Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would announce to Members that because there is no time agreement, this will be the last debate this evening and there will be no more votes. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to all the parties involved that, if there is going to be an amendment later, we could discuss this later instead of talking about it now.

Mr. LEWIS of California. First let me say I very much appreciate my colleague from California raising this question. I very much appreciate not only his interest but our mutual interest in this subject, the item having to do this with this colloquy about having FEMA establish an additional disaster procedures training center in or near the territory that we represent. It is absolutely my intention to see that this project is given additional consideration and to work closely with the gentleman toward that end.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I would like to say to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that the time he has used has been very valuable to the debate. It was a very articulate presentation of the real world, where the gentleman lives and, frankly, it is helpful to the discussion and a very positive contribution.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Is it not correct that the city of Lakewood, California, paid for a new survey and found that almost 5,000 homes and businesses were mistakenly included in the floodplain and, thus, would have been required to purchase insurance when it was, in fact, not required?

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentleman's continued interest in this program. Let me assure the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Minnesota and others with an interest in supporting the Emergency Food and Shelter Program that to the degree that additional resources become available when we go to conference on this bill, I will continue to work together with these gentlemen to see if additional resources can be found for this important program.

Mr. LEWIS of California. One of the needs for this report language is that it would appear as though the agency is cherry-picking the way it will interpret the very law that your committee wrote, and it is a comprehensive bill. Remember, Mr. Brown, that this is the same agency that has a hand in the problems in our own territory like the Delhi ever-loving sand fly and the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The EPA needs some direction. That is all this report language does.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, by now we are well aware of the Y2K problem that poses a threat to virtually every aspect of our daily existence. My good friend and colleague, Mr. Horn, has done an outstanding job of raising awareness within Congress and every federal agency on the need to address this complex challenge. Indeed, every American is potentially affected by the Y2K problem and educating the public is critical to avoiding major disruptions in our daily lives. Raising awareness is the key to proposing solutions. To that end, I would like to share with you and submit for the record a very fine article that recently appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The piece, ``Crash 2000,'' was written by Bruce Chapman, president of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute has recently launched a two-year project on the many diverse public-policy issues connected with Y2K. The Discovery Institute will host a conference on Y2K and related public policy concerns in Washington, DC on September 24. This conference will focus upon specific issues that need to be considered by Congress, the Executive Branch and other levels of government to minimize the effects of the Y2K transition. Well-known technology author George Gilder will moderate the day-long session which will also feature Congressman Horn and some of the best and brightest minds on the Y2K issue. [From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 14, 1998] Focus Crash 2000 Life with computers at risk should Y2K disease prove deadly (By Bruce Chapman) From airport traffic control to tax refunds, from ``just- in-time'' package deliveries to time-sensitive hospital equipment; from fire and police services to defense commands, products and activities we take for granted could slow or stop. That's the Year 2000 problem scenario, a disquieting possibility that is nagging increasing numbers of public and private leaders. In a year and a half, as the new millennium opens, the lives of everyone not residing in some Stone Age redoubt will be affected to an unknown extent by a bizarre glitch in many of the world's computers and software products. Even the minimum likely outcome is worrisome. Take the disruptions of last year's United Parcel Service strike, when hundreds of businesses failed, combine them with the recent service stoppage on 40 million pagers when the Galaxy 4 satellite broke down, and replicate such effects in other sectors of the U.S. economy and around the world-- simultaneously. Other outcomes could be worse. Nobody knows how bad it could be. They do know that ``it'' will happen on Jan. 1, 2000. A program to stimulate greater public awareness, understanding and action is needed. Yet a communications gap between the culture of the technology industry and that of the political world is slowing the response to the 2000 problem, or ``Y2K,'' as it is coming to be known. The individualistic people in the technology industry do not naturally make connections between their world and the realm of everyday public life. They tend to fear the government when they do not scorn it. People in the public sector often have difficulty comprehending the economic and social impacts of technology. To them, tech is just another industry to be taxed, regulated and litigated. But at the start of the new century, a programming foible of years gone by--compounded by repetition--threatens to make obvious the big, unavoidable connections between technology and public policy. The problem arose from widespread use of a coding technique to save digital space in computers--shortening the designation of years by eliminating the number denoting the century. The date ``1998'' is merely rendered ``98'', for example. Even if some people thought of the troubles that might occur when the year 2000 rolled around, in the fast- changing world of high technology, systems were not expected to last long enough to matter. The unanticipated result as the year 1999 changes into 2000 is that many computers will read ``00'' to mean ``1900.'' They will have no way to control the resulting calculations appropriately. Whole systems, including personal computers and mainframes, and software products of various kinds, could malfunction, spit out errors erratically, or simply crash. With