Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have before us H.R. 2099, which is a very, very complex bill dealing with diverse agencies such as veterans, housing, EPA, NASA, and a variety of other independent agencies and commissions. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to start my comments by expressing my deep appreciation for my colleagues within the subcommittee who have worked so hard to bring this package together in a successful fashion. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to know that this work would not have been able to be done successfully without the assistance of very fine staff, headed by my chief of staff within the committee, Mr. Frank Cushing, and his colleagues. I would also like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that within my personal staff a great deal of assistance was provided for me, I would like to extend my appreciation particularly today to David LesStrang, Jeff Shockey, and one of my key staff people who will be leaving us shortly, Mr. Doc Syers. Mr. Speaker, it is with a combination of pleasure and pain that I bring this bill to the floor today, and I would suggest first that the pleasure is there because I am very proud of the fact that this subcommittee has led the way in putting Uncle Sam on a diet. This bill represents $10.1 billion as a down payment toward balancing the budget by 2002. I must say, Mr. Speaker, up until now we have been talking about moving toward balancing the budget. This, however, is where the rubber meets the road. It is one thing to talk. It is another thing to make the very, very tough decisions. Let me suggest that the pain that I mentioned earlier involves that very fact. Unfortunately, the spirit of bipartisanship among the committee members that has long been a hallmark of the Committee on Appropriations has suffered as a result of our taking a different turn in the road regarding this country's spending habits. Even as we continue to travel on that road to balance the budget, I pledge to do all that I can, Mr. Speaker, to bring this subcommittee back to that bipartisan spirit that we have lost this year. This conference report reflects a willingness to make the very tough decisions and to meet the spending targets necessary to balance the budget in 7 years. As I have suggested, out of 13 appropriations subcommittees, the VA-HUD bill makes the single largest contribution toward balancing the budget. It does not wait until year 5 or year 7 or year 10. We are making the tough decisions today. No longer will we tolerate paying lip service to the goal of deficit reduction. This conference report of $61.3 billion in new discretionary spending represents a reduction in budget authority of 13.1 percent, and it is about $9.25 billion below the administration's requested spending level for fiscal year 1996. To say the least, the decisions that led to these reductions were certainly not easy ones to make. The work of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies has changed dramatically from last year. No longer do we simply compare the agency account on the basis of what they received last year, then add on a certain amount for inflation and maybe tack on some more there to establish a new base level. We have now completed a bottom-up review of all of our agencies. This is all part of a process of justifying each program's existence and examining how taxpayer dollars are being used. I intend to continue this approach next year so that every program within every agency under our jurisdiction receives the kind of necessary scrutiny to find appropriate savings. The subcommittee began working on this bill on January 24 when we held the first of over 20 separate hearings. When our bill passed the House in late July we showed a reduction from the 1995 enacted level of $9.7 billion, while the Senate showed a reduction of $8.4 billion in budget authority. As I noted, the conferees essentially split the difference for a net reduction of over $9 billion. However, during the process we were also able to take advantage of an additional 1 year's legislative savings, a provision at HUD, thus giving us an additional $1 billion, with which to better fund housing programs. Let me at this time take a moment to share some of the positive actions recently taken by the House-Senate conference meeting. We provided an increase of $400 million over the 1995 level for VA medical care and were able to do away with the so-called incompetent veterans' legislative savings provision that was of concern to many. We provided some $24.4 billion for HUD programs. While this is a reduction from the budget request, it actually represents a program level of $1 billion over the earlier House-passed bill. Most importantly, this increase would achieve for 1996 without adversely impacting our outlay problems in 1997 and beyond. In the bill we terminated four Federal agencies for savings of $705 million, including the Office of Consumer Affairs, the Chemical Safety and Hazards Investigation Board, Community Development Financial Institutions, and the Corporation for National Community Service. We fully funded the space station and space shuttle programs, even though NASA took its fair share of downsizing like every other department and agency under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. We provided over $1.1 billion to continue the Superfund Program at EPA and over $2.3 billion for wastewater, drinking water, and various categorical grants to the States so they can adequately meet Federal environmental mandates. We also created a performance partnership program between the EPA and the States so that these funds can be used where the States believe they are most needed. Finally, we have not included any of the EPA legislative provisions as passed by the House and only four passed by the Senate. Of those, three were included in last year's bill signed by the President. [[Page H 13751]] Mr. Speaker, please allow me to digress for just a moment with respect to the HUD programs. As I mentioned, we were able to