Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to have a colloquy with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. I know that the gentleman and I are very anxious to make a contribution to getting our Members out of here as early as possible, either tonight, or maybe even early tonight, but also early tomorrow, if we need to go over to tomorrow. In connection with that, I understand that there has been some effort made to work out time limitations on a number of the amendments; is that correct? And if it is, I will outline those that I understand.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much my colleague yielding time to me. I would like to extend my congratulations to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wolf, the chairman, as well as to the ranking member, Mr. Coleman, for the fantastic job they have done on a very, very difficult subject area. Mr. Chairman, this bill appropriates $1.4 billion less than the 1995 transportation bill. Furthermore, this bill even falls $384 million below the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. This is a very, very tough bill and a very, very difficult circumstance. This amendment before us has the potential of costing State and local governments millions of dollars to close down projects, settle lawsuits, and pay termination costs to contractors. Beyond that, if we cut this funding, we are eliminating jobs. Unfortunately, the amendment will not reduce the deficit or even reduce Federal spending. The $666 million the amendment proposes to cut will be put back into the Highway Trust Fund to be allocated at some future date. The amendment cuts funding for important projects in Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, and the list goes on. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. In the spirit of that I say to the gentleman, Mr. Fazio, I appreciate what you've said. I've attempted to communicate with the Park Service. They have been nonresponsive. Let me say that indeed if we make this change, if it goes forward from here, a dollar for the Park Service, $599,000 for the multiple-use agency, the Bureau of Land management, I know they'll be talking to me between now and the time we go to conference, and that's exactly what the House ought to do. If this House last year had believed--could imagine the Park Service would do this to my district, they would have thrown this idea out. I mean it is almost ridiculous, but we shouldn't prolong the evening, Mr. Fazio. We have really said all there is to say, and I appreciate your cooperation. I just wish you lived down there in San Bernardino County with me.

Mr. LEWIS of California. This is not in a national park.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I certainly hope it is the last word, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I do not intend to take a lot of time, and I certainly want to join my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], in expressing our sensitivity about keeping you here this late regarding this matter. It is an item that happens to affect the districts of five Members from California. As this amendment applies, however, it is almost entirely in my own district, a district in which you can put five eastern States in just the desert that we are talking about. The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] is correct in saying that last year we had a very, very extended debate and, as a result of that debate, some very unusual things occurred. The chairman of the Natural Resources Committee last year brought a bill to the floor, did a very fine job representing the Senate sponsor of that bill, but there were many aspects of the bill that were not supported by those people who represented the territory affected, and as a result of that, on 10 different occasions the House, in a bipartisan way, chose to change that legislation, overrode the committee and, indeed, reflected the will of the people who live in and work in the territory involved. There was one element of the bill that was a very significant controversy, and that swirls around this amendment and problem this evening. That element involves the East Mojave, which originally was to be designated as a park, and as the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] suggested, we changed it so it could be more like a multiple-use area. The Park Service was given responsibility to deal with the East Mojave National Preserve, and that is when the problem began. We were very interested to see what they would do with that preserve because it is an area, some of which is very beautiful and very parklike, but most of which has no parklike quality. The Park Service immediately asked the agency to transfer $600,000 from the Bureau of Land Management, the multiple-use agency, so they could have $600,000 to run this preserve. Almost overnight, they were putting up no-trespassing signs, ``Do not drive your vehicle past this point.'' Roadways that had been used for decades by people, by families, by people who live there, suddenly were no longer roadways. They were called ways, and they were not open to vehicular traffic. The public that lives in the area is reacting very intently. So an amendment was made that essentially said, ``Hey, wait a minute, Park Service, before you go forward, maybe the real multiple-use agency, the BLM, ought to have that money, most of it, until we can see what your plan really is.'' So an amendment came forth in the subcommittee that took almost all of the $600,000 and gave it to the Bureau of Land Management, a public agency for multiple use of public lands, and left a dollar in the Park Service so that what we could have some basis for negotiations. As a result of that, all of those people who the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] suggested from the area thought perhaps they should work with them on the preserve have changed any position they might have considered regarding supporting the Park Service's work. The bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus opposes the change the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] is suggesting. All of the Members who represent the area, the people who actually were elected from the district, oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]. State Assemblyman Keith Olberg, from the territory, opposes the change. The chairman of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, Marsha Turoci, the person the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] suggested in the past was supporting the Park Service, now says they should not go forward from here. We need to insist that we see their plan first. Let the Bureau of Land Management in the meantime go forward. The Needles [[Page H 6996]] Chamber of Commerce, the East Mojave Properties Owners Association, the National Cattlemen's Association, hunter and wildlife conservation groups are opposed to allowing the Park Service to go forward without a plan, at least for the people who live there, who understand it, and who love it the most. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I would not do this to your district. There is not any question that there is a very small group of elitists who would like to tell the people in the desert in California how best this land should be managed. Indeed, there are portions of it that are park quality. We have recommended in the past that be put into a park, not a preserve, and let the Park Service run it, but in this case, absolutely, there is to question that the extremists are having their way in terms of the ways this place is being run. There is no need for this. The battle will go on forever unless we insist that the Park Service have a plan first. I urge you to help me with my district and vote ``no'' on the Fazio amendment.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much my colleague yielding. When he was talking about this, and I did not get up earlier, the next amendment is an amendment that affects my district nonetheless, and I am very concerned about that. But I have no problem whatsoever with some kind of a limitation on time. But I would hope that that would come in the context of our working reasonably together, and I would also hope that it would, beyond this amendment, take us to the point where maybe we could close down reasonably early.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until midnight tonight to file a privileged report on a bill making appropriations for the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until midnight tonight to file a privileged report on a bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I guess the reason for my question is that I have a great deal of respect for all of my colleagues, especially for the chairman of our subcommittee, and since it happens to be in her district, I would have thought you might have discussed it with her. But having said that, after the vote, I would suggest that you should discuss it with her, and I would urge a very, very strong no vote on the part of the House.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Not nearly as much. But that Air Force base is in the district of the chairman of the subcommittee, and I presume you discussed this in some depth with her, did you not, before proposing this cut?

