Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, I must say that I understand the gentleman's point, but we attempted to deal with the pro bono program here. We have provided additional amounts that are here. As I read the gentleman's amendment, he does not really make any change in the improvements we have already made in the pro bono funding, so I am scratching my head a little. But nonetheless, I believe I understand a portion of your point anyway.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], a very diligent and loyal member of our subcommittee. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate, first of all, my colleague yielding, but more importantly his very sensitive and also thoughtful comments. The gentleman's professional background causes him to be especially aware of the challenges that we face out there relative to this difficulty in our society. It is not going to go away unless we deal with questions of prevention. But let me, if you will, impose upon your time for a moment, and we will grant additional time so that you can round out your remarks, but the other side of this involves taking the money from the NASA accounts. It is awfully easy for some to put a program like HOPWA against NASA and presume it is not going to have any real effect on those programs. The reality is that of all the agencies under my committee, one of those agencies that has worked the hardest and has done the best job of attempting to go about reinventing themselves, as we try to reinvent Government and have it work better, is NASA. Within that effort, NASA has already reduced its full-time civil service work force from 24,000 to 21,000. They have a schedule that is a very serious schedule in terms of reducing personnel. But in the meantime, this funding would dramatically impact the personnel available in vital programs that relate to our space mission such as human space flight programs. At the core of this program is a series of contracts to construct communications satellites. A cut in this account could eliminate the cost savings associated with current fixed-price contracts. The reality is that work is going on. It is very important work. It looks like an easy hit for some, but we have already trimmed them to such an extent that they are pushed against the wall. It is awfully important that we recognize that we are doing all that we can to balance these accounts, especially in programs like the NOPWA Program. Indeed, when one recognizes how much of that money is spent out per year, the $171 million of additional spending this year meets the challenge that the Department can handle.

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

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

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise with great reluctance to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. Mr. Chairman, during the time I served on this subcommittee, one of the most frustrating experiences of this Member has been to watch us go forward in a variety and mix of programs under the jurisdiction of this bill that deal with housing problems in the country. Indeed, within that mix we have progressively delivered a great deal of money to a problem that has been mushrooming in communities across the country that we give the title and handle ``the homeless of America.'' In the last decade, we have committed over $10 billion to solving this problem, and it is presumed by many that the problem has to do with bricks and mortar alone. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the homeless problem is a major challenge to our society and a difficulty that we need to get to the heart of by many an avenue, not just by way of building facilities or finding locations for people we choose to define as homeless. The committee, in this bill, has recommended funding for the homeless account for fiscal year 1997 at the 1996 enacted level of $823 million. Last year the committee followed the request of HUD to consolidate the four separate homeless accounts into one account. This consolidated account makes it possible for HUD to operate more efficiently, hopefully. Additionallly, consolidating the programs enables the nonprofits that supply homeless assistance to do so with greater efficiently. Certainly it is almost impossible to argue against increased funding for the homeless when we see people sleeping on grates in our parks and cities around the country. At the same time, all of us ofttimes lightly talk about the fact we just cannot throw money at problems. Indeed we have very few answers here. We have delivered a good deal of money and found little or no solution to this growing difficulty. I would suggest that this is a part of our need to review this complex problem. The committee continues with its financial commitment. There is funding here that is of part of the delicate balance that the gentlemen from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I had attempted to put together. To suggest that anyone in this body who has looked on either side of the aisle could care less would be indeed more than a mistake. We do care, and indeed, working together, I think we can find solutions. But we need to do a lot better than we have with the money we have spent so far, so I urge the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] to be patient with us as we go forward.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I am aware, Mr. Chairman, that there is disagreement here, too.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I asked the gentleman to yield because I very much appreciate the point that he is making. There is not any question that one of our great frustrations is that there are lines waiting for elderly housing. Yet there is no doubt that the administration and this department have not been able to obligate these moneys over time. In the meantime, because you serve on the authorizing committee, you know full well it takes time to deliver those programs, but the section 8 crisis is not waiting. It is catching up with us, and sooner or later, we have to pay the piper. That crisis is going to put real pressure on seniors who are receiving services.