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 the Inland Empire chapter of the American Society for Training and Development. In early October, seven individuals will be honored for excellence in training and developing people in the local business community. The American Society for Training and Development is a nationwide non-profit association of professionals and individuals interested in the field of training and development for employees in business, government, and non-profit organizations. Local membership of this fine organization, under the capable leadership of David Cates, is made up largely of business consultants, human resources, experts, educators, business managers and owners, and others. Specifically, I would like to recognize the seven individuals who are being honored for their diverse contributions. They included Jay Murvine (education); Marie Stadelman (small business); Marcia Weaver (consultancy); Lynda Cook (government); Chef E. Robert Baldwin (hospitality); and Wanda Montgomery and Darlene Jerome (manufacturing). Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me and our colleagues in recognizing these fine individuals for their many achievements. As dedicated professionals who have demonstrated skill and dedication in the marketplace, it is only fitting that the House of Representatives recognize them today.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the work of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the beginning that at a moment, an important time in terms of the history of this country and our intelligence work, we are blessed by the fact that the leadership within the House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], my chairman, as well as the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], the ranking member, have worked in a very, very positive fashion to create an environment that is as close to being nonpartisan in regard to these matters as I have ever seen in the time that I have served in the Congress. Mr. Chairman, it is critical that we recognize that America is at a turning point in terms of its need for information. And, indeed, it is a new age at the end of the 20th century. The end of the cold war is upon us. The reality that we are reducing defense budgets, because people believe there is less of a need for more spending in that subject area, has raised a specter regarding the future of intelligence that is very, very important for all of us to consider seriously. First, it is important to know that the cold war is all but over, but indeed we continue to have serious challenges in connection with that. Any Member who will but look will know of the difficulties in these new fledgling democracies. The challenges in Russia present problems for the United States that are very real; problems that require us, both the President and our committees, to be well informed regarding what really is happening in that region of the world. Above and beyond that, the intelligence community itself has faced many a challenge. The difficulty of the Ames case raised questions about the future of intelligence and where we should be going. It is critical to recognize that the House must be involved in that future direction. Beyond that, there is a new specter that has not been the most prominent in terms of the public's concern in the past: The prospect of terrorism impacting our society. Terrorism that may have its source from overseas; indeed terrorism here at home. Mr. Chairman, all of these complicated circumstances create a situation that would suggest to the House that the President and our committees need more information, not less information, and excellent information. The work of our intelligence community is critical to us today and to the future hope for freedom, I believe, in the world. I urge the House to recognize the importance of this work, support this very significant bill, and support the funding that is necessary to carry forward our intelligence activities.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention a meaningful message, ``What America Means to Me,'' written by Julio Martinez who is a member of VFW Post 2545 in Redlands, CA. As a nation of immigrants, we must continue to recognize that the strength of our country lies largely in its diversity. I commend this passage to my colleagues in the House: What America Means To Me America means to me, the place of my birth. Born to a family who taught me, early in life, No matter the hardships, To love this land of my birth. America offered schools for you and me, To become whatever we wished to become. Through life adjustment and preparation. So we could build a stronger nation. America means to me, freedom of speech, As long as I do not infringe on the rights, of any of our citizens. America is the only place on this earth, Where people of all nationalities live, and co-exist as fellow citizens. America means to me, freedom of religion, To worship any religion I choose. And the freedom not to worship if I so choose. America means to me, the freedom, Of working where I choose to work. And wherever I choose to work. And am guaranteed fair wages for my work. America means to me, freedom, To move from one job to another, without reprisal. From one state to another, without fear upon my arrival. Amderica means to me, the freedom, to choose where, I