Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I had planned to deliver a 10- minute oration outlining my concerns about this CR before us. However, given the late hour, I'll simply say that I believe it spends too much by continuing funding at least year's levels. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the words of my friend and yours, Will Rogers, whose statue stands outside the door of the House Chamber. He said, ``Never miss a good chance to shut up.'' Mr. Speaker, by any definition, this year's appropriations process has been a complete and utter failure. The current fiscal year ends tomorrow and to date, only two spending bills have cleared the full Appropriations Committee and passed the House. In two of the last four years under Democrat control, Congress has failed to enact a single appropriations bill by the beginning of the new fiscal year. It is now certain that any further consideration of the ten unfinished spending bills is unlikely this year, leaving a massive, end-of-the-year omnibus bill as the most likely course of action following the November elections. The omnibus would be the latest in a long list of big money bills passed by this Congress--on top of health care reform, Stimulus, TARP, and too many bailouts to mention by name--over the loud objections of House Republicans. Taken together, these costly measures have cemented this legislative session's reputation as the most expensive in our country's history. According to CNN, this Democrat-controlled Congress has committed our country to at least $11 trillion in bailout spending alone over the last 2 years. Let me repeat that: Over eleven trillion dollars in new bailout spending in just two years paid for by the American taxpayer. It is this spending by this Administration and this Democrat controlled Congress that has resulted in historic deficits and record levels of debt. Add to this spending the potential cost of cap and trade legislation, more costly regulations on small businesses, and the prospect of higher taxes on all Americans at the end of this year, it's no wonder that our country is facing 10 percent unemployment. This is the most pro-spending, pro-regulation, anti-small business Congress in memory. What company or small business wants to hire anyone in this environment? This record is all the more striking when you consider the fact that the House has spent week after week, month after month, considering hundreds of insignificant bills while ignoring the substantive work required of Congress each year to pass a federal budget. This Continuing Resolution would have been the Democrat majority's last hope of telling voters that they're listening to the public's concern about out-of-control spending--and yet, one more time, they have turned a deaf ear. If voters need any additional motivation to go to the polls in November, this Democrat-controlled Congress has certainly provided it. While I recognize the need to keep the government running in the absence of any spending bills being enacted, I cannot and will not support this CR because it continues unsustainable and unrestrained levels of spending established last year. Republicans have, and will continue, to advocate for lower spending that is nearly $100 billion below the current level set by Chairman Obey and the White House. We should pass a bill that includes these reductions while maintaining the essential functions of government until Congress completes this year's budget. This CR as presently written fails that critical test. In closing, I want to applaud the Senate for resisting the temptation to add a variety of legislative items and billions in additional spending requested by the Obama White House. At a time of extreme spending fatigue, it's simply unacceptable to use a must-pass CR as a legislative vehicle for more wasteful federal spending or completing an array of unfinished political business before the election. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe we should shut down the government. But voters are telling Congress that Uncle Sam needs a diet. At a time of historic deficits, record debt, and 10 percent unemployment, I believe we owe our constituents more than the status quo. There's no question that we can keep government running and spend far less of the voters' money than we're presently spending. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the former chairman of the Education Committee, now the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon). (Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to our former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. States across America have as their number one responsibility the education of our young. If the States cannot allocate their own spending in order to carry out that top responsibility, we will never solve the problem with a bailout from Uncle Sam. A multibillion-dollar bailout today will set the stage for nationalized education tomorrow. That will surely push our economy over the cliff of bankruptcy. Why are we talking with each other here today? We should be meeting with our constituents, holding town hall meetings, and listening to what's on the hearts and minds of our voters. The folks in my district have made their concerns very clear. They're saying, ``Jerry, tell those big spending politicians in Washington to stop spending our money.'' But the Democrat majority is so addicted to spending that they have called Congress back just to vote on yet another multibillion- dollar bailout. I'm left scratching my head, because in the past few months this Congress has done virtually none of the work that the voters sent us here to do. We haven't passed a budget, we haven't funded defense and homeland security. We made our troops wait months before passing funds to support their fight against international terrorism. The majority leadership calls the