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much my colleague from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], yielding. The point that was made in the appeal is very much to the heart of our frustration here. There is no doubt our purpose is to try to flexibility provide adequate housing for a cross-section of people who are the poorest of the poor in our society, and at the same time we have great difficulty with a growing aging population and the like. The item that is very difficult to get across, for these are complex areas, is that in that section of our housing programs known as section 8 multifamily housing, in the past we have set up a process that almost leads those who are trying to serve for a fall. We originally encouraged people to build these facilities on 40-year contracts, on 40-year mortgages, and yet in the meantime people signed up with 40-year contracts in order to delay the foundation for paying those mortgages. Those contracts are coming due, and as a result of that there is a huge escalation of cost in those programs, and, as those costs increase, it puts pressure on HUD's ability to meet their contracts and their obligations with housing authorities, et cetera, et cetera. And unless they are able to meet those obligations, they could very well push the people who are currently living, currently served, in those----

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we could push those people out on the street, and remember that 40 percent of those very people living in those facilities, beyond being among the poorest of the poor, are also elderly and disabled, and we cannot find ourselves in that position. But earlier I discussed with the chairman the feasibility of our trying to make changes in the difficulties with section 8, and he asked us to let the authorizing committees have a short, and frankly we are going to have an amendment here that takes out any language that relates to that to respond to that. But there is little doubt that next year we will be here at this time talking about the 1998 bill, and the costs will have escalated because it takes time to get that kind of work through the authorizing process. So it is the elderly and the disabled who are going to be hurt either way, and frankly the people who are currently being served are the ones at greatest risk, and it concerns me that we must protect that population being served first.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, first let me say I very much appreciate the interest of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] in this very important subject area. I appreciate also or as well his commitment to America's children. I agree that our Federal agencies should cooperate with one another and with State and local governments to continue fighting lead contamination in homes with children. We all know about lead-based paint, and we have taken action against it through public information campaigns and the HUD office of lead-based paint. Furthermore, all consumers have a responsibility to take informed and appropriate action against this new lead hazard of vinyl miniblinds, and in many cases these miniblinds can be replaced for about $10 per window. In the interests of our children's health, I agree that the CPSC should work to keep the Nation's housing agencies informed about this issue, to stay in close cooperation with them and to help end lead poisoning among America's children.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until midnight Tuesday, June 18, 1996, to file a privileged report on a bill making appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I first want to say to both my colleagues, my chairman as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that I could not admire more the work of these two gentlemen in terms of the efforts they make in that Committee on Appropriations on behalf of the country. There is not a responsibility at the Federal level that is more important, more significant to this country and to the world than the work of this subcommittee, where we either appropriate the money or we do not appropriate the money to keep America strong. In my time in the Congress, there has been nothing more important that we have done than to lay a foundation that causes us to be strong, as the one leader in the entire world. It is the result of their work that indeed the Soviet Union eventually collapsed. The pressure it put on that process brought an end to the East-West confrontation. I do not know how many trillions of dollars that effort has saved this country. The price of peace is great but, indeed, the price of not having it could be much, much greater. To suggest that we should continue to reduce this budget is almost laughable if it was not so important. Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, over the last 5 years we have reduced these budgets not by a billion dollars discussed here, but by $100 billion. And over those same years, every other program of much less significance has been increased beyond inflation by the very people who do not want to support defense. It is time to recognize that this is one of the critical responsibilities of the Federal Government. It is appropriate for the Congress to go forward with this spending. Indeed, the job being done here should be commended; it certainly deserves our support.