Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of our Transportation Subcommittee of Appropriations (Mr. Knollenberg).

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, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, I am opposed to the bill in its present form.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to do something that I have never done before, and that is to oppose House passage of an appropriations bill. My friends on the other side of the aisle, and I use the term ``friends'' sincerely, have produced an 8-month omnibus spending bill that appropriates $463.5 billion. It is legislation that few have seen, which cannot be amended in any way, and that will pass this House after only 1 hour of debate. It is the first omnibus spending bill that I have seen during my time in Congress written and considered without the input of the chairman or ranking members of any appropriations subcommittee, without the input of any Republican or Democratic subcommittee members, without the benefit of a full Appropriations Committee markup, without the standard three days for circulating the bill to committee members before markup, without the standard 3 days for circulating the bill to all House Members after full committee consideration, without any prior debate whatsoever, and without the opportunity to offer even one amendment on the House floor. I do not fault my friend, Mr. Obey, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for he is doing what he is asked to be done by his leadership. He is in the position today because of the former Senate majority leader's complete failure to schedule and pass the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee did their work last year, and Mr. Obey and I worked very closely in attempting to see it was fully completed. The Senate leadership did not. As the former chairman of the committee, I know that Mr. Obey feels strongly about maintaining regular order and passing other appropriations bills. I can vividly recall a conversation Mr. Obey had with me shortly after I became chairman when he suggested that perhaps I would be the last chairman of the Appropriations Committee because of the breakdown of regular order. I looked to his comments and have taken them to heart because I committed to him and to our Members that we would pass our spending bills in regular order, and the 2 years I served as chairman we did. Today, my fear is that Mr. Obey may be the last chairman of the Appropriations Committee because of the very concern he expressed to me, the breakdown of that regular order. Shutting both Republicans and Democrats out of the legislative process is a highly, highly unusual circumstance, but that is exactly what has occurred. Both Republicans and Democrats are being denied a full and open debate on this legislation that will spend, as I suggested earlier, $463.5 billion, roughly one-half of the annual Federal budget. Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer, both former members of the Appropriations Committee, know that our process is very open and a collaborative one. Historically, appropriations bills are brought to the floor under an open rule to encourage debate and create better legislation. Our spending bills reflect not just the will of the Appropriations Committee but, indeed, the will of the entire bipartisan House. It is not uncommon to have hours and hours of debate and more than 100 Democrat or Republican amendments offered on a single spending bill. That is, until today. The House will debate this legislation today for 1 hour. Not one amendment has been made in order. The Senate, that is, the other body, on the other hand, will have the opportunity to debate the legislation for up to 15 days and with the potential for an unlimited number of amendments. Let me repeat, it is important that the Members hear that. One hour of debate in the House with no amendments, 15 days of debate in the Senate with potentially unlimited amendments. Speaker Pelosi has vowed to run the House in a more open, democratic and inclusive way. A spirit of bipartisanship, she said, would prevail in the people's House. That pledge was put on the shelf so the new majority could complete their first 100 hours agenda. The new majority then promised that business would soon return to regular order with plenty of opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to participate in the democratic process. Members of the House, Democrats and Republicans, are still waiting for the Speaker to keep her word. In closing, I would suggest that our country would be better served by extending for a full year the clean continuing resolution the House and Senate passed in December. That legislation, a mere 19 pages long, contained no gimmicks, no policy changes, and did not reward or punish agencies indiscriminately, as is done in this 137-page package. This omnibus spending bill before us today totally disregards the once proud tradition of regular order within the House Appropriations Committee and violates the longstanding bipartisan customs of the people's House. I urge that my colleagues join me in a ``no'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Wamp, the Appropriations Committee ranking member of the legislative branch.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

