Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention the fine work and outstanding public service of San Bernardino County Undersheriff, Ray Dorsey of Redlands, CA. Undersheriff Dorsey will be honored today upon his retirement after almost 29 years of service to the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. Ray Dorsey was born is Los Angeles, graduated from Redlands High School, and attended San Bernardino Valley College and the University of Redlands. He began his career in July 1967, when he was appointed deputy sheriff and assigned to the Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center. After serving his first patrol assignment at the Yucaipa Station, Ray was promoted to detective, his first of many promotions, and assigned to the specialized detective division in 1971 where his responsibilities included crimes against property and homicide investigations. With his promotion to sergeant in 1973, Ray returned to the Yucaipa Station and assumed his duties as the second-in-command. His promotion to the rank of lieutenant in 1977 was closely followed by his promotion to captain in 1980, where he was given the responsibility of commanding the Sheriff's Specialized Detective Division. Three years later, he was promoted by Sheriff Floyd Tidwell to deputy chief which gave him responsibility over the next 4 years for the Valley-Mountain and Specialized Investigations Bureaus. In 1987, Ray was promoted to assistant sheriff which gave him oversight of the departmental support operations including corrections, training, records, crime laboratory, and identification. In 1991, Ray was appointed undersheriff and given wide responsibility for the overall operations of the department. He has served in this position under the leadership of both Sheriff Dick Williams and Sheriff Gary Penrod. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me, our colleagues, as well as Ray Dorsey's family and many friends, in recognizing the selfless achievements of this remarkable man. Ray has given his professional life to the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department and has served the citizens of San Bernardino County well for almost 30 years. It is only appropriate that the House recognize Undersheriff Dorsey today as he begins his well deserved retirement.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have long championed our second amendment right to bear arms. Time after time, I have voted against misguided attempts to limit or restrict our rights to buy and own guns or ammunition. As you may know, I have strongly opposed and voted against both the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. I have always been a strong supporter of law enforcement but I believe that we need to solve our crime problems directly and not by curbing the constitutionally protected rights of law abiding citizens. The ban on semi-automatic weapons will not stop criminals from procuring these firearms. The only people who will not have access to illegal weapons are law abiding citizens. Our Federal Government needs to protect law abiding citizens and not take away their means with which to protect themselves. It is for these reasons that I support efforts to repeal the assault weapons ban.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I must say my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland, very much was helping us all focus upon the point. There is little doubt that the American public knows full well that we need to reduce the rate of growth of Government, because the past rate of growth of Government has taken us to a deficit that is pushing $5 trillion. The American public further knows that in their own households they have to be able to pay their bills, and if consistently they do not pay their bills, they eventually declare bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, some suggest that a $5 trillion deficit has a tremendously negative impact upon our economy. The problem is not the result of cuts, but rather the result of spend, spend, spend, spend. This Congress, dominated by one party for 40 years, moved us toward this horrendous condition. In the short time the gentleman from Maryland and I have been together on this committee, the majority, the former majority: spend, spend, spend. Never could they find a program that was not working, never cancel a program whenever you create one, but expand it; spend, spend, spend, spend; tax, tax, tax, tax. Mr. Speaker, that is not the way to solve the problems of our people or our Government. Indeed, it is time for a change. If the President would work with us instead of vetoing bills, we would not have to be here today. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is time for a change.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention the fine work and outstanding public service of Louise St. Jean. Louise, the department of economic and community development's executive secretary, is retiring at the end of March after 23 years of exemplary service with the County of San Bernardino in California. Louise was born in San Bernardino at St. Bernardine Hospital. As the youngest of eight children, she was raised on a 100-acre farm in Bloomington where her dad grew boysenberries. Her mother, who is 91, still lives in Bloomington. Louise began her professional work with San Bernardino County in 1973 as a clerk with the transportation/flood control department. She was promoted in 1975 and served with the county surveyor's office. A short time later, Louise returned to the county and in 1985 was promoted to executive secretary to the director of Economic and Community Development. Louise was recognized as the department's County Employee of the Year in 1994 by the board of supervisors. She was particularly instrumental in facilitating the public sector approval process for the issuance of over $800 million in tax-exempt housing and industrial development bonds to finance new homes, apartments, and commerce in San Bernardino County. Louise is also well known for her versatility and professionalism which has allowed her to assume many diverse responsibilities. While she has served primarily as the secretary to the ECD director, she was also the secretary for the county's appointed economic and community development commission and secretary to the Agua Mansa Growth Association comprised of elected officials from the cities of Colton, Riverside and Rialto and the Counties of San Bernardino and Riverside. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me, our colleagues, Louise's husband Ed, their family, and many friends in wishing her many more years of happiness and success in writing that book she has always wanted to write. It is only appropriate that the House recognize Louise St. Jean today for her many years of dedicated service to San Bernardino County.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleague, Bob Matsui, in introducing the Owens River Valley Environmental Restoration and Manzanar Land Transfer Act of 1996. This legislation releases outdated watershed withdrawals on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management [BLM] in order to acquire land for the Manzanar Historic Site which is managed by the National Park Service [NPS]. Lifting these outdated withdrawals are necessary to facilitate land exchanges between the BLM and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power [LADWP] and Inyo County, CA. The Manzanar site is currently owned by LADWP. This legislation also makes other lands in the area available for the long-term community expansion and other uses as identified in the BLM's Bishop Resources Management Plan. This legislation is necessary to carry out the intent of Public Law 102-248 which established the Manzanar National Historic Site to provide for the protection and interpretation of the historic, cultural, and natural resources associated with the relocation of Japanese Americans during WW II. Further, this legislation will allow an innovative and unique environmental restoration project to move forward. The intent of this environmental restoration project is to revive 60 miles of the Owens River Valley in Inyo County, CA. This project will lead to increased wetlands, riparian areas and wildlife--including fish and waterfowl. This restoration project is another step in the ongoing and positive relationship which has developed between Inyo County and LADWP. The development of this legislation was a process which involved active participation from local citizens in Inyo County, the Inyo County Board of Supervisors, officials from the BLM and the Park Service, LADWP and Japanese-American community. Mr. Matsui and I look forward to swift consideration of this important measure by our colleagues on the House Resources Committee and expedited consideration by the full House.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Herbert G. Persil, the Director of the Office of Budget at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Herb is retiring after 41 years of Federal service. Herb has appeared many times as a witness before the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies in defense of HUD's budget requests. We have always found him to be most knowledgeable and most responsive. Over the years, he has been of great assistance to the subcommittee in its day to day dealings with the Department. We have always valued his counsel. Herb is, I believe, a truly dedicated civil servant. His high standards represent what is best about the civil service. Since 1990, Herb has been Director of the Office of Budget. Prior to that he served for a number of years as Deputy Director in the Office of Budget. He has made countless contributions to efficient and effective program management. Mr. Persil began his Federal service at the Department of Agriculture in 1958. In 1964, Herb moved to HUD's predecessor agency, the Housing and Home Finance Agency. In his early years at HUD, Herb helped in the development and initial administration of the Model Cities Program. He also helped in the development of the first community development consolidated grant proposal which later evolved into the community development block grant program. Mr. Persil's achievements and skills are not only recognized throughout HUD, but also in the academic community. As adjunct faculty, he teaches courses in public financial management for Golden Gate University and the American University. He is a member of the board of directors of Public Financial Publications, Inc., which publishes Public Budgeting and Finance, jointly sponsored by the American Association for Budget and Program Analysis [AABPA] and the American Society for Public Administration. He has served as chairman of special committees on AABPA and has participated as an expert in numerous panel discussions on topics such as training budget staff and managing under limited resources. He is also a frequent contributor to professional journals. I understand that Herb plans to spend his time with his family, reading, and traveling. While he claims to be retiring, there are many who know that old habits are hard to break and suspect he will continue to serve through his teaching, writing, and panels on government issues. Mr. Speaker, Friday, February 2, 1996, is Herb's last day at HUD. We will miss him. I know that you join with me in wishing him and his wife, Blythe, a long, happy, and healthy retirement after 41 years of distinguished Federal service.