so we need a multipronged approach. we hope with legislation passed by the house last week to reinstall physical education in the school, quality physical education in the schools. host: our guest is joining us from boston. thank you for being cure on c- span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] coming up, a conversation with california congressman joe louis. we continue the conversation every day with you. our roundtable discussion will focus now on immigration. we have the president of the association for immigration reform, and frank sherry is the founder of "america's voice."

we hope you tune in, 7:00 a.m. eastern. thank you for being with us this sunday morning. enjoy the rest of your weekend. .

>> "newsmakers" is very pleased to welcome congressman jerry lewis, the chief appropriator on capitol hill. thank you for being here this week. our two reporters joining me this week, the congressional appropriations reporter, and congressional reporter from mcwlatchy. with the twin facts in front of us of a federal debt of about $13 trillion and unemployment in your home state of california 12.6%, which is going to be the driving priority for you? >> $13 trillion did you say in i can't quite imagine that our national debt could rise to that level. for me, it's very, very apparent that government's tendency to overspend on everything has had a huge impact upon our economy, and government's unwillingness to provide oversight in areas where they have serious responsibility has led to other problems like the housing

crisis. it's not a democrat or republican thing in my mind's eye. over the year's we've demonstrated time and time again that we like to create problems, we like to dump people into them and then we ignore whether they work or not. who didn't believe in the american dream? everybody ought to have a chance to own a home. certainly i've been committed to that all my life. but over the years, as we tried to move in that direction, what did we do? we found all kinds of mechanisms to let anybody get into a house whether they had a job, whether they could afford it or not, whether it would ruin their own economic future. so government should be very careful about what it does. and for my people, they want to see our economy turn around because government's helped us create jobs rather than destroy jobs. >> so which will be your priority? >> both of those. >> how do you do that? >> it seems to me that you deal with the housing problem by laying the foundation by laying

sensible ways for all of us to get into the american dream. the other end how you get a handle on this huge deficit is by progressively reducing the rate of growth of spending. and if you don't do that, you'll never get that. >> including for entitlement. >> including a serious review. that's the tough one but it cannot be ignored. so we must be willing to do that together, democrats and republicans. >> kerry. >> it sounds like there will be some spending cuts. how are you going to explain this to the people back home in the 41st zrick that there are certain programs we've had and now we're not going to be able to afford them? >> since you know the appropriations process, it's obvious that in recent months we've escalated our spending levels in every category of government at such a rate that nobody can imagine how we got there. and the public doesn't know it yet because the pipelines are stuffed with money.

so we can increase that pattern i think very effectively without that political fallback that people are concerned about. cut back on the increase that is have been so radical in the last 18 months. >> is that going to be enough? looking at the gap between what we take in and what we spend, do you think that there will have to be real cuts in real programs? >> it seems to me that there are programs that haven't worked. you cut those programs. but also, to get to the other end, there's no doubt that in the shrinking world, our force ought to be for peace as we go forward and provide that strength. we ought to be examining carefully how we are spending money on national security where we can be cutting back in connection with that across the board. we've got to be willing to look. >> you mentioned programs aren't working. are there any specific ones that you would say aren't working? >> there really are. as a matter of fact, years ago

i played a big role in the arena that involves public housing. and over the years, i remember henry and i at that time going to section 8 projects. it's amazing to see the way that money was wasted. we need to make sure that that money is targeting people who have real needs and we eliminate those programs that aren't working that go well beyond the standard section 8 requirements. the same thing applies, we did a major oversight in the defense arena regarding the f-22 when i was first chairman of that subcommittee. and we found that we were going down roadways for several teck tactical aircraft not examining what the alternate yis are. when we pulled the procurement way back then you would have thought we blew the lid off the pentagon but today the pentagon is talking about eliminating it. >> since president obama signed the debt limit extension, which included the pay as you go requirements on many programs february 12, congress has twice