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

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

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, somewhat responding to the majority leader's comment, I can't help but be moved to say that he suggested directly that Mr. Obey had spent a good deal of time with the gentleman from the Senate, Mr. Byrd, the two Members involved in this bill, and beyond that, a good deal of contact with our staff. Beyond those two Members, let me say that this has been a very fine product. It is a staff, nonelected staffperson's piece of work that involves $463.5 billion of appropriations. I must say that it is important for me that the body know that I am committed to reducing the rate of growth of spending. $463.5 billion is a pretty significant rate of growth. But in the meantime, as we go about reducing spending growth, I will also work in a bipartisan spirit to move our bill through the committee and on time and under budget. I will not, however, respond to either intimidation or any threats relative to the way we are handling the appropriations process. The Appropriations Committee will not become a small colony in the empire of this new leadership. We renew our commitment to bills produced by regular order that will serve as a credit to our committee, to the national interest, as well as to the people from our districts we pretend to serve. With that, the leader and I will work further together on this matter, but I am very concerned about the volume of staff direction here where in the final analysis the people know that they are not elected representatives of the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is intended to eliminate earmarks to fund a variety of important Federal programs. In spite of those best intentions, however, a close reading of the bill revealed that earmarks were, in fact, left in. Additionally, a number of critical programs affecting new law enforcement, military construction and military families have been shortchanged. In an effort to live up to the spirit of what this bill intended, my motion to recommit would eliminate nearly $600 million in earmarks, other unnecessary spending, and also use those funds to fully fund the Drug Enforcement Administration's effort to combat methamphetamines and other illicit drugs, restore critically needed funds to military construction and military family housing accounts, and reduce the Federal deficit. Specifically, this motion would accomplish the following: First, rescind the remaining $44.6 million from the Senate's rain forest in Iowa earmark, eliminate $94 million unnecessary and unrequested funding for the Denali Commission, funding that is nothing more than a thinly-disguised Senate earmark for Alaska. Eliminate $400 million of ongoing earmarks from the NNSA weapons activity accounts. Eliminate $49.7 million of spending in DOE's fossil energy account, spending that duplicates mandatory funding by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. My motion would distribute these savings in the following manner: First, $50 million for the DEA's efforts to combat meth and other illicit drugs; $275 million for basic allowance for housing; $86 million for critically needed military construction and family housing; $178 million for deficit reduction. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to live up to the spirit of this legislation by voting to eliminate earmarks and put those funds to better use by combating meth, supporting our military families and reducing the deficit. I urge a strong bipartisan vote on this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time may remain to Mr. Pearce of New Mexico.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of Appropriations (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky).

