Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman's assumption is correct. The legislative history of the Fair Housing Act demonstrates that Congress has on many occasions decided not to apply the act to insurance.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to leave the wrong impression for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], for our work has led to a great deal of agreement across the board with a variety and mix of difficult issues, but, yes, I am aware that on this issue there is also substantial disagreement among the Members.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am aware that the committee has substantial differences on this issue as well.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would be pleased to join in a colloquy with my colleague from Ohio. Mr. Stokes.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is disagreement among the members of the committee on the issue that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] raises.

Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman is correct. The Perry Point VA Medical Center was a priority in fiscal year 1996. However, it never received any funding. The administration did not include Perry Point VA in its fiscal year 1997 budget. I recognize the gentleman's concern and I can assure the gentleman that I will work with him to seek funds for this project as we continue in the process.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, first, let me say to the gentleman that I very much appreciate his concern as well as his support for the work that we are trying to do in this committee. I will certainly be glad to work with the gentleman regarding this matter. I appreciate the gentleman's commitment. I want the gentleman to know that I also want to extend my thanks beyond his effort to his colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], of course, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], for their assistance on this important matter for veterans in the State of Michigan. We appreciate the participation and help of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I very much appreciate the gentlewoman's expression of concern about the items that are part of this bill, but particularly the commitment and direction she is attempting to have us all give to the John Heinz Program. The gentlewoman is correct about my own view regarding that work as we have seen it demonstrated so far. I know that this program has done a very credible job in empowering local communities to address the specific needs of their neighborhoods. I believe it is very important to move in precisely that direction.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, shifting gears here just a moment, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] be permitted to offer amendment No. 27, notwithstanding that that paragraph of the bill is not yet considered as read and without prejudice to further amendments to those paragraphs not read in title II of the bill.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a member of the committee. (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 Texas [Mr. Delay], the majority whip.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, Lou Stokes. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that indeed my work with Louis Stokes this year on this bill has been a return to a spirit that he and I have experienced for a number of years working together. As we all know, there was a very significant change after the last election; some of us were surprised at it. Lou may have been, but I can tell you that I was too in many a way. Having the privilege to serve as chairman of the subcommittee, I was both excited, but also I found it very difficult, and challenging. In many ways it was a painful process. Indeed with the revolution came a difficult adjustment that caused all of us in our new roles to look at where we had been. To suggest that last year's appropriations process was comfortable for either Mr. Stokes or myself would be to suggest some kind of fantasy land. It was a painful process, especially for me. I want Members to know that this year we have been operating in a different environment. Lou Stokes and I have long been very, very close friends and are most pleased to say that we have produced a product that very much reflects the bipartisan spirit that was a part of the life of our colleague who we have all shared thoughts about today. So, Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to present H.R. 3666, the VA-HUD independent agencies appropriations bill for the fiscal year 1997. I do not intend to speak very long today because this bill, as it did in the subcommittee and the full committee markup, should draw wide bipartisan support on the floor. As most of my colleagues know, this is a departure, as I have suggested, from last year's process. But in a different spirit, we bring this bill to you tonight. As it stands, the bill provides $64.3 billion, that is billion dollars, in discretionary budgetary authority and is $3.2 billion less than the administration's request for the 20 agencies that fall within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. It is a fair and equitable bill. This legislation reaffirms our commitment to serving our veterans as they have served us, to protecting the environment, to caring for the poorest of the poor, to ensuring America's future leadership in space. Most importantly, it keeps the appropriations process on track for meeting the objective clearly stated by both the Congress and the administration of balancing the budget by the year 2002. This is a bill that the President can and should sign. Like last year, we begin the process this year by reviewing every program and every budget from the bottom up. We examine what works and what has not worked in every agency under our responsibility. We asked NASA to begin prioritizing its programs, for example. We began to scrutinize the manner in which the VA is delivering care and services to our veterans. We did all of this and more and have succeeded in identifying many areas where we could make reductions in the rate of growth of spending, a key ingredient towards balancing the budget shortly after the turn of the century. Through this long and sometimes difficult process, this subcommittee alone has identified some $14.8 billion, $14.8 billion of taxpayers' savings since we began looking at these agencies and the responsibilities and their spending levels stemming back to the year 1995. It has been well advertised in the press that this subcommittee received a large increase in our 602(b) allocation relative to last year. What has not been well advertised is the fact that our prior year outlays over which we have virtually no control have also been increased some $1.8 billion between 1996 and 1997. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office has rescored a number of major accounts, particularly VA and EPA, which has resulted in large outlay increases even though budget authority has remained relatively constant. All of this is to say that we have looked at each program as carefully as possible and are attempting to make slight but meaningful reductions where appropriate while providing as close to the 1996 or budget request levels wherever possible. With the indulgence of our colleagues, I would like to take just a moment to detail the highlights of this bill. We have provided the full budget request of over $17 billion for VA medical care. This represents an increase of $444 million over the 1996 level and is the only substantial increase over the 1996 level in the entire bill. One of our amendments will make some adjustment in that. We have also provided the budget request of 1996 levels for elderly and disabled housing, housing for people with AIDS, drug elimination grants, public operating subsidies, severely distressed public housing, and virtually every other major program at HUD. In addition, I will be offering shortly an amendment to restore $300 million to the Community Development Block Grant Program, bringing CDBG funding to the full budget request level. We have provided $19 million over the 1996 level for EPA's programs, including increases for science and technology, their programs and management and Superfund. The clean water State revolving fund and the environmental grant programs available to the States and tribal governments are also fully funded. The space station and the shuttle program under NASA are fully funded. In addition, we are providing $1.2 billion for the Mission to Planet Earth Program. Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee has made a concerted effort to refrain from including controversial legislative provisions in spending bills this year. I am sure the chairman will be pleased to hear that. In this vein, all of my colleagues know of the struggle we went through regarding language in last year's bill. And they, too, will be pleased to know that there are no environmental legislative provisions which will draw controversy to this bill. In spite of a number of difficult challenges in putting this measure together, our final product represents a balance of common interests as well as tough choices. Let me repeat for the record: On its merits, this is a bill the President can and should sign. In closing, I want to commend my ranking member, Mr. Stokes, for his willingness to work closely with me in crafting a bill that we can both support. I want further to thank and commend his very capable staff, particularly Leslie Atkinson and Del Davis, for their work. I also want to recognize my own staff, Frank Cushing, Paul Thompson, Tim Peterson, Valerie Baldwin, Doug Disrud, Jeff Shockey, Alex Heslop, and Dave LesStrang, for their many hours of work in putting this package together. Together, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I have worked to prepare a balanced bill in the name of comity and in the truest sense of bipartisanship. I must say that our colleagues will find before we are through with this process that we believe, and I am sure our colleagues will agree, that the work of this subcommittee does indeed reflect the best of the spirit of our friend and colleague, Bill Emerson. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman is correct. I have reviewed the information provided to me. The 6th and 7th Circuits found--after the implementation of HUD's rule--that the Fair Housing Act applies to property insurance, while the 4th Circuit found--before the rule--that it does not. I would also say to the gentleman that it is my hope that the Supreme Court will weigh in on this issue so that the uncertainty can be dispelled.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores funding for a very effective and broadly supported program known as the Community Development Block Grant Program. This amendment adds $300 million to CDBG. The budget authority offsets are taken from two accounts; $100 million is from the annual contributions account, and $200 million from the FEMA disaster relief account. As most of my colleagues know, the CDBG program is one of the most popular at HUD, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it is the most flexible program. I have received any number of requests to restore funding to the $4.6 billion level which is the 1996 appropriations level as well as the President's request for fy 1997. In addition, I promised the ranking member of this subcommittee, as well as members of the full committee in our discussion there, including the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], that I would continue to work to find offsets to fully fund CDBG. I am pleased to say that we are able to accomplish this at this time rather than waiting until conference. This amendment being responsive to the work of my colleagues, especially the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], I am happy to be able to say that we are keeping the first among a number of commitments to the members of the full committee. Fulfilling this promise, however, has come at some cost. I was extremely reluctant to reduce the annual contributions account from the President's request of $5,597,000,000 because of the staggering commitment that account will have to bear next year as more section 8 contracts begin to expire. Failing to renew these contracts