Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. In those circumstances, without that force available, if those Scuds had been accurate, potentially thousands of American lives could have been lost. The gentleman has articulate very well in our committee the fact that just two B-2's can deliver a force halfway around the world with so few numbers of personnel involved. It takes a whole armada of aircraft to replace that force. That is a great value, not only in terms of preserving the peace but it is less expensive than continuing to build and maintain that armada, of aircraft.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Absolutely.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is truly a privilege for me to serve on the subcommittee of appropriations that deals with our national defense. There is little question that the gentleman from Washington is one of the House's experts in this entire field. He and I have had a chance to look at various elements of our defense system. That is what we are talking about, we are talking about peace in the world, creating a foundation for our own national defense and the defense of freedom that really stops the prospect of major confrontation in the world. There is no question that America is on the edge of having the kind of force that will allow us to preserve the world from major conflict. One of the elements of that force that could bring us to peace in our time is the B-2. It is an incredible vehicle. We all know the role that stealth will play in our air future. The B-2 has a tremendous potential for America's future in terms of peace. Nobody ever said that peace was inexpensive. But if there is a responsibility for the national government, if there is a reason for us to have a national Congress, the reason is to make sure that we have adequate national security. Fundamental to that is to have this aircraft available in numbers that will allow us to make that difference in the world. And without the gentleman's leadership, I think this issue might well have been dead by now. That is, we would have gone in a different direction. If there is a phase in terms of defense spending this year, where we should be willing to make a sacrifice, it is to make sure that the B-2 is available and in a quantity that makes sense. So I want the gentleman to know that I very much appreciate the work he has done here and look forward to continuing working with him in that regard.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield further, I appreciate my colleagues bringing this matter to my attention. I assure both Members we will continue to work with them. If our good offices will help open the channels of communication with the Department of Veterans Affairs, we are happy to be of service.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, my colleagues from the committee have my commitment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding the intent of the gentleman's amendment is already existent in current law, and the Department of Veterans Affairs has the legal authority to withhold these payments if the concerns that the gentleman has made come to fruition.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we communicated a good deal of this in the initial stages of the bill, but I would like to have the Members know one more time just how [[Page H 8022]] much I appreciate the very, very positive and constructive working relationship that I have had with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. He was my chairman during the last Congress. His friendship is very important to me, and I must say that during this process of transition, working together has been extremely positive in spite of the fact that the shift in policy direction is not necessarily always to the agreement of the gentleman. He has been willing to communicate at every step of the way and has been very cooperative and helpful in the process, and I appreciate that.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments the gentleman is making regarding CEQ. I really thought it would be appropriate to refer to the language that is in the report regarding this matter, for we agree, the committee agrees, that the work of CEQ in many ways has been very valuable, but we go on to say that the committee is nevertheless concerned that greater oversight and coordination of environmental policy and actions of the many Federal departments and agencies is necessary. Far too often environmental policy, as articulated by the White House, bears no relationship to the actual implementation of that policy. It is our concern, and frankly I will say to the gentleman that between now and conference I would hope to look with great care as to what continuing contributions CEQ could make.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is not as though this program is not funded in our bill. We do provide for an additional billion dollars, and I know that there are those who suggest that there is a need for more. But I must say to my colleagues in the House that one of the objectives here is to put pressure on the entire process, perhaps even get the other body to respond to the authorizing process. Unless this program is reformed, there is something fundamentally wrong with his continuing to throw money at it without that basic reform. I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I might mention at the tail end of that discussion between the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] that we are allocated only so many dollars within our bill, very difficult dollars to stretch among these various accounts. This specific proposal would be a budget buster insofar as our bill is concerned. We are talking about approximately $89 million in outlay. We would be short if this amendment were to become law. I strongly urge the membership to refuse this additional allocation and recognize the bill does have to stay within its outlay targets. I ask for a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment of my colleague. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] mentions that there will be no new sites, and he mentions, specifically, 58 sites that will not be moving toward construction if we do not move forward with this amendment, and the volume of money that is involved here. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the gentleman that it would have helped the process an awful lot if over the last several years we had gone about reauthorizing and fixing Superfund. The Secretary herself, testifying before my subcommittee, said that Superfund absolutely needs to be fixed. It is broken. Indeed, there is a long process with those 15 sites. They have to go through a record of decision. There is environmental impact analysis to be done. There is no question that there is need for money, but why should we throw good money after bad if the program is not fixed by the authorizing committee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio. [Mr. Oxley]. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, out of respect for my colleague from California and my chairman, especially my colleague's mother-in-law, I will be happy to yield a couple more minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been a leader in this field for a long, long time, and as the former authorizing committee chairman, he knows full well that Superfund has not been reauthorized and so we are operating with a statute that all sides agree is in need of major reform. To say the least, there are problems with the way the Superfund operates. I would urge the authorizing committees to go forward quickly as possible to overcome these problems.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, this will not take very long. I do want the House to know that my colleague from Massachusetts brings up a very, very important point. It is an item that I have been concerned about in my own county in California. Literally, it is not our objective, as we try to streamline housing and the programs to negatively impact those people in Section 8 housing. There is little doubt that our bill moves in the direction of providing the kind of flexibility the gentleman is calling for within the department to ensure that they select those options that will not be less expensive, but also serve people better. So Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to my colleague and also say that we will evaluate this in depth and work with you as we go between here and conference.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for consideration of the Dingell amendment to H.R. 2099 and all amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled.