Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak extensively on this matter. We have spent much of the day and yesterday talking about the very difficult bill we face, the reality that there is many a trade-off between complex programs. That does not suggest that in every instance a bill changes on the floor, that we ought to spend every single dime of somebody's perceived remainder 602(b). I am not really surprised that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], my dear friend, would like to spend all of our 602(b). It may be that from time to time we come together on even balancing the budget. But in the meantime, without any further ado, I would ask my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe we are right at the edge of a general agreement here, and if I can, I think this side has been discussing this. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] for an exchange with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].

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

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent first for the House to express its appreciation for the fabulous work done today by our Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest). Then, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2158, the bill just passed.

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do understand where the gentleman is coming from. But the fact is, one more time, that is an authorizing question, and they ought to be working their way through that without any doubts. I think the gentleman knows that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I are struggling with the bill in no small part because over 85 percent of our bill is unauthorized. So we struggle along, at best. I want to address this problem. I do not want to do it pell-mell, but at the same time I do not want to cut off avenues that are important. I must say, one of the things that is disconcerting here is, because the gentleman and I have such a fine working relationship, up until now the ranking member and his staff have given me amendments ahead of time so I can talk these things through. It must be that he slipped over this technically some way.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if it had not been for the very fine bipartisan work the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I had been involved in, we would not have moved very quickly, so we even contributed to this very positive development. In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, there is little doubt that the country knows that disaster costs have been horrendous over the last several years. I think also all of us in the House know that when the next disaster occurs, we are going to come together as Americans and respond.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take very much time, but I would say that there is little doubt the next time a disaster comes along, that the Congress will come together, reflecting the American people's view that we ought to help people in disaster circumstances. But having said that, there is no doubt that we need to do work internally to try to mitigate against these disasters. We are doing it in building codes in earthquake sectors. Clearly the wind problem is a very, very serious problem we need to seriously move in the direction of addressing, trying to find some answers that mitigate against these costs. Those efforts are not going to be perfect in their initial stages. I would hope that we would work closely with our authorizers and encourage the authorizers to do the work as we make this effort to hold down the costs.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I frankly cannot answer the question. I do not know the technical side of how they went about putting it together, this process that relates to a contract. But I do know that this is apparently a facility that would be built on land that the Department of Energy owns and they would see it used for this purpose, and end up with free land. There is a need that is very real and apparently there are personnel in the region that could be very responsive to the challenges of this particular facility. But I am sure the process is not perfect, and one of the reasons that one of the authorizing chairmen will be presenting an amendment is he wants time to step back and take a look at some of these questions. I think they are very appropriate questions.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. First, let me address the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] by way of the discussions that the gentleman and I have had both in the full committee as well as this evening on the floor. Initially, in the full committee, there was a good deal of discussion about the reality that there are some problems with some AmeriCorps programs operating in the country, but also there are portions of the AmeriCorps Program that are working very, very well. For example, the forestry services going on in my district. AmeriCorps volunteers have done a rather phenomenal job. Essentially, the gentleman from Kansas was saying to me, I think, that we need to raise a flag that says if there are programs here where taxpayers' dollars are not being spent well, then we either ought to stop that or, indeed, we should try to find a way to improve it. So his amendment essentially raises that flag by taking half of the AmeriCorps funding proposed in this bill and putting it in an area of funding within veterans medical research that is very, very critical. Now, beyond my comments about AmeriCorps, let me say this about the gentleman from Kansas, a new member of the Committee on Appropriations. There is not a member of our committee who has more effectively brought forward the importance of the Persian Gulf syndrome problem, the reality that literally tens of thousands of veterans are facing circumstances that the medical community seems to know a lot less about than they should know. As of this moment, as a direct result of his work, through a number of appropriation subcommittees, I am not sure exactly what the figure is, but we are pushing something close to $100 million that is directed along a channel that will have us evaluating in intensive form the Persian Gulf syndrome. And that concern about those veterans who served is very well-taken and very, very important. Further, I want to say that while earlier I was personally going to consider just wiping out the AmeriCorps funding because we know at the other end of this, before we get through conference, before we get a signature from the President, AmeriCorps is going to be funded. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] is mixing the best of public policy with the best of reality around here in terms of his amendment. It is very helpful to the process, and because of that I would suggest to the Members that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] has made a very good point and should get their support.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield on that point that she made?

