Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if my friend from Pennsylvania would continue to yield, I know that he is one of the smartest guys in this place, and the leadership has difficulty getting everybody to be as smart as he is. And I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is speaking today longer than I have seen him speak in the entire time I have been in the Congress. That is how smart he is. And it is a pleasure doing business with him.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania yielding to me. I might mention, because the chairman certainly would not say this, that we are going through this routine, I know in large part, or maybe in small part, because for 40 years the Democrats ran the place and that gave us time to learn a lot by watching what they did. And from time to time they were even smart enough to understand that there was a need to put pressure on the other body, because that other body operates in a way that is hard for me to imagine.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I must say, at the beginning of my remarks I want the House to know that I deeply appreciate the comments of my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who is my partner on this subcommittee; and I also want to say to the House that I am rising this evening with no small amount of serious concern about the problems that are facing my constituents in my own district where literally the whole district is on fire. It is an incredible time. But a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to take perhaps the largest delegation that has traveled to Iraq since we have been involved there, a group of Members numbering some 17 of us, a fabulous cross-section of the House: Democrats and Republicans, liberals, conservatives, Members who had voted against the war, Members who supported the war. But we saw many things in a relatively short trip, but one thing was absolutely certain. We all became convinced that Saddam Hussein absolutely is one of the most outrageous tyrants of modern time, rivaling Hitler's Germany, certainly rivaling that which the Russian leadership was all about. While we were there, we visited circumstances that reflect the worst of what this tyrant has done to his people, a people who have had no opportunity for freedom in their lifetime, a people who have been oppressed if they dared oppose him, and people who were killed in the tens and tens of thousands. Visiting the killing fields was an amazing experience where in one location, tens of thousands had been killed on that spot, and similar locations across the country. This person did not hesitate to wipe out huge portions of his own population, ranging between 500,000 and maybe 1.5 million people. In turn, that delegation was amazed to see what had been done to the children of Iraq, suggesting that he was even willing to see that children were fed formula that was mixed with sewage water, caring nothing about the future of those children and those families. So America is there to make a commitment to the future of these people in hopes that they really will experience freedom. General Petraeus, who was one of the key commanders that we dealt with, said that the money that was most important to his success was that money that was going to reconstruction. That, the General told us, the security of his troops was very much connected to the sense that America was about creating new opportunities there and laying the foundation for freedom. And, indeed, he felt it deeply, that was the way to make sure that our people, our troops come home as soon as possible. Let me just make one more point. That is there is no doubt that if we are successful in our efforts in Iraq, we are about to play a role in creating a model in the Middle East that could change the future of that entire region. There is absolutely no question that this success could take us down a pathway that could lead to a new kind of peaceful opportunity, a new roadway in the entire region. I truly believe that we have a chance at this moment to make a difference about the entire future of the Middle East. And it is a Democrat and Republican effort. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has been fundamental in helping me be successful in the military side of this, but both of us recognize just how important the reconstruction effort is as well.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I neglected earlier to express my deep appreciation to the conferees for their responding to the challenge in our district that involved some $500 million that is now going to go through the process here to FEMA to help those people who are presently out of their homes, people who suddenly have no place to live and the like. And, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague yielding me this time. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the distinguished ranking member, has referred to the fact that I am facing a rather tremendous challenge in California with the devastation that is impacting my District directly. In talking early this morning with one of my very dear friends that has great expertise in this arena of professional work, it was from him that I first heard the reality that there are two kinds of money that involve fire money. When we are talking about protecting the forest and trying to get the dollars that are necessary to clear the brushes, make sure we do not have too many trees go through, et cetera, et cetera, that kind of money is very, very difficult to come by, and then suddenly we have a disaster, a fire, and a green light goes on. The difference is red money, green money. A green light goes on, and whatever is available or required suddenly comes forth. The deal with the challenges in my forest in recent years was we worked very hard to try to get some money to lay the foundation for a better management of the forests. Just in the last couple of years, we have finally gotten as much as $30 million. This evening, later, we will be considering the supplemental. After the fires had begun in the West, and within that package, there is a $500 million addition to the process that will help us deal with these problems in the West now, after the fire occurred. So I have great empathy for