and going to let it shine this little lot of mine -- white of mind -- light of mine i'm going to let it shine let it shine let it shine let it shine everywhere i go i'm going to let it shine everywhere i go i'm going to let it shine everywhere i go on i'm going to let it shine let it shine let it shine let it shine .

[no audio] >> newsmakers is very pleased to present terry lewis.

thank you. our to reporters joining us now are the congressional appropriations reporter and a congressional reporter . with the cadets -- debt and unemployment in california -- which is going to be the driving point for you? >> 13 trillion dollars did you say? i could not imagine our national debt could rise to that level. it is very clear that overspending is a problem, and the housing crisis is not a democrat or republican thing, and we have demonstrated time and time again that we like to

create problems with -- programs, and we ignore whether they work or not. who did not believe and the american dream? everybody ought to have a chance to own all home. over the years as we try to move in that direction, what do we do, wheaton -- we have all kinds of mechanisms to help anybody get into a house, whether it would ruin their economic future, so government should be very careful, and my people want to see the economy turn around because government helps create jobs rather than destroy jobs. >> which would be your priority? >> both of them. >> how you do that? >> it seems to me you deal with the housing problem by laying the foundation with sensible ways for all of us to get the american dream. the other way you really get a handle on the huge deficit is by progressively reducing

overspending. if you do not do that, you will not get there. >> including over entitlement? >> that is the tough one, but it cannot be ignored, so we must be willing to do that together, democrats and republicans. >> it sounds like there will be some spending cuts, so how are you going to explain this to the people back home that there are certain programs and now we're not going to be able to afford them? >> it is pretty obvious. in recent months, we have escalated our spending levels in every category of government at such a rate that nobody can imagine how we got there, and the public does not know it because the pipelines are stuck with money, but we can reduce that pattern of increased growth very effectively without the political fall back that people are always concerned about, so you start there.

cut back on the increases that have been so radical and the last 18 months. >> is that going to be announced? there is a huge gap between what we take in and what we spend. do you think there will have to be cut eventually? >> it seems to me there are programs that have not worked. we cut those programs and eliminate them, but also if you get to the other end, there is no doubt in the shrinking world that our courts 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 across the board. >> we mentioned it -- you mentioned programs that are not working. which ones are specific ones that are not working? >> there really are. years ago, i played a big role in the arena that involves public housing, and over the years -- i remember henry and i spent time going over the

section aid projects. it is amazing to see how that money -- section 8 project. it is amazing to see how that money is wasted. we need to eliminate those that are not working. it goes well beyond the standards section eight requirements. the same thing applies if we get a major oversight regarding the f-22. when i was first chairman of that subcommittee, we thought we were going down roadways for technical aircraft, not now examining what the alternatives were. way back then, you would have thought we blew the lid off the pentagon. >> david? >> since president obama signed the debt limit extension, which included the pay-as-you-go requirement on february 12, congress has twice passed legislation to extend jobless benefits and so forth at a total cost of $28 billion without paying for those programs.

this goes back to susan's question about -- what is the priority here? the debt or the people in california who are not working? should the government pay for those $28 billion worth of programs? you are going to face this question again on june 2 when the current program is thrown out. should the $28 billion be paid for? should we pay for the programs after june 2, and if so, how? >> 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 debt to about 13 trillion dollars or 14 trillion dollars. we are not pattern to increase spending, and the only way to

reduce that is to insist we pay on new programs, especially those with long-term obligations. the way you do that is insist across the board to reduce other programs in ways that reflect the rate of inflation rather than skyrocketing. >> should the $28 billion be paid for, and should future extensions be paid for? >> i would eliminate the $28 billion. those expenses on programs are not automatic. if we could go back, just looking at the stimulus spending, a recision package to take the money that has not been spent yet of those huge dollar amounts in the stimulus package and apply that to the national deficit, that would begin to address what i am talking about. >> let me narrow this down. should you pay for the extension of unemployment benefits, which i think is roughly 2/3 of spending? >> the answer is yes, and it is very important to know that the average person who is on unemployment is very disturbed

by the fact that unemployment has now become almost a welfare program. people who are working people want to find jobs. they would much prefer to carry their own load rather than depend on the government. congress is now in the business of expanding dependency, wanting more and more people to depend upon them for almost everything. that is the way you build permanency in a growing federal government, so yes, we should pay for it, and we ought to eliminate programs and cut across the board. >> we have an election coming up. is that going to change the spending bills? >> there is no doubt the democratic leadership is very concerned about having their leadership have to vote for programs that indicate they are

voting for more spending, and within that swirl, there is no doubt they are going to try to find ways to bypass getting credit for business spending and essentially not having the american public on the inside is what the government is all about, so even the budget discussions taking place now would suggest they want to avoid a serious discussion about the volume of increased spending that was part of their current program. >> in terms of actual bills coming through, the uc and effect after the election? -- do you see an omnibus after the election? >> an omnibus normally means the appropriations 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, we extend our ability to go forward. they put all these expenditures in a huge package called an omnibus, and within that big