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the California Homeowner Earthquake Protection Act, legislation granting tax-exempt status on State authorities established for the purpose of providing earthquake insurance. As a 30-year insurance professional the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee overseeing FEMA and Federal disaster assistance, I am concerned about an emerging insurance crisis in my State. California Governor Pete Wilson is poised to sign a measure establishing the California Earthquake Authority [CEA], a unique publicly run and privately financed State program to supply earthquake insurance for millions of homeowners in our State. The California Homeowner Earthquake Protection Act will add viability to the CEA and will address a looming and potentially devasting crisis affecting every homeowner--the ability to purchase affordable earthquake insurance. Under California State law, insurance companies that sell homeowners coverage are required to offer earthquake protection as well. However, as a result of the 1994 Northridge earthquake which resulted in over $1.2 billion in insured losses, many insurance companies are now moving out of the marketplace. In fact, of those companies that offered earthquake coverage before the Northridge earthquake, 95 percent no loner offer policies to homeowners. In the near term, over 1 million families may not have their homeowner coverage renewed. The CEA is designed to provide $10.5 billion in earthquake coverage funded by insurance carriers, reinsurers, investors, and policy holder assessments. The success of this innovative public-private partnership, which will provide immediate insurance relief for hundreds of thousands of California homeowners, condominium owners, mobile home owners, and renters, depends largely upon the IRS granting the CEA tax-free status. Tax-exempt status would allow the Authority's reserves to accumulate free of Federal income taxes. The IRS, which had promised a tax exemption to the CEA in February, withdrew its decision without warning or explanation in April. Legislation at the Federal level is now necessary to require the IRS to stand by its initial decision. Continued uncertainty over the tax status of the CEA threatens to kill this public-private partnership. I urge my colleagues to join me, Gov. Pete Wilson, California Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush, and other in this bipartisan effort to protect California homeowners. We must act now to avert a financial crisis every bit as devastating as the Northridge earthquake itself.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention the fine work of a number of students and the outstanding skills of an exemplary teacher from Bishop, CA who participated in the History Day in California competition earlier this year. A number of students competed at the local level and then represented Inyo County at the California State competition. Jenna Beck, who wrote an essay entitled, ``President Anwar Sadat of Egypt: A Martyr's Stand for Peace,'' was named as one of two California State champions in the category of Junior Historical Research Papers. As a result of her selection as a champion, Jenna will be joining other students from across the country competing in National History Day, sponsored by the Constitutional Rights Foundation, at the University of Maryland later this month. In addition to Jenna, Elly Hartshorn was the California State alternate with her entry entitled, ``California's Little Civil War: The Owen Valley Pioneer's Stand for Water.'' Other students representing Inyo County were Shannon Linden, Abby Sada, and Nicole Perry. Irene Sorensen, who has inspired and guided students in this competition for 9 years, was also honored at the California State History Day as the first California Constitutional Rights Foundation Teacher of Merit for her outstanding commitments to students in California. Mrs. Sorensen and the fine students who participated in this year's competition are a tribute to the excellence of our public school system. While these students live in a community of less than 5,000 people, located 200 miles from a major library or university, they completed extensive research in their chosen subject areas and were highly competitive with students from large metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me and our colleagues in congratulating Irene Sorensen and her students for their outstanding efforts relating to National History Day. It is only fitting that the House recognize them for their commitment to excellence and learning.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence who has served on the committee now for a couple of years, I cannot help but rise at this point to first express my deep appreciation for the work of both the chairman, the gentleman from Texas, Larry Combest, and my colleague, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Dicks, for the very, very fine job they are doing on an extremely difficult subject area, developing and bringing the intelligence budget to this House floor. Mr. Chairman, it is a very, very popular thing to rise and oppose the intelligence community and presume that lightly we can, using essentially a machete approach, cut 10 percent across the board in this program. Since the end of the cold war, we have progressively been reducing a very significant portion of our budget; that is, the defense budget. Defense has come down by approximately $100 billion. It is the presumption of many that since the cold war is over and since we are reducing our defense budget, that lightly we can just wipe out our intelligence needs. To suggest that that is the case would suggest to me that not very much light has been applied to the intelligence that is involved here. The reality is that we are living in a very, very complex and very dangerous world. At the very time that we have been reducing defense spending, it is the very moment that the President and the appropriate committees need more and better intelligence around here. The heart of the discussion relative to this proposed 10-percent cut has been that of the expenditures of the NRO. The NRO is that agency which develops and deploys our satellite systems, a source of information, intelligence information, that is most critical and one of the more important sources. To suggest that we can blithely reduce the entire intelligence budget because of problems that have developed in the NRO is to not understand the need for intelligence at all. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the very people who are making this proposal are the same people who for all of their careers here have opposed our national defense, have not supported expanding the national defense when we truly needed to expand those budgets. To not understand the significance of these information flows to the President at this critical time is to ignore the reality of this changing world. This budget is within 3.9 percent of the President's request. It is not an excessive budget. Indeed, there is a need for oversight and review. I suggest to my colleagues that absolutely we support not just the chairman and the ranking member in this budget, but support the President as well.