do a little more this year than we first thought. However, each successive year will get more and more difficult with respect to HUD outlays as payment for some of the budget authority approved in past years finally comes due. The choices we make this year will go beyond fiscal year 1996. Indeed, they set the foundation for the years ahead. One specific area of special note in this regard is the renewal of section 8 subsidy contracts. Over the next 2 years, the cost of renewing section 8 expiring contracts will increase from $4.35 billion in 1996 to $14.4 billion by 1998. This will occur despite the fact that we have passed legislation which actually lowers HUD spending levels from past years. The challenge facing the subcommittee in the coming years will be difficult, but we have made great progress this year, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to find reasonable solutions to complex issues like this section 8 issue. Mr. Speaker, I am including in the Record a table illustrating the aforementioned section 8 problem.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me express my appreciation to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Heineman] for bringing to our attention in such an effective manner the importance of this research facility, and the committee does very much want to be of assistance. As I indicated in the earlier colloquy, the Research Triangle Park facility is one of the three major infrastructure projects requested for the EPA. Funding was not available for the current fiscal year, but I have pledged my support to the gentleman to do my very best to find funds necessary for the project in the next fiscal year. It is my understanding that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is currently updating the authorization for this project, and I look forward to addressing this in the years ahead.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the point I would make is that I do know there is a rider like that on the Senate side sponsored by the Senate. But my colleague is striking all the language that we would have and essentially saying I should not be taking action and moving forward relative to inspection and maintenance and other items. Under those circumstances, Members should know that if the House votes with the ranking member, I intend to go to the conference and fully express the role of the House, and actions on inspection and maintenance will have to be opposed. Indeed, it could undermine the House position and the House concern regarding that matter. The same point applies to any number of other riders. Really, my point here, Mr. Speaker, is that to have the House suggest that we go to conference with the Senate and strike all of this consideration when there is another option available is highly questionable policy, and I think it deserves the attention of the House. Mr. Speaker, it is very important for our colleagues to know that there is a great deal of interest in a number of these riders. We will be dissuaded from acting in connection with them. Later in the day, we will have an opportunity, perhaps, to consider another approach, which would instruct our conferees to go to the conference and to consider each and every one of these riders separately and individually and consider them based upon their impact on the economy, upon jobs, upon the environment. That could only occur if, at the end of this discussion, we essentially procedurally open the door to allow us to consider that alternative. So we are going to be urging my colleagues to vote no on the previous question to allow that process to go forward. It is not fair for us to tie the hands of the Members in connection with these very important regulatory areas, and the motion by my colleague would specifically do that. We would not be able to represent Members well regarding these issues in conference if this motion passes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] to respond to those outrageous comments.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself this time by way of essentially saying to my colleagues, and also to the public that might be listening, that it is very important to note that opposition to this effort on our part to eliminate these riders has been carried to the extreme in many a forum, and to suggest that those who are against striking the riders are obviously somehow against the entire environment, illustrated by the last several speakers who have referred to arsenic in drinking water and radon in drinking water. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the House know, that the people know that across the country there are trace elements in drinking water everywhere of this kind. What the EPA is proposing, they are proposing regulations that are so extreme in their form to control harmless traces, harmless traces, that it is going to escalate the cost of drinking water in districts across the country. Water districts responsible for drinking water across the country are calling for our effort to impact the EPA's work in this field. It is very, very important that we know that the EPA is at fault here, not our effort to include these regulations.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], a member of the committee.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Speaker, it is with no small amount of discomfort that I rise on the floor and oppose so very strongly the motion by my ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. Indeed, if we had had the opportunity to discuss what these riders were about before he decided to go forward with this motion, I think we might have relieved the House of all of this debate time. Clearly, a thorough discussion of the excesses of EPA might have made a difference in the decision to go forward with this notion. Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to know that this Member and the Members who are joining me in opposition to the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] are not Members who are opposed to strengthening the quality of our environment. We are committed to making sure that we are doing all that is necessary to assure clean air and clean water across the country. Indeed, one of the better things that has happened in the whole processes of public affairs was the fact that a couple of decades ago we began really working to improve the environment. But in the meantime, the EPA's excesses have raised enough serious questions that it is time for those who really care about the environment to stand together and take action. I have communicated to the House that in the past much of my political work in public affairs involved concerns about clean air. In California I was the chairman of an air quality committee that dealt specifically with that problem that is impacting my district like no other district in the country. That work led to the creation of the toughest air quality management district in the country. A district that itself has extended regulations that are, to say the least, very difficult regulations to meet. Nonetheless, their work is causing us to see serious progress in the direction of clean air. There is no doubt that government has a role to play, but excessive regulation upon regulation is undermining the public support for environmental concerns. Indeed, the credibility of this effort is threatened by these excesses. For that reason, our subcommittee and the full House have reviewed where the EPA has taken us in the past, and where they would take us in the future. These riders on the EPA portion of my bill are designed to begin that point of rethinking the process and give a clear direction to the EPA that the Congress is more than concerned. We are absolutely insisting that they rethink where they have been regarding some of these regulations. The EPA is an agency that has grown like Topsy. Currently, the EPA is designed simply for regulatory purposes. This is not necessarily helpful to that effort of improving the environment. Because of this pattern, I urge my colleagues to do the following: First, recognize that the Stokes motion would strike all of these riders and impact very significantly our ability to begin this process of review. Second, at the end of this time, the previous question will be asked. At that point, when a vote is requested, a ``no'' vote will allow us to consider an alternative, another approach, that will cause our conferees to consider each of these riders separately and individually, measure how they impact the economy and, in turn, make recommendations of the full House to the conference. I will be urging the Members at the time of the previous question to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me mention one more time, these riders have been described incorrectly in many a fora. In the case that my colleague just mentioned regarding clean water programs, the problem with those programs is they have not been reauthorized. Those who controlled the committees in the past Congresses have failed to reauthorize them, so we are kind of in a bind and there is a need to have mechanisms for moving forward. In part, we are attempting to affect EPA in this connection by way of these riders.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. (Mr. GEKAS asked was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) [[Page H 11696]]

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I could not help but recall, as I listened to my colleague from California, Mr. Waxman, speak that he and I have worked for years in California in the clean air field. As he knows, I was very much involved in the politics as well as the policy dealing with clean air in California when we were in the State legislature together. Clearly, one of the most important things that has happened in my lifetime in public affairs is the fact that in the late 1970's the public discovered the word ``environment.'' We did not know much about this whole subject area before that point. Indeed, many of us expressed great concern about what was happening in the environment, including our air, and involved ourselves in changing the policy in positive ways within our State. But, Mr. Speaker, over time, there is little question in the mind's eye of most Americans that one way or another Uncle Sam has gone much too far with burdensome regulations that do little to actually improve the environment. Indeed, a concern about the environment led to the creation of the EPA. The EPA is now an agency of over 18,000 employees and those employees seem to spend most of their time creating regulations on top of regulations. This has become so overwhelming that now in the West, people are talking about the war on the West, where regulatory efforts are undermining our economies and impacting jobs. Mr. Speaker, these regulations are impacting people's ability to make sense out of their economy or their economic circumstance in the name of protecting the environment. Indeed, we have gone far too far. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton]. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2099) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to ask a question of my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] points with some alarm to a series of riders that are connected with EPA and riders that would impact the way they exercise their regulatory authority and sometimes, in my judgment, go beyond their regulatory authority. As I understand the gentleman's motion, it would essentially instruct us to remove all of those riders, and that would be the position of the House as we go to conference; is that correct?

Mr. LEWIS of California. That would mean that if a Member of the body, for example, is very concerned with the way EPA is implementing inspection and maintenance of vehicle programs connected with clean air across the country, that we would be unable to address the way we do address that question in these riders. In other words, we would not be able to move forward with a rider that would essentially limit the way EPA is exercising that questionable authority; is that correct?

