Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer this very simple and straightforward motion to recommit. Included within Mr. Obey's emergency supplemental proposal is legislative language that requires the President to report by July 13 on the specific progress the Iraqi Government has made in meeting 16 specific goals. Once this report is received, only the chairman of the Appropriations Committee can introduce a joint resolution of approval to release any additional funds to our troops in Iraq. The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee is not required to introduce the joint resolution of approval, and no other Member can do it. The authority that this gives the chairman of the committee to introduce or not introduce legislation is unprecedented. Further, in an almost unprecedented move, this supplemental includes the rule under which the joint resolution will be brought to the floor. And under this rule, the only amendment made in order is one that mandates the withdrawal of troops from Iraq within 6 months. Mr. Speaker, this legislative language sets dangerous precedents that should be of great concern to Members on both sides of the aisle. My motion to recommit strikes this legislative language in section 1331, the so-called fence language, limiting the availability of funds for our troops. This ill-conceived language not only grants the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee extraordinary authority, but also preordains the rule by which the joint resolution will be brought to the floor. I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion to recommit.

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 offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me repeat that one more time it appears that the majority is more interested in appeasing their left, that is the left in their caucus, than in supporting the troops. One more time, the House is preparing to approve a supplemental that the President will veto in no small part because it tells our enemy we are ready to wave the white flag. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piecemeal, ill- conceived approach to funding our troops. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, Will Rogers once said, ``If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.'' My colleagues, the majority now finds itself in a hole, and contrary to Will Rogers' advice, it continues to dig. Indeed, this ill conceived emergency supplemental is evidence of a majority party in complete disarray, unable to develop consensus on supporting American troops, and unwilling to work in a bipartisan manner with the minority and the President to develop a way forward. This legislation rations funding to our troops over a 60-day period and dishonors the long-term sacrifice and service of our men and women in uniform. It is legislation that says to the troops, we support you conditionally today, but don't expect Congress to support you 2 months from now. I ask my colleagues, is this the message Congress wants to send to our troops? Is this the message we want to send to al Qaeda? Is this the best a divided majority can do? This legislation has caused me and others to question the majority's commitment to our troops. No political party has a corner on virtue, but the majority's reluctance to fully fund our troops clearly calls into question its commitment to our men and women in uniform. It is no secret that Chairman Obey is a strong supporter of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a program that receives broad bipartisan support. In recent years, Mr. Obey has supported advanced appropriations for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Is it an accident that Chairman Obey, who advocates funding Kermit the Frog and Clifford the Big Red Dog 2 years at a time, now wants to fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan 2 months at a time? What does that say about the majority's commitment to our troops during a time of war? Why is the majority setting our troops up for failure? Mr. Speaker, it is time that we take funding our troops seriously and move beyond the gamesmanship and the partisanship on display today. Supporting our men and women in uniform is not a joke or a game. It is among the most important responsibilities each of us has as elected officials. I was hopeful when the Speaker emerged from the White House last week signaling her willingness to work with Republicans and the President to craft a troop funding bill worthy of bipartisan support. Instead, Speaker Pelosi has chosen confrontation over cooperation and has demonstrated unwillingness to compromise. Chairman Obey and his leadership have dramatically rewritten the Iraqi supplemental bill without any input from the minority, and unfortunately, the result will be the same as the last supplemental. One more time it appears that the majority is more interested in appeasing the left than supporting our troops. One more time the House is being asked to consider a bill that is going nowhere fast. Even the Senate is opposed to this piecemeal approach to funding our troops. One more time, the House is preparing to approve a supplemental that the President will veto. Today I am left scratching my head trying to determine which bill is worse, the one before us now or the one vetoed by the President last week. Frankly, I believe the bill before us today is considerably worse than the measure vetoed last week. I will take a moment or two to explain why I think that. Under this proposal, the President is required to report by July 13 on the specific progress the Iraqi government has made in meeting 16 