bill before us a major accomplishment. They hope it will please teachers' unions and inspire the Democratic base 2 months before the November election. I believe most voters will see it for what it is, further evidence that this Congress has a spending problem. To the voters, the 111th Congress will go down in history as the bailout Congress. The Congress has already spent $75 billion in stimulus dollars to help States with education. That was supposed to be a one-time, temporary bailout, approved by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. I am very proud of the fact that three of my four children are teachers. They work very hard to provide quality education in the classroom. They know that schools should be run by parents, teachers, and local communities. The more we approve these bailouts, the more the Federal Government takes over that role. Mr. Speaker, I know that my Democrat colleagues say that this legislation is quote, ``fully paid for.'' On the other hand, the bill spends the entire $26 billion in just 2 years, while the offsets take place over 10 years. The so-called offsets in this legislation are produced by almost a $10 billion increase in taxes, $13.4 billion in reductions in two programs that are popular with Democrat leaders. That is the food stamp program and renewable energy projects. Some Democrat leaders have already pledged to restore funding to these programs. Some of these so-called cuts could be eliminated as soon as November in a lame duck session. Mr. Speaker, beware of a lame duck session called by this Congress. I want to emphasize this again to my colleagues. The voters do not want us to throw more money at our Nation's problems, yet that is exactly what this bill does. It's time, Mr. Speaker, to put Uncle Sam on a diet and put an end to the congressional spending spree. I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation, and reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague yielding. I thank not only the gentleman for yielding, but the chairman as well, for their cooperative working relationship with me. On the other hand, Madam Speaker, it really pains me to have to be here today and comment on this emergency bill. Securing our borders, thwarting ruthless drug cartels, and enforcing immigration laws should unquestionably be among our highest priorities. But why are we here today, with only seven weeks remaining in this fiscal year, debating a supplemental that CBO says will not take effect until next year? So we are going to solve a problem for 2010 that can't even begin to be enforced until next year. This bill will have to go back to the Senate because of the way it is structured. Meanwhile, there is no plan to complete the vital FY 2011 Homeland Security and Defense appropriations bills. The chairman mentioned that the homeland bill had been marked up, et cetera, but it will not be in the full committee, no chance to amend it on the floor, et cetera. It is business as usual. This bill is only on the floor today to allow the Democratic majority to claim that they care about border security. It won't go into effect soon. It won't solve our border problems, and it makes a mockery of our annual appropriations process, where these problems should be handled. Even the bill's $600 million worth of new spending is paid for with questionable tactics. Avoiding cuts to wasteful government spending, the Democratic majority is penalizing businesses with increased fees. How are de facto tax increases going to increase jobs and help our economy? And we will be paying for these so-called emergency funds for some time because they will result in increased operating costs for future years as well. Madam Speaker, with the drug war continuing to escalate along the Southwest border and the States clamoring for help, and with the cost of illegal immigration, the American people expect real solutions from Congress. Instead, we have another round of throwing money at problems with no real understanding of how we are going to get out of this mess. We should have already completed fiscal year 2011 appropriation bills for homeland security and defense, as has been suggested, and taken care of these problems in an orderly and rational way. Instead, we are left with haphazard schemes that seem more like political cover than real budget solutions to our security. This is not the way the Congress should get its work done.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I very much appreciate my colleague yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start my remarks by paying tribute to one of the great staff members we have around here. Dena Baron wants us to get through quickly, for she's just about ready to give delivery to her second child. And for those who are curious about all of that, Dena is planning to deliver us a baby girl. I very much want to express, Mr. Chairman, my appreciation and thanks to Chairman Olver and Ranking Member Latham for their efforts in producing this legislation. While they may not agree on the overall spending level for this bill, they have worked together in a bipartisan fashion. While they have real policy differences, Chairman Olver and Mr. Latham know that it's in the best interest of the House and the American public to get this bill done. Yesterday's passage of the MILCON-VA bill marked the second latest date in the last 15 years that the House passed its first regular appropriations bill. The only other year in recent history with a more dismal record was 2 years ago when MILCON-VA was the first--and only--appropriations bill brought to the floor--on August 1. Astonishing that we are now 2 months away from beginning the new fiscal year, and only a day away from the 6-week August congressional recess, and we are only now considering the second of 12 annual spending bills. So far this year, 11 of the 12 funding bills have