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and that I may include tabular and extraneous material on the measure just passed.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to rise in support of this very, very important bill and to [[Page H 9703]] say to my colleagues that I have never seen a finer piece of work done on the appropriation defense bill than done by my chairman and his colleague, the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha]. It is a very, very difficult bill. It is very important to the country. It is a bill that could very well be disrupted because of some of the language that may or may not be in the bill. A change in pattern relative to this bill; that is not what we have done in the past in terms of the appropriations process. There are places to handle policy issues that are extraneous in other bills. It is absolutely unacceptable to find ourselves in a position of putting appropriations to funding for our national defense systems in jeopardy because of people's largely single-issue interests. To me I think it is critical that the Members know that this bill will become worse if we go forward from here without passing it today. So, I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''

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 a distinguished nonprofit organization, Food for All, founded in Redlands, CA in 1985 by Linda and Milan Hamilton. In recognition of its years of growth and success, the innovative Food for All Program is making its 10th anniversary this year and will celebrate the occasion at a dinner ceremony on October 12. In cooperation with local retailers, Food for All offers consumers an easy and convenient way to support local efforts to combat hunger. Food for All's simple concept uses barcoded donor cards available at supermarket checkout stands which shoppers purchase along with their groceries. As the administrator of these funds, Food for All distributes 90 percent of these contributions in the form of grants to community-based organizations and international projects striving for long-term solutions to hunger. These grants are made through a network of volunteer committees and local grant advisory boards. Since 1985, Food for All has distributed 3,352 grants totaling more than $4.7 million. Of this amount, $2.2 million has gone to emergency food suppliers such as food pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters; $1.4 million has been awarded to multiservice agencies which help families and individuals develop the ability to support themselves and others; and $1.1 million has been granted to projects overseas which develop self-sufficiency for families and communities. The Food for All Program has grown and increased supermarket participation from two stores at inception to presently 1,713 stores in nine States. Supporting this worthy effort is a network of more than 800 volunteers who participate in solicitation, merchandising, funds distribution, community outreach, and a number of other Food for All activities. In addition, I particularly want to recognize Paul Gerrard of Gerrard's Markets and Jack Brown of Stater Brothers Markets for their leadership in making Food for All the phenomenal success that it is today. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me, our colleagues, and the many supporters of Food for All in recognizing this outstanding program for its community- and market-based approach to addressing hunger. As we recognize Food for All for its worthy contributions over the past 10 years, let us not forget its origins in the hearts and minds of Linda and Milan Hamilton. For everything they and so many others have done to make it a success, it is only fitting that the House of Representatives pay tribute to Food for All today.

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 a group of committed organizations in California's Inland Empire dedicated to the common goal of a world without violence. In October, these civic organizations will launch the Week Without Violence, a community based effort designed to promote a better and safer world. The short term goal of the Week Without Violence campaign is to engage the press and public for 7 days in simple, thought provoking activities and dialogue that demonstrate practical, sustainable alternatives to violence. Over the long term, sponsors of the program are hopeful that this will be the beginning of a new way of thinking and acting in our community and across the Nation. The Week Without Violence begins on October 15 with a day of remembrance dedicated to the memory of those touched by violence and including church services for people of all faiths. Monday and Tuesday are dedicated to protecting our children and keeping our schools safe. Area school teachers and administrators will work with students of all ages in promoting safety and nonviolence. The balance of the week is dedicated to confronting violence against women, facing violence among men, eliminating racism and hate crime, and replacing violence with sports and fitness. The Week Without Violence is the result of a unique partnership among a great many area agencies. They include Arrowhead United Way; Children's Network; City of Highland Police; Community Against Drugs; Housing Authority of San Bernardino; Inland Congregations United for Change; Option House; San Bernardino Unified School District; San Bernardino County Health Department; San Bernardino County Probation Department; San Bernardino County Schools; San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department; San Bernardino County Sexual Assault Services; San Bernardino Parks, Recreation, and Community Service; San Bernardino Police Department; San Bernardino Public Library; San Manuel Indian Reservation; West Side Action; and the YWCA. Specifically worthy of mention for this tremendous effort is Ann Ivey, the chief of Community Health Services for the San Bernardino County Health Department and the chair of the Week Without Violence planning committee. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me and our colleagues in recognizing this unique and valuable community-based endeavor to promote safety and nonviolence. Not only am I deeply impressed by the fantastic cooperation among area agencies, I am grateful to see concerned citizens coming together at the local level to make a difference in our community and our country. The Week Without Violence is likely to become a model for the Nation and I believe it is only fitting that the House of Representatives recognize this outstanding effort today. [[Page E 1840]]

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 the San Bernardino County Community Services Department. In early November, an anniversary dinner will be held honoring the community services department as it celebrates 30 years of service to the low-income community. In his first State of the Union Address in 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared an unconditional war on poverty in the United States. Later that year, the Economic Opportunity Act was signed into law with the goal of eliminating the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty. Out of this effort emerged the dependency prevention commission in San Bernardino County. Committed to the elimination of poverty, the dependency prevention commission pioneered many original antipoverty programs at the local level including Head Start, Job Corps, VISTA, Neighborhood Service Centers, and Neighborhood Youth Corps. The dependency prevention commission was renamed the community services department in 1975. Over the years, the community services department has achieved national recognition for implementing creative, cost-effective programs to serve the poor and homeless. Impressive steps have been taken to provide these services through the San Bernardino County Food Bank, Nutrition for Seniors, Energy Conservation Program, Sure Steps Family Sufficiency Program, and Children's Learning Excursions and Summer Camp Program. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me and our colleagues in recognizing the San Bernardino County Community Services Department for three decades of concern, service, and dedication on behalf of those in need. Having achieved an outstanding record of success, it is only fitting that the House of Representatives recognize them today.