passed legislation to extend jobless benefits, flood insurance programs, and so forth at a total cost of $28 billion without paying for those programs. now, this goes back to susan's question about what's the priority here? the debt or the people in california who aren't working? should the government pay for those 28 billion worth of programs? and you're going to face this question again probably on june 2 when the current programs run out. should the $28 billion be paid for? should you pay for the programs after june 2? if so, how? >> david, we have increased discretionary spending over the last two fiscal years by 85%, not including defense. indeed, the national debt ceiling has been raised by this congress the last couple of sessions six different times moving our national debt limitation from roughly $7

billion -- trillion, to 13 or 14 trillion. we are on a pattern to increased spending, and the only way you're going to reverse that is to insist that you pay for new programs, especially programs that have long-term obligations. now, the way you do that is insist that across the board you reduce other programs in ways that reflect the rate of growth and inflation rather than just skyrocketting. >> should the 28 billion be paid for and should future extension bs paid for? >> i frankly would eliminate much of the 28 billion. those expansion of programs are not automatic. if we could go back with a recission package, for example, just looking at the stimulus spending, a recission package to take the money that hasn't been spent yet of those huge dollar amounts in the stimulus package and apply that to the national deficit, that would begoin take us down the pathway i'm talking about. >> let me narrow this down. should you pay for the extension of the unemployment benefits, which is i think roughly two thirds of the

spending here? >> the answer first is yes. and it's very important to know that the average person who is on unemployment is very disturbed by the fact that unemployment now has become almost a welfare program. people who are working people want to find jobs. they would much prefer to be carrying their own load rather than depending upon the government. but congress now is in the business it would appear of expanding dependency on more and more people to depepped upon them. that's the way you build perm nancy in a growing federal government. so, yes, we should pay for it and we should eliminate programs and cut across the board. >> looking at this year, we have an election coming up. is that going to change how the fiscal 2011 bills get done, the spending bills that fund if government or much of it? >> that's a good question. >> based on your experience? >> we do have an election coming up and there's not any

doubt that the democratic leadership is very concerned about having their membership have to vote for programs that indicate they're voting for more spending. and within that swirl there's no doubt that they're going to try to find ways to buy pass getting credit for this new spending and essentially not have the american public on the inside as to what the government is all about. so even the budget discussion is taking place right now would suggest that they want to avoid a serious discussion about the volume of increased spending that is a part of their current program. >> in terms of the actual bills coming through, do you see an omnibus after the election? do you see any bills getting done before the election? >> an omnibus. i guess that the public may wonder what an omnibus is. an omnibus normally means that the appropriation committee and their subcommittees either have not done their work or have not been allowed to do their work. so at the end of the fiscal

year, to extend our ability to go forward, they put all these past expenditures in a huge package called an omnibus, and within that big package you can hide all kinds of things and create new programs and the american people doesn't know who to blame. i expect this session the odds are very good we'll have a repeat of last year where we literally did not have individual bills at the subcommittee level, did not move it through the conference process so we produced appropriations bills, we have a dozen such bills. host: through the house you got all your bills. >> we got our bills that foing full we will there was resistance between doing the two bodies, so that leads to a great big package. the omnibus was only 400 plus billion dollars. >> this is not something new. this is something congress has tended to use more often than not to wrap up spending. >> the answer is yes to that as well. but we usually do it on a very

limited basis. to see the appropriations committee operating in a fashion where largely we don't have many public hearings at the subcommittee level we don't have the democrats and republicans who know the subject come together and chew on the pros and cons and produce a bill. instead what we have is a central office in the appropriations process in the house that makes all the decisions with little consultation with democrats or republicans on the subcommittee. and then they talk with the speaker and our speaker then goes and talked to harry reid and between the two of them they decide how the world should work. that's not the way the appropriations committee should work. >> briefly. people have always said for a long time the process is broken. congress more often than not doesn't get the bills done. but you think there has been a marked change. >> for a short time i had the privilege to chair the subcommittee. we made a commitment early that first year by the july 4 break to pass every one of our bills and send them to the senate.