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the time. I want to especially express my appreciation to my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert], who brought this amendment to my attention in the first place. In our region in southern California, manufactured housing is a very important employer and a great supplier. A very, very significant percentage of the industry is from our region. There is no question that the industry is going to thrive and survive better if there is a consensus agreement. There is no doubt it is a major employer in our region that provides first-time home opportunity for many, many a family in southern California. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind's eye that the Mcintosh amendment in its current form could be a killer amendment. On the other hand, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] has indicated that the Senate has a bill that is closer to him. So it is logical to have the Calvert-Roemer amendment go forward so we have a reasonable discussion in conference. I urge the Members to vote against the McIntosh amendment and for the Roemer amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Low-Level Radioactive Waste [LLRW] Federal Responsibility Act of 1996. This legislation would effectively repeal the 1980 Low-level Radioactive Waste Act which requires States to enter in compacts to dispose of LLRW. That legislation, which was endorsed by President Clinton during his tenure as Governor of Arkansas, and Interior Secretary Babbitt during his tenure as Governor of Arizona, has failed to produce solutions to one of the most pressing environmental needs facing our country today, the safe, permanent storage of low-level radioactive waste. There is no greater illustration of the failure of this statute than the 10-year effort to locate a storage site at Ward Valley, CA. While the Southwestern Disposal Compact, the National Academy of Science, State officials, and other notable scientific and medical authorities, have given the green light to transferring the Federal site to the State of California, the Clinton administration and California's junior Senator have sought to delay the land transfer out of political, rather than safety considerations. They have chosen emotional political demagoguery over sound science. The pressure to delay the construction of the Ward Valley site arises not from the most noted experts in the field of LLRW storage, but from a well-financed environmental lobby that has made Ward Valley a political symbol to demonstrate its control over the Clinton White House. The University of California--which has nine campuses across the State--is one of the largest generators of low-level radioactive waste. These campuses produce a combined 22,065 cubic feet of waste material annually. The majority of this material is presently stored on or near each campus. The two largest producers of waste are located in the urban centers of Los Angels and San Francisco. Other waste producers, including hospitals and biotech companies, currently store their waste in temporary storage facilities throughout the State. Needless to say, these temporary sites do not meet the test of providing safe, long-term permanent storage. In fact, a fire came very close to igniting waste in a highly populated suburb of Los Angeles during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Let me make one point abundantly clear: California's junior Senator is placing in jeopardy the health and safety of the public she claims to care so much about. With the assistance of the Secretary of the Interior, she has orchestrated a campaign to delay the transfer of Federal land to the State. She has not proposed an alternative site. She ducks, weaves, bobs, and delays, but she does nothing to address this long-term problem that affects potentially every citizen in California. Rather than addressing solutions, she ignores the advice and counsel of those who know the subject best and actively pursues a political agenda for its own sake, attempting to frighten, distort, and confuse the public every step of the way. Presently, in the State of California, there is a very real need to a find a permanent storage facility for low-level radioactive waste presently being stored in over 2,000 location across the state. We can wait no longer. In lieu of that, the only responsible action is to determine locations for safe, interim storage sites. And where will they be built, Senator? Los Angeles? San Francisco? What alternatives do you suggest to responsibly address this problem? I believe California would be better served by less political rhetoric and demagoguery and greater emphasis on commonsense, pragmatic solutions. It is now painfully clear, based upon recent words and actions, that the Clinton administration, like California's junior Senator, believes that the Federal Government is best suited to act as caretaker of low- level radioactive waste. After a great deal of thought and series of discussions with noted experts, I have decided to grant the administration its wish. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Federal Responsibility Act of 1996 provides the Secretary of the Interior--one of the strongest advocates of waste storage and leading opponents of the Ward Valley site--the authority and sole responsibility of disposing of low-level waste. It is time for the Clinton administration to demonstrate through actions and not empty political rhetoric that it cares more about public health and safety than financial promises made to its Presidential campaign by the most extreme environmentalist. California is now close to realizing an environmental crisis that endangers the public health and safety of its citizens. In the 16 years since enactment of the Low-level Radioactive Waste Act, not one new compact facility has begun receiving waste. That approach, once favored by the President and the Secretary of the Interior, has failed. This legislation, which I am introducing today, grants the Secretary the sole responsibility to dispose of low-level radioactive waste. It is time for the Secretary to act. It is time to quit the emotional demagoguery of California's junior Senator which does nothing more than further endanger the citizens of our State.