Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would say to the chairman, I must say that I believe that if some of us could ever get in a room and sit down and talk to the President about the details of a bill like this and show him the importance of impacting this discretionary spending if we are going to balance the budget, that we could get him to respond. I know he is very busy and has lots to do, but we are now at the point where the rubber meets the road. We are either going to balance the budget or not. This bill is critical to that, and the President has yet to come to the floor.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague yielding me the time. I want to say to Chairman Regula and his subcommittee members and staff that I know it has been a very difficult process finally putting this conference report together. I think the kind of work that has been done by our chairman in connection with making compromises can best be illustrated by pointing to a very serious problems that relates to the work that is being done in the California desert. As all of your know, the last Congress, we spent many hours on this floor debating the future of the California desert. No small part of that debate centered around the fact that some of us were concerned that the Park Service was being asked to become the new managers of a region that they had very little experience in managing. The Park Service by statute is a single use agency. The desert, however, is unique area that for generations has a long and successful history of multiple use management. I was very much concerned about the National Park Service's ability to handle these responsibilities. Indeed, we have learned in recent months that they need a good deal more preparation for that management. Let me share with my colleagues an unfortunate problem that developed recently. The Park Service, in classic form, decided to run their new responsibilities at the Mojave Preserve in a single purpose fashion. In doing so, they essentially excluded many volunteer wildlife organizations that had been very helpful in managing the California desert. The California Department of Fish and Game was excluded as were volunteers from the Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep. These volunteers have worked for years to build a fantastic success story in dealing with the bighorn sheep. Unfortunately, the Park Service excluded them from the Mojave Preserve. As a direct result of Park Service mismanagement, water guzzlers that were voluntarily developed in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management and the California Department of Fish and Game to help build up our bighorn sheep population malfunctioned. As a result of restricted access by the Park Service, 38 bighorn sheep were killed. What that really means is our efforts to build that herd up to some 2,000 animals by the year 2000 probably has been undermined because of frankly a lack of experience on managing a multipurpose area. There is absolutely no doubt that this bill begins to meet that challenge by directing the Park Service to rethink where they have been, come forward with a management plan that will recognize the traditional multiple uses of the Mojave region so that we can save the wildlife success stories that we have had in the eastern Mojave Desert.

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 conference report and on the Senate amendments reported in disagreement and that I might include tables, charts, and other extraneous materials.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], that there is no reason to have extended discussion on this motion in disagreement. I think it is important to say, however, that one of the reasons the motion is in this form is because we wanted to make a technical change that would allow the other body, under the rules of the other body, if it so chose, to amend this motion in disagreement further. Mr. Speaker, if between now and that time the administration is serious about wanting to rearrange or make adjustments in this bill that will lead to agreement between the legislative branch and the executive branch that would cause the President to sign this bill, there is that option. It is a very narrow window. It seems to be closing very rapidly. Mr. Speaker, should the President's people inform the President of this opportunity, it could very well be that we could have a final bill that is signable and thereby service these agencies in a fashion that makes sense. If the President chooses not to do this, it is likely to lead to a long-term continuing resolution that will cause all of these agencies to be funded at something like 25 percent below the 1995 year. Mr. Speaker, for that reason, the motion in disagreement is in the form [[Page H 14204]] that it is in. I would urge the Members to support my position on the motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the motion in disagreement that is before us involves a disagreement between the other body and the House relative to the funding of that program which is known as AmeriCorps. The actual amendment involved here increases the amount from $6 to $15 million, and provides a foundation whereby we will be moving toward termination of that program. Essentially it is a reflection of the will of the House, which has voted on other occasions essentially to terminate the funding for AmeriCorps, and that is what the motion of disagreement is all about. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I really did not intend to discuss this on the floor, but the reality is that this year we have given the gentleman information ahead of time in printed form. We have informed him well ahead of time. In the past this Member had these issues discussed the night before the bill went forward with no material to take home, no material to discuss. Indeed, we believe we have been radically more open than it was in the past. If I could continue with my comments, I am not sure, I must say, while I have expressed my disappointment, and I hope that my colleague and I will discuss this further in private, I do not know where my colleague would take the additional funds that he suggests that he would like to give back to the veterans by way of this recommittal motion. I cannot believe that he is not appreciative of the reality that veterans' programs are increased in this bill. It is the only account that has an increase in this bill. Above and beyond that, every one of these other programs has been reduced. I do not think my colleague would want to take more money out of HUD. I cannot believe my colleague would be interested in taking more money out of EPA. I really do not believe my colleague wants to close down NASA. The reality is that this is a balanced bill, as balanced as it can be within the constraints of the limitations of this new age. Let me say that it is also important for the Members to know that I have not heard from one veterans' group that has not been satisfied with this bill. Indeed most recognized the reality, that they have an increase in this bill while no other agency has an increase. Further, I think it is important for our colleagues to know that should we decide in this body not to go forward with this legislation, then we are left with the continuing resolution and we are likely to have a continuing resolution for a very extended period. Under those circumstances every one of these accounts would be spending out at considerably less, perhaps as much as 25 percent less, than they would under this piece of legislation. This is a very, very difficult bill. It is complex obviously, but, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to know that this is the first serious effort to take a gigantic step in the direction of balancing our budget, the largest single contribution towards balancing the budget and moving down that pathway toward 2001. This is a good bill. It recognizes our constraints, and at the same time it recognizes our critical responsibilities to the people who are served by the programs that come under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, and, Mr. Speaker, with that I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit, and I urge my colleagues in the final analysis to vote for the bill. Mr. Speaker: I submit the following material for the Record. [[Page H 14195]]