people said you're crazy, that's not going to happen. well, my goodness, it did happen. we were able to get our work done, have hearings and have this kind of markup and input. thad concran committed to the same kind of thing and we got every win of our bills headed towards the president's desk. the system will work if you let it. we made a commitment to try to reduce patterns of spending and significantly that was done in many categories as well. >> let me go to the deficit commission because that ties into this. one thing i hear over and over from republicans and democrats is the wink and say we don't need to do the appropriations bills on time. as you know, there's no budget resolution, april 15 congress was supposed to have this outline of the budget. well, it's not there. one reason they say is let the deficit commission go its work. the commission report's december 1. how much is this becoming an excuse for putting off these decisions number one. number two, i want to get your thoughts on the value of this

deficit commission. >> i'm glad you asked the question. i must say there's little doubt that if people want to continue this explosion of government spending you certainly between now and election want to hide it from the public. so you create a commission like a deficit commission and that's a neat way of having a commission that you design come forth with a recommendations after election. and in the meantime, the deficit continues to explode. i think the commission -- input from a commission might be interesting, but it's absolutely a mechanism for legislators and politicians to avoid their responsibility. it's our job, that's why we're elected, to deal with the people's treasury and only spend their money after careful thought to have a commission take over that responsibility in part in terms of futures is irresponsible in my judgment but most importantly it's a political tool rather than a real tool. >> which begs this question. and sort of follow what carry

is saying. republicans out aff 177 house seats, democrats i think it's 254, how in the world do you make yourself heard in this process? how do you have any influence in this process? >> as an appropriator, i would have to say in the last two fiscal year cycles we had almost no input. there were discussions this actually occurred, there were discussions at a very high staff level in which subcommittee staff people on the majority side were told don't talk to your republican colleagues about this or what we're doing. if you do, you're not going to be in the meeting next time. now, that kind of style takes us back to the majesty, the day of the king. i mean, we came as a democracy to try to avoid dictate and small number of control. we don't need to be a monarchy. america can do its business and do it very well if we will.

>> if that happens again, please call us and give us names. we're serious. >> well, you and i have talked about revealing sources. we have to be very careful. >> but seriously, you still have 177 votes. you represent in a lot of cases swing districts. give employee an example of where maybe you can influence a major decision, a major program or force the issue. >> well, 25 years ago we were in the minority. i had an interest in aircraft and where we wanted to be going in term of the future. i was also on the intelligence committee. within -- we had small numbers at the time. but within the intel arena i discovered a thing called through staff help unmanned aerial vehicles. became so intrigued by that, i brought staff in so that we really understood its potential. that led to an earmark, that is a member-initiated appropriation, of some $40

million in the black, intelligence, so nobody really knew what it was about. without that $40 million, predator, that great drone, predator would never have been in bosnia. and i'll never forget our recent departed chairman of the subcommittee, jack murtsa, going with jack murtha out to the agency where they were first developing the manning putting missiles on the predator. the air force had strongly opposed unmanned aerial vehicles. you couldn't have a plane without somebody sitting in the seat. right? well, who is in charge of that manning of the drone? it was a three-star blue suiter. jack was very impressed by that. and we all know what the predator has done in terms of our efforts in the middle east. >> speaking of earmarks. your republican colleagues are pushing for a complete ban on earmarks. yesterday, steny hoyer, the democrat's leadership was

speaking at a breakfast here in washington and described the earmark ban was the word hypocracy. later on, said it would cede too much authority to the white house. and here is a quote. i think it's a fundamental ero to take the position they are taking. what is your reaction? >> first, i think our majority leader is misinformed as to the position we're really taking. we did as a conference call for a moratorium for a period of time through the next election relative to earmarks. that is, member-initiated appropriations. we did not suggest that we were going to permanently ban this form of appropriation. we do appreciate the constitutional directive that we're given to control appropriations. and the difference between who controls the purse strings, the legislative branch is supposed to. so he's uninformed in this sense. i'm in the midst of a major discussion right at this moment

to make recommendations to my own leadership before the election as to what he we ought to do, how we should proceed. it is my personal view that earmarks are such a nominal piece of the whole process that they almost don't count. but our moratorium is symbolic about our commitment to reducing spending over time. but to suggest that's going to be a huge reduction would be crazy. the first thing that we should do at least as we go back to recognizing that members will provide input is insist that any savings from such reduction in member initiated appropriations will go to the deficit rather than going automatically back to the bureaucracy and being spent by nonelected people who think they know better what the american people ought to enjoy. >> was that a difficult discussion? every member must have a story of yours where they know they had an earmark that really helped something. was it a hard sell for your members? >> well, i had been over a long period of time one of the voices that said we ought to

make sure that we preserve the constitutional responsibility that is ours to appropriate. no where in the constitution said is the president's budget mention ds. the predator is that in spadse. but an earmark develops a thing called proton therapy in california that i was directly involved in that affected my own district. but the proton is a process for treatment that kills small tumors potentially in the brain, that has been very successful with prostate cancer, noninvasive. and indeed, not long ago, one of my own relatives was one of those people who had breast cancer treatment successfully. that would not have occurred without an earmark. and members often times find themselves in cases where the nih or the defense department. >> did that make it hard then to get your members largely -- >> oh, you want to take me back to what kind of debate. there were a lot of people who had absolute concern. but it was important for us to

send a signal out there that said we're going to be serious about every form of appropriations and make sure there's appropriate oversight. and the way to symbolize that best, in my judgment, was by way of putting a more torm on earmarks which says ahah not all of these things are good but indeed there's a need to maintain there control and its credibility. so this symbol is going to allow us to have that discussion in open with our members. and, yes, especially since members can't initiate propeses as a result of moratorium there's a lot of controversy in our caucus and also in steny's caucus. >> i want to broaden this out a little bit as a veteran member of congress. how bitter is the partisanship? is it to the point you can't talk to democrats? you just gave the example of staff. i've been here as long as you have, and we've seen bitter partisanship before in the 80s, in the 90s. but is it to the point now where you can't get things done

because people are just so rigid they won't talk to each other? and, if so, because i've seen this, why? and what can you do about it? >> one of the worst things i must say that we've done in connection with that is very much affected c-span. if we hadn't televised the congressional sessions, you wouldn't have the extremes of both parties talking all the time. >> big republicans who started that. >> i'm not denying that by any means. the fact is that that dialogue has tended to push the extremes and because of it the rhetoric on the floor and the public reaction, the public reacts as well. at the subcommittee level, we still do have a lot of opportunity for nonpartisan discussion. i've had direct discussions with steny hoyer about some of his leader slp coming to our subcommittees and polarizing at the subcommittee level where you start talking about democrats did this or

republicans did that. we still do have that opportunity for exchange. but because of the desire for power, being in control of the congress, having the majority, et cetera, the conversation is considerably more stilted today than it's ever been. and it's one of the worst things that's happened to our legislative body. >> when you go home, can you give people an example of how this partisan divide is handicapping you? appropriators tend to be collegial. you talk to each other, you make decisions together. you come up with your hands on the table at the same time. but if you're back home and somebody says, this gridlock, how is it affecting me? what can't you do in 2010 that you could have done 15 years ago? what would you say? >> well, i would say first and foremost at the subcommittee level when the democrat makes a suggestion versus a republican, there's a tendency for the people in charge to say, ahah, that's a good idea, we'd better