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very, very strong opposition to this proposal by my colleague from New York. I do not know if the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] has had the opportunity to travel to the National Training Center for the Army. It is without any question the most important and valuable asset that our military has anywhere in the world. It is the place where we train and retrain our troops in real live war circumstance and prepare them for perhaps the worst they might face out in the battlefield. This is the base about which General Schwarzkoff said, I commanded the 24th Mechanized Division during seven different rotations at Fort Irwin. It is the best investment the Army has made in 35 years. The reason we did so well in Desert Storm and Desert Shield is because almost every commander we had over there had some kind of involvement in the NTC. It is suggested that his amendment saves money by stopping the previously authorized project in midstream. This amendment, ladies and gentlemen, wastes money already approved by the Congress. Mr. Chairman, the need to have a permanent airhead will not go away. The primary cost factor, distance from the national center, will not change; that is, troops are brought in numbers of 60,000 a year from various bases [[Page H 6120]] around the country. They come in rotations to train at the national training center for the Army. They must be flown in to somewhere. In the past, we have flown them into Las Vegas, where they got on buses and rode for 4\1/2\ hours, an ongoing expense. The last rotation had them coming from Edwards Air Force Base. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] probably ought to come to the territory and actually see the region we are dealing with here. A portion of it is on freeway, but approximately a third of the transportation takes place on a two-lane highway, a very, very dangerous highway in which the accident rate is something like 50 times greater than on a normal freeway; very important to recognize that in the past we have been looking for a temporary facility, Norton Air Force Base; they are considering George. That does not open up that base or reopen it. It may allow for a lease short term. In the meantime, the Army, after a 5-year study, has come to the conclusion that, No. 1, they need a permanent airhead for bringing those troops in for this vital training; and, second, that Barstow- Daggett is the logical location which will not only serve the needs of the national training center but will also save a lot of money over the life of this very important facility. Since 1989, I have been working with the Army to establish a permanent airfield to support the NTC rotations. We have been back and forth over all of those years. There is little question that those who do not understand the mission of the NTC could hardly understand the importance of this facility. But, ladies and gentleman, there is absolutely no doubt that the most important thing we can do for our men and women in the armed services is to make sure that they are ready, that they are prepared by the best of training. The NTC is the best available. They need this facility desperately. I would suggest to the gentleman that in the future, insofar as this Member is concerned. I will follow with great care what has long been a standing policy of mine that if I have a concern or an issue that affects a specific Member's district about which I do not have great expertise myself, before I carry an amendment on the floor regarding that district, I will at least show that Member the courtesy of a conversation regarding the problem. Sometimes a little light helps a lot with the discussion around here, and in this case, I must say, after 5 years of very intense work with the Army, it is very apparent that most people do not understand the vastness of this territory. The national training center for the Army is located in a desert territory in which you can put five eastern States easily, and, in turn, the NTC is the perfect facility for live warfare kinds of games to provide the readiness we need. If you believe it is critically important that our troops be ready and prepared and well trained, vote ``no'' on the Nadler amendment. Vote in support of the national training center for the Army.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Has the gentleman spoken? I object, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my colleague yielding. He makes a number of important points. First, let me mention in the last year, I personally have escorted the Secretary of Defense as well as the Secretary of the Army to this very field. It was not 6 months ago the Secretary of the Army looked me in the eye, standing on the tarmac at Barstow-Daggett, and said, ``This is exactly where we should have this permanent airhead.'' When we went through the process of trying to figure out where to land these 60,000 troops in rotations every year, we looked at a number of facilities. Very early on, Edwards Air Force Base was taken off the list. They were not even among the remaining five being considered. Most important, they were taken off the list because of a conflict of mission. Edwards Air Force Base presently is the home of the 117 fighter bomber, home location of the B-1, where the B-2 lands, where the shuttle lands from time to time. Indeed the C-17, will use that facility in the future, but most importantly, as the Army evaluated this question, this is what they said about Edwards Air Force Base: ``Mission compatibility is of the utmost importance. This unquantifiable benefit could determine the degree of success in the NTC training mission. Unforeseen delays, postponements to the training exercises, deployment and redeployments, schedule changes and conflicts in use of air space would greatly detract from the overall benefits of the training mission exercise. The domino effect of mission incompatibility with other tenants at an airhead location would effectively smother the entire operation.''

