Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must say to the gentleman, I very much appreciate the opportunity to enter into this colloquy with him regarding this very important matter. The gentleman may be aware of the fact that over 20 years ago, as a result of another earthquake, a major VA hospital that collapsed in southern California. The replacement hospital is located in an area that serves both my district and the district of Congressman George Brown and others in southern California. This facility is very important to veterans who live in rural communities, similar to the long distances that Mr. Deal was talking about earlier. It is important for the gentleman to know that, the House as well, to know that there is indeed $57.1 million between the fiscal year 1997 and 1996 VA, HUD appropriations bills to begin phased construction of the replacement hospital at Travis Air Force Base. This subcommittee remains and will continued to be committed to fully funding and completing construction of the replacement Travis Hospital. I also want to emphasize to my colleague that funding for this hospital at Travis is included in this bill because, to say the least, Mr. Riggs has been waging a highly intensive campaign on its behalf. Furthermore, that full-phased construction of the Travis Hospital would not be possible, if a place holder for funding had not been adopted by way of a clinic, as we did our work in 1996. This is a very, very difficult time in terms of funding availability. Earthquake replacement hospitals seem logical but, nonetheless, my colleague has had to struggle because of very scarce dollars. Yet those people who we are committed to serve, especially in rural areas, to deserve this kind of response. I salute the gentleman for his tenacity and dedication as a tireless advocate for his district and northern California veterans.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I intend to use my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Possibly. But, frankly, I have a feeling that under this scenario, if it is put back in this pool and they do meet the criteria, and we believe that they do, then they would be on a level playing field.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I really asked the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown,] for this time because I want to express my deep appreciation for the sensitivity that he brings to this issue. All of us are concerned about the homeless problem, and we are providing as much money over time as we conceivably can use effectively. In the meantime, Mr. Brown and his Committee on Science have spent years developing America's capability in all of those technical fields that are critical to our economic future. Indeed, his leadership has been very important. Nobody but nobody can say they care more about these social problems than Mr. Brown has expressed by action as well as votes over the years. At the same time, the gentleman expresses here this evening good sense. America has many a challenge and to make this kind of exchange does not reflect the real world that we have to deal with in this bill.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I certainly do look forward to working with the gentleman and the other members of the authorizing committee as they go forward with their work. Indeed, we need action by the authorizing committees to help us better get a handle on the policy directions we ought to be taking if we are spending this money. But the gentleman's point is appreciated.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much what the gentleman is saying. I remember, however, many pictures on television in the winter in California, where we sent out moving vans to pick up people from the cold who were homeless. They ran away from the vans because they were worried about being placed in an institution. There are many complications here. The answer here is, one more time, more money taken away from NASA programs that my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], spoke so articulately about earlier. It is not a fair tradeoff. We are trying to achieve balance here. Indeed, I think we have met a balance. But the solutions are a way off. I would urge that we work together.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, in order to keep all of our commitments, perhaps we would handle it this way. If it would meet with the gentleman's agreement, it is possible that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] could offer this amendment as a part of general provisions tomorrow and we could not only meet his needs and the commitment through the concerns that others have expressed to the gentleman regarding this amendment, we could also keep our commitment to close this title. I am concerned that we do that. Would the gentleman agree to have unanimous consent that Mr. Weller be able to take this up in general provisions tomorrow so we can finish with title II?