Mr. LEWIS of California. It may be that the gentlewoman was not given the information that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] took up his second amendment rather than the first one. Because of that this amendment takes approximately half of the AmeriCorps funding and puts some of it into veterans programs, and the balance remains, which allows us effectively to go to conference where we know it is going to be restored. I do appreciate the gentlewoman's position, but I wanted the gentlewoman to know that. In the meantime, if my colleague will, I wanted to mention to her that we hope to get through this amendment by the time I have committed to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that we will close down by 10:30, and that is not just for the gentlewoman but for the other Members who are here.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will make a very brief comment. There are two or three Members who plan to speak this evening but who are going to be asking for unanimous consent requests regarding their position, so that we can finish this amendment this evening and go to a vote on the item, and then we will take the balance of Title I up tomorrow. (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure today to outline the work of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies as well as the full Committee on Appropriations in developing the fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations bill. First, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and his staff for their helping in crafting this bill. Our working relationship, I believe, is a model of how appropriations subcommittees can and should work together on a bipartisan basis. We have effectively controlled the rate of growth of Federal spending through our bill while making sure that the needs of our constituents are met in communities across the country. Mr. Chairman, beginning with the fiscal year 1995 rescission bill, this subcommittee has led the way in our battle with the budget by reducing spending and fully paying for the emergency supplemental. While the administration and Congress have finally agreed in principle to balancing that budget by 2002, this subcommittee has been moving in that direction for well over 2 years now, and so far we have produced some $20 billion in spending cuts to show for our efforts. Because of the bipartisan budget agreement with the President, this year the subcommittee had the chance to catch its breath. The subcommittee's 602(b) allocation for fiscal year 1998 will provide us with the funding levels necessary to continue our commitment to serving veterans, protecting the environment, providing housing for the poorest of the poor, and ensuring America's future leadership in space. With regard to space programs, I hope that each of my colleagues have had an opportunity to focus upon the remarkable NASA Pathfinder mission to Mars. If this mission does not provide the catalyst for our next generation of scientists, then I certainly do not know what will. We are able to achieve all of these important results while still holding a line on spending of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars. Our allocation should allow us to go through the process quickly and eventually gain a signature by the President. Since our counterparts in the Senate received an allocation well below ours in the House, we are in for some very tough decisions nonetheless as we go down this road. Not everything in this bill will find its way in the final conference report. While the President may not wholeheartedly endorse every decision reflected in this bill, it is my hope that when we conference in September, we can come to a mutual agreement on a final bill that will be signed. Let me quickly move to some of the specifics of this bill beginning with our 602(b) allocation. Due to the structure of the budget resolution, there is some confusion about our allocation. Basically, when we take into account the recent rescission of $3.6 billion we enacted to pay for the emergency disaster supplemental, our allocation this year is the same as for fiscal year 1997, amounting to some $60.8 billion. When we consider that, it would be a mistake, however, not to look at the fact that within this whole package there is an additional $9.2 billion that is necessary to pay for HUD's section 8 program, a program that suddenly has blown up before us and creates ongoing problems that all of us must deal with. Since the gentleman from Ohio and I have proposed funding the section 8 program at the administration's request of $9.2 billion, our allocation increased by that amount once we reported our bill from the full committee. With that in mind, even this funding level may not be enough if the administration, in dealing with section 8, working along with the House and the Senate housing authorizing committees, do not work in a way to solve this critical section 8 problem, a difficulty which, as I have indicated, will balloon in the years ahead of us. Now, let me explain the highlights of the larger agencies funded through this measure. First, the veterans medical care is funded at the full budget request of $17 billion, and we expect an additional $468 million will be made available when the reconciliation bill becomes law. Veterans research operating expenses and construction activities are moderately increased over the budget request levels. For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the section 8 program, as I have indicated, at $9.2 billion, is a part of the package. Severely distressed housing and drug elimination grants are at the President's request of $524 million and $290 million respectively. CDBG, HOPWA, and Homeless Assistance Grants are also funded at the budget request level. The native American housing block grant program is funded at $650 million, an increase of some $165 million above the budget request. Likewise, the HOME Program has also increased by $191 million to a figure