Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for the body to know that while there may be some confusion about the impact of this amendment, and it is understandable because it is a new responsibility in terms of language that we have in this bill, it nonetheless would have a huge impact upon the administration of FHA programs and would thereby undermine that work that we are all involved in. I think there are some 250 Members who coauthored that effort we made a couple of weeks ago, and this would undermine much of what we did there. So it is important that we not, because we have a wish list, to take money from so-called easy housing programs and move it somewhere else. This is a very delicately balanced bill. I would urge the Members not to undo that FHA program they worked so hard for with this amendment but find some other way to do this.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I know the gentleman did not mean to even suggest that the Senate would know more about the process than we might, but this is the first time this year that we have had this kind of responsibility in our bill. I must say that the other body seemed to be unaware of this need. Indeed, it would have a significant impact upon this administration. It is a new ball game, so I can understand misunderstanding, even on the part of the Senate. And possibly there is some misunderstanding here within the House as well.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's concern. Amendment Offered by Mr. Bereuter

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield further, I would mention to the gentleman that I believe the Senator from the gentleman's State is a member of the committee, and will be participating in the conference as well.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if we were in a position of having this item considered as part of the report language, I could tell the gentleman that I would work directly with him between now and the time we go to conference to try to find a way, with our colleagues, to accommodate the gentleman's problem.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes. I have had discussions with my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and others on the other side, and with a voice vote it is our intention to accept that amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman, my colleague is correct. I am familiar with the Radius program, and I am very impressed by this unique tool. I believe it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to continue to support the further development of Radius and would look favorably upon NSF providing $1.5 million in fiscal year 1999 towards that end. I will work in the conference to include the language that makes this clear.

Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I have had a chance to discuss this amendment. I discussed it with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) as well. While we will need to massage this as we go towards conference, we are inclined at this point to accept the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. As I said in my opening remarks regarding this amendment, it concerns me that this cut could undermine all the work we have been doing all year long on FHA accounts.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise with some regret to strongly oppose the amendment of my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs). Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a couple of points. The first is that many may not know, but the early part of my life in a professional sense involved years in the health and life insurance business. I know a good deal about the group health insurance business and the way those contracts are formed. I feel very strongly that in this arena, the marketplace ought to have something to say. Indeed, as my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) indicated, there are corporations across the country who, in specifications they have outlined in terms of health insurance contracts, have included, among other things, provisions such as the ones that are being discussed here. The marketplace will work. People who are bidding to place those contracts can either choose to compete or not compete. So, frankly, I think, in the clearest sense, that ought to be true in this instance in the bay area of California. Above and beyond that, it strikes me that beauty often lies in the eyes of the genuflector, and I find people in this House, sometimes on both sides of the aisle, stand and pound their chests in support of local control. Indeed, I have often said to my friends who are involved in educational issues at the local level, friends, be very careful as you turn to Washington and look for your educational dollars, and recognize that we only give 10 cents on the dollar for educational purposes, but very quickly those who are delivering that dime want to spend your entire dollar, for they love the control, using the Federal dollar as the reason to control. In this case, in a most fundamental way, local government is reflecting its views as to what their policy should be, and very much reflecting their community in total, the epitome of what local control is all about. It seems to me that the first thing the Congress should know is that we do not have all the answers to all the problems around. Indeed, that government that serves best is the government that is closest to the people who would be served. So for all of those reasons, I would strongly urge the Members of this body to reject the Riggs amendment.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I must say to the gentleman that there is probably not an organization in the country that I feel more closely to than the Salvation Army. I have worked with them not just here at home but overseas, in many instances in the country of India. I have a great sensitivity there. But indeed, the marketplace does play a role here. Indeed, I am sure the Salvation Army, like other organizations working with the city, can find a way through this. But we should not be overriding that fundamental element of local control because of either a single organization, or in this case, because some disagree here at the Federal level.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do feel this is a very serious issue. I would really regret it if we paint an issue like this in partisan terms.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, to clarify for the House, is this the amendment that will transfer administrative funds for FHA's program that are in the HUD provisions and move those moneys to veterans programs?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I believe my question was clear.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this procedural motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).