wish to live and am guaranteed, by our, Constitution, the freedom. To pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With total freedom. America means to me, freedom to elect, Public officials to govern us, With our consent. and to remove them if not content. America means to me, the freedom, On the Fourth of July, her birthday, to celebrate. She gained her independence for you and for me. So let us all celebrate. America means to me, freedom to fly, Our beautiful flag, atop our flagpoles, Fluttering majestically, throughout our nation, Reminding us all that we live in a free nation. America may not be perfect, but, It is still the best nation in the world. So we had best take care of her, by living harmoniously together. If we look out for each other, She will continue to be the best nation in the world. We know we are still learning to live together, as American citizens. But let an outsider threaten America, and she, Will send out a call to her sons, daughters and citizens. We will respond to her call, no matter what we contend. We will defend her to the very end. Our nation is free. We have demonstrated to the world, We will fight to keep her free. And yes this is what America, means to me. That I wish the world to see.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues who appeared just before, he raised a point which I think is very, very important. During much of this debate, people have been suggesting that the world has changed so radically because the East-West confrontation has disappeared and, therefore, we can just radically adjust our defense spending, but there is no need for intelligence spending as well. Mr. Chairman, let me say this: Beginning with an important point to me, it is my privilege now serving on the Committee on Appropriations, to serve on the Subcommittee on National Security that is before us today. But I also serve with my chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security as a colleague on the Select Committee on Intelligence as well. To combine those two responsibilities gives one a much different picture of the world than I had preceding that service. Mr. Chairman, there is little question that all of us are very hopeful about the future in terms of the prospects of peace for the world. The hopeful elimination of the East-West confrontation is encouraging to each and every one of [[Page H 8653]] us who care about our future. Because of that, many in the House have automatically assumed that we can afford to lightly, almost radically readjust our defense spending. As a result of that, as has been discussed, we have readjusted downward over the last several years in this Nation, causing us today to be spending $100 billion less than we were before. To suggest that in light of that, that just lightly we can recalculate the need for intelligence spending, readjust similarly, or whack away at these programs would be the gravest of mistakes in terms of our responsibility, not just to this House, the people we represent, but also to those people we would have to preserve peace for in the world. The intelligence community has come down, as has been discussed. Since 1990, the reductions have been close to 16 percent in this area. But let me say to my colleagues, further reduction could be a dramatic mistake on our part, for as we have reduced defense spending, we are dealing with the reality that the world is much more complex today, not less complex than when we were dealing directly, day in and day out, in our concerns about the Soviet Union. Indeed, the world is complex not only in terms of Russia, but very, very complex in terms of those other countries we must deal with. And further complex by the fact that it is a much more dangerous world. Those who tended to set aside concerns about terrorism took a look again when bombs went off in New York. But even then, people lightly set that aside. Oklahoma City came along and questions were raised one more time. Maybe we better know more about this complex world. I would submit to my colleagues and Members that this is exactly not the time to be reducing these budgets. Indeed, the President, and I would speak to my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle especially, our President at this time needs more and better information, not less information. To cut this valuable base from under him is going to undermine his ability to develop policy that is critical to the future of peace in the world. This is not the moment for us to presume that intelligence is unnecessary. Indeed, the intelligent decision is to be increasing these budgets at this moment instead.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] makes a very important point. Indeed, it is my work on the Select Committee on Intelligence that has caused me to believe that we are right on the verge of peace in our time. There is a hope for peace in the world, because of some of the things that America is about. Our intelligence community is playing a very significant role in that connection.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Florida for he has said it all. In this moment, in this very, very complex world, it is just the moment the President needs more and better information and the House needs that information too.