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the Mojave Water Agency formed in 1960 and based in Apple Valley, CA, serves the High Desert Region of San Bernardino County. One of the agency's directors, my very good friend, Beverly Lowry, who joins us here today, represents Division 6. Bev has lived in Barstow for more than 30 years and has dedicated herself to public service. She served on the agency's board of directors from 1973 to 1977 and again from 1989 to the present. Mrs. Lowry is a commissioner of the Mojave River Basin Area Watermaster. She has been on the board of the Barstow Heights Community Service District for 20 years, including 10 years as president. She has also served for 11 years on the Flood Control Advisory Committee for Zone 4 and has also been the Chair of the Veterans Home Support Foundation. The legislation I introduce today will authorize the Mojave Water Agency's thoughtful Water Regional Management Plan. Bev Lowry and other directors, with the help of their dedicated staff, have worked since 2001 to formulate a Regional Water Management Plan that will provide water to this desert region for years to come. This is a great bill, and I am proud to introduce it today.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in order to recognize Dr. Margaret Ann Harrison Hill, an esteemed educator and public servant who is retiring after 40 years of top level service. I am honored to pay tribute to this outstanding community leader, and hope that my colleagues will join me in recognizing her achievements. As many of my colleagues know, resources are essential tools for properly educating students. Dr. Hill understands this necessity, and throughout her career has served to increase the amount of materials available to teachers nationwide. As project director of the SCORE online program, Dr. Hill has overseen the creation of a database of educational resources that serves a wide range of teachers across the country. For 5 years Dr. Hill codirected Footsteps to Freedom, a project which aids educators in developing materials that inculcate study of the Underground Railroad into classroom curriculum. She has served as the curriculum coordinator for the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools, developing and implementing training programs that expand the leadership and instruction capacity of San Bernardino educators. The ``We the People Program'' has been a tremendous success in my district under the leadership of Dr. Hill. Under the program, Dr. Hill has coordinated civic education training programs, and has expanded student knowledge of the political process by facilitating mock congressional hearings on constitutional issues. Dr. Hill has contributed her writing to several prominent publications, and has developed and written grant proposals that have helped to secure funding for important educational programs. She has served on countless educational advisory and planning boards and has remained a sought- after presenter at educational conferences in California and throughout the Nation. Dr. Hill's commitment to social studies education has not gone unnoticed. Throughout her years in teaching, she has been the recipient of several awards. In 2001, Dr. Hill was chosen to receive the Hilda Taba Award for Outstanding History-Social Science Leadership in California, the highest honor presented by the California Council for the Social Studies. Dr. Hill has also been presented with awards from her own community, being named Outstanding Educator in Social Studies by the Inland Empire Council, and receiving the Service Award from the Inland Empire Consortium for International Studies. Madam Speaker, Dr. Hill's retirement will undoubtedly leave San Bernardino County with a difficult void to fill. Her exemplary commitment to her students and peers is seldom seen, and I take great pleasure in knowing that many of the children residing in my district have been fortunate enough to learn from Dr. Hill. It is with honor that I congratulate Dr. Hill on her achievements, and wish her well in her future endeavors.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be with you. On this occasion, we are addressing one more time a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. I must say that while it is very important that we get the House to seriously review those matters and see what next steps we should be taking, I feel pretty strongly that it is important that the two sides of the aisle work very closely together regarding this. This resolution would create a new panel of the Appropriations Committee that would, in part, duplicate work already performed by the Intelligence Committee. Unfortunately, this substantive change in committee jurisdiction is being proposed without benefit of the kind of bipartisan input that I personally appreciate and think causes the place to work an awful lot better. The present structure in intelligence oversight was developed following the recommendations of the Pike and Church committees in the 1970s. It took years to develop and execute a quality congressional restructure for intelligence oversight. Something of this importance and sensitivity requires more than just an hour's consideration on the floor. It deserves a thorough review by the committees of the House and all of us who are concerned, from various jurisdictions, about these matters. I recognize that this is an oversight bill; and with tongue in cheek, I congratulate the new majority for that kind of oversight, drafting legislation without any input from the Republicans of the House. While I am grateful to Mr. Obey for his efforts to reach out to me personally, I am deeply concerned that no substantive consultation occurred between the majority and the minority, particularly at a leadership level. Further, I am very concerned that we not jettison the oversight regime that is in place without knowing for certain that we are going to replace it with something that goes beyond just simply getting in the way of the oversight process. I am afraid that what we are doing here is talking about oversight. Instead, on the other hand, we are defusing effective oversight. It is important that we recognize that one more time we are putting out press releases and producing very little in terms of substantive results. Madam Speaker, as I said, it is a delight to be with you, and I appreciate the time.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the communities in our Southern California mountains, and the community of Federal firefighters, suffered a terrible tragedy a little more than a month ago when five Federal firefighters were killed protecting our homes and families. Our constituents have promised to provide for the survivors of Engine Captain Mark Loutzenhiser, Fire Engine Operator Jess McLean, Assistant Fire Engine Operator Jason McKay, Firefighter Daniel Hoover-Najera, and Firefighter Pablo Cerda. With the help of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and a local United Way chapter, nearly $1 million has been raised. But we need to ensure that our tax regulations do not block the distribution of this money to the deserving families. My colleague and friend Representative Mary Bono has introduced a very simple bill, which would give permission to the United Way to organize the fund's dispersal. It is a narrow bill that creates a one-time income tax exemption for those firefighter families receiving money from the fund. It also allows donations to the fund to be deductible. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the members of this body will help us help these families, who have suffered a terrible loss in the name of public service and protecting our communities from wildfires.

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1105, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 102) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.