package you can hide all sides of things. you can create -- all kinds of things. you can create new programs, and the american public does not know who to blame. i expect we will have a repeat of last year, when we did not have fills -- individual bills. we had a dozen such appropriations bills. we had bills, knowing full well there was resistance to doing anything between the two bodies, so that leads to a great big package, and the omnibus was only $400 billion plus. >> this is not something new. this is something congress tend to do more often than not to route of spending? >> the answer is yes. we usually do it on a limited basis. to see the appropriations committee operating in the way were largely we do not have many hearings, at the subcommittee it

levels we do not have those who know the subjects produced a bill, but instead we have a central office that makes all the decisions with little consultation with democrats or republicans of the subcommittee, and they talk with the speaker, and our speaker talks to harry reid, and between the two of them, they decide how the world should work. that is not with the appropriations committee should work. >> for a long time, it is said the probe -- the process is broken, but you think there really has been a marked change? >> i think you know for a short time i have the privilege to chair the subcommittee. we made a commitment early that year to pass every one of our bills and send them to the senate, and people said, you are crazy. that is not going to happen, but it did happen. we were able to get our work done and have this input.

the chairman of the senate appropriations committee committed to the same kind of thing, and we got everyone of our bills headed to the president's desk. the system will work. we made an effort to reduce patterns of spending, and that was done in many categories. >> you have 15 minutes left. >> let me go to the deficit commission. one thing i hear over and over from republicans and democrats is we can say we do not need to do the appropriations bill on time. there is no budget resolution. april 15, congress is supposed to have this outline of the budget. it is not fair. one reason they say, let's let the deficit division do its work -- how has -- how much has this become an excuse for putting off these decisions? i want to get your thoughts on the value of this deficit commission. >> there is little doubt that if people want to continue this explosion of government

spending, if you certainly want to hide it from the public between now and election, so you create a commission, and that is a neat way of having a commission you designed put forth recommendations after the election, and the deficit continues to explode. i think the input from the commission might be interesting, but it is absolutely a mechanism for legislators and politicians to avoid the responsibility. it is our job. that is why we are elected, to deal with the people's treasury and only spend their money after careful thought, have a commission take over that responsibility -- and to have a commission take over that responsibility is irresponsible, but most importantly it is a political tool for requests which begs the question. republicans have 100 -- is a political tool.

>> which begs the question. how you make yourself heard in this process? >> as an appropriate for, 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 high staff level in which subcommittee staff people on the majority side were told, do not taught your republican colleagues about what we are doing. if you -- do not talk to your republican colleagues about what we're doing. if you do, you're not offering to be there next year. that takes us back to the majesty of the day of the king. we tried to avoid dictates' end control. we do not need -- to avoid dictates and control. we do not need to be a monarchy. the >> if that happens again, please call and give me names. >> we have to be very careful.

>> you still have 177 votes. you represent swing districts. give me an example of where maybe you can influence a major decision or force the issue. >> 25 years ago, we were in the minority. i had and interested in where we wanted to be going in terms of future. -- i had an interest in where we wanted to be going in terms of future. within the intel every night, -- intel arena, i found unmanned vehicles. i brought staff into really understand the potential. that brought an earmark of some $40 million in the black, so no one really knew what it was about. without the $40 million, the

predator would never have been involved. i will never forget our recently departed chairman of the subcommittee jack murtha, going with him to the agency were there were first putting missiles on the predator. the air force had strongly opposed unmanned vehicles. who was in charge of men in the drone? -- manning the drone? we all know what it has done in terms of our efforts in the middle east. >> speaking of your marks, your republican colleagues are pushing for a ban on earmarks. yesterday the democratic leadership was speaking in washington and describe the earmark them with the word " hypocrisy," later said it gave

too much authority to the white house and said, i think it is a fundamental error to take the position they are taking. >> i think our majority leader is misinformed as to the position we are taking. we did colman for a moratorium -- we did call for a moratorium relative to earmarks. we did not suggest we were going to permanently ban this form of appropriations. we do appreciate the constitutional directed we're given to control appropriations. the difference between who controls the first strings -- the legislative branch is supposed to -- is on informed in this sense. i am in the midst of a major discussion to make recommendations to my own leadership before the the election as to what we ought to do, how we should proceed. it is my personal view earmarks for such a nominal piece of the

whole process that they almost -- earmarks are such a nominal fees of the whole process that they almost do not count, but to suggest that would be a huge reduction would be crazy. the first thing we should do is as we go back and recognize members will provide input is insists any savings from such reduction in the number of appropriations will go to the deficit rather than going automatically back to the bureaucracies by non-elected people who think they know better what the american people ought to enjoy. >> was that a difficult discussion? every member must have a story like yours where they knew they had an earmark. was it a hard sell for your members? >> i had been one of the voices that say we ought to make sure we preserve the constitutional responsibility. that is ours to appropriate. nowhere in the constitution is the spread -- the president's

