Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield further, I appreciate very much the gentleman's contribution as well. Indeed, he is assisting us in this effort to one more time deal with veterans' matters as well as the rest of the work of this committee in a highly bipartisan as well as nonpartisan fashion.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise with very, very great reluctance to oppose this amendment, and I want to take a moment to explain to my colleagues my involvement with issues such as this over a number of years. I am not sure that many of the Members realize this. Some may recall. But I was a new and greenhorn Member in the House in 1980 when I carried a resolution around the House seeking signatures from Members on both sides of the aisle. It had to do with promoting fundamental research on a new problem that society was just beginning to recognize, a thing called AIDS. Virtually every one of my friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle said, you want to do what? Because nobody knew what the problem was in those days. That was the first resolution on this issue. As a new member of this subcommittee, I was the member who put the first dollars, and it was only $200,000 then, in for AIDS research in this subcommittee. I have a grave concern with where we have been and where we need to go in this whole subject area. Indeed, housing for people who are impacted by this incredible problem, as well as challenge to our society, deserve and need our support. But one more time, we are talking about very difficult funding levels and balancing programs that are very important. How do you balance? These programs spend out at about 3 percent to 4 percent a year. The money we are talking about shifting here impacts, in real terms, very little in terms of next year or even the year after that for people who are currently dealing with the problem of AIDS. Indeed, we do need balance between these accounts. I cannot recommend that we take x dollars from an elderly account and give to AIDS, or HOPWA, if you will. We have tried to provide funding that we could adequately use in a timely fashion and be as responsive as possible. The funding for the HOPWA programs is at the President's request, and indeed, we did a lot of analysis of that, attempting to see if we were being as responsive as possible. I urge the Members to recognize that we are moving forward in a fashion that is an attempt to be both responsive and responsible, and because of that, I urge the Members to vote no on the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield further, I would say to the gentleman, his contention that application of the Fair Housing Act to property insurance runs counter to Congress's intent embodied in the McCarran-Ferguson Act is reasonably founded.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, before the gentlewoman leaves the podium let me say that beyond just the John Heinz Program, in which we both see a good deal of promise, I want my colleagues to know that the gentlewoman has been a very helpful member of our subcommittee and has made considerable contribution to our work. We appreciate that same spirit of which we have felt a reflection this evening. It is pleasure to work with the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The HOME Program and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation are two programs that cater to nonprofits and Community Development Corporations that have successfully changed neighborhoods in tangible, real ways. The CDC's that utilize the John Heinz Program are eligible to apply for these funds. Additionally, the CDC's are eligible also for funding from CDBG, a program that we will be replenishing further later in our discussions this evening. Despite its popularity and flexibility, however, the CDBG program should be more aggressive bout encouraging these very types of partnerships and monitoring whether CDBG funds are spent on eligible activities and assist low and moderate income families. I pledge to the gentlewoman that I intend to address this concern as this legislation moves through the appropriations process. I want to thank her very much for brining this matter to our attention.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we begin this evening's debate relative to the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill, I ask my colleagues' indulgence for just a moment so I might offer a few thoughts myself regarding our dear friend, Bill Emerson. It occurred to both the gentleman from Ohio, Louis Stokes, my ranking member, and myself, that Bill Emerson would very much appreciate the work that has been done by this subcommittee and the fashion in which this bill will be discussed in the House this evening. Above and beyond all things in the House, Bill Emerson cared about public policy and solving problems with a spirit of nonpartisanship. Indeed, my colleagues, I can say, as we have gone forward with the work of this subcommittee, that spirit has been alive and well and it is the likes of Bill Emerson who indeed have created an environment that will hopefully extend itself throughout the rest of this legislative year. As was evident by the remarks of a number of our colleagues this evening, Bill Emerson certainly was a man who was loved and respected by both sides of the aisle. He loved the Members on both sides and they loved him. That quality is especially rare in this day and age where partisanship almost for the sake of partisanship too often dominates the scene in our Nation's Capital. Bill Emerson was first and foremost, as has been said by colleague after colleague, a man of the House. He began his work here, in 1954, as a page. He was on this floor the day bullets rang out on the House floor, a bullet hole remains in one of these drawers to this very day. Any Member who wishes can come and examine one of Bill's experiences. Through the years, Bill Emerson helped to shape the history of this place as Members see the House of Representatives as an esteemed body. Most importantly, he never forgot his roots or the people who elected him overwhelmingly to represent them for 8 terms. Beyond that, Bill was a Member who recognized that partisanship indeed should have its limits. He could be tough as nails, either within the committee or here on the floor, engaging in debate, defending his point of view, but Bill Emerson recognized that partnership should always stop either at the committee room door or, indeed, when all of us leave this floor. That is a lesson we can all learn from. I must say that Bill Emerson has been one of my best and truest friends in the House, in spite of the struggles that he personally has been facing. Through the good times and these most difficult times, Bill has always been there to offer his heartfelt support. Regardless of his problems, he had time for yours. Over the years, our families have grown to be very close. It was past 2 a.m. Sunday morning that his daughter Abby called Arlene and I to share the news of his passing with us. To say the least, our hearts and prayers go out to Jo Ann and Abby and the rest of their wonderful family. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope and wish that as we consider this bill today, we will conduct ourselves in a manner that is worthy of the legacy of Bill Emerson.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont. He and I, as he has indicated, have talked about this program before, and last year we were talking about working together in terms of increasing some of this funding and there was no additional money added on the Senate side, so that as we discussed was not feasible in the conference. Nonetheless, the amendment before us would add $1,411,000 to the $9,229,000 currently in the bill for the veterans of court appeals. The amendment would offset the increase by decreasing the amount for HUD salaries and expenses by that same amount. I am not really sure what the gentleman is trying to accomplish here, so maybe he will be able to help me. The court does not need a 15-percent increase above the amount recommended in the bill. The 1997 budget request for operations of the court is $8,795,000. The bill includes $9,229,000 for the account, an increase of $434,000 above the administrator's request. The recommended amount includes the 1996 level of $8,595,000 for operations of the court and $634,000 for the pro bono account. The administration did not request any funding for the pro bono account representation program but the committee recommended funding it at the 1996 level. I am sure the gentleman appreciates the addition as I know he is a strong supporter of the pro bono program. The subcommittee's budget hearings did not reveal the need for funding above the amount on the 1997 budget request, with the exception of the pro bono program, and the amendment does not increase funds for the pro bono program. As the offset, HUD salaries and expenses accounts have already been reduced by $25 million below the 1997 request to the 1996 level. Mr. Chairman, the point is we should not be reducing an account where funds are needed to increase an account where funds do not appear to be needed, and I ask the gentleman if he would consider withdrawing his amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I certainly appreciate the gentleman's expression, and I hope that he will be supporting this amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, If the gentleman will yield further, I would say, in theory, yes. I must say that with our history around here relative to departments and report language, they might even be a bit disadvantaged.