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. I certainly will not take the 2 minutes. I did, as the chairman may have noted, stand, thinking about being recognized during the objection opportunity that we had earlier. It certainly was not my intention to object. The reason for my considering doing that was because, as the chairman has indicated, a significant portion of my own VA-HUD bill is within this short-term appropriations. The process that we went through in our subcommittee to begin the pattern of reducing spending was a very, very difficult process, of which I am very proud. I am particularly proud of the Members who themselves had to make many a sacrifice by way of cutting back that spending. It is important to note that we were among those who actually went about terminating some programs, the most difficult of processes. The concern that I want to express here as I praise both my colleague and my ranking member for the difficult process they have been through is the fact that this bill does for a short-term period reverse some of those very difficult decisions, a process that is not very helpful to the committee's work. I want, beyond praising the committee, to have others around here at a higher level than those of us in the committee to know that we intend to look very carefully when we come toward March 15 regarding any similar pattern. Mr. Speaker, this bill provides funding for the departments and agencies under the jurisdiction of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee until March 15 or the enactment of the regular appropriations act. The funding amount for each appropriation account will be the level agreed to in the conference on H.R. 2099. Exceptions are being made for the Corporation for National and Community Service and the community development financial institutions fund which are being continued at 75 percent of the 1995 appropriation levels. The departments and agencies are expected to administer the programs and activities consistent with the directions contained in the 1996 statement of the managers and other relevant legislative history. The approved major construction projects for the Department of Veterans Affairs are those referenced in the conference report. Further, it is intended that under section 107 of the VA's administrative provisions that the general operating expenses appropriation be reimbursed from the insurance funds for the entire fiscal year's administrative costs.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor to share some sad news with our colleagues this morning. Anne Noel Fazio, the youngest daughter of our good friend and colleague, Vic Fazio, died on Sunday after a 9-year battle with leukemia. She was 22. As many of you know, Anne was a fighter. When faced with the most difficult circumstances, this courageous woman forced her energy on living. She never gave up. After a successful bone marrow transplant in 1987, Anne graduated from C.K. McClatchey High School in 1991. She earned a degree in history from the University of California, Davis last year. She also served as president of the Tri Delta Sorority. Mr. Speaker, I would ask Members to join me in a moment of quiet reflection to honor Anne Fazio's memory and to remember our friend Vic Fazio and his family during this difficult time.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman is exactly right. The veterans medical care programs, the one account that is higher in 1995 in this bill by some $400 million, now, that raises the critical point: If the President wants us within our allocation to increase the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, where would one take the money? Perhaps he would suggest VA medical care. But please come to the table and show us your priorities. It is impossible for us to change this bill without some reasonable input.

Mr. LEWIS of California. He does not want to take it out of NASA. I am sure he does not want to cut VA medical care. Where do we take the money?

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time and I reserve the right to close.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], our whip.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I regret that the committee finds itself at this point in receipt of the President's veto of this very important measure. It clearly reflects a considerable disservice to the President on the part of his staff, who obviously have misinformed him regarding the work of the conference committee that presented this bill and sent it to the President's desk. It is very apparent that they have not been straightforward regarding the variety and mix of the efforts the committee went through. The conference met on November 16 of this year. In the midst of that conference, we met with the President's representative, Mr. Panetta of California. During that discussion, Mr. Panetta indicated to the conferees that the President was likely to veto this bill unless the bill had $2 billion to $2.5 billion more in allocation. So it was apparent that the President does not like the allocation that this committee received. Presuming that there was no additional money available to the committee, it was clear that we would not be able to meet all of the President's targets as we allocated the money that was available to us. The President's representative indicated to the members of the conference that he really believed it was likely that $2 billion or more would be forthcoming from somewhere. The implication was that that money would come from a reallocation of what Mr. Panetta kind of assumed would be a veto of the defense measure. As we all know, the defense bill became law, and that appropriations availability did not come to our subcommittee. So there was nowhere to move in terms of many of the areas the President is concerned about. At that point in time, over a month ago, we said to Mr. Panetta and anybody else who would listen, ``Please, tell us what you would do from your perspective with these allocations to make this bill better. Please, help the President come to the desk or come to the table and talk with us about these very important programs.'' First, I think it is important for us all to revisit one more time: This bill represents in excess of $80 billion of expenditure, important programs that involve areas such as VA medical care, significant programs like EPA, all of the country's housing programs. They also provide the funds for NASA and those programs the President is concerned about that relate to our international partnership with the Russians and others as we explore space, for example, very difficult and competitive allocations. We urged the President's people to come to the table. He suggests that one of the problems with this bill is that there is not adequate funding, and, indeed there is no funding, for the national service programs, namely AmeriCorps. That program under the President's proposal would increase by some 300 percent over 3 years, and yet the program has had no evaluation to this point. Clearly, programs that work