budget mentioned. the earmark developed a thing 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 not long ago, one of my own relatives was one of the people that had breast cancer treatment successfully. that would not have occurred without and year mark, and members often find themselves in cases where the national institute for health matters. >> did that make it hard to get your numbers nationally? >> there were a lot of people who had absolute concern, but it was important for us to send a signal but said we are going to be serious about every form of appropriations, and the way

that symbolized -- symbolize that is by putting a moratorium on your marks to say not all of these are good, but there's a need to maintain its credibility. this is going to allow us to have that discussion with our members, and especially since members cannot initiate appropriations, there is a lot of conversation in our caucus. >> i want to broaden this a little bit. how bitter is the partisanship? is it to the point where you cannot talk to democrats? you gave the example of staff. i have been here as long as you have. we have seen bitter partisanship and 80's and the 90's, but is it to the point where people cannot get things done because there will not talk to each other, and if so, what can you do about it?

>> one of the worst things we have done in connection with that has very much affected c- span. if we had not televise the congressional sessions, you would have the extremes talking all the time. >> it is the republicans who started that. >> i am not denying that. the fact is that has tended to push the extreme, and because of it, the rhetoric on the floor and the public's reaction -- the public reacts as well. at the senate committee level, we still have a lot of opportunity for non-partisan discussion. i have had direct discussion with senator hoyer about some of his leadership and polarizing at the subcommittee level. we still do have that opportunity for exchange, but because of the desire for power, of being in control of congress,

having the majority, etc., the conversation is more stilted today than it has ever been. that is one of the worst thing that happened. >> when you go home, can you give people an example of how this partisan divide has handicapped you? appropriators might pretend to be collegial. 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, how is this gridlock affecting you? what can you do now that you could have done 15 years ago? >> i would say first and foremost of the subcommittee level when a democrat makes a suggestion for us as a republican, there's a tendency to say, -- versus a republican, there is a tendency to say, we ought to steal the. -- that.

not long ago on health care discussion, i had a small session that tea party people ask me to organize. my staff was very concerned. i said, wait a minute. we had a meeting. we ought to invite 1000 or more people. there were a small fringe of people protesting, but the vast audience -- 1/3 were democrats, 1/3 were republicans, and the rest were people concerned about where their government is taking them. our people are afraid the government wants to become a monarchy and wants to take over every aspect of their life to create dependence. that is what people are saying to me. >> how do you cut through this? how do you get things done with democrats' dominance region with democrats? >> jack murtha and i worked -- how did you get thing done with democrats?

>> jack murtha and i worked on this for years. we said, if this gets out, we're going to be dead when we go to full committee, so we have to keep it close. for 10 days, democrats and republicans kept that close. we pull the money for that procurements. talking members and giving credibility for each other. one of the fabulous members, the new chairman -- we are good friends. sometimes the gym is a good place to go. >> you mention health care. what you see as its future? will it be repealed or reform? >> certainly not repeal in terms of eliminating the whole idea. some of us have been advocating for 30 or 40 years that we ought to break down the barriers between states. that is the way you underwrite previously pre-existing conditions. that can be done without exchanges and every state or the federal government having to review what is good insurance.

i can tell you the public wants to have pre-existing conditions be within the mix. they want to be able to take their own insurance with them. we can do that without huge government involvement. i am saying, let's have reasonable reform, but do not get between me and my doctor. >> do you have any idea when we're going to see the markup, and are there any changes in the president's request with new data coming in? >> i only had the chance to be a ranking member in the appropriations committee now, and this is just a small, multiple billion dollar package. i had no discussion with my chairman about this. we do not have any idea whether we will have a full committee markup at this moment. it is going to happen soon, but a lack of communication and control has become so important that none of us who happen to be in the minority now are included

in the conversation. that is not a good thing for anybody. >> of the veteran appropriators, will we see this? >> my guess is the next couple weeks. whether we will have a public hearing and markup is another question. i think it is very doubtful and will probably affect what will happen across the board during the rest of the season. >> less close with politics. if -- let's close with politics. do you think it will handicap the election pool? >> there is no doubt that there will be a closure of numbers. the democrats say they will have many fuelled members than they have presently. a lot of people are predicting the republicans could gain the majority, not just in the house but may be both houses. i did not see 1994, the last time we got this kind of majority, coming. the semi feel they are back because of the kinds of issues

and does file by the dominant leadership. the recovery to the public is getting -- the public is getting this message, and they are scared to death, so that could lead to major change. you could surprise yourself with the majority. >> thank you for being on "newsmakers." "newsmakers" is back with carry- on end our guest from the newspaper -- with our next guests. i want to start with the mood of the electorate, because it depends on the party post good reading of the mood of the electorate -- party is good reading of the mood of the electorate -- party's good reading of the mood of the electorate. how well do you think he described it? >> first of all, tell us what the gross doic