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], my classmate and colleague.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Taking just a moment, I was kind of curious about the remarks of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards]. I presume, since the gentleman knows full well that his party is not willing to take additional funding out of HUD or out of EPA, I suppose the gentleman would want to take it out of NASA. We can take more out of NASA, if the gentleman would like, and put it back into veterans programs, but I am not sure that his district or his State would understand or appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Neumann], a member of the committee. (Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. (Mrs. VUCANOVICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. Weldon].

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen]. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Having said that, nonetheless, we went back and took a very, very hard look. The reality is that the only account in this bill that had an increase had to do with VA medical care, some $400 million. There are significant reductions, actual reductions, in housing and EPA and NASA, in FEMA, and all of them less under the CR, to say the least. As we go forward, those accounts will be affected very significantly. But to suggest we did not try to find that money, the reality was that we could not go back and get more out of HUD. Maybe the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] wants that, I am not sure. We could not go back and get more out of EPA. Maybe Mr. Obey wants that, but I am not sure. He did not indicate it. We did try to find the money, and came to the conclusion that the only account that had been increased was VA medical care; and, indeed, it was appropriate for us to have the House recognize that support for our veterans. It is very, very important that we not distort this process. Some in the House, maybe the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], I am not sure, some in the House believed the President was going to veto the defense bill, and from that they would take away some money from defense and give to these social accounts. Now, that did not occur. The President let that bill become law. We did not get a veto. I never expected it, frankly, but we did not get extra money. Maybe that was their wish list, whereby we would provide more money for every one of these social programs. But, indeed, that did not occur, and because of it, this bill is fairly balanced and should not be distorted further because of the political process that appears to be taking place on the other side of the aisle.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding, and I did not want to intervene in the magnificent discussion between members of the Committee on Rules, but I must say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] that your colleague and ranking member on the Committee on Rules is absolutely [[Page H 14186]] wrong when he suggests that we did not make an effort to find this money. As a matter of fact, when we got our direction from the House, the biggest difficulty with that motion to recommit was the fact the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] chose not to find offsets. It was obvious he was playing a political game in the process.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I first want to say too, that we very much appreciate our colleagues' patience with this process. It is not usual that we go back at a bill more than one time, and in this circumstance to have a bill recommitted by the House for a specific purpose is not the normal process. Because of that, we are taking up a good deal more of the House's time than would be normal. I think it is important for the Members to know exactly what the circumstances were at the time of that recommittal motion. At that point in time, there is little doubt that there were those on the other side of the aisle, some on this side of the aisle, who thought the President did plan to veto the defense bill. My colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], has referred to his own belief that there were several billions of dollars in the defense bill that the President had not sought and, therefore, he might very well veto it. The motion to recommit in part was in hopes with that veto that they would get more money for this bill and there could be additional dollars put back in the veterans programs. The fact is that that veto did not take place. So we are dealing with a specific and limited number of dollars within this bill. Just as important, I think it is critical for all of us to understand that we are on a pathway to attempting to balance our budget over a 7- year period. Between this year and the year 2002, we hope to get to a balanced budget. If we are to do that, we must recognize that there are only a few bills around that have sizable numbers of discretionary dollars. This bill makes the single greatest contribution of all of our appropriations bills toward balancing that budget, a savings from the President's request of some $9.2 billion. Between now and the time this bill gets to the President's desk, he can still come forward and participate in a serious way in this process, if indeed he has some other adjustments or priorities that he would make. Please, have the President and his people come and talk to us. He has yet to suggest any change that would make this bill more satisfactory from his point of view. Between now and the time the Senate finishes its work, there is a narrow window of opportunity for him to do that. Otherwise, the President is playing politics with this bill rather than seriously seeking partnership by way of working with the legislative branch. I want to tell my colleagues that there has only been one major disappointment this year in this process. My disappointment lies with the difference I see between the way the majority and the minority worked with each other in the House versus the other body. I was most impressed by the fact that the other body found itself in the same situation we are in, limited numbers of dollars because we are in a new reality. We are attempting to reduce the rate of growth in spending and eventually balance the budget. Recognizing that in the other body, the Democrats and Republicans alike worked together in a very positive way within limited circumstances to try to accomplish a bill that met most of their needs. In the House, I am disappointed to say, we have not had that experience. I must say that one of my best friends on the other side of the aisle is my colleague and my ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. I say to my colleague that it is a great disappointment to me that we have not been able to work together in a positive way in this new atmosphere. I do understand his and his colleagues' great disappointment with the fact that we are not in a situation where Congress is going to continue to just take last year's spending, increased by inflation, and then add on more. That has been the pattern for the 15 years I have served on the subcommittee. But indeed, in that new environment, I would have hoped we could have worked together in a positive way instead.