will mean the potential of widespread displacement of very poor families with children, as well as elderly and disabled persons. This is the first point at which we will discuss that problem as ongoing and a serious growth problem with HUD programming. The renewal contracts under section 8 are about to put pressure on HUD programs that, over time, could indeed squeeze out many, maybe most, maybe even all of those programs, if we do not find a solution. Beyond the section 8 question, Mr. Chairman, we are reducing the FEMA disaster account, which means reducing the level of commitments to areas hit by disasters last year. As most of my colleagues know, we found ourselves in a circumstance at the big budget conference where FEMA funding was used as a set-aside in that entire package, putting pressure on the FEMA accounts that is very severe. We have to be very cautious as we move down this pathway. FEMA eventually has to pay the piper, too. So this is a very delicate and difficult amendment trying to meet both the requests as well as the challenges of the House insofar as CDBG is concerned.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates the set-aside within CDBG'S account for the Secretary's economic development initiative known as EDI. Taking this action does not reduce the CDBG account, but rather it will eliminate the set-aside for this particular program, making more funds available on a more flexible basis for CDBG. I have decided to take this action knowing that several Members intend to amend the committee's recommendations to identify specific EDI grants. Let me explain the recommendations of the committee. Mr. Chairman, the economic development initiatives program allows the Secretary of HUD to choose awardees based on the following competitive criteria: The extent of the need for the assistance, the level of distress in the community, the quality of the plan, and the capacity of the applicant to carry out the plan. Each of the programs selected by the committee for special EDI grants meet these criteria. Furthermore, activities planned in special EDI grants meet the objectives of the EDI program, including the creation of jobs, the revitalization of neighborhoods, leveraging private investment from partners at local levels, and providing opportunities for low-income youth and families. The only substantive difference between the special EDI grants identified in the committee report and the regular EDI grants is who chooses the recipient, the Secretary or the Congress. Therefore, if the choices of the Congress are considered pork, clearly it is only fair that the Secretary's choices must be pork as well, and the entire set-aside should be eliminated. Eliminating the EDI set-aside within CDBG accounts will have the effect of making $40 million more available for the CDBG program rather than the special awardees chosen by the Congress or the Secretary. Mr. Chairman, what I am attempting to avoid here is that there are a number of Members who are looking at individual projects that are selected by the Congress and the committees and suggesting that they are pork. Frankly, we have evaluated them, they meet the criteria, and so on, but I can understand where Members are coming from. So it is our choice, then, instead to go back and say, let us put all of this into the CDBG pool, take the whole $40 million, and not have it be part of that account. And incidentally, that sets aside the need for 5 or 7 or 8 or 10 amendments here on the floor, both in the interests of time, but also putting it back into the CDBG pool with some flexibility seems to me to meet at least the intention of those Members who are concerned about the question of pork.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, let me say that, first, we are about appropriating funds that are available under the lids that dramatically impact all of these agencies, VA, HUD, EPA, et cetera. Within that limitation, we are attempting to produce as much money as possible and can be meaningful insofar as the Superfund is concerned. I remind the gentleman that the other party controlled the House and both Houses during the last Congress. They controlled this House for 40 years. They controlled the House since the Superfund was created. Everybody has known that the program has not worked almost from the beginning. It seems to me it is long past due that a bill was passed and sent to the President that changed this. Indeed, they produced a bill last year that supposedly was going to work. For some reason, the director, Ms. Browner, has not chosen to take that bill up and send it up here and said, yes, this is the answer. There is no doubt this is a complicated process. There has to be a reauthorization, hopefully to make this process make sense. There has to be appropriations. That is our job. There also has to be ways and means work that reexercises the tax in order to provide the fund in the first place. So it is a complex issue. We have to get on with it, indeed, instead of pointing fingers at other Members.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding. This bill is a bill that funds some 20 Federal programs including the EPA. The Superfund Program is a piece of the EPA. Presently, within this measure is $1.33 billion for the Superfund Program. If we see a reauthorization bill, and the kind of work that will allow this program to go forward in a positive measure, we would add back the $861 million that is the subject of this discussion. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I was a bit astonished by the comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. Almost since I have been here in the House, I have sat back in wonderment as the gentleman has been a member of the committee responsible for authorizing Superfund. The Administrator of EPA 1\1/2\ years ago told us this program was broken. I have never seen the gentleman's proposed legislation. I do not see fixes coming out of the committee. I do not see fixes coming from the department. I hope that the authorizing committee will go forward with the bipartisan effort and support necessary for the program to work.

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