the challenges of the people on this committee who struggle to get adequate dollars up front to make sure we are managing our forests well, and it takes the kind of challenge we are facing at this moment to really bring the point home. I would have my colleagues know that I am very sensitive about my following remarks, and I would have the Chair be very careful with me, for it is a very unusual thing for me to do. Each of us has two U.S. Senators in each of our States. And in my case, there are two U.S. Senators and they are speaking about this general subject area, and I find great confusion here. I am going to be very careful as I refer to the other body and even Members in the other body to only use quotations from those individuals, but it makes it a very significant point as it relates to this bill. So in an attempt to do that, I would speak of one of my Senators first. The gentlewoman speaking on the Senate floor about the healthy forest legislation currently under consideration has said, ``We have an open invitation to destroy our forests without getting anything back for it. There are no limits on old growth forest logging. Timber companies will pick the trees they want with no veto from the forest service and a complete change from what we have had before.'' My other colleague, another Senator from California, has been heard to say about this same proposal, speaking on the Senate floor and saying, ``This legislation is not a logging bill, as some would typify it, I think, falsely. This legislation would allow the brush to be cleared out, and it would also provide the first statutory protection for old growth stands and large trees ever in the history of this Nation. I want to be very clear. This is pro-environment legislation, and it seeks to reverse some of the damage we have done to our forests and restore their healthy condition.'' Two contrasting points of view that are difficult for me to understand from two Senators from the same State, but they make the point that unless we are able to recognize that there are very serious challenges here and recognize that this bill attempts to begin to deal with some of those challenges, we will never overcome the kind of tragedy that we are now experiencing in the West. There are some 18 people who have died in southern California. Over 2,600 homes have been burned. Three-quarters of a million acres have been burned. At this very moment in regions in my District, literally thousands of families are trying to figure out what to do with the rest of their life because I think we have not in the past been able to give the kind of broadly-based support that we need to give to this subcommittee. I think the report we have before us tonight is a reflection of very fine work between the ranking member and the chairman of our subcommittee. I very much appreciate their effort, but I want them to know from this Member's perspective, tonight's work is just another down payment. We will be making a down payment as it relates to the supplemental later. Indeed this down payment is very, very significant, and I want my colleagues to know that I appreciate the work they have done.

Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would like to respond that in the recent reorganization, we shifted FEMA from VA-HUD to the Subcommittee on Homeland Security. So there has been that change. And we have appropriated additional money there because in the middle of last year FEMA was running out of money. They were at least talking about the shortage. Suddenly we are going to add some money to that pool that they can draw from, and certainly that is a reflection of the challenges throughout the West. Colorado, just today, has another new problem. But before another 6 months goes by, even FEMA is going to be stretched to the wall again, and that is why what the gentleman did last night was very important, and I appreciate my colleague's support.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) is pointing to an area that the committee is very concerned about, and indeed the intelligence community has been, as has our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence here in the House. The amendment seems to have no real overall effect on the intelligence community's management account. It decreases the account by $5 million and then increases that same account, but the point that I would make is that this shifting of money would tend to have a direct impact upon both the FBI and the Department of Energy, as well as the broader intelligence community, in their efforts to develop our effort on the intelligence side in the war on terrorism. In turn, in recent years, there has been sizeable adjustment in those accounts that addressed the question of linguistics, the training of people who know foreign language, et cetera, and as my colleague knows, identifying such people, first of all, takes time and takes time to train them, and so we just cannot throw money at it and cause a change like that. I mean, unlike a lot of accounts where we just put money in and something happens tomorrow, linguistic development, that kind of training is very difficult. So it is much more a regular order kind of process. I could describe this in great detail in private between us, but some of the intelligence questions here really should not be discussed in this environment, but in turn, it is an important problem. If I thought a $5 million shift would make a difference and not affect other elements of our war on terrorism, I would support the gentleman's amendment, but I reluctantly oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back. The Chairman carried forward a very full day yesterday, and we appreciate his help. This amendment, and amendments like it that we have seen much of the day yesterday, is a very appealing sort of amendment, for it essentially says we have money in this package, and why do we not take some of it and add additional funding for our troops one way or another. Obviously, that has appeal. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) is a very fine Member from Michigan and he has expressed his concern about the troops before. Yesterday I heard people who had never expressed concern for our troops and, in fact, had not even voted for our bill in the past who were suddenly very, very concerned, and that is a little disconcerting. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I, my colleague and partner, have made every effort in this package and packages before it to aggressively increase funding available for our troops, especially those who are serving our country overseas and those who are in harm's way. This specific proposal adds $265 million to the military personnel accounts. It suggests that it is enough to pay for a $1,500 bonus for each serviceman who is in the region. The offset is to reduce $1 billion for the reconstruction effort in Iraq. I must say, one of the strongest arguments regarding this, besides the fact that we have done everything we can to help our troops in the previous bills and in this one, is the reality that the experts, the generals in charge of our military effort over there, say that their number one priority is reconstruction, because it is the way to, first of all, secure our troops while they are there and, secondly, the way to make certain they get home as quickly as possible is to see the economy of Iraq move forward, get it back on track, and that is part of what this bill is about.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentlewoman yielding, and she is in the midst of a very important statement, but I wanted to share with her, as well as my colleagues, that I believe she is highlighting a very important problem. We do provide for $22 million within the bill, but frankly, the Department tells me that the challenges are very real, we may need more money, and rather than taking my 5 minutes, I am inclined to let the gentlewoman know that we are going to accept her amendment.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not intend at this moment to use the 5 minutes, but I must say I absolutely understand the gentlewoman's presenting this amendment for, indeed, we spent time together in Iraq, I have been saying a whole month in one weekend in Iraq together. That is not because of our wonderful charm, but because of what we experienced there together, the reality that Saddam Hussein is the worst tyrant, clearly competing with Hitler and Stalin. We learned that he was capable of almost anything. I will never forget the gentlewoman, as we were together at the killing fields, urging me and others to join together in a moment of silence, thinking about the potential of mass destruction as a part of this guy's everyday existence as long as he was ruling that country. Indeed, I do not know exactly what we might find. I am hesitant about reducing this amount of money. I am going to be willing to talk about it as we go forward, but, indeed, the things that David Kay is about in his work are very important for us as we look at the challenges of dealing with people like this. So it is with great reluctance that I resist and ask for a ``no'' vote on the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just might mention that the gentlewoman's expression of international involvement is a very appropriate one, and I would highlight her remarks by mentioning that the U.N. voted unanimously yesterday, getting the U.N. really on board for the first time in helping us with this effort. In the meantime, moving this money around in this fashion when we have done so much as we have in O & M and the bill in general, I hesitate about it, and therefore I ask for a ``no'' vote. And I want to tell the gentlewoman I very much appreciate the work she has done with me. I might mention, just to take the time, when we were together following our weekend, we actually sat down together for hours, our team of 17, and in the midst of it, one of our colleagues said, I am one, a liberal Democrat, who voted ``no'' to going to war, but after seeing what I see here about Saddam Hussein, I must say I have got to be ahead of my people. It is going to be unpopular at home. It is time for us to lead, and therefore I am going to support this request of the President to carry forward this war on terrorism.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and the gentlewoman is much too young to remember this.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, though it is my pleasure to say that I am highly inclined to support the Ramstad amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. During the big war, there was a word, a phrase, it is really a word, a snafu was common among all people who were in the service. The military has often screwed up, I must tell you, and it is ridiculous. Absolutely, we agree with the gentlewoman's position. We will do everything we can to improve that process. Your highlighting it here is very helpful.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I am prepared to accept the amendment and to yield back.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this exchange with my colleague. We are really coming from the same position. These accounts are very delicately balanced now, as the gentleman knows, and the impact that this shifting might very well have on work that is vital within the FBI, et cetera, concerns me. In turn, I think our dialogue here, I think, is highlighting the matter. There is no doubt that the committee is reflecting the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's concern about improving what we are doing relative to foreign language training and linguistics. There is little doubt that the Congress, the House of Representatives, has said very clearly in this bill in other sections, as well as this dialogue, that this is a priority. We expect the entire intelligence community to respond. So, frankly, I want to be very complimentary of the gentleman's effort, but shifting the money here could make it very difficult to deal with the other body in a fashion that we hope to move forward with. So I am reserved relative to this amendment, but do very much appreciate my colleague's helping us highlight this important area.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We certainly will but, frankly, I will end up opposing, asking for a ``no'' vote on that vote. I frankly do not like to see us end it that way, and we could very well end it that way, and maybe that does not help with the highlighting.

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