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding, and I rise frankly just to suggest to my colleagues a word of caution that I raised with my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 17 years ago when we were freshmen, about this matter. I agree very strongly with those who are concerned about our deficit and the importance of moving toward a balanced budget. Having said that, I feel very strongly about local government and State running a lot more than the Federal Government, but there are reasons to have a Federal Government, including our national defense. From time to time in the history of this country we have tended to be penny-wise and pound-foolish in that area. As peace looms on the horizon, many an administration becomes very cautious about spending money in this area. I would rue the day that a President, for example, chose to use the line-item veto to strike the B-2, for example, so critical to our future ability to project peace in the world. So a word of caution, my friends, as we move forward with the streamroller that seems to be heading toward either a direct line or a cliff.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I first want to express my deep appreciation to my colleagues who have worked so hard on this matter, a very critical issue to America's future ability to not just defend itself, but to represent freedom and peace in the free world. I especially want to stress my appreciation to my colleague, the gentleman from California [Buck McKeon] who has taken the lead on this work from our perspective, and has done a fantastic job of finding out where the votes really are. The issue before us will close the B-2 line forever, Mr. Chairman. That is the heart of my concern. I strongly oppose this effort. The advent of stealth has revolutionized the way we think about air warfare, an important facet of our Nation's defense. The B-2 is far and away the most advanced weapon system this world has ever seen. The value of this new stealth capability was evident in the gulf war with the F-117. The F-117 production line is already closed. The B-2 bomber takes this technology one major step further. The B-2 can fly six times farther than the F-117, carry eight times more precision payload, and destroys targets with greater accuracy than any other aircraft that the world has ever seen. For example, a force with 30 B-2's loaded with modern weapons could have engaged as many targets on the first day of the Persian Gulf war as the 1,263 aircraft that were used. This is an amazing fact. The B-2 will save lives as well as money. It will conserve resources in the long run and will create a capability that the U.S. military forces alone will have, and that we desperately will need. This body has always followed the philosophy that U.S. soldiers, sailors, and airmen must be sent in harm's way fully prepared and equipped for victory. Now is not the time to reverse that philosophy. The citizens of our Nation will not stand for more Scott O'Gradys. As we continue to close bases around the world, we need the power projection which the B-2 gives us. The B-2 can be almost anywhere in the world in 12 hours. Several opponents have cited a severely flawed GAO study, stating that the B-2 can't operate in a rainstorm or is not as stealthy as reported. I was pleased to see Secretary Kaminski strongly refute each point in that study. We heard that the draft was not even reviewed by the GAO's chief scientist before it was leaked to the press. Secretary Kaminski stated in his rebuttal: The radar is performing in rain as expected during this stage of its development. There is no indication that the radar's performance while flying through rain will not fully meet requirements. Testing to date has not identified any areas that will prevent the B-2 from meeting its operational stealth requirements. The detectability and survivability testing completed to date has been entirely successful in confirming expected B-2 performance. Even General Horner who was in charge of air operations during the Persian Gulf war states that the ``delivered B-2 aircraft have demonstrated, without qualification, that the B-2 is a superb weapon system--performing even better than expected.'' As a member of the Intelligence Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee that handles Defense, I could never in good conscience vote to close the only bomber production line in this country, especially one as advanced as the B-2. Proponents of this amendment state that we can't afford to keep the only bomber production line in this Nation open. Let me assure you, for our sons and daughters, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, for pilots like Scott O'Grady, we can't afford not to. Vote ``no'' on the Obey-Dellums-Kasich amendment. [[Page H 8611]]

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to say that the statement of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] is one of the finer statements I have ever heard on this floor. Mr. Chairman, just sending money without worrying about quality is what has been wrong with this place. It is why the American taxpayer is reacting. They want to see people served and they want to see them served well. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has worked at this for years, very, very effectively. Finally, the gentleman is in a position to really impact that process, and I commend the gentleman for his good work.