steal it. or vice versa. you don't have people succeeding in terms of their cap pacting public policy. but you know, not long ago on the health care discussion, i had a session, a small little session that the tea party people asked me to organize. my staff was vrd concerned. and i said, wait a minute. i called the guy. we had a meeting. the audience only involved a thousand or more people. they were a small fringe of people on the edge who are protesting for partisan purposes. but about a third were democrats, a third were republicans, and a third were concerned about where the people were taking them or taking us. our people are afraid right now that government wants to become a monarchy again and wants to take over every aspect of our life and create dependence. that's what people are saying to me. >> how do you cut through this, using your personal skills in congress, get things done with democrats? >> well, jack and i worked very

closely together over those years. at the subcommittee years ago when we were talking about the f-22, we closed the doors, democrats and republicans talked about it and i said we're going to break here shortly for ten days or so. if this gets out, we're going to be dead when we get to the full committee so we've got to keep it closed. believe it or not, for ten days democrats and republicans kept that closed. it actually happened. and we pulled the money for that procurement. talking to members and creating credibility with each other. norm dism is one of the fabulous members in my judgment, the new chairman. we are good friends not just otherwise. sometimes the gym is a good place the go. >> you mentioned health care. what do you see as its future? >> certainly not repeal in terms of saying we're going to eliminate the wlole idea. some of us have been advocating for 30 and 40 years that we ought to break down the barriers between states. that's the way you underwrite

reasonably preexisting conditions, for example. that can be done without exchanges in every state or the federal government having to review as to what is good insurance. i can tell you this, the public wants to have preexisting conditions be within the mix. they want to be able to take their own insurance with them. we can do that without any doubt, without huge government involvement. my public is saying let's have reasonable health care reform but don't get between me and my doctor. >> last question. >> just in looking at the war supplemental that's coming up, do you have any idea when we're going to see it for markup? and have there been any changes in the president's request? >> i only have a chance to be the ranking member in the appropriations committee now, and this is just a small multiple billion dollar package. i've had no discussion with my chairman about this. we don't have any idea whether we will have a full committee markup at this moment. it's going to happen sometime

very soon. but lack of communication and control in the center has become so important that none of us who happen to be in the minority right now are included in the conversation. that's not a good thing for anybody. >> your best guess as a veteran appropriator, will we see this very soon? >> my guess is we'll see it in the next couple of weeks. whether we'll have a public hearing and markup is another question. i think it's very doubtful and that will probably reflect what's going to happen with the appropriations bills across the board during the rest of the season. >> let's close, since you just came back to listening with folks in the district. this far out, will you handicap the elections for us? >> there's no doubt and it's very important that this happen that there be a closure of numbers. the democrats, if they have the majority, will have many fewer members than they have presently. a lot of people are predicting that the republicans could gain the majority. not just in the house, but maybe both houses.

i did not see 1994, the last time we got the majority, coming. this time i feel the wind is at our back because of the issues and the stylist being used by this dominant leadership. the public is getting that message and they're scared to death about this new creation of dependency across the board by the federal congress. so that could lead to major change. we could surprise ourselves with the majority. >> thank you for being on "newsmakers" this week. >> thank you. >> "newsmakers" is back with kerry young of congressional quarterly and david lightman of michigan mclatchy newspaper. i want to start with the mood because it seems all else we talked about depends on the parties' good reading of the mood. how well do you both think that mr. lewis did in telling us what's on the minds of the american public at large with regard to unemployment and spending? >> as well as he could, in this

format. i think there are two or thry thing that is are going to drive the mood of the electorate. first, tell us what the gross doms stick product is going to be and what the unemployment might be. but number two is how much they trust their elected officials. one of the points we were making in this discussion was that 10, 15 years ago there was more collegiality in congress. people talked. his example of how they were able to sit on an appropriation piece for ten days. the polarization today is terrible. i mean, people don't necessarily talk to each other. and the public sees that. they may not understand the debt limit, they may not understand all these nuances, but they understand that somehow government just isn't right. and i wonder if they're going to take that out on both parties. >> i think there is a real concern about how much we're spending as a nation and how much that spending exceeds what we're taking in. i think there's mixed feelings on what we're supposed o