Mr. LEWIS of California. I just happened to be on the floor, and so I hope you will bear with these questions and bear with me. I am noting in this amendment that there are several Air Force bases that are listed in which there would be a reduction here. Among them is Nellis Air Force Base, and I think it is $1.375 billion, is it?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Exactly, and if the gentleman continues to yield, I must say that I can understand in part, I suppose, what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] is saying, but, if he would ride that roadway, he would understand the difference. What we need to do is have a permanent facility where these troops can come and be in the training environment. Barstow-Daggett is the ideal location. It is the cheapest solution, short-term and long-term, without any question. This is the most important training center in the world, and a no vote on the Nadler amendment indeed is in support of the National Training Center for the Army, and I encourage my colleagues to recognize just how critical this training center is to our national defense.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize the point that gentleman just made. Up until this most recent rotation where troops came from Edwards to the training center, the troops were being sent by bus for 4\1/2\ hours from Las Vegas. To say the least, it was a long ways away from the way they should have come to arrive in a training setting, a war kind of setting. Recently for a short time Edwards Air Force Base became an experiment as a temporary airhead, but the people who designated that temporary airhead have no idea what that road is really like. One-third of the distance, about 33 miles, is along a very, very dangerous two-lane highway. It is only some time when someone is going to rush around and run into one of those caravans of troops.

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 Dr. Raymond Schultze of Tarzana, CA. Dr. Schultze, a dedicated medical professional, is retiring after 36 years of service to UCLA. Dr. Schultze received his bachelor's and medical degrees from Washington University in St. Louis and was twice selected as a U.S. Public Health Fellow. He first came to UCLA in 1959 for his internship and residency and has served in a wide variety of roles over the years including chief of UCLA's Division of Nephrology, executive vice chairman of UCLA's Department of Medicine, and associate dean for administration of the UCLA School of Medicine. From 1986 to 1991, Dr. Shcultze served the UCLA campus as its administrative vice chancellor while concurrently serving as director of the medical center. In his 15 years as director of one of America's finest hospitals, Dr. Schultze has guided the institution through the ever-changing health care environment to a position of international prominence. Dr. Schultze's distinctive combination of business acumen, medical knowledge, commitment to the community, and concern for patients have been crucial components in the UCLA Medical Center being consistently ranked in surveys as the best hospital in the West. Whether testifying before the Senate Finance Committee on the impact of managed care on teaching hospitals, meeting with a small group of UCLA Medical Center nurses to hear their suggestions for improving patient-focused care, consulting with hospital directors in western Africa, or leading UCLA's effort to trim the budget while improving the quality of patient care--Dr. Schultze has demonstrated his willingness to improving health care at UCLA, in the United States, and around the world. Mr. Speaker, running a large academic medical center in today's marketplace is a tremendously challenging task. Throughout his remarkable career, Dr. Raymond Schultze has provided outstanding leadership, skill, and expertise leaving a rich legacy for the future of the UCLA Medical Center. I ask that you join me, our colleagues, and Dr. Schultze's friends and family in recognizing his fine achievements and selfless contributions. He 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 very much appreciate my colleague yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want the body to know that I rise in support of this amendment. I do so with some very serious sensitivity, because I am getting all kinds of messages from a variety of Members of the House, but I have heard the arguments from the top brass in the Army, how this museum would be a national treasure to commemorate the hard work of every enlisted man and women in the Army. Therefore, I decided last night to call some of my own folks who happen to be in the military services. Their message was entirely different. I spoke with 6 different soldiers in 4 different Army commands in my district, which is the place where the National Training Center for the Army is located. I let them know that today we would be considering the military construction bill, legislation which provides funds for military housing, base improvements, and other quality of life needs. I asked them specifically, would they like to have $14 million of these funds set aside to buy the land for a National Museum for the Army in their honor in Washington. Each and every one of the 6 of them said they would rather have those funds go to housing or other quality of life items which they desperately need. I told each and every one of them that there was a large amount of additional funding already in the bill for housing. Our chairman has done a great job. It did not matter to any of them. A national museum in their honor was not on their priority list. I told one soldier that this was a priority to the Army Command in Washington. He responded ``That is because they do not have to live in the housing that we do.'' He told me that he has men living in temporary barracks that were constructed during World War II. His room is 11 by 12 feet in space, with temporary walls, and one of the bigger rooms. He also said that he has men and women driving 40 miles to work every day because there is not adequate housing. Mr. Chairman, to say the least, while I have mixed emotions about this, this is not a priority to the men and women who are currently in the Army in my district in California.