well deserve support. Programs that have not been evaluated at least ought to be evaluated before their funding is expanded. It would appear that much of the President's objection to this bill involves his desire to expand the funding for the Environmental Protection Agency. If that is the case, we are willing to listen to the President's case. We simply ask him to come to the table. We have only got so much money to go around in this bill. If we are to shift money as we send it back to conference, to EPA, where does it come from? Would the President suggest it should come from veterans' medical care? If so, let the President step up to the table and say so. Money is not going to suddenly appear from nowhere. It is also very apparent that the President has been misled relative to what this bill contains as it relates to EPA and EPA legislation. Literally we have stripped from this bill most of the serious contentions that flowed around riders as the bill left the House. There are four pieces of legislative language in the bill; three of them involve language that has been in a bill in the past that has been acceptable to the administration. It is very clear that the President is really objecting to this bill because there is not enough money here. As my colleague from Ohio said in the previous bill, the President seems to want to go forward with business as usual. He actually believes that we can tap the till, spend money we do not have, and go on blithely forward suggesting that future generations will pick up the tab when it is their turn. Mr. President, this is the bill that begins the point where we move toward balancing the budget in a 7-year period. You have made that commitment. No other bill has more discretionary spending that can be impacted in a way that makes sense for the American public and the American taxpayer. We are asking you, Mr. President, to reevaluate this, come to the bargaining table, tell us what your priorities are, and we are more than willing to work with you. I must say the time frame is very narrow and the window for cooperation is closing quickly. Mr. President, we are looking for your leadership. We would hope that your people would move away from the rhetoric and come to the table and bargain in good faith. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for the purposes of debate only, and yield back 30 minutes.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that it is very important that we get the Government back to work. We need the President at the table. We are willing to work with him, and I certainly hope this discussion helps with that.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely correct. I was astonished to have a personal conversation with the President's representative, Mr. Panetta from California. I talked to him on the phone about the details of this bill several weeks ago. It was very apparent that he and/or the President had not addressed the details; that Mr. Panetta came to our conference meeting and it was apparent they were looking for another $2 or $3 billion for this bill to come out of nowhere. That money was not forthcoming. The President clearly has either not had a chance to come to the table or has been misled by his advisers.

Mr. LEWIS of California. That is correct?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the chairman is exactly on target. The fact is that this is one of the major pools of discretionary money. The entire bill involves some $80 billion of spending, over $60 billion of it discretionary. We are never going to get to a pathway of 2002 and balancing the budget unless we restrain spending within that discretionary pool. The President's people know that. It is a shame they have not given the President the opportunity to evaluate what that means in terms of a balanced budget.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, let me just say, a number of the agency heads have been extremely forthcoming. Henry Cisneros, in the housing program, has worked closely with us. Dan Goldin in NASA has been very helpful. We have heard little from EPA. For example, everybody knows that the Superfund is broken and we are spending billions of dollars over years in Superfund getting almost no results. Yet we have not heard a thing from the Secretary regarding the way she would fix the Superfund. It is time for the President's people to be serious about governing and come to the table.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my colleague yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention that in the statement by my colleague from Ohio, he mentioned the East Mojave as one of the reasons the President outlined for vetoing this bill. The work done on the East Mojave was a reflection of many of the major efforts made by my colleague from Ohio. He went out of his way to try to find compromise wherever possible to see if we could not put this bill in a form that would make sense. Obviously the President's people have not given him solid information regarding what is going on in that area. Instead of harming the environment, my chairman's compromise is attempting to solve the problems that have been created by the Park Service mismanagement of the area. Let me make that point very clear. The House had created a scenic area, not a park. The House in turn had directed the Park Service to live with long-standing multiple use of the area. Instead, they began putting up no trespass signs. Instead, they began excluding families from the area. In the process, their mismanagement led to the death of 38 bighorn sheep. They died as a result of mismanagement and a lack of a plan. The gentleman created the opportunity for a plan by providing money for that planning process. The gentleman responded to the President's people in developing that plan. And the President was led to believe that something else was the case. The chairman has done a very fine job, deserves support and recognition from the President, not a slap in the face by way of a veto pen.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the veto message of the President to the bill, H.R. 2099, and that I might include tabular and extraneous materials.