Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I asked for this time to simply express my deep appreciation to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations, my chairman, for his leadership on this issue. The responsiveness of both the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), as well as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), is very important and the reflection of the reality that from just once in a while the House gets its act together and recognizes that human problems are very real. There is no partisan divide on an issue like this, but rather a concern about the picture, the reality of starving children and whole families being wiped out senselessly. We are going to respond as a country, and it is very important that we come together like this. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership.

Mr. LEWIS of California. For those who suggest they care about the people of the world, this is more than symbolism. It is very, very real; and I would hope they would begin to pay some attention. Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) who helped us focus initially in committee on this issue.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) very much for yielding to me. I must say to the coach that he has always associated himself with class throughout his career. I can see he is doing this one more time by handling this Special Order on behalf of a wonderful Member of the House of Representatives. Doug Bereuter is one of the classiest people to have ever served in this place. As my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), suggested, there are few and far between those who have his kind of class. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and I came to Congress with Doug. At that point, there were 79 Members in our class as freshmen; 10 of us remain. And, indeed, as Doug leaves us, all who remain will remember him for as long as we can possibly maintain contact. California is a long ways for some, but it is not very far for several of us. It is my intention as I visit my grandchildren up north, to certainly come visit Doug and Louise and remember the times we had together way back when, several years ago when we arrived here in the House of Representatives. Doug Bereuter is one of those classic Members for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the leadership that he has demonstrated in the field of foreign affairs. He is a Member of the House during my service here who has, from at least a Republican perspective, caused our caucus to focus in a way that recognizes that we are living in a shrinking world. And it is very, very important in that arena not to dwell upon partisan politics alone, recognizing that whoever the Commander in Chief is, whoever the President of the United States is, as we leave this country we need to speak in one voice on behalf of country. In a very special way, he penetrated our caucus in connection with that understanding. Doug Bereuter is a person who I very much regret see leaving the House. But as he goes forth on his work on the part of the Asia Foundation, he will have a special way of communicating there as well, I am certain. Doug's impact here in the House of Representatives now will have a very special impact upon a very important part of the world, as we all know Southeast Asia is such a significant part of our future. To my friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), I really want him to know how much we appreciate his taking this time, this special effort to pay tribute to our mutual friend. It is a pleasure to be here with him.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to call attention to the federal, state and local firefighters whose bravery and quick thinking saved thousands of homes and many lives in the San Bernardino Mountains of California last year. Representatives of these community heroes are in town this week for well-deserved national recognition from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and I would like to add my voice to the acclaim they are receiving. My colleagues have heard me say many times on this floor that we are facing a terrible crisis in our Southern California forests. Years of drought have weakened the trees, and allowed the pine bark beetle to attack and kill millions of them--leaving hundreds of acres ready to burn at any time. More than 100,000 of my constituents live among these trees, and their lives and safety are at risk until we remove these dead and dying trees. In October last year, the disaster we feared struck California--and struck and struck again. Within days, fires were consuming tens of thousands of acres in San Bernardino, Los Angeles, San Diego and Ventura counties. In my district, a fire started in the foothills and spread to 100 acres within ten minutes. In less than an hour, it became clear that nearby communities would need to be evacuated. By nightfall the Old Fire consumed over 4,000 acres of land. It destroyed 400 homes and was responsible for two fatalities before the day was out. Ultimately, nearly 1,000 homes were lost. As dawn arrived on October 26, Fire Incident Commander Norm Walker was contemplating the distinct possibility of the worst-case scenario: fire reaching the 40,000 homes in the Lake Arrowhead community. Mandatory evacuations of all of the mountain communities began. Resources were stretched to the absolute maximum, due to other fires burning throughout the state. The San Bernardino Mountains rise steeply to 10,000 feet above the city, and running along the face of the mountains between 5,000 feet and 7,000 feet is the famous Rim of the World Highway, State Route 18. This is also the last point where the fire could be stopped before roaring into the millions of dead trees in and around our mountain communities. By evening on October 26, the main fire crossed Highway 18, and the order was given to begin backfiring along the highway across the mountain rim to the east. The northeast winds were predicted to shift, which would push the flames north across Highway 18 and directly into the community of Lake Arrowhead. Four highly trained firefighters in a unified command, Randy Clauson (USFS), Jim Ahearn (USFS), George Corley (San Bernardino County Fire), and Bill Bagnell (Crest Forest Fire) initiated the difficult, strenuous firing operation at 9:00 pm using limited personnel. Except for radio communication, these four on-the-scene chiefs were largely on their own. Every member of their teams faced the possibility of being caught by 100-foot walls of flame that were sweeping up the mountains. But they stayed the course for the next two days--and the success of their operation is evidenced by the fact that nearly all of the mountain homes were spared. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind the heroic, exhausting efforts of these four individuals over the course of three days resulted in saving thousands of homes and billions of dollars of infrastructure around Lake Arrowhead. Anyone who has seen photos of the conditions along Highway 18 during the height of the fire is in awe of the courage and fortitude of these firefighters, and mountain residents will be forever grateful for saving their homes. In honor of those efforts, the fire chiefs on Friday will receive the U.S. Department of Agriculture Honor Award for heroism and emergency response. I ask my colleagues to please join me in congratulating them on this recognition, and thanking them for representing the highest level of bravery and resourcefulness in defending and saving our communities.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have already asked my colleagues today to recognize the bravery of firefighters who saved 40,000 homes in last year's devastating wildfires. But I would now like to also pay tribute to an unprecedented effort at planning and organization by federal, state and local officials that allowed the evacuation of 100,000 people threatened by fire--without a single injury or a major hitch! Many of the heroes of this planning effort were on the front lines fighting the Old Fire, which eventually burned 91,000 acres and destroyed nearly 1,000 homes in October 2003. But their work to avoid a devastating loss of life began more 18 months earlier with the formation of the Mountain Area Safety Task Force, known throughout the San Bernardino Mountains as the MAST. San Bernardino National Forest Supervisor Gene Zimmerman initiated the formation of the MAST to deal with an on-going crisis: the death of more than 5 million trees because of drought and attacks by pine bark beetles. The forest, which is largely in my 41st Congressional District, is one of the most urbanized and heavily used in the nation, with nearly 100,000 residents and visitors living amongst the trees. The chance for a devastating fire is overwhelming, and it will take many years and hundreds of millions of dollars to eliminate the danger. It became clear that the task of restoring the forest--and avoiding the loss of thousands of lives in a fire--would require the coordinated efforts of the Forest Service, the state Department of Forestry and Fire, San Bernardino County Fire Department, and dozens of local fire departments, community groups and businesses. Such a coordination effort had never been undertaken on such a comprehensive scale, and the organizational hurdles alone were daunting. But the mountain communities, while divided into dozens of small pockets by geography, are populated by people who look out for each other, and who are united in their devotion to the forest. Hundreds of residents turned out for every informational meeting, and officials from agencies at all levels made the coordination of effort their top priority. With the substantial help of the geographic information systems company ESRI, the MAST established elaborate plans on how to evacuate residents along the few main highways that snake through the forest. Dozens of community meetings were held, and residents had access to an Internet Web site created free-of-charge by ESRI that provided even more detailed information. When the Old Fire struck in October 2003, our worst fears seemed about to be realized. The fire appeared to be unstoppable before it reached the stands of dead trees. Within a day, the order went out to evacuate, even as the firefighters made valiant stands to stop the fire along the evacuation routes. The success of the planning process was soon clear: No one was injured in the evacuation. Although six deaths were attributed to the fire, none of our residents were caught in their homes like those who suffered tragic deaths in San Diego County. Mr. Speaker, the MAST continues to meet and plan for the restoration of the forest and the upcoming fire season. While some progress has been made in reducing the number of dead trees, the fire danger remains high. Thanks to the extraordinary efforts of this group, I am confident that we will be prepared to meet that danger. The members of the MAST--represented by Supervisor Zimmerman and San Bernardino National Forest Staff Director Doug Pumphrey--will be honored this Friday with a U.S. Department of Agriculture Honor Award. This award is without question highly deserved, and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating and thanking those who took part in this life-saving effort.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting for me to note that throughout the history of the country, there was that kind of constant understanding that the President in the arena of spending proposes and the Congress disposes. The President, the executive makes a decision about spending in a specific area, and over time, the committees that affect that area make a decision as to exactly what our policy should be and what direction we should take by way of finally spending. Eventually that became the President's budget proposing, and then us disposing. Over the years, it seems the Congress finds itself spending a lot more money than they had. A deficit began to accumulate over time. People were frustrated with one another about who had the right kind of priorities, et cetera. That led to specially a budget committee to help provide advice and counsel to the big committees, the Committee on Appropriations, the Subcommittee on Defense, the Committee on Ways and Means, et cetera. That was going to solve all of our problems, and indeed, about the time I arrived, it