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, as we discussed in our general debate, this is an extremely difficult bill that involves a combination of veterans medical care concerns and public housing concerns which are critical to the service we are providing many of the poorest of the poor. There are also a number of major issues that involve our scientific community, the National Science Foundation, NASA's work as well and the work of EPA. When we have limited dollars, we tug and pull and attempt to balance between those accounts. In this case, and in a rather straightforward manner, my colleague from Massachusetts is suggesting that housing programs of a special form are of high enough priority that there is money available in our bill for NASA funding that he prefer to set aside and put into those housing accounts. I understand that relative priority. HUD requested $290 million for new incremental voucher assistance. Of that amount $116 million was requested for assistance to families that became displaced due to changes in the project's status. The remaining $174 million was requested in two new programs: $145 million for a new initiative called Welfare To Work and $29 million for a new initiative to provide rental assistance for welfare mothers with children. The committee's recommendation reflects the position that HUD does not have the capacity to administer new programs. In fact, both the HUD Inspector General and the General Accounting Office has stated that HUD is an agency in serious disrepair. It was the committee's considered opinion that funding new programs was extremely unwise given HUD's poor past performance. Furthermore, neither of these programs have been authorized by the housing subcommittee. In fact, the funding requested for incremental units to fund these new programs, in effect, creates two new Federal preferences, a policy which this Congress eliminated last year with the repeal of Federal preferences. Both housing bills sponsored in the House and the Senate specifically eliminate Federal preferences in favor of locally decided preferences. This amendment should be opposed on the grounds that it is bad policy and it will result in appropriating an unauthorized program. Beyond that, we have given priority relative to human space flight within the NASA portion of this account. To essentially take that on head-on-head against housing programs not only does not reflect the priorities of the subcommittee, it frankly is dealing with NASA programs, from my perspective, in a relatively unfair manner. So I would oppose the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we are happy to receive assistance from whatever corner of the Capitol we can find it.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, with that kind of automatic increase, therefore, it is even more important that we plan for the future. The section 8 certificate, voucher and project-based programs serve some 2,750,000 households. Of these families, 40 percent are elderly and disabled. If the assistance for these families is decreased or is unavailable, the impact is undeniable. The families lose their assistance immediately. The 202 program is a grant program for nonprofits to renovate or build new apartment buildings for elderly residents. Because of the nature of the program, it takes at least 18 months before the money is obligated and sometimes more than 24 or 36 months before the elderly households are actually assisted under the program. It is absolutely imperative that the Members recognize that we are facing a crisis here and that crisis is going to fall on the heads and the backs of those families already desperately in need and who are receiving assistance currently. This problem is not going to go away by some short-term fix that meets very short-term needs that may not be able to be spent by the administration in terms of their present availability of workload as well as opportunity. I strongly urge a no vote on this very well-intentioned but, I think, misguided amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly but very strongly to oppose this well-intentioned amendment. Mr. Chairman, by way of this amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, he is suggesting that we decrease assistance for section 8 multifamily housing by an amount of some $140 million total. He takes $100 million and transfers it to elderly and $40 million and transfers it to disabled housing. It is important for the Members to know that this bill and the entire housing effort in the House faces a very, very serious challenge because of that which is occurring within the very accounts that the chairman has chosen to tap. The committee has recommended funding the section 202 housing for elderly programs at the level requested by the President. This amount is, as has been suggested, below the level appropriated in 1996, but the administration request is based on the fact that this level of funding represents the amount of activity the Department actually can undertake during this fiscal year. In the past, a significant portion of the money appropriated for this account has been carried over from year to year when the funding has not been obligated. On the other hand, the funding level for the annual contributions account, some $5,272,000,000, is necessary to protect low-income families that are already dependent upon certificates, vouchers or project-based assistance. Decreasing these accounts could result in the Department being unable to meet its already very difficult obligations. If this account is reduced significantly, families could be displaced. Now, the point is that section 8 multifamily housing programs need serious reform. Already because we now tend to go put off that reform, the requirements for the 1997 and 1998 bills are escalating very, very rapidly. I would suggest unless we have money banked to meet those challenges, we are literally going to be forced, regardless, we are going to be forced to displace families already receiving services no later than 1998. The committee has recommended creating an account of $875 million that may be used by HUD as of September 15, 1997. The recommendation to create the savings account was decided upon knowing that next year the President will have to request $10,793,000,000-plus in 1998 to renew existing certificates, vouchers and project-based rental contracts or face cutting off assistance to low-income families, which is an unacceptable eventuality for this chairman, and I believe unacceptable to the authorizing chairman as well. The problem we face is that reform is absolutely needed now, and yet there is little doubt that a housing bill dealing with these reforms will not move through the process very likely until the next session of Congress. We will probably be dealing with the 1998 year. That is going to assure displacements of families; that is, families losing their housing, unless we build some kind of a bank account. To tap these accounts now is essentially saying we are concerned about people this week instead of recognizing the real crises here, which I think is very shortsighted. The President will have to request almost $11 billion to reset this need in 1988. The committee's recommendation was following the reforms in section 8 tenant-based or project-based programs. These adjustments are extremely unlikely, as I have suggested, because of what is happening on the authorizing side. I compliment the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the Committee on Banking and Financial Service for his willingness to address this measure, but frankly the time is now and the crisis is urgent. We cannot afford to wait until 1997. In fact, if we, by eliminating the reforms that this committee recommended for section 8 project-based programs, in section 204 and 205, really at the request of Mr. Lazio, we have increased the budget authority needs for certificates, vouchers and project-based assistance by $136 million.

Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman is correct. Members who have problems with title III or interest in it will not be so pressed. amendment offered by mr. lazio of new york

Mr. LEWIS of California. It is our intention to proceed no further once we finish title II tonight.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move the strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of all Members, I would like to announce the schedule for the rest of the evening. It is our intention to finish title II tonight; that is, finishing the housing portion of this bill. There will be no more rollcall votes tonight, and any demands for rollcall votes will stacked tomorrow. Members with amendments to title II or who wish to speak to such amendments should plan to stay for a while.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend that while these are very difficult areas, I think the gentleman will agree and acknowledge that the administration very strongly supports NASA's work as well. NASA has been a leader in reinventing and reforming Government. Since 1993 NASA has reduced its budget requirements through the fiscal year 2000 by $43 billion. So the charge by some that NASA has not contributed to balancing the budget does not reflect what they have tried to do. The tradeoffs are tough, but that is what this bill is all about. We have tried to do a decent job.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleague that I believe that there are public policies that have begun to have an impact on these subject areas, but I also believe very strongly that a portion of the problem stems from public policies that have gone awry. I must confess that I was a part of an effort in California some years ago in the legislature to deal with a social problem that we saw as very real. There was a propensity to institutionalize people in California and other States who had difficulties, emotional difficulties, some alcoholism and otherwise. There was a pattern of institutionalizing people. The goal of the legislature was to make it difficult to institutionalize, let people go back to their communities and their families, to build clinics to solve their problems. We deinstitutionalized in California but we failed to follow through on medication and clinics, et cetera. States across the country have followed our suit and suddenly, homelessness became an even greater problem.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleague, I know very well how sincerely he is involved in and concerned with these programs. Let me say that in the time that I have had the chance to chair this committee, it has been frustrating for me to see that we find ourselves appropriating some 250 housing accounts, billions of dollars flowing, and in many cases we wonder whether those monies are really getting to the people we purport to serve in the first place. We are in the process of attempting to reexamine many of those appropriations. Indeed, we are looking forward to leadership and guidance from the authorizing committee when they finally get all of that together. In the meantime, we are asked to appropriate. It seems to me we should be very careful about examining existing programs that work versus those that are not working well before we move on to funding new programs. Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on the gentleman's amendment, even though well intentioned.

Mr. LEWIS of California. We accept the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. As the gentleman knows, there were Members of the body who were greatly concerned with the way some of these responsibilities were being exercised by the Secretary. We have communicated in some depth over the last year or so. I believe and hope that we are making progress in that connection, so both in the spirit of comity between both sides of the House but also an effort to improve communication between the administration and myself, I am inclined to accept the amendment and I believe my colleague is of the same view.