them would crash the billions of orders and transactions and industrial processes upon which our lives have come to depend. At potential risk are: critical infrastructure (water, power, telecommunications, transportation); government services at all levels; banking and finance, here and overseas. The very uncertainty about the prospects for these functions could trigger an anticipatory economic contraction well before 2000. Huge private and public repair efforts already are under way. Some national banks' Y2K bills are running up to $600 million. A Securities and Exchange Commission study released last week estimated that the top Fortune 250 corporations alone expect to spend some $37 billion on the problem. Many companies' systems are fixed already. But that won't necessarily protect them from failures experienced by their suppliers, or their customers. Nor will it protect them if their computers interact with systems that are not fixed. Analyst Mark R. Anderson, who spots technology trends from his highly wired aerie in the San Juan Islands, sees ``networks'' as ``the greatest Y2K problem. If my computers are fixed, and yours are not, I'm not sure I want to be linked to yours that (Dec. 31, 1999) midnight.'' To put the matter in personal terms: Your bank assures you that it is entirely and certifiably compliant. But if that bank starts getting bogus data from malfunctioning computers at other banks--say, from overseas--or finds that it cannot get information at all from federal financial institutions, its own systems could be compromised. Edward Yardeni, economist with Deutsche Morgan Grenfell in New York, citing the tardiness of private and public entities in confronting the Y2K problem, estimates the chance of a major recession as 60 percent. ``The likely recession could be at least as bad as the one during 1973-74, which was caused mostly by a disruption in the supply of oil. Information, stored and manipulated by computers, is as vital as oil for running modern economies.'' A Federal Reserve study a few months ago estimated a repair cost to private business in the United States of about $50 billion and to the economy of only a fractional percent of growth, but those estimates already are probably out of date. A private study by Y2K specialists at the Gartner Group in Palo Alto, Calif., sees a $115 billion dollar domestic tab and a $600 billion cost worldwide. It is instructive that the head of one vitally affected federal agency, the IRS, does not even dispute the extent of potential danger. Commissioner Charles Rossotti told a Congressional committee this spring, if repairs cannot be made in time (and IRS is far behind, ``There could be 90 million taxpayers who won't get their refunds, and 95 percent of the revenue stream of the U.S. could be jeopardized.'' ``Could be.'' Nobody knows for sure. A lot can happen in a year and a half. ``It's still unclear how much pain there will be,'' says Microsoft's Bill Gates. One reason for uncertainty is that many information systems are not, as it were, technologically transparent. Instructions may be embedded in locations where one does not expect them. Old systems may have idiosyncratic, even whimsical, programs written by someone long gone and in an obsolete program language. The rickety IRS system, for example, dates from the 1960s. Given the workload in bringing critical systems to a point of Y2K compliance, Gates is among those who propose that ``From today forward, `triage' is the order of the day.'' In the battlefield, a surgeon applying the triage policy divides casualties by categories of those who are in good enough shape to ignore, those past saving and those who can be saved with prompt action. Triage for information services means deciding which systems are of relatively low priority and can be repaired later, those that are past saving and must be replaced or abandoned, and those needing immediate fixes. That Gates has anything at all to say in Y2K these days is commendable. Many businessmen are afraid to mention the subject. Business Insurance, a trade journal, reports that ``Security is tight for many corporate conversion projects because of the concern that their stock prices might fall when the word got out about how much it will cost to bring their systems into compliance.'' Even the Securities and Exchange Commission is having a hard time getting information from companies, according to testimony before a Senate hearing last week. But before long, as public awareness grows, enterprises that cannot boast of major efforts to become Y2K compliant could become the ones risking stock owner displeasure. Nothing hurts a stock price like a breakdown in basic corporate functions. Business leaders also are being warned by their lawyers to keep quiet because of the threat of lawsuits. The Journal of the American Bar Association estimates that there will be a trillion dollars worth of claims as a result of Y2K. Trial lawyers already are holding conferences to examine opportunities for suits against tech companies and others if their systems fail. But again, with time it may become clear that those companies will fare best that are most active in preventing Y2K trouble and trying to help others--including the public. Actually, the government itself may have contributed to today's punitive legal atmosphere by its aggressive actions on other matters, from monopoly suits against Microsoft and Intel, to efforts to stop telecommunications and cable mergers. The federal government, by keeping such a low profile on Y2K for so long, also has slowed public education on the overall Y2K threat. The government did know about it. Almost two years ago, after receiving a special report from the Congressional Research Service, Sen. Patrick Moynihan, D- N.Y., sent an urgent letter to President Clinton, alerting him to the Year 2000 problem, and warning that it ``could have extreme negative economic consequences during your second term.'' He later publicly termed Y2K a potential ``national emergency.'' Yet it was only four months ago that the White House appointed John Koskinen, a former Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to head a new President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion. Koskinen is an experienced crisis manager, but his job is still less that of a policy ``czar'' than that of a facilitator. He has a small office and three employees. Of course, by now few large corporations need education from the federal government on the serious of Y2K. But the same cannot be said of small businesses. Surveys show that many of these remain blissfully indifferent. The National Federation of Independent Business and Wells Fargo Bank have discovered that only one in six small businesses has even looked into the subject. Richard Bergeon, president of Systemic Solutions, Inc., in Seattle and co