Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, over the last several months several of our colleagues have announced they plan to retire from Congress and in a few months some may not return to us due to the workings of our democracy. All of their departures will, in some way or another, impact this body--the peoples' House. But there will be one loss this year that will be felt most by the members and staff on both sides of the aisle--that of Muftiah McCartin. Now Muftiah's name may not be well known to the people who live in our districts, but I would hazard a guess that there is not one member of the House of Representatives who has served in the last 30-plus years who does not know and love Muftiah--whether in her role as a parliamentarian, as a staff member on the Committee on Appropriations, or in her most recent role as the staff director of the Rules Committee. In every instance she brought a fundamental fairness, openmindedness, kindness and an incredible work ethic. She handled herself with the utmost professionalism even in the most trying of circumstances--namely having to deal with the 435 of us, and on occasion having to tell us something we did not want to hear. As I look back on the words of tribute spoken last week by so many of my colleagues I am most impressed by the fact that those words were all spoken from the heart, as are mine. They were not words of canned praise, nor were they sterile platitudes--they were expressions of genuine friendship and respect. I will not repeat what was said about Muftiah's distinguished career--although it bears remembering. Rather I will share a few reflections from her time working for the Appropriations Committee when I was chairman. In 2005 during my first year as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, it was Muftiah who patiently schooled me and my staff in the complexities of House Rules as we worked on the 11 appropriations bills that came to the House floor that year. I think it is fair to say that had it not been for Muftiah, we would not have successfully completed our important work in a manner that was open and fair to all the Members. In 2006 I had the good fortune to be able to convince Muftiah to leave the parliamentarian's office and come to work on the Committee on Appropriations. I expect the parliamentarian and his able colleagues might still be angry with me for that, but they have, as usual, been very gracious. While Muftiah knew the rules under which we consider appropriations bills each year better than anyone else on my staff, especially the intricacies of the Budget Act, she did not have a background in the minutia of the appropriations and budgeting process. What she did have--and still does--is an incredibly keen mind and a tenacious work ethic. I assigned Muftiah to the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, the second largest and one of the most important bills that touch the lives of every one of our constituents. As soon as she got there I observed her dig into budgets and programs as if she had been doing it all of her life. She quickly grasped arcane budgetary concepts, made the difficult recommendations that the committee staff must make to Members every day, asked the tough questions that must be asked in order to produce a responsible budget, and mentored younger staff in the rules and procedures of the House. As we knew would happen when she was hired, Muftiah could not learn enough, soaking up every bit of knowledge she could come by. Now we bid a fond farewell to a loving wife and mother, a fierce friend, a great employee and a true institutionalist when it comes to this House. Muftiah has demonstrated a love and commitment to this institution and to public service that unfortunately we don't see often enough. Her work is an example that all of us should take note of and aspire to emulate. I can think of no greater role model for girls and young women than Muftiah McCartin--a woman who put herself through law school while holding down a full-time job and raising a family; one who understands that we have far more in common than we have differences; one who never put politics before principle; and a woman who faced every challenge, no matter how difficult, with a smile on her face and a kind word for all. My wife, Arlene, and I wish her all the best in the many years to come.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Beverly Lowry, a dear friend and dedicated public servant who has helped guide the city of Barstow and other High Desert communities for nearly 40 years. A native of Emporia, Kansas, Mrs. Lowry has lived in California since 1947, and moved with her husband Al in 1966 to the Mojave Desert outpost of Barstow. Although she is a veteran traveler, she has called the desert her home ever since, raising two sons and watching two grandsons grow up there. Friends of Bev Lowry know she is not one to sit on the sidelines, and just a few years after arriving in the desert she was elected to the Barstow Heights Community Services District board, which provided city- like services in an unincorporated area. During her 26-year service on that board, she oversaw the paving of nearly 33 miles of residential streets and the creation of a new off-ramp from Interstate 15 to serve the community. Bev Lowry's involvement in public policy grew beyond local elected boards when she joined the staff of California State Sen. Walter Stiern in 1974. For the next 20 years, she served the constituents of legislators and county supervisors as a staff member, becoming a recognized expert at solving problems and resolving disagreements with county, State, and even Federal officials. Needless to say, since these were also my constituents as a member of Congress, I came to know Bev well and respect her greatly. As both a staffer and a local representative, Bev Lowry was one of the leaders in securing State funding to build Silver Valley High School and the Newberry Springs Senior Center, as well as for the improvement of State Highway 58, an important cross-desert