Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield the balance of my time to my hero of the United States Congress, Sam Johnson of Texas.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer). (Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield time to my Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois, Dennis Hastert, 3 minutes.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, may we hear what the time left is on both sides, please.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), a member of the Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the committee.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time we have on each side.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Illinois, the ranking member of the subcommittee of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Ray LaHood. (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Hoekstra, the ranking member of the Intel Committee.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), our leader on the Homeland Security Subcommittee.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I rise today to express my opposition to this emergency supplemental. My colleagues know that I have the highest level of respect for my chairman, Mr. Obey. Together we worked as partners in the 109th Congress, passing appropriations bills through the committee and through the House. Indeed, the Appropriations Committee is at its best when each of us works together across party lines and rises above purely partisan politics. During the last Congress I was privileged to serve as chairman of this great committee, and Mr. Obey was our distinguished ranking member. Today, our roles are reversed, and Mr. Obey is now our chairman. There is no question that if my friend from Wisconsin were permitted to write this bill on his own, this would be a much better product. Instead, the House is being asked to consider a spending bill that reflects the priorities of Speaker Pelosi and a deeply divided Democratic Caucus. It attempts to bridge these widening divisions over the war in Iraq by delivering billions of dollars in unrelated and unauthorized spending under an emergency designation. This legislation ought to focus on our troops. It ought to focus on providing those in harm's way with the resources they need to complete their mission successfully. It ought to respect, not micromanage, our combatant commanders in whom we place the ultimate responsibility of prosecuting military actions. Instead, this legislation ties the hands of our Commander in Chief during a time of war, places military decisions in the hands of politicians, and attempts to buy votes for its passage on the left and on the right by literally promising something to everyone. If the majority's goal is to end the war or withdraw our troops, then that should be addressed in a separate piece of legislation. The majority cannot have it both ways, pretending, on the one hand, to support our troops, while on the other undercutting their ability to prosecute their mission. Men and women of good conscience can disagree about the war in Iraq. But on one thing we must all agree, our men and women in uniform must continue to receive our unqualified support and the resources they need to complete their mission successfully. My colleagues, consider carefully the consequences of our actions here today. Passage of this measure in its present form will signal to insurgents and terrorists that the United States doesn't have the political will to continue supporting this fledgling Iraqi democracy. Al Qaeda and other enemies of freedom will simply lay in wait until our troops are withdrawn. And with the collapse of this fragile democracy, our efforts, and the sacrifices of our troops, will have been for nothing. The fight in Iraq is also critical to the future of Israel. A failure in Iraq will further destabilize the region, posing a direct threat to Israel. We must not let that occur to our friend and ally. There should be no carrot big enough to force Members into choosing between their principled support for our troops in the field and funding for the many unrelated and parochial items sprinkled throughout this bill. Republican Members in the House are simply not going to abandon our principles, and troops in the field, for the promise of pork back in our districts. To their credit, many Democrats also continue to express grave reservations about this approach and about this legislation. Last year Congress sent the President a clean supplemental bill for our troops. This Congress, and our country, would be better served by producing a clean bill free of extraneous spending and unrelated legislative provisions. There is no question that the President will veto this bill. In the meantime our troops will face the uncertainty resulting from the majority's mixed signals and lack of a clear commitment. I am also deeply concerned that the Democrat leadership has brought this emergency supplemental to the House floor under a closed rule without opportunity for Members on both sides of the aisle to offer amendments. During my tenure as chairman, the House considered six emergency supplemental appropriations bills. Of these six bills, the two largest bills, H.R. 1268, was $81.2 billion; the other was a $91.8 billion supplemental. Those two bills primarily focused on the global war on terror. In both instances I worked closely with my leadership and the Rules Committee in seeking rules that permitted open debate, including amendments, on the House floor. And in both instances, these supplemental bills were considered under an open rule. The remaining four bills were noncontroversial and bipartisan in nature and were considered by unanimous consent on the Suspension Calendar. I assumed that Chairman Obey would continue in the longstanding tradition and practice of the committee to advocate open rules on all appropriations bills. Members on both sides of the aisle benefit by a process that supports a fair, honest, open, and transparent debate on the House floor. I was disappointed that Mr. Obey's first bill as chairman, the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution, was considered under a closed rule, with only 1 hour of debate and no opportunity for amendments. Consideration of this supplemental under a closed rule is unprecedented and leaves the minority little choice but to walk away from the tradition of comity that has marked our longstanding work on this committee. By denying Members, both Democrats and Republicans, their right to offer amendments to this legislation, I can assure you that all bets are off on getting our committee work done this year. It simply will not happen. There will be no unanimous consent agreements on the fiscal year 2008 bills. I spoke personally with Mr. Obey about this and asked him to carry that message directly to the Speaker. This legislation is simply too important to have it rushed through the House with no debate and no opportunity for the body to consider amendments. Consideration of this legislation under a closed rule signals to the House, and to the public, that the Speaker has imposed martial law on the people's House. Lastly, I would be remiss not to highlight my reservations about the budgetary aspects of this bill that proposes more than $22 billion in emergency spending items that are completely unrelated to the global war on terror or legitimate emergencies in the Gulf Coast region. I ask my colleagues what does a $25 million bailout for spinach producers, $60 million for the salmon fishing industry, or $5 million for fish breeding have to do with the global war on terror? This legislation also includes authorization language to increase the minimum wage. Again, I ask my friends why can't the committees of jurisdiction in the House and the Senate meet in open conference to resolve the differences between these bills? What place has this provision in a wartime supplemental? In short, much of what is included in this bill is completely unrelated to the global war on terror and has no place in the bill. Sadly, many items are being designated as emergencies for no other reason than to make more room for additional spending on the part of the Democrats under the fiscal 2008 caps. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider thoughtfully the precedent set by this legislation. Weigh in your conscience the effects of undermining the authority of the President, and future Presidents, and putting at further risk our men and women in uniform. Our Congress, and our country, would be better served by sending the President a clean supplemental free of extraneous spending and unrelated legislative provisions. While I respect Chairman Obey, I cannot support this legislation as it is presently written. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. LEWIS of California. That is agreeable to us.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to call upon the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for 2 minutes.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the committee.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, may I have a time check.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to yield 2 minutes to the marine from the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Kline of Minnesota.