Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].

Mr. LEWIS of California. I will be glad to respond. The fact is that our veterans programs involve approximately $38 billion of spending across the country. Many of us are concerned that within those medical services, many of our veterans are disserved. they receive inefficient service, they stand in lines, they are not being treated in those programs the way they should. The only way to get above that is to shake the programs at their foundation. So all we did out of a $38 billion program was to suggest a cut of $200 million so that we could take it to conference to discuss these programs further. It was clearly the intent of the committee to review those programs in depth. It is about time the new minority recognized that these programs have not worked nearly as well as they should in the past. And that was the reason, to take the programs to conference and evaluate how we can do the job better.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman had been on the floor earlier, we did explain that in some depth.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentlewoman. It is very important for the House to understand where we come from regarding this specific proposal for re-funding the veterans programs that were formerly set for some rescission. The fact is that AmeriCorps is a program that began in 1994. At that point in time, the President funded the proposal at $365 million. The following appropriations year, before the young people involved were even in place, it was raised by $210 million, more than a 50 percent increase. The President would have us in the 1996 year take the program up to $800 million. Shortly it would be another billion-dollar program. During all of this time, the program has not been evaluated indepth. There is little question that it is time we begin to stop this process of creating a brand new idea, a whim of somebody's, putting it in place and watching it go to billions and billions of dollars over the years. There is no doubt at all as we review this program it may deserve some funding, but indeed it deserves careful review before we go down this pathway.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr). Mr. BARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis]. Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman]. (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]. (Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I would like to speak to the House as to how we have come to this position on this amendment. The committee is faced with some very, very serious difficulties interplaying between a variety and mix of serious programs under its jurisdiction. Members know that we had the responsibility for VA medical care funding. They also heard discussion already about housing rescissions in this package. There are problems in EPA, et cetera. They cut across the board of some 22 agencies. As we looked at the question of was there room for any rescissions relative to the VA medical care, one recognizes initially that there are $17 billion in our bill that involve mandatory spending on those programs. Above and beyond that, there is $19.5 billion approximately in discretionary spending. It was our judgment that at least the House might consider looking at the bill they passed in appropriations for last year and rescinding the add-ons that took place in the Senate. Frankly, the reason for those rescissions was not that we were targeting the specific building that was involved but, rather, we wanted to get the whole veterans discussion to conference with the Senate to decide what kind of new direction we should take in these programs that would do two things: First, improve the quality and the efficiency of care to our veterans throughout our VA medical system. But second, to try to save some money in this category of spending as well, recognizing that if we are ever going to be able to balance this budget, everybody is going to have to participate. In this instance, we were attempting to make certain by way of the conference that whatever rescissions took place among veterans would be done fairly. Having said that, the gentleman involved in this amendment have been very persuasive. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] indeed, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] all have been extremely helpful. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] especially within our committee has been helpful. So with that we are essentially moving to replace the $206 million which was a rescission for veterans and in turn the funding that would counterbalance that restoring of money will come out of specific programs within CNCS that we, too, will discuss further as we move towards conference. In the meantime, I believe that the work that has been done by the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], especially has been most productive in this connection. I look forward to working with him regarding veterans' affairs in the months ahead.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentlewoman for bringing it to our attention in this serious way, and we accept the amendment.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] for his efforts.

Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentlemen is correct. Many local communities have been notified of their fiscal year 1995 allocations and have initiated community meetings to plan for the release of CDBG monies for the wide variety of eligible purposes.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would be very pleased to do so.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to my colleague the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. This is not the decision that is being made by this bill today. Over time I fully expect that our subcommittee will address the question in a different way and perhaps redesign whatever the role of the Federal Government is that may be involved. I do expect that technology to go forward.

Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes. When the $400 million was appropriated last year, the NASA appropriation bill contained a statutory requirement that the administration at least match the funds in the fiscal year 1996 budget. However, they did not do so.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the rescission bill does specifically put on the block the authority for some $400 million for proposed wind tunnels. Frankly, it is time for us to rethink that whole technology and the Federal Government's appropriate role in it. It does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of the Federal Government's being involved over time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I would be happy to do so.