was presumed that maybe that advice and counsel might work. And, yet, the deficit continued to expand. Not so shortly thereafter, the majority changed, and in the budget process the whole committee made the decision to try to make sense out of an annual budget balance. And, indeed, that led to our putting voluntary limitations within the process using the budget to do that, and pretty well the Committee on Appropriations has stuck to those limits. And it has worked reasonably well, even though at times of war, like currently, we have great difficulty with that. Nonetheless, overall, it worked pretty well. There seems to be a bit of stumble here in recent years, people not being happy with the way that process has worked for them in terms of priority, maybe not cutting spending as much as some like versus others, but as of this moment, we are at war. As of this moment, this bill includes statutory caps, which not only affects the President's budget, but has the President in a position to renegotiate again, essentially giving the administration a second bite at the apple. That concerns me; and, therefore, the chairman is absolutely correct. We need to go at this one more time. And I appreciate my colleague yielding.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding, and I appreciate the comments of the ranking member as well. It was my privilege to serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for some years, and I have great respect for the work you are about. I must say that while the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I have discussed this amendment and I know of his concerns and I am very supportive of his concerns, in the meantime, I really asked for the time because I am a bit disconcerted about what I sensed from the general debate as I was watching it over C-SPAN from my office. There appears to be developing here a level of kind of partisanship that I am not used to seeing when we discuss intelligence. There is absolutely no question that intelligence work does not know a partisan divide, if things are happening as they should, and to see that developing in the committee is most disconcerting to this Member. Over the years, we all know that intelligence funding was way, way below where it should be. The development of that lack of funding took place as the Congress some years ago was radically reducing defense spending. In those days, I used to say as defense spending is coming down, intelligence spending should go up, because the Commander-in- Chief needs better and more information at such a time, rather than less. In the meantime, there is little doubt that during the 1990s, there were significant impacts that were negatively affecting our intelligence programming. In recent years, we have seen a movement in the other direction. In the bill that came off the floor yesterday, there was a reflection of all of our concern. Indeed, within the base bill, the appropriations for defense, we spent more than was in the President's budget. And in the Committee's action on the amendment that came from the administration for some $25 billion, we provided substantial amounts of additional funding for intelligence work. There is little doubt of the priority of this president, this administration, in making sure we have adequate funding, and I feel very strongly that we should know that especially the Commander- in-Chief does not see partisan value in this work. The committee is a great committee, but there is a divide here that, I must say, reflects more than normally membership divide. If, at the staff level, we have people who are reacting for purely partisan purposes or their own biases, that is disconcerting to me. It is not healthy for the community, it is not healthy for our national defense, it clearly is not healthy for our intelligence community.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we understand my colleague's concern, and we can tell the gentleman that we believe that there is adequate funding.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we had quite a discussion in the full committee regarding this matter. The problem in Sudan is very real, and we are going to do everything we can to work with the gentlewoman. I appreciate not just her expressing her concern but helping us with this very serious difficulty.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer a managers' amendment, and I ask unanimous consent it be considered en bloc.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I do very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss these matters with my colleague, sometimes privately, sometimes publicly.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentlewoman will yield, I will be very happy to work with the gentlewoman. I appreciate her withdrawing her amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I am very empathetic to the gentleman's concern as expressed here. We have discussed it on many occasions between the two of us. The fact is that currently the DOD is spending some $200 million a year in this arena. There is $204 million already in the bill. It seems senseless to me to say withdraw $5 million from other accounts and pass it here. It seems to me that this is unnecessary; and because of that, I would oppose the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes.

Mr. LEWIS of California. As we have discussed before, I am always willing to try to help the gentleman.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am very empathetic to the Member's expression of concern in this arena. There is report language in the bill that says the following that I would bring to his attention: ``The Defense Science Board and the General Accounting Office both express concerns with the efficiency of the Department of Defense plan for remediation of UXO, unexploded ordnance. Therefore, in the fiscal year 2005 DOD appropriations report, we have requested a comprehensive plan and cost estimates from the department on all identified sites by April 1, 2005.'' We are attempting, Mr. Chairman, to deal with this problem by dealing with the Department. We recognize that they are not as efficient as we might like.

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