been marked up in subcommittee. And yet, only two of the 12 bills have been considered by the full Appropriations Committee. Those two bills, the bill we passed yesterday and the bill we're considering today, are likely to be the only bills passed by the House this year. The full Appropriations Committee was scheduled to mark up the Agriculture and Homeland Security bills 2 days ago. As members of the committee began to enter the room for those markups at 3 p.m., the session was abruptly postponed, and as of this moment, there's been no explanation. Let me state the obvious as clearly as I can. This year's appropriations process has been a complete and utter failure. Members of both sides of the aisle have voiced frustration for months about the committee's inability to get its work done. Traditionally, June and July are the months we're debating and passing our spending bills. Not this year, Mr. Chairman. Not this year. As Mr. Wolf pointed out last night, this has become the ``Suspension Congress.'' This year, the Appropriations Committee--once known as the ``Workhorse Committee''--has done virtually nothing. The House itself has done very little in the way of substantive work, instead debating frivolous bills on the suspension calendar. Week after week, the majority leader has given away Friday legislative sessions because the Democrat majority refuses to move appropriations bills, and because there was no other legislative work to keep Members in town. It's also worth noting, Mr. Chairman, that on the very rare occasion when our appropriations bills are brought to the floor, they are brought up under a closed rule to stifle debate on issues that the Democratic majority would prefer to ignore until after the election. All Members, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, have a legitimate right to offer and debate amendments under the longstanding traditional open rule process governing appropriations bills. This includes those amendments that would strike what Members believe to be excessive levels of spending. Had Republicans been afforded the opportunity to offer amendments under open rules, there's little doubt that much of our effort would be geared towards reducing spending. It was just last week that Democratic members of the Appropriations Committee rejected a Republican amendment in full committee that would have pared back overall discretionary spending this year by $31 billion from Chairman Obey's generous allocation, and $39 billion from the President's request. In addition, Republicans have offered amendments in committee this year to reduce spending by over $70 billion. Each and every amendment to reduce the rate of growth of spending has been defeated on a party- line vote. Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues have not offered a single vote in support of those cuts. According to the OMB Mid-Session Budget Review, the annual budget deficit is projected to reach a record of $1.47 trillion this year. As a percentage of the economy, it's the largest deficit since World War II. With the Federal Government now borrowing 41 cents on every dollar it spends, and with spending continuing at record levels, it appears that there's little relief in sight. Indeed, the Obama Administration is conceding that these large deficits are here to stay. According to the President's own numbers, the national debt, which was at $5.8 trillion at the end of 2008, will soar to $18.5 trillion by the end of this decade. These future deficits are driven almost entirely by rising levels of government spending. I know there's a tendency among some of my friends to blame President Bush for everything, but the fact is that President Obama's budget would push inflation-adjusted Federal spending over $36,000 per household by the year 2020. This is $12,000 above the level per-household that existed under President Bush. Even President Obama's enormous $3 trillion tax increase proposal won't stop this spending from pushing the national debt to even more dangerous levels. With the mid-session budget review, the Obama White House has now confirmed what committee Republicans have been saying all year: That the Democrat majority's agenda of runaway spending, surging taxes, and soaring budget deficits is leading to historic deficits and record levels of debt. The only way out of this deficit and debt nightmare is to curb Uncle Sam's appetite for spending. We simply must do something about the rising tide of red ink before we're overcome by it. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle how many more shocking budget projections we need before you join us in saying enough is enough? With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on final passage.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our leader on the Homeland Security subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, our first job as Members of Congress is to support our troops, the men and women who are in harm's way protecting our country. It has been 6 months since the President sent the supplemental funding request to the Congress. The package we're considering today is, ironically, the very same clean emergency spending package the Senate approved on May 27, precisely 2 months ago. The delay in passing this legislation was caused by one thing and only one thing: the House Democratic leadership majority's continuing and unwavering appetite for spending. The Senate passed its clean version of the supplemental in May and sent it to the House for speedy approval. Instead of quickly passing it and sending it to the President's desk, however, House Democrats spent weeks negotiating with themselves over just how much nonemergency spending could be placed on the backs of our troops. Senate Democrats and the White House sent strong signals that adding billions in domestic nonemergency spending would further delay