Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2158) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention the fine work and outstanding success of the citizens of Highland, CA. On November 24, 1997, Highland will celebrate ten years of existence as a city. In light of the rather dire predictions made at the time about the city's chance of survival, this is a major milestone in the city's history. Many people, particularly the so-called experts, warned in 1987 against incorporation of the community because they believed the proposed city was financially unfeasible and would be bankrupt within the first 2 years of existence. In his budget transmittal letter back in May 1989, the city manager referenced the 1980 Winter Olympic Games held in Lake Placid, NY. During those games, ABC Television commentator, Al Michaels, provided the play-by-play for the gold medal championship hockey game between the United States and Finland. The United States was given very little chance of taking the gold medal. In the final seconds of the game, when it was apparent that the United States would win, Al Michaels emphatically exclaimed, ``Do you believe in miracles?'' Successfully completing its first year as a city, Highland's success may not have been a miracle, but in early 1989 it was regarded as quite an accomplishment. Nearly 10 years later, Highland is not only still in existence, it is in relatively sound financial shape. With sound and prudent financial management, the future of the city of Highland looks bright. In fact, I believe that the next 10 years hold even more promise for the citizens of this great community than the last 10 years. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me, our colleagues, and the many fine people who live and work in Highland in saluting this community for meeting and overcoming many challenges during its first 10 years. The success of the city of Highland is certainly worthy of recognition by the House today.

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. I would just like to respond by way of comment to the question of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]. I, too, thought the question was over at 20, and then just before the election the President asked for the 21st. I thought he was getting a new understanding that a third squadron might be helpful, so it seems to me we ought to revisit this issue. I appreciate my colleague raising the question.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman yielding. I rise reluctantly to oppose the position of the ranking member of the full committee, for I understand how carefully he has reviewed this matter. But frankly, just a couple of years ago I had taken a position that was not dissimilar. I was responding to the administration's direction that perhaps we could get by with two squadrons, that is, 20 B-2's. In spite of the fact that the trend around the Congress was to say to DOD that we were going to begin to withdraw our troops from the world, close foreign bases and have most of our military assets located in to the continental United States. Then during the midst of the campaign when candidate Bob Dole was going to southern California just the day before he arrived at a location, Pico Rivera, where many of these employees who deal with the B-2 work, the President announced that he was going to support the 21st B-2. That is, I gathered he was supporting the third squadron or at least moving in that direction. Recognizing that if we are going to be withdrawing troop force around the world and still need, as the leader of the free world, to project force, that indeed we had to have enough assets available to be able to deliver force with great strength at long distance and at relatively low cost. Such a force, for example, would be quickly available to stop a rogue nation that was going to cross its neighbor's boarders and strike it heavily. Our B-2 force could be present quickly and then give us time to get personnel, ships and other assets into the region. There is little doubt that a third squadron is very necessary if we are going to play that sort of role in this hopefully growing more peaceful world. The B-2 is fundamental to America's continued leadership as we recognize that fewer of our overall assets are going to be available for national defense. There is little doubt that we are on the right track to develop a third squadron. It will save us money over time. But probably most importantly Mr. Chairman, it is a fundamental asset in all of our desire to maintain peace and freedom in the world. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes several very important points. As we conventionalize the B-2, there is little doubt that it provides an asset that indeed allows America to extend its force very cheaply relative to other assets that are available to us. Indeed if America is going to defend freedom from our continental base, indeed if we are going to continue to close down bases around the world, there is little doubt that we need to be able to strike quickly and safely, deliver force that will stop a would-be aggressor. It is very fundamental to the policy presently in place, and I strongly support procuring nine additional B-2's.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding to me. My colleague mentioned that this was not designed to interfere with any base closure recommendation, and I agree with his position. But let me remind the gentleman as well as the House that in the initial base closure go-round where this recommendation was made, the commission actually recommended that the very helicopters the gentleman is talking about leave Orange County and go to 29 Palms, CA, to a marine base where they would welcome these helicopters. Frankly, I cannot understand why they shifted that decision, except maybe some people want to live near the beach. In the meantime, if the gentleman would consider somewhere along the line amending this a bit to look at 29 Palms, I probably would not be offended.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I did want to mention that it has been my privilege as a member of this subcommittee to sit for endless hours in the hearings of the appropriations subcommittee that handles our national security, and I rise simply to express my deep appreciation to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] for the phenomenal job that the two together have done in developing a highly bipartisan product that reflects the broad needs of our country. To say the least, even though it involves $4 billion or so, an across-the-board cut, the very authors of this amendment know, is the worst way to govern. You do not take a machete and go across the board. You end up in that process by hurting the very people you say you support, the young men and women who live in conditions that are considerably less than we would have them live in, the circumstances that impact the quality of life in terms of housing on the bases that are involved. Across-the-board cuts are the wrong way. Indeed, defense has paid the price over a number of years of shrinking budgets. This indeed is a very, very well-developed, well-balanced bipartisan, almost nonpartisan measure. I commend the committee for its work.