of $1.5 billion for fiscal year 1998. Finally, and thanks to an amendment offered during our subcommittee markup by the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], the section 202 elderly housing program is funded at $645 million, which is $345 million above the President's request. The section 811 housing for the disabled program is funded at $194 million, at an increase of $20 million over the budget request. For EPA, the budget agreement requires us to produce a bill which funds the EPA operating programs at the budget request level of $3.4 billion. The operating programs include all programs at the agency except Superfund; Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, known as LUST; and the clean and safe drinking water State revolving funds. We have met this obligation in a way that I believe accurately reflects congressional priorities. For example, we have proposed an additional $40 million for particulate matter and ozone research, something I believe most Members strongly support and all of us wish the EPA would utilize before implementing new PM and ozone regulations that many would suggest have questionable scientific backing. We have also increased by $25 million the funds going to States and cities for air monitoring and data collection, a necessary component of better research in this very important area. Furthermore, the Great Lakes programs are fully funded, many above the budget request. The State revolving fund programs have been increased by $200 million over the President's request. Brownfields are funded at $85 million. And the Superfund Program, although it continues to need serious, comprehensive reform, is funded at $1.5 billion. Space station and shuttle programs at NASA are fully funded, and NASA will receive a modest increase of $148 million over the budget request. I would note, however, that NASA's funding level still represents a decrease of $61 million below last year's level. NASA is a prime example of an agency that has responded to our charge of doing more with less. One need only look at the $200 million Pathfinder program as a prime example of doing more with less. The National Science Foundation would, likewise, receive a modest increase above the President's request, including an additional $23 million for research, $90 million for major research equipment, and $7 million for education programs. We have provided the full budget request for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. Finally, we have frozen funds for AmeriCorps at the 1997 level of just over $402 million. This year's funding level for AmeriCorps represents a reduction of $146.5 million, or 27 percent below the President's request. I want my colleagues to know that together, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], members of the subcommittee and I have worked hard to produce a fair and balanced bill, one that can and should be supported all the way to the Presidential signature. It is true that it will be a long and hot summer while we all work on this and the other 12 appropriations bills that are necessary to keep our Government operating. On the other hand, the bipartisan support that this measure has already received will certainly make the summer a little easier. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], my friend and ranking member, and his staff Fredette West, David Reich, and Del Davis, as well as Rose Roberts, Valerie Baldwin, Tim Peterson, Paul Thomson, and Frank Cushing of my committee staff, and Dave Les Strang, Alex Heslop, and Jeff Shockey of my personal staff for their help and support for putting together this difficult bill which is full of competing interests but balanced funding priorities. Mr. Chairman, I want to take just a moment to say that it is obvious this is a very complex bill, dealing with programs that are very, very important to the American public as well as those individual families that receive many of the services involved. In shrinking budgetary circumstances, the competition between accounts is all the more difficult. There will be amendments, as we go forward in this discussion, which people will come to the floor and suggest that their program has higher priority than another, let us say taking away from AmeriCorps and putting in another program, maybe a veterans' program, without necessarily evaluating the good work we have already done on the veterans programs. That sort of exchange is part of the process. But I urge the Members to recognize that this is a very difficult process and we have done a very good, I think, bipartisan job in putting this bill together. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY97.000 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY97.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY97.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY97.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY97.004

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield].

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], an outstanding member of our committee. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a member of the subcommittee. (Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn] for purposes of a colloquy.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Veterans Benefits is right on target. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn] and I have discussed this matter on other occasions. Arlington National Cemetery holds a very special place in the hearts of the Nation, and I think it is important that Arlington be maintained at the highest standards. I am very aware that the cemetery's maintenance backlog has been growing. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have a proposal?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his cooperation and consideration of the subcommittee's work and the difficulty we face. This is a modest sum, and I am sure that it will be well used at Arlington. I would be pleased to seek additional funds during conference.