funding for our troops as well as critical disaster assistance to areas of our country in desperate need, but that advice was ignored by the House majority. Fortunately, the Senate, last week, wisely rejected the House majority's effort to piggyback tens of billions of dollars of additional spending onto the package. The Senate has sent back to the House the very same clean emergency supplemental it sent 2 months ago. Today, the House must do the right thing and approve this funding. We cannot afford to wait another minute to get this long overdue package to the President. I applaud the Senate for rejecting billions of dollars of nonemergency spending placed on the backs of the troops. Let's support our men and women in uniform, support disaster assistance for areas of the country in great need, and pass this spending bill. I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our leader on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California, Buck McKeon.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to yield 2 minutes, by way of a colloquy, to my colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Defense, the gentleman from Washington, Norm Dicks.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEWIS of California. I very much appreciate the leadership that my colleague is providing on the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations. He knows very clearly that Secretary Gates is faced with his back against the wall. We've got to deliver this supplemental now. And I applaud very much his leadership in connection with this effort. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I want to one more time express my deep appreciation for the Senate, of all things, for rejecting billions of dollars of nonemergency spending placed on the backs of our troops. Let's support our men and women in uniform, support disaster assistance for areas of the country in need, and pass this spending bill today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing welcome news that House leaders may accept a clean supplemental appropriations bill if it is sent back from the Senate. I introduced a House version of that bill last week. If we had voted it out then, it would be on the President's desk right now. The Army and Marine Corps operating accounts are about to run into the red. Without these supplemental funds, the Pentagon will begin cutbacks--reduced training, delayed equipment purchases, possibly even delayed pay for our soldiers and marines. By passing this clean supplemental, we can avert that dangerous situation. We can provide disaster relief funds to the areas that need it. We can avoid adding tens of billions of dollars to the Federal deficit that would have come from add-ons passed by this House 2 weeks ago. I urge my colleagues, please pass a clean supplemental bill now.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey, Rodney Frelinghuysen.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for the Members to one more time remind themselves, ourselves, that this is the President's supplemental and it is designed to provide needed funding for our troops who are representing our interests and fighting for freedom in Afghanistan. I think it is very important that this amendment goes on to restrict year 2011 funds from being used in a manner inconsistent with a July 2011 troop withdrawal unless expressly provided for and by a joint resolution of the Congress. The President of the United States has indicated in his policy administration statement coming from his chief advisers that if the amendments we have been considering this evening are a part of this bill, those chief advisers will recommend to the President that he veto this funding measure. It is very apparent that the other body tomorrow is leaving town, if they haven't already left town. Indeed, amendments to this bill will cause this bill to involve a considerable delay for funding for our troops almost regardless. As I argued under the previous administration, we should not tie the President's hands while he is executing his duties as Commander in Chief, perhaps the most solemn of the Commander in Chief's responsibilities. This amendment would do just that. Further, just this week the President's new commanding general testified that the July 11th date is not a race for the exits. Rather, that date will begin a condition-based process. He further left open the option of recommending changes or delays in the current plan. The amendment further attempts to encumber future year funds, which is not only impractical, but the conditions on which those funds would be encumbered are questionable. Honestly, I fail to see the logic in attempting to fence future year funds, and I can't help but wonder why try to do this now when the fiscal year 2011 process is working its way through the committee. The war on terror, Mr. Speaker, continues to be very real. Our troops certainly understand it, even if our majority leadership does not understand it. Of course, I want our troops home as quickly as possible, but tying the hands of the Commander in Chief and the commanders executing the war is irresponsible and dangerous. Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I have a unanimous consent request. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill, H.R. 4899, with the Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised there was an objection to that recommendation. After all, we are just trying to find some way to get the President's original recommendations up here so that the Commander in Chief can support our troops so that they can come home as quickly as possible. In Afghanistan, whether we believe it or not, the war on al Qaeda involves our future freedom, and certainly it would have a significant impact upon peace in the world. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Jack Kingston.