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 Mr. Albert Barnes, Jr. Al, a dedicated professional and longtime community activist, is retiring as the southeast California district manager for the United Parcel Service [UPS]. A tribute will be held in his honor on August 24 to recognize his years of service to California's Inland Empire. Al began his career with UPS as a delivery driver in Dayton, OH in 1967. Two years later, he became a supervisor and in 1972, was named center manager. Al served as a feeder manager, package division manager, and hub division manager before joining the Arizona District as a division manager in 1975. In addition, he has served on a number of special assignments and worked as a member of the UPS Part-Time People Support Committee. In 1989, Al was named southeast California district manager for UPS, which has become one of the most respected corporate citizens in the region. Al was in charge of the planning, construction, and opening of the largest UPS west coast air hup in Ontario, CA in 1992. To say the lest, Al has played an extraordinary and active role in our community. In addition to his outstanding business contributions, Al has been a longtime supporter of and deeply involved with the Boys and Girls Club of the Inland Empire as a member of the board of directors. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me, our colleagues, and Al's family and many friends in recognizing his many fine achievements and selfless contributions. I'd also like to wish Al, his wife Margaret, their daughter, Rebecca, and sons John, Mike, and Ed the very best in the years ahead. Throughout his career, Albert Barnes has touched the lives of many people and it is only fitting that the House of Representatives recognize him today.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in opposition to the Ensign amendment. I do so specifically because of the fact that this subcommittee report is a very carefully crafted and delicately balanced report. The very account that the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] is addressing himself to is that account that we are most sensitive about. It is the only account within my entire bill that has any significant adjustment upwards. Indeed, we provide in the medical care section of this bill more than a half a billion dollars of the 1995 authorization as well as outlay. It is very, very important that we recognize that to imbalance this effort could throw the entire bill askew. For example, NSF has already been cut by $200 million. They are considerably below the President's request. This additional $235 million in fundamental science work would have a dramatic and negative impact upon the work that the bill is attempting to carry forward. In dealing with NASA, NASA is already itself over a half a billion dollars below the President's request. To strike that blow to our work in space is a very significant item. One of the other elements I would mention is the fact that we are attempting to put some pressure on the Veterans' Administration, specifically because while we here in Congress are very empathetic to medical care needs of our veterans. Too often the system treats them like cattle in the districts where the hospitals are. We need to put pressure on this agency to rethink the processes they use whereby we deliver those services to veterans. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly but very strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle], a member of the committee.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will not take any time, but my colleagues, if you will, this has been a very very tough bill. The only chair that I would prefer not to be sitting near besides my own would be that of the gentleman who had the chair through this arduous process. I hope the entire House gives appreciation to the gentleman from Texas, Larry Combest, for truly a tremendous job, and we appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, during the consideration of this bill by the full committee, an amendment offered by Mr. Coleman to the VA part of the report was adopted. This language was inadvertently omitted in the printing of the report. The VA is to treat the following language as if it had been printed in House Report 104-201: el paso va staffing flexibility The Committee is aware of the difficulty in staffing several Veterans Administration Medical Facilities in the southwest, particularly El Paso, Texas. This situation is compounded by the budgetary constraints the VA faces in allocating FTEEs among its facilities. The Committee urges that the VA Regional Sectors, especially its Southern Regional Sector, engage in intra-region FTEE transfers during the fiscal year for purposes of staffing as warranted by changing circumstances in VA medical facilities. The Committee urges the VA to review the staffing situation in El Paso and to move personnel as necessary to meet the new service demands that will exist if veterans are not required to travel to other VA facilities for treatment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes. I do, Mr. Chairman. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XI. The rule states no amendment to a general appropriations bill shall be in order if it is changing existing law. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I would want to evaluate it at a lot more depth than I have before. I certainly would be inclined in that direction. If the gentleman would decide to withdraw his amendment, I would be happy to work with him.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I rise in opposition to this amendment, but I do so with some serious reservations. As the Members know, as we reviewed this bill, because it was a brand new ball game in which money was flowing through to several accounts following this recent election year. There were areas of the bill that justified consideration for adjustment, or perhaps even termination. Because of that we sought out those people who were working on the policy side of the House, the authorizing committees, working very closely to try to determine which programs might very well be reduced, changed, or otherwise. Mr. Chairman, this was a program that I personally looked at rather closely. We did not come to an agreement with the authorizing committee regarding this amount. Because of that, I am only resisting my colleague's position because it does not have the approval of the authorizing committee, and therefore probably should not be a part of this bill. That is the basis of my resistance.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. If I could make one more point, then we might get the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] involved, who is a member of the authorizing committee on national security. There is a tendency for people to believe, my colleagues, in this day and age of supposed peace in the world, because there is not a major confrontation between the Soviet Union or Russia, that no longer is there a need for a national defense. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are living in a shrinking world with elements of potential danger that we have never really thought about in the past. America needs to be strong to preserve the peace. One element of our strength that is critical is the expansion of Stealth. The B-2 bomber as a vehicle is going to make all the difference in terms of how many lives we would have to put at risk over the next several decades. It is a very, very important item. I want to congratulate my colleague for his continued work on behalf of this effort.