link. Perhaps her most significant contributions to her community came through Bev Lowry's service as a board member of the Mojave Water Agency and her tremendous accomplishment as chairwoman of the committee to bring a State Veteran's Home to Barstow. The Mojave Water Agency was created to deal with the serious problem of over-drafting of the underground basins that provide nearly all of the water for tens of thousands of desert residents. The agency was tasked with providing State Water Project water to residents of both the Mojave Desert and the eastern desert area known as the Morongo Basin. It was my honor to work with Bev and the other members of the MWA board to provide funding for pipelines to deliver this water, which now serves more than 100,000 people. The district has also begun an ambitious water reclamation plan, and Bev was here in the House Chamber to observe Federal approval for that plan. Thanks to Bev Lowry's leadership, State officials in the 1990s chose Barstow over 28 competing locations to build the first State Veteran's Home in more than 100 years. The home provides a sanctuary for 400 retired and ambulatory veterans from throughout the High Desert area. Bev Lowry has been deservedly recognized for her contributions, chosen as Woman of the Year by the Barstow Chamber of Commerce--and then selected by the chamber as Woman of the Decade in 1987. Madam Speaker, every community in America wishes it had leaders like Beverly Lowry, who can pull people together and get major things accomplished. This weekend, Bev will be paid a wonderful tribute by the Barstow Community College Foundation, which is creating a scholarship in her name. I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mrs. Lowry on her achievements, and thank her for her decades of public service.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am delighted today to share with my colleagues the announcement that the Commander in Chief's annual Award for Installation Excellence has been bestowed on the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, California, which I am honored to represent. The Marine Corps established a facility in the Mojave Desert at Twentynine Palms nearly 50 years ago when it was determined that they needed open space to conduct live-fire exercises. Over the past five decades, the 932-square-mile base has become one of the largest in the world and one of the most sophisticated training centers for the U.S. military. I have represented the base and the Twentynine Palms community since I served in the California Legislature, and I have been proud to witness and provide support as the base grew into one of the premiere training sites in the world. Thousands of Marines from units around the Nation are sent to Twentynine Palms each year to take part in large intensive live-fire exercises, complete with full armament and air support. This training is without question the most realistic possible, and has been credited as saving many lives by Marines returning from the battlefields in the War on Terror. It was my great honor to support the Marine Corps over the past decade in the development of a new facility called Viper Village, which is considered to be one of the best in the world at providing training for urban warfare and military control of urban areas. This 247-acre facility with more than 400 buildings allows Marines to get a real-life experience of moving into foreign urban areas. The exercise is enhanced by specially-trained actors and ``foreign forces'' who help provide an understanding of how to deal with both armed urban warfare and non- combatant civilians. The value of this training has been shown almost daily to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are put through a 30-day intensive course before their deployment on the front lines in the War on Terror. I am pleased but not surprised that the Twentynine Palms Marine Base has received the annual excellence award from the President. The designation would be strongly supported by the thousands of Marines who have trained there, and the 1,900 full-time base personnel who have created a supportive and efficient installation in the remote desert. The base's recent awards have included the Secretary of the Navy's Marine Corps Pollution Prevention Award, the Commandant of the Marine Corps Continuous Process Improvement Special Recognition Award, and the Marine Corps Community Services Youth Sports Excellence and Semper Fit Bronze Anchor Awards. Madam Speaker, the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center continues to show a commitment to excellence and improvement in providing the best possible training for our U.S. Marines. The base has begun an extensive upgrade in laying sensors and instruments that will allow commanders and analysts to ``see'' the movements of every unit during exercises, large and small. Please join me in congratulating the commander, Brig. Gen. H.S. Clardy, and all of the base personnel in receiving their much-deserved honor.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of my very good friend Keith Bright, whose leadership, generosity, foresight and persistence helped remake and restore the Owens Valley in California over the past five decades. Mr. Bright passed away April 7, 2010 at the age of 95, and his ever-present smile will be missed greatly by his many friends. Keith Bright was born in Lemoore, California, during the oil boom in the State's San Joaquin Valley. He began working in the oil fields at 19, but went to college to become an expert on the science and business of petroleum. During World War II, the military refused Keith's patriotic efforts to enlist because he was more valuable producing the vital supply of oil to the troops. During his years in the oil fields, Keith Bright founded KEN Corporation, one of the world's largest producers of oil-based drilling fluid, and NECK Petroleum, an oil drilling company based in Bakersfield, California. He developed oil and gas fields in the valley. In the 1960s, Keith Bright moved to the eastern Sierra