Mr. LEWIS of California. That is correct.

Mr. LEWIS of California. The report does not change, this is the legislative language.

Mr. LEWIS of California. We are striking all that language. They will not be a part of this report or this bill as it goes forward.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that if any of those projects were proposed within the CDBG pool, they would have to meet the criteria and be a competitor in that mix. But, frankly, we are attempting to avoid the controversy here of pulling out individual projects and suggesting they might be bad, and if a vote went against them, then they not only would not fare well in that competition, they might very well be set aside entirely.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I very much appreciate my colleague's position, and, unfortunately, we have to say for the record and clearly have the Members understand that we think that $42 million is very significant in terms of this account that has already taken a pretty significant hit, so we ask for a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my statement be entered in the Record?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a rather extended discussion of this point of order, but in view of the hour I will not proceed with all of it, but let me start with this. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the legislation on grounds that 204 and 205 constitute authorizing on an appropriations measure and, therefore, violate clause 2 of rule XXI. These two sections are clearly legislation and they are not protected by the rule.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly join my colleague in resisting this carefully thought out amendment but an amendment that, unfortunately, does damage to other programs that are disconcerting to me, for I have great appreciation for his concern. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, known as LUST, and I must say that, as I noted in our ``Dear Colleague,'' we have a headline something like ``Stop Hefley's LUST'' or something. We have to change that before we put those out tomorrow. But in the meantime this was created to assist the States and tribes with the cost of cleaning up underground storage tank spills where responsible parties cannot be found to pay the bill directly. The LUST trust fund is a source of funds for this activity, although like Superfund the amount of money we appropriate from the fund is treated exactly like funding from general revenues, it scores against us in VA and outlays. The trust fund, which holds nearly a billion dollars, was funded through a gasoline tax of one-tenth of 1 percent per gallon. That tax expired at the same time as the Superfund tax in December of 1995. Mr. Hefley's amendment essentially puts the program back to the budget request level of $67 million plus. This represents what EPA believes the States will use if it is available to them. Our proposal of $46,500,000 is slightly over the 1996 level and our mark signals our desire to level fund as many of the EPA programs as possible. While the States would probably use the additional funds available under the Hefley amendment, it is also fair to say that they do not, quote, we use the term ``need'' the additional funds to keep the program running. Neither EPA or the States have complained or criticized us for our 1996 and 1997 funding levels. Our reduction from the budget request was, as much as anything, a reflection of reduced overall dollars in an attempt to make reductions which result in the least program disruptions. In addition to our programs, that additional LUST fund is just not a burning priority. It is of greater concern that the amendment reduces salaries and expenses at HUD, as my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], has indicated, some $42 million. The bill already funds S&E at the 1996 level, a decrease, a decrease of $25 million below the budget request. A further reduction of this magnitude would seriously undermine HUD's reinvention plans. Mr. Chairman, I must say that the Secretary has really attempted to work with the committee as he goes forward attempting that difficult task of reorganizing HUD, so I reluctantly oppose the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill (H.R. 3666) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commission, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, and that I be permitted to include tables, charts, and other extraneous material.