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to James I. Gracyalny, the Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Jim is retiring after 35 years of Federal service. Jim has appeared many times before the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies in defense of VA's budget requests. Over the years he has been of great assistance to the subcommittee in its day-to-day dealings with the Department. We have always valued his counsel. Jim is, I believe, a truly dedicated civil servant. His high standards represent what is best about the civil service. Mr. Gracyalny began his Federal service at the VA in 1964. During his 32 years of service with the VA he has held a variety of positions. Since 1990, he has been Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget. Throughout his career, he has been a champion of his coworkers and has provided them with the inspiration to further their education and training. Mr. Gracyalny received his undergraduate degree at La Salle University. He received a masters in public administration from George Washington University. Jim served his country during the Korean war as a line medic in the Army and continued serving after active duty, retiring from the Army Reserve as a colonel. Mr. Speaker, Tuesday, April 30, 1996, is Jim's last day at VA. We will miss him. I know that you join me in wishing him and his wife, Barbara, a long, happy, and healthy retirement after 35 years of distinguished Federal service.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention the fine work and outstanding public service of CSM Rolland E. Alexander II. Alexander will be recognized at a celebration in his honor on April 20 as he retires after nearly 40 years in the California Army National Guard. CSM Alexander is a third generation Californian and was born in San Francisco. A graduate of Rio Hondo College, he is also a second generation national guardsmen following his father's service in World War I. CSM Alexander enlisted in 1957 as a member of Battery C, 215th Field Artillery, 40th Armored Division, now designated as Battery C, 2d Battalion, 144th Field Artillery, 40th Infantry Division (Mechanized). In his civilian capacity Alexander works as a technical consultant in marketing services for the Southern California Edison Co. While assigned to the battery, CSM Alexander has served in a number of positions including cannoneer, gunner, section sergeant, and chief of firing battery. Over the years, he has served in a variety of capacities and has served as CSM of Detachment 3, State Area Command, Los Alamitos Armed forces Reserve Center, Los Alamitos, CA, since December 1993. CSM Alexander has been recognized for his service and is the recipient of numerous commendations including the Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, California Commendation Medal, California Medal of Merit, Good Conduct Medal, California State Service Medal, the Order of St. Barbara, and others. CSM Alexander is currently the president of the Sergeants Major Association of California, life member of the California Enlished Associaton of the National Guard of the United States, the National Guard Association of California, National Rifle Association, California Rifle and Pistol Associaton, and many other civic oriented associations. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me, our colleagues, CMS Alexander's family, and many friends in honoring him for his years of dedicted service. After serving our State and country well for nearly 40 years, it is only appropriate that the House recognize CSM Alexander today as he begins his well deserved retirement.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention the fine work and outstanding public service of San Bernardino County Assistant Sheriff Jim Bradford, Jim will be honored today upon his retirement after nearly 27 years of service to the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. Jim grew up in California, graduated from Colton High School, and obtained an associate of arts degree in business administration from San Bernardino Valley College and a bachelor of science degree in public management from Pepperdine University. Jim began his career with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department as a line reserve deputy sheriff at the Yucaipa station in 1967. After serving as a volunteer for 2 years, Jim sold his business and became a full-time deputy sheriff in 1969 and was assigned to the Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center. He remained there until 1971 when he was reassigned to the Yucaipa station where he served as a patrol deputy and a reserve deputy coordinator. In 1973, he was promoted to detective and was assigned to the central detective division in San Bernardino. Jim was promoted to sergeant in 1975 and returned to the Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center until his reassignment in 1977 as detective sergeant to the central detective division. Three years later, he was promoted to lieutenant where he served as unit commander in the crimes against property and homicide details. Jim was promoted to captain by Sheriff Floyd Tidwell in 1983 and was assigned to central station where he also served as chief of police for the cities of Loma Linda and Grand Terrace. Jim took command of the sheriff's bureau of administration with his promotion to deputy chief in 1987. Four years later, he was promoted once again to the position of assistant chief in charge of criminal operations by Sheriff Dick Williams. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me, our colleagues, as well as Jim Bradford's family and many friends, in recognizing his many outstanding achievements. Jim has devoted his professional life to the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department and has served the citizens of San Bernardino County well for nearly 27 years. It is only appropriate that the House recognize Assistant Sheriff Bradford today as he begins his well deserved retirement.