Nevada and bought a ranch near Independence, California, in the heart of the Owens Valley. A long alpine valley ringed by some of the highest mountains in America, by the 1960s it had become parched because most of the water in the Owens River was diverted through the Los Angeles Aqueduct to the taps of Southern California. I came to know Keith Bright in the 1980s after redistricting added the Owens Valley to the area I represented. He was an intense advocate for Inyo County and the needs of the valley, both before and after he became a county supervisor. By the time Keith Bright joined the board of supervisors in 1986, Inyo County had been embroiled for more than a decade in a lawsuit to reclaim some of the water being pumped out of the valley by the city of Los Angeles. Although ordered by courts to reduce pumping a number of times, Los Angeles continued to literally pump the Owens Valley dry throughout the 1980s. To break the impasse, Bright in 1991 led the board in negotiating the landmark Inyo-Los Angeles Long-Term Water Agreement, which for the first time required Los Angeles to address the environmental effects of its pumping on the Owens Valley. The agreement sparked a recall movement against the Inyo County board--Bright defeated the recall by a 60 percent margin. I was pleased to work with Keith Bright on a number of projects to bring back the Owens River, and it was a delight to see him on hand in 2006 when the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power opened the valves and sent water pouring down the river once again. There is still work to be done, but anglers now catch trout along stretches of the river that were dry for decades. Keith Bright was a moving force behind many other improvements in the Owens Valley. He was one of the main backers of creating a National Historic Site at Manzanar, the internment camp where many Japanese Americans were forced to stay during World War II. Madam Speaker, Keith Bright was one of the most dedicated, enthusiastic Americans I have ever met. He was truly a modern man of the Old West, dedicated to rugged individualism and local initiative. He almost shouted from the mountaintop to let his local community work and keep big government off their backs. In memory of the long life and wonderful character of Keith Bright, the people of Inyo County have planned a memorial service designed to be a celebration. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending that celebration, and in remembering the life of the man who devoted himself to his community for nearly 50 years.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I believe that most Members would agree that the fiscal path that our country is currently on is unsustainable. With an annual deficit of $1.6 trillion, a growing mountain of debt, and unemployment hovering near 10 percent, it's clear that we must change our course now or face catastrophic consequences in the very near future. My colleagues, the simple truth is that Uncle Sam needs a diet. The single greatest challenge of this Congress and our best hope for lasting recovery lies in curbing Uncle Sam's appetite for spending. It's time to cut up the government's credit card and live within our means starting right now, today. Just two nights ago, Congress passed a $1 trillion health care bill that was opposed by every Republican House member and 39 Democrat House members. Never before in our Nation's history has such historic legislation been passed by one party over such widespread bipartisan opposition. Now, here we are again preparing to vote on yet another huge spending bill that was crafted without any transparency or bipartisan involvement. Most Members would agree that providing relief to Americans suffering from natural disasters is a responsible and worthy use of taxpayer dollars. Most Members would also agree we don't need to load up a disaster bill with hundreds of millions of dollars on a summer youth program--especially when there is already $1.4 billion in the jobs pipeline. It's worth noting that the $600 million for a summer youths job program is being offset by various rescissions in unused funding from the stimulus bill and other past spending bills. But my underlying question is this: If there is $1.4 billion already in the pipeline for a Department of Labor jobs program, why can't we return the rescinded $600 million dollars back to the Treasury for deficit reduction? Why must my Democrat friends continue to spend and spend and spend and spend? At the beginning of this Congress, the Appropriations Committee consisted of 60 members--37 Democrats and 23 Republicans. It's worth noting, however, that my chairman has made it a habit to write his bills and completely bypass the Democrat and Republican members of the committee. Do not for one minute believe that this legislation reflects the work of the House Appropriations Committee or even the Democrats on the Appropriations Committee, because it does not. To my knowledge, this bill has had no input from any members other than the chairman himself. There's been no markup, no amendments, and no potential offsets debated or even discussed by the committee. Like the trillion-dollar stimulus package and the subsequent ``son of stimulus'' passed by the House prior to Christmas, this legislation will pass without any opportunity for a Member to amend it. With billions and billions of stimulus funding still unspent, there is no reason why the entire emergency relief portion of this legislation cannot be entirely paid for or be used to begin paying down that $1.6 trillion deficit for the year. Mr. Obey has argued that Republicans didn't ``pay for'' disasters when we were in charge. On that point, he is correct. However, when Republicans were the majority party, annual deficits were not $1.6 trillion as they are today, and we didn't have hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary funding sloshing around in Federal coffers. Surely we can cut $5.1 billion in unspent stimulus funding to pay for the FEMA spending involved here. We shouldn't continue to spend money we don't have. Mr. Speaker, we can agree to disagree on the cause of our economic troubles, but the fact remains that we cannot spend our way into economic health. Until the Congress curbs its appetite for spending, our economy will continue to suffer. With that said, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to insist, especially after Sunday's budget-busting vote on health care, that we fully offset the entire cost of this legislation so we do not further burden future generations with even more debt. I will close, as I began, with this comment: The simple truth is that Uncle Sam needs a diet. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I simply rise, in part, to respond to the comments of my colleague. I think it's important for us to know that we do have quite a history of supplemental funding and what we do with emergency spending. As the chairman suggests, there has been a lot of funny business that has gone on, but I thought the Members ought to know that from fiscal year 1989 through fiscal year 2006 there have been 36 multiagency supplemental appropriations bills that have been considered by the Congress, and most of them have been enacted into law. Of those, only seven were never considered by our Appropriations Committee and this one was not considered by our Appropriations Committee. It was introduced almost at midnight, the very day we dealt with that trillion-dollar deficit package that was before us. Those seven that bypassed the committee I could easily go through in detail, but essentially they were dealing with the natural disasters that related to hurricanes in Florida and the disaster that impacted Louisiana and the like. Emergencies, indeed, but the committee was bypassed for those emergencies. It seems to me that it's about time that we took up supplementals like this, instead of being written at the last minute, be handled in regular order, be considered by the committee, be available to the members for not only reading but for amending, and it has become a consistent pattern that we are not doing that. We are bypassing our committee as though the committee or subcommittees might as well not exist. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague from North Carolina. He's a regular order kind of guy, and he chairs the Homeland Security Subcommittee. I've only been complaining about the way we're handling the process. My chairman so far has not brought a single supplement to the floor under an open rule. And you can deal with these things with an open rule reasonably on the floor. But, ideally, you deal with them in committee, have a chance for amendments and otherwise. We just don't bring supplementals to the committee for discussion. So far there have been--my colleague should know this--so far there have been $800 billion in spending numbers that Members didn't get a chance to have any input upon. With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, these will be my closing comments on the bill. I would like to say to the Members, my chairman, my colleagues, that I am very empathetic to their description of the way we have handled FEMA funding in the past. I indeed agree that, in the vast percentage of cases, that money ought to not be subject to offset requirements. The emergency rule is there for appropriate reasons. The only reason for raising this in a procedural way today is because of the reality that while we have disaster after disaster out there, we have never had quite a disaster like this huge deficit of this year, $1.6 trillion, and projecting out to the future there is no end. And eventually the public knows the economy can't stand it, and they are suggesting that we try to help them out of this disaster that is ahead of us. So it is indeed important for us to realize that in spite of the fact that there is a huge amount of money in the stimulus package that is yet unspent that might be used for some of these offsets, we need to seriously get on track of reducing spending and undermining that growing deficit so the public can at least have some sense that we are trying to effect the crisis that is beyond our horizon. I plan, after we are through here, to offer a motion to recommit on this bill in order to adopt the amendment I presented in the Rules Committee on Monday. The motion is simple. It cuts unnecessary money from the flawed $1 trillion stimulus to pay for the $5.1 billion FEMA spending provided in Mr. Obey's bill. The balance of the questions, we have discussed earlier. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I am.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, as I suggested earlier, the bill before us contains almost $6 billion in new spending, spending that is not offset by true reductions. Instead, this $6 billion will simply pile more money on to the government's charge card and add to our already astronomical debt. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the bill before us today is considered to be a general appropriations bill, and under the rules of the House, general appropriations bills are privileged and are to be considered in the Committee on Appropriations or sent to the Committee on Appropriations prior to consideration on the House floor. I have expressed my concern about the lack of regular order, the number of supplementals and appropriations bills that are not being heard in committee or subcommittee. I won't repeat all of those concerns, except to say that we are on this disastrous pathway because of our totally ignoring the need to make sense out of our national deficit and get a handle on spending. Mr. Speaker, I ask for consideration of my motion to recommit.