Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

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 am proud to call upon the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for 2 minutes.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize for 2\1/2\ minutes the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter of California.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

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 my colleague, Bob Inglis from South Carolina, 2 minutes.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady). (Mr. BRADY of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

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 am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), a member of our committee and the ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, first I appreciate your recognizing me. Mr. Speaker, the process we have just gone through where we had a vote whereby a significant majority voted to overrule the ruling of the Chair would suggest to me it is very important at the highest level our leadership come together from both sides of the aisle and discuss how this kind of thing can happen in the House. It is not good for the body. It does not allow us to go forward with our work effectively. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much my colleague for yielding me this time. I am very, very appreciative of this resolution being on the floor today. A phrase oft used in the West would suggest that you should ``bring us men to match our mountains.'' And in California such men have made truly a magnificent difference in the way the far West was developed. Leo McCarthy certainly was at the top rank of those leaders. I first met Leo McCarthy when he and I were elected to the State legislature together. We were classmates and colleagues and friends. A supervisor and assemblyman, became Speaker of the House, Lieutenant Governor of our State, a magnificent leader who absolutely wallowed in the business of public policy. He cared about making a difference on a number of issues across the spectrum of those issues that impact people's lives. He was a guy who was devoted to his family, as has been suggested, but also devoted to public service. As we pay tribute to Leo McCarthy today, let us seek other men and women who would so serve, for, indeed, he is an example of the very best among us and reflects the best of our public affairs. Let me say that probably most important to me over the years was the fact that Leo, while he played a very significant partisan role, absolutely knew in his soul that real solutions did not come by way of partisan confrontation. A magnificent leader who I am proud to say was my very good friend.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to recognize the 35th anniversary of Crafton Hills College, a true leader among community colleges and an exemplary model of dedication to student achievement. Since opening its doors to students in 1972, Crafton Hills College has expanded the education and increased the job skills of over 100,000 people from all backgrounds and ages. Beginning as an idea in the minds of two Los Angeles philanthropists, the development of a community college on 500 acres of land soon became a reality. A special election in 1967 secured funding for construction of the campus, and the first classes were taught only 5 years later. The accessibility of the education and top-notch professional programs attracted students from all areas of southern California. In only 35 years Crafton Hills College experienced unprecedented growth, from an original population of 881 students and 21 full-time faculty members in 1972, to the current number of students totaling over 5,200 with 80 full-time teachers and administrators. Crafton Hills College serves as a model for other schools in handling expansion of a student population while remaining constant in the quality of their programs. Crafton Hills has continued to maintain a low cost of tuition and offer superior classroom instructors, while concurrently forming their programs into some of the most reliable in the California college system. Because they have access to a variety of occupational and degree programs, students are able to become adequately prepared for employment in the workforce, or transfer to a 4-year university in any of 36 different majors. The Fire Science Program and the Emergency Medical Services-Paramedic Program are recognized as two of the most outstanding college emergency services programs in the state, and Crafton Hills is the primary location for paramedic training in the San Bernardino and Riverside counties. The programs are supported by the involvement of local hospitals, fire departments, and emergency facilities, and this inclusion of community agencies has encouraged students to engage in hands-on learning while allowing them the rare opportunity to network with potential employers. By funneling their newly gained skills into health care professions, firefighting, and paramedic services in the southern California area, students demonstrate a dedication to enhancing public health and safety for those around them, and in many cases, forego the risk to their own lives. Crafton Hills College has been a key element in the success of the San Bernardino Regional Emergency Training Center. The center trains fire fighting personnel in proper tactics for fighting aircraft fires and adequate rescue techniques, and Crafton Hills College implements and oversees the center's educational component. The enthusiasm and teaching ability of the administrators and teachers will undoubtedly continue to attract firefighters throughout the Nation eager to receive top-notch instruction and training. The 35th anniversary of such a well-regarded college is certainly a cause for recognition. It is with great privilege that I represent such a respected academic institution, and I ask my colleagues to join with me in recognizing thirty-five years of achievements at Crafton Hills College.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for those very, very poignant remarks laying the foundation for all of us to understand just how serious this challenge is that we are about. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the resolution before us and urge those who are voting for it, or considering it, to carefully reconsider their decision. Section 1 simply expresses all of our support for our troops who are fighting for our freedom and freedom in the world in Iraq. All of us agree with that piece of the statement, and each of us has expressed our support and encouragement to our troops in our own way and our own time. The second section challenges the President's, actually the Commander in Chief's, request for a surge in Iraq. Much has been said about our going to Iraq because of the prospect of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the madman Saddam Hussein. We presumed their presence, as most of the leaders of the world and most of the intelligence communities of the world so presumed. Not finding weapons of mass destruction does not set aside the importance of eliminating the force of Saddam Hussein from the face of the Earth. It was my honor to lead one of the early trips to Iraq following the fall of Saddam. We were about to consider an $87 billion supplemental to help finance our presence in Iraq. I wanted to take a team of Members who would reflect much of the Congress, so that trip included conservatives and moderates and liberals. It also included within us Members who had voted to support going to war and those who had voted against it. We visited most of Iraq, Mosul, Tikrit. We spent time in Baghdad. We visited the killing fields where over 500,000 bodies of Iraqis lie, Iraqis who were murdered by Saddam Hussein. We saw the golden palaces and visited the industrial sites suffering under Saddam Hussein's neglect. We saw the economic