specific goals. Once this report is received, only the chairman, only the chairman of the Appropriations Committee can introduce a joint resolution to release the funds. He is not required to introduce the joint resolution, and no other Member can do it. Secondly, in an almost unprecedented move, this supplemental includes the rule under which the joint resolution will be brought to the floor. And under this rule, the only amendment made in order is the one that mandates the withdrawal of troops from Iraq within 6 months. Further, this legislation includes a new reporting requirement that the President provide a detailed monthly accounting of the combat readiness status of Iraqi forces. The supplemental dictates that this report be made publicly available at the Department of Defense's Web site with a link to the detailed data. As a result, we will provide, not only to the public but also our enemies, the detailed readiness report and potential vulnerability of Iraqi security forces. We do not release this kind of information to our own troops. In fact, we keep it classified. Why would we ever mandate that the United States provide al Qaeda a blueprint for targeting Iraqi vulnerabilities? Lastly, this supplemental includes a number of questionable legislative provisions otherwise known as earmarks, including a land transfer in Pennsylvania and a flood control earmark in New York. Before closing, I want to express my profound disappointment over these emergency supplemental appropriations bills coming to the floor again under a closed rule. This is yet another violation of the longstanding tradition of the committee and the House. Mr. Obey's first two bills as chairman, the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution and the first Iraqi supplemental, were both considered under a closed rule. These will be the third and fourth appropriations bills under Mr. Obey's chairmanship brought to the floor with a closed rule. It is pretty obvious we do not have very much input from the general membership regarding these bills when they are on the floor. I have spoken with Chairman Obey about this concern, and expressed my belief that these bills, and all other committee bills, should be considered in regular order under an open rule. I say these supplemental bills, because my friend, Chairman Obey, and his leadership have decided to split the ag, disaster, wild fire, rural schools and salmon relief funding into another bill that will be considered either later this evening or maybe even tomorrow. Following consideration of both bills, the majority is apparently planning to wave a magic wand in a feat that would make even Houdini proud to merge them into one single package as it heads over to the other body. Albert Einstein was correct when he said, and I quote, ``You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.'' The bottom line is this, the majority cannot have it both ways. The majority cannot say it supports the troops as it pulls the plug on funding. You either support the troops or you do not. My colleagues, let us not signal that America is preparing to walk away. Let us not send the wrong message to America, to our troops, let alone to al Qaeda. We must provide our full and unconditional support to our troops during this time of war. We must support our commanders in the field. We must support the President, our commander in chief. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piecemeal, ill- conceived approach to funding our troops. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are continuing our debate on the emergency supplemental with a discussion of a separate measure that includes billions of dollars of spending completely unrelated to the global war on terror or legitimate emergencies in the gulf coast region. This is an extraordinary amount of unauthorized spending, spending that is not offset in any way, contained under the emergency designation. As the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, and the committee's former chairman, I believe the House must firmly hold the line and reject this unnecessary spending. Members on both sides of the aisle can, and will, argue that some of this spending is justified. Members can correctly point out the need for additional funds to address wildfire suppression or agricultural assistance in various regions of the United States. However, I would urge that many of the needs addressed in this bill could, and they should, be addressed in regular order through the fiscal year 2008 funding bills. Sadly, many items are being designated as emergencies for no other reason than to make more room for additional spending under the fiscal year 2008 caps, which, incidentally, we still do not have. When the new majority assumed power earlier this year, it committed to restoring pay-as-you-go, the practice of offsetting spending increases with spending decreases. As I mentioned earlier, none of the proposed spending included in this package has been offset in any way. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, our colleagues should be aware that the President has indicated that he will veto this legislation due to the excessive nonemergency spending it contains. I urge our colleagues to show spending restraint by opposing this package. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, because he is constantly talking to me about the challenges of rural schools, it is my pleasure to recognize Greg Walden of Oregon for 3 minutes.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg), a member of our committee.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from the committee, Mike Simpson.