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the highway provisions of H.R. 2847. I think it's important that my colleagues understand that the bill before us isn't a clean extension of SAFETEA-LU highway and transit programs, but includes new policies that would continue the program on the current road to ruin. I support a strong surface transportation bill; I worked with Mr. Oberstar for years in connection with that. I know our constituents depend upon this program to keep our roads and transit systems open and safe and to help keep economic investments coming to our communities. But we also know that the highway trust fund is badly broken; it has been broken for some time. The trust fund has been in a nosedive for years due to overspending, but nothing was ever done about that.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, we are about to enter another season of federal spending decisions, beginning with a new stimulus package that will add another $150 billion to our outrageous federal debt. What are we getting for this spending? In my home counties of San Bernardino and Riverside, California, we have lost 30,000 jobs in the past year. Our unemployment rate is 14 percent. Houses have lost half of their value in 3 years, and foreclosures have gone from 3,000 3 years ago to nearly 48,000 last year. The stimulus and runaway spending have not brought jobs to my constituents, but they have increased one thing: Each man, woman and child could soon owe $48,000 for their share of the federal debt. The CBO tells us that just 10 percent of last year's stimulus is being spent on job-creation. Let's not make that mistake again this year.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to Alan and Nancy Brodovsky, who are widely known for their community service in Sacramento, California, and especially for their devotion to education excellence. Madam Speaker, I became aware of and made many friends in the Sacramento Jewish community as a result of a decade in the legislature and through family connections. I have always been impressed by the vibrancy and commitment of the volunteers in our state capital, and have maintained strong ties with my friends there. Alan Brodovsky is a Sacramento native who has been among the most active in giving his time to the community. He has been particularly involved in supporting the establishment and growth of the Shalom School, the only Jewish Day School in Sacramento. He has spent 25 years in leadership positions on the board of trustees. He was also instrumental in forming an advisory board to establish, build, and manage the investments for Shalom School's endowment program. Mr. Brodovsky has been a volunteer leader of the greater community in many ways, serving on the board of trustees of Mosaic Law Congregation, three years as president. He is currently a member of its foundation board. He is a trustee and treasurer of Hillel of Davis and Sacramento, vice president of the Trust Fund for Jewish Elderly. He has served on the board of the Jewish Community Foundation of the West, the JCRC, and is the past president of the Sacramento Junior Chamber. Nancy Brodovsky has been a force in the Sacramento community since she married Alan and moved there in 1985. She has also been president of the board of trustees of Shalom School, and has served as a trustee for the Crocker Art Museum, FamiliesFirst, Mosaic Law Congregation, TDX, the National Breast Cancer Fund, Sacramento Jewish Federation, Sacramento Country Day School and the advisory board of Breakthrough Sacramento. Perhaps her most high-profile role has been as the chairman of the board of directors of the M.I.N.D. Institute at University of California, Davis. The M.I.N.D. Institute is a collaborative international research center, committed to the awareness, understanding, prevention, care and cure of neurodevelopmental disorders, the most well-known of which is autism. In addition to being intimately involved in setting the course of the institute, Nancy has organized and overseen annual fund-raising events that have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the program. Madam Speaker, Alan and Nancy Brodovsky have raised two fine sons even as they have devoted their time and efforts to their community. In tribute to their years of dedication, the Brodovskys will be honored by the Shalom School in March. I ask you and my colleagues to join me in commending them for their community work and wish them well in their future endeavors.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, Jack Murtha and I served together in this institution for over 30 years. We disagreed at times over policy and politics, but I am proud to say that Jack was my friend. Throughout my time in Congress, I have never seen a more valiant defender of the men and women of our armed forces than Jack, nor a more steadfast advocate for our country's unequaled national defense. Years ago, when I was convinced that we should push forward quickly with development of the Predator UAV, Jack listened to my reasons and helped me push through the funding that has produced one of our most valuable weapons in the War on Terror. When I became chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, I counted on Jack Murtha to be a partner rather than an adversary when the welfare of our military was on the line. When we urged that the F- 22 program be reined in to ensure it was thoroughly tested, Jack was by my side and helped win the day and make that a better airplane. Just weeks ago, Jack and I traveled together to Afghanistan. We were under tight timelines that were influenced by the situation on the ground. Although the travel was hard and the schedule was arduous, Jack maintained the energy and dedication of a man half his age. His unwavering purpose was to learn as much as he could, gain as much insight from our commanders as possible, and see for himself the challenges our country faces in that region. He was a true patriot, and his passing is a cause for great sadness. This Congress will be a much lesser place without him. My wife Arlene and I offer our most sincere condolences to his family, and also to his second family--his Congressional staff and the Members and staff of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I fully support my friends on the other side of the aisle taking action to protect the constitutional prerogatives of the legislative branch