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to bring to your attention ``Ten Years of Success'', an anniversary celebration for the proud city of Highland, CA. On November 24, 1997, many people will be preparing to give thanks and commemorate our Nation's history of the day of Thanksgiving. The cold autumn air will bring in another different reason for the people of Highland to celebrate, as they will reach a great milestone in their own history, and ring in 10 years of existence as a city. Do you believe in miracles? The community and citizens of Highland certainly do. Many people, especially the so-called experts, warned in 1987 against incorporation of the community because they believed the proposed city was financially infeasible and would be bankrupt within the first 2 years of existence. I am more than pleased to report that the experts were wrong and the city of Highland is flourishing and growing with intensity. More importantly, the city is in relatively sound fiscal condition. The future of the city of Highland, along with the successful maintenance of its fiscal approach, looks bright. If the past is any indication of the future, those who believe in the miracle and call the city of Highland home will be able to do so for many more years to come. May the next 10 years be even better than the past for the citizens of this great community. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me, our colleagues, and the many proud people who call the city of Highland their home, in recognizing a decade of success. This November all of us will recognize that miracles never cease to flourish in the city of Highland.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention the fearless and selfless efforts of a dedicated helicopter pilot from the city of Blyth, CA. Floyd D. Hiser, 51, recently lost his life when his Bell 206L-1 engine stalled while fighting an out-of- control blaze in the San Bernardino National Forest on July 6, 1997. The fire charred over 2,797 acres of trees and brush, and was threatening the terrain above the city of Highland, CA. On the scene, there were 903 firefighters and officials accompanied by tankers and helicopters battling to put out the blaze. Floyd Hiser, a pilot with over 10,000 hours of flight time, was flying for Rogers Helicopters of Clovis, when he was called to battle the fires in the rugged terrain of the San Bernardino Mountains. Hiser held commercial, instrument, and instructor ratings for fixed- winged and rotary-winged aircraft and was an FAA-certified flight examiner for prospective helicopter pilots. His commitment to the protection and safety of his community did not stop with flying. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1964 to 1968, and was also a Vietnam veteran. He also served in the Blyth Police Department as a sergeant and detective from 1969 to 1979. Hiser is survived by wife, Sharon; his daughter, Kimberly; his mother, Ruby Faye; his stepmother, Ruth Wadlow; his brother, Loyld; and four grandchildren. After a moving ceremony, his flag-draped coffin was carried out of the church by a color guard, the last two members of which carried red fire axes to remember his efforts. ``Floyd could put the drops on the leaves that he wanted hit,'' said one of his many friends. Floyd died doing what he loved most, and what he believed in: piloting a helicopter and protecting people from a wildland fire. Mr. Speaker, Floyd Hiser provided an example of leadership and the ultimate level of sacrifice for the benefit of his friends, family, and the communities he protected. His efforts will long be respected and admired. I ask that you join me, our colleagues, and hundreds of people who knew and loved Floyd, and to recognize him for his lifetime commitment to the protection and goodwill of the communities he served.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York, and then we will go from there.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe we are getting close to the point of coming to an agreement that will cause the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and myself as we go to conference on behalf of Members of the House on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about a very important program being dealt with in a straightforward way with objective standards and so forth; when those expressions come to us, I think we will be ready to commit that we will carry that voice to the conference. But indeed we have had a very extensive discussion, a very healthy discussion, I think.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time for just a moment, I might suggest that what is really being discussed here in good faith on the part of all the parties is the prospect of developing language that could fit into a manager's amendment as we go to the conference on this matter. I would not want to reject that out of hand. I would hope no one would who is concerned about making sure these moneys get to the people that we would intend them in the first place. I did not know about these questions in depth when the Committee on Appropriations worked on the bill as well.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, much of this information and these expressions of concern were not available to the committee when we discussed it at the appropriations level and this increased appropriations was recommended. Nonetheless, I am very interested in this program and its potential positive effect on the communities out there. I want to make sure that the committee is doing all that it can to make certain that funds made available by way of an appropriate and objective application process get to the very people we are all concerned about here. With that, that the committee does want to continue to look very, very carefully, Mr. Chairman, I do not pretend to have the expertise of the people on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services that suggested that perhaps there should be an increase and the budget process did that as well, but I am not sure they had all this information, either. In the meantime, while I would discontinue my own personal remarks regarding this matter, I would like to yield to my two colleagues here who have been leading the way in connection with this and pursue this to the point that satisfies them as we close down the discussion on this amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my colleague's yielding and his comment. I must say to the gentleman, the only reservation I have, for I am concerned about programs that affect the inner city and small businesses, et cetera, is that when we went to the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services generally had expressed dollar levels but this information was not available to the Appropriations subcommittee. This does concern me.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do, and let me say that I agree with much that has been said about this program. We have provided $100 million in the budget request because of that. I raised a point of order against the amendment because, first, the amendment takes away from an unauthorized program and gives money to an unauthorized program. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me give just a bit of detail: The amendment proposes to increase an appropriation not authorized by law, and therefore is in violation of clause 2(a) of rule XXI. Although the original account, funding for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, where the funding would go, is unauthorized, it was permitted to remain pursuant to the provisions of the rule that provided for the consideration of this bill. When an unauthorized appropriation is permitted to remain in a general appropriations bill, an amendment merely changing that amount is in order, but the rules of the House apply as a merely perfecting standard to the items permitted to remain and do not allow the insertion of a new paragraph, not part of the original text permitted to remain, to change indirectly a figure permitted to remain.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, with the agreement of the gentleman from Ohio, we would accept the amendment. I would suggest to Members who are anxious about this, while I welcome their comments, others, if they want to, can revise and extend their remarks.