Mr LEWIS of California

Mr LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if today's actions by the House are any indication, it appears that the Out of Iraq Caucus within the Democratic majority is now running the legislative agenda of the Congress. How else can one explain that the rule governing consideration of debate of funding of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan provides only two legislative options with regard to U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? The first, which we are now debating, is an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The second, which we will debate shortly, rations funding to our troops over a 60-day period. Both options are short- sighted, and they are also dangerous. My colleagues, where did this bill come from? I gather it was hastily written and introduced last night in an attempt to obtain votes for the Obey Iraq supplemental we will be considering a little later. Indeed, the consideration of this withdrawal legislation is nothing more than an attempt by the Speaker and the majority leader to appease members of the Out of Iraq Caucus so they will support the second version offered by Chairman Obey. Once again, the majority has brought legislation to the House floor under a closed rule without an opportunity for amendment or meaningful debate. Not only is this an abuse of the legislative process, it is an overt violation of the longstanding traditions of the House. The majority is making a mockery of the time-honored customs of this body. That, in and of itself, is shameful. It is the People's House and the people of our country who suffer when open debate is stifled in order to preordain a legislative outcome. Fortunately, this legislation, which embraces surrender and defeat, will not pass today. Most Members of the House, both Republican and Democrats, have grave reservations about the manner in which this legislation undermines our troops and the authority of the President and the commander in chief. Members on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about the effects of an ill-conceived military withdrawal. And Members are rightfully concerned about any legislation that places military decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the military commanders in the field. The last thing our country or our troops need is to have 535 Members of the House and Senators micromanaging the war in Iraq. Recent history reminds us that the enemy we face in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries that harbor terrorists, will stop at nothing to attack the United States and our allies. They view the consideration of this measure and the Obey bill we will consider shortly, as a sign of weakness. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are watching us closely, hoping this lack of resolve will prevail. We must not let that happen. My colleagues, now is not the time for the United States to back down from its commitment to the war on terror. Now is not the time for America to signal retreat and surrender. Indeed, now is not the time for the House of Representatives to throw in the towel, wave the white flag or signal retreat and surrender in Iraq. How could this Congress walk away from our men and women in uniform? How could we walk away from them now? We must, we must support our troops. Our failure to learn the lessons of history, our failure to lead will result in devastating consequences, including an even greater loss of lives in the future. It is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining superpower on earth, continue to be a voice for peace and a beacon for freedom in our shrinking world. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the McGovern/Out of Iraq Caucus bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I ask unanimous consent to control the balance of the time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, as we approach the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth, I am pleased today to stand in recognition of the 75th anniversary of the Lincoln Memorial Shrine located in Redlands, California. While leading a divided nation, President Lincoln remained committed to the principles of liberty, integrity, and personal responsibility. It is these ideals that represent the core of what Robert and Alma Watchorn envisioned when they created the Lincoln Shrine in 1932. It is a great honor that the Watchorns chose to dedicate and present the Shrine to Redlands, my hometown and a prominent city in my district. Through the contributions of my constituents, the Shrine has become a nationally-known education center for our 16th and perhaps greatest president. As the only Lincoln-dedicated museum and library west of Springfield, Illinois, the Shrine attracts thousands of professional and amateur historians with a wide variety of exhibits, events, and projects featuring Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War period. The Watchorns would be pleased to know that the prominence of the shrine has not detracted from the educational opportunities provided to visitors. As a primary resource for educators in the area, the museum's collection of more than 4,000 manuscripts and 300 original newspapers is offered free of charge and serves as a valuable resource for those seeking a direct glimpse of Lincoln's time. Students are encouraged to attend docent-led school tours and can easily access a wealth of information to use for school projects or personal enjoyment. Highlighting our community's pride in hosting this important site, a fundraising drive in the 1990s resulted in donations of more than $1 million, which helped provide a 2,000-foot expansion of the Shrine. Two new wings were carefully designed to complement the original octagon shape, paving the way for further Lincoln artifacts. This expansion could not have occurred without the dedication of those residing in my district. A moving tribute to the Shrine's 75th anniversary is planned for November of 2007, when the Lincoln Shrine releases a book describing and detailing the various artifacts in their collection. An extensive set of photos and letters will be included in the book, with explanatory comments to guide the reader. This book will serve to foster interest in those who have not yet visited the Shrine, and will further elaborate upon the knowledge of individuals already familiar with the Lincoln Shrine's all-embracing collection. Madam Speaker, I am honored to represent a community of citizens dedicated to progressing the growth of a research center and museum such as the Shrine. I ask my colleagues to join with me in recognizing the immense value of the Lincoln Memorial Shrine and in wishing them many more years of success.