, 11 men's basketball, 10 women's softball, 8 championships for both men's track and field and men's water polo, and 5 championships for women's gymnastics, women's track and field, and women's water polo. The list of Bruin athletes who contributed to the school's history of victory is a roll call of the greatest athletes of our time: Lewis Alcindor, Arthur Ashe, Evelyn Ashford, Jimmy Connors, Gale Devers, Mitch Gaylord, Florence Griffith- Joyner, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, Karch Kiraly, Jackie Robinson, Bill Walton, and others. This record is not just the result of exceptional athletes. These championships also reflect the philosophies of great Bruin coaches like basketball icon John Wooden and volleyball legend Al Scates. Their commitment to hard work, discipline, and sportsmanship has created a legacy of victory unparalleled in college sports. Additionally, the contributions of all the students, alumni, and staff have been instrumental over the years in helping UCLA achieve 100 championships. The 100th championship came from the Women's Water Polo team which won its third consecutive NCAA Division I championship on May 13, 2007. The Bruins, coached by Adam Krikorian, finished 28-2 and have been 90-6 over the past three seasons. Courtney Mathewson scored three goals and Jillian Kraus added two more as the Bruins beat rival Stanford. Kelly Rulon was selected as the tournament's Most Valuable Player. Rulon, Mathewson, and Kraus were joined by Emily Feher and Kacy Kunkel as members to the NCAA All-Tournament First Team. On behalf of the UCLA graduates in the House, I congratulate the Women's Water Polo team for its most recent championship and I commend the Bruins for being the most accomplished athletic program in NCAA history.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that the Republican whip respond to what would only be described as a so far do-nothing Congress in connection with helping the troops; so I yield him 30 seconds.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It was on February 5 that the President sent his emergency supplemental request to the Hill for our consideration. Today, Congress is poised to finally send the President a package that he can sign. The days, weeks, and months that have passed since the supplemental request first arrived on the Hill have been long on politics and short on substance. The Speaker and the majority leadership have spent valuable time at our troops' expense taking symbolic votes for the purpose of placating the Out of Iraq Caucus. No political party has a corner on virtue, but the Democrat majority's reluctance to act swiftly on funding our troops clearly calls into question its commitment to our men and women in uniform. As a longtime Member of the Appropriations Committee, I cannot recall a time that legislation has come to the floor under the committee chairman's name that the committee chairman apparently plans to oppose, and yet that is exactly what is occurring today. My colleague, Chairman Obey, has indicated that he, like most of his caucus, is going to oppose the piece of this emergency supplemental that supports our troops, and he is going to support the piece of this emergency supplemental that funds political pork. Perhaps my friend from Wisconsin would be more comfortable in replacing his name with mine as the chief sponsor of the troop-funding bill. The funding package before us today contains $17 billion in unrequested Federal spending. While a small piece of this funding addresses legitimate needs, its designation as emergency spending serves only one purpose: to make headroom for even more Federal spending in the fiscal year 2008 appropriations process. I urge my colleagues to consider this: In the last week, four appropriations subcommittees have marked up bills for the coming fiscal year. Already, these four bills are $9.1 billion above the President's budget request and provide $21.8 billion above the 2007 enacted level. The committee has yet to mark up another eight bills. By the time the committee completes its work, it will propose over $20 billion in new spending beyond the President's request for next year. Between the emergency supplemental and the fiscal year 2008 bills, the Democrat majority has proposed spending an additional $37 billion. I am deeply dismayed that this legislation was written without any consultation whatsoever with the minority. The Speaker's public pronouncement of a desire to work across the party lines, to say the least, runs hollow once again. What makes this more astounding is that Speaker Pelosi, Majority Hoyer and Mr. Clyburn, the distinguished majority whip, have been longtime members of the Appropriations Committee. They know that our committee process has historically been a bipartisan, or even, in its ideal form, a nonpartisan process. The majority party clearly made a decision early on not only to abandon our troops, but to abandon any semblance of bipartisanship in this process. That does not bode well for our remaining work this year. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the Obey amendment, providing critical funding to our troops, which I gather Mr. Obey is going to vote against, and strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Obey amendment providing $17 billion in spending unrequested and unrelated, I would describe as pork, to hurricane relief or the global war on terror. I gather Mr. Obey is going to vote against supporting our troops in the first instance and for pork in the second. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of the time.