in this matter. As the gentleman from Florida stated, it is ironic that the executive branch has chosen to use an action taken by the Congress as a courtesy to them against this very body. I think this should give all of us pause when we are faced with similar situations in the future. As the gentleman from Florida has stated, the Constitution allows the President to take some time to review the legislation sent to him. However, when we are dealing with appropriations bills and operating under a continuing resolution to keep the government running, sometimes timelines don't match up neatly. As a matter of courtesy to the President, Congress on a bipartisan basis traditionally transmits a short term ``signing'' CR to preserve the President's ability to review final appropriations bills without triggering a government shutdown. That is exactly what occurred in this situation. The Congress did not send the President the final defense appropriations bill until December 19, the day the existing CR was to expire, leaving the President no time to review the defense bill unless he wanted to shut the Department of Defense down. So, the Congress unanimously passed and transmitted a short term CR solely as a matter of courtesy. The President could have easily followed his predecessors' practice and signed both bills. The substantive effect would have been the same as it is today. But that is not what the President chose to do. So we are here today, as the Congress, to deal with the first veto issued by President Obama. Is it a veto based over substantive policy disagreements like President Bush's veto of stem cell legislation, or President Clinton's veto of legislation lifting the arms embargo for Bosnia and Herzegovina? No, it is not. It is a veto that simply uses a now moot piece of legislation to re-ignite a battle between the legislative and executive branches dating back to the Nixon administration, a battle that the courts have generally sided in favor of the legislative branch. I hope that in the future the President will exercise his veto power on substantive issues important to the American people such as vetoing bills that continue us on a path of reckless government spending.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I very much appreciate my colleague for yielding. Madam Speaker, my friend, Mr. Murtha, has spent some time at Bethesda, and I would like to recognize the contributions that he has made to this bill and to the work he has done with Mr. Young. Madam Speaker, it has taken months to get to this point but I'm pleased to see that we are finally considering a Defense Appropriations bill to provide funds for the men and women of our armed forces and the national security needs of our country. We should have been on the House floor months ago--months ago-- passing a clean Defense funding bill. Like many Members, I questioned the priorities of the Democrat leadership in moving this year's funding bills, particularly the decision to send the President the Legislative Branch conference report as our first completed bill. It sent an unmistakable signal that the House majority was putting the needs of Congress first and placing the needs of our troops at the end of the line. I know there has been great temptation to use the Defense bill as the vehicle to carry many unrelated legislative items that could not and would not muster enough support to pass on their own. And while this package before us is far from clean, it's a streamlined version of what was, just a few days ago, shaping up to be the mother of all Christmas tree bills. It was Chairman Obey who, on December 18th, 2005 said, and I quote, ``The defense bill ought to be about delivering equipment and supporting our troops. There is something especially outrageous and callous about the willingness of the majority party leadership to allow the Defense Department bill in a time of war to be held hostage to totally unrelated legislative items.'' But that is precisely what we are doing by including a variety of non-defense related legislative provisions in this package. Some items like COBRA, food stamps, and so-called ``poverty guidelines'' have been manipulated in a way to suit the Chairman's purposes for redistributing income in America but do not reflect the agreement reached to garner bipartisan support on this bill. We are also designating as emergency spending an additional $20 billion worth of program extensions. I'm not arguing that some of these are unworthy but merely pointing out that they should have no place in a defense spending bill. At the very least, we should pay for them honestly rather than continuing to add to our mountain of debt. More curious to me is the fact that buried within this legislation is an airdropped Member project in the form of bill language authorizing the payment of nearly $13 million to a county in North Carolina. I can only assume that this project meets all of the necessary requirements for congressional projects. No one seems to know how or why this project was included in this package but it's there in black and white for the world to see. Also disconcerting is the fact that the underlying defense spending bill fails to include funding needed for additional MRAPS to support the 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan. My understanding is that the House and Senate majority and minority were in full agreement to funding an additional 4,000 MRAPS--and yet a decision was made at another level--perhaps even at a staff level--to leave this vital funding out of this package. Again, it's a decision like this that causes me to scratch my head and question the priorities of this majority leadership. At the end of the day, this legislation is far from perfect; I would vote against Division B if given the opportunity. But it is a vast improvement over the massive train wreck that was heading our way earlier this week. I strongly support the underlying defense portion of this package and ask our colleagues to support our troops who are defending freedom at home and abroad.