conditions, the handbasket conditions left by Saddam Hussein. We stopped out of country on our way home to consider the fact that there was this supplemental appropriations before us when we returned, some $87 billion, discussing what we had experienced. And the experience had a tremendous effect upon all of our colleagues. It is properly summarized by the statement of one of our Members who said: ``You all know where I have been coming from. I voted against the war. But after we have seen what we have seen over this long stay in Iraq, I am afraid what I am about to do is going to be very, very unpopular at home but I don't know how we can do anything else. Sometimes,'' he said, ``you have to be ahead of your people; sometimes we are elected actually to lead.'' That was almost 4 years ago. And fast forward to today. Saddam Hussein is gone, he is dead, and he is buried. But the extremists jihadi Islamic terrorists remain and continue to impact the entire Middle East. That is why we must succeed in Iraq. That is why we cannot afford to withdraw troops now. Watching our floor debate last night, my wife turned to me and said, ``They want us to redeploy or withdraw. They want us to retreat.'' She said, ``George Washington did not retreat when our country was in danger.'' She questioned why we find ourselves in this kind of circumstance today. I was reminiscent of that early time in our history when our Nation was threatened. The French came to our rescue, our assistance, and indeed played a major role in our future Commander in Chief himself being successful. Americans should never forget that. The Statue of Liberty stands on Ellis Island as a reminder of the French view of that young America, its potential, a land of hope where freedom could reign and opportunity indeed might abound. For that and many other reasons we love France, and the French people are our friends. But France is not entirely the same country at this point in its history. She no longer provides such a leading light for the world. No longer is it presumed that the French language should be the language of the international world. Today, about 10 percent of the French population is Muslim. Much of that population is middle class and something less than a middle-class opportunity. Within that group, there abounds the voice of Islamic extreme. There are those who advocate jihad and who would wipe France as we know it off the face of the Earth. We should not consider withdrawing now, because a stable Iraq is vital to our national interests and is an important part of our ability to promote peace and economic opportunity in the entire world. It is a critical battleground in our war against terrorism. If we succeed in Iraq, we will have taken a gigantic step towards stamping out the source of terrorism that exists in that part of the world. If we are not successful in Iraq, we will meet extremist Islamic activism elsewhere. 9/11 was only a part of a beginning. If we do not stop extreme Islamic jihadists in the Middle East, we will see it again, and most likely we will see it again here at home. Review with me for a moment where we have been in Afghanistan and Iraq and where it may take us. Al Qaeda was nurtured and gained strength in Afghanistan. America had played a key role in forcing the former Soviet Union to cease its incursion in Afghanistan. The Islamic extremists who surround the likes of Osama bin Laden took advantage of the vacuum of Afghanistan, and used it as a training ground that would provide the terrorists an opportunity to spread their jihad around the world and spread terrorism with it. America cannot allow the likes of Osama bin Laden to have places like Afghanistan to serve as training grounds. It is in our vital interests to see that Iraq, for example, does not serve as a recruitment and training ground for the forces who oppose freedom and oppose our very way of life. Make no mistake about it, there are forces in the Islamic world who do not believe we should exist. They may be relatively new or small in number, but there are those of Islamic jihadist extreme who are committed to the death of the nonbelievers. There are those on the extreme Imam fringe who teach hatred for the infidels in mosques all around the world. We do not want to believe in such extremism as a country or a people, but the true believers want all of us to be dead, all Englishmen, all Germans, all French people, all Americans who are not committed to their belief. The heathens should be dead. How else would one be able to convince men, women, and children to strap themselves with bombs and kill the innocents by the thousands? If not death to all infidels, how else would a mother praise Allah as her young child explodes as a bomb in a crowded train station? The war on terror goes well beyond Iraq. But make no mistake, that war will not be won by walking away from Iraq. The President has called for a surge of just over 20,000 troops. That request does not flow from a naive presumption that maybe, just maybe the battle for Baghdad can be won by a few brave men. The call for these troops is a change in strategy, a strategy that suggests that, with the leadership of such brave men committed to taking the Iraqis out front, can lead the way to a successful change in Baghdad, indeed, a change throughout Iraq; a strategy that the President would suggest involves clearing areas of Baghdad, clearing other areas throughout Iraq, stabilizing them, and then providing the real opportunity for democratic growth and change in Iraq. A successful stabilization of Baghdad indeed is only the beginning point in Iraq. To me, this kind of change is the real hope for the people, not just of Iraq, but of the entire region. To me, that is the definition of success in Iraq. If we are successful, we will have changed the face of the Middle East. A successful Iraq will send a great message to the likes of Iran, Syria, Yemen, and Indonesia. The chance for a long-term peace and the chance for stability in the entire Middle East is the great strategic interest of the United States saving tens of thousands of lives are worth a great commitment by the world's only remaining superpower. The economic values that are to be gained from stabilizing the region are impossible to estimate, but they can be measured in multiple trillions of dollars. But what happens if we walk away now? Also difficult to estimate, but here are but a few of the possibilities. And listen to the possibilities: First, instability is replaced by a new kind of centralized authoritarian control potentially, perhaps an arbitrary government with Saddam-like controls. Shia would very likely be in charge, and force would be exercised in the name of stability. Beyond that, Kurdistan in the offing; an insecure Kurdish population to the north would do all it could to provide for its own protection. The prospects of independent Kurdish region or state would create major tension between Turkey and Baghdad and that new region in northern Iraq. Beyond that, Sunni Iran would look upon the new direction of Iraq with great concern because of sectarian differences. Fourth, the jihadist extremists of Islam would have increased sway in the entire region. The threat of terrorism all over the world would be a reality to those who would but look. Indeed, the prospects, to say the least, should be frightening to anybody who will but look. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, all of our country, please realize that this is not the time to walk away. This is the time for the only remaining superpower in the world, America, to lead on behalf of freedom, to lead on behalf of people who are looking for opportunity and change for the entire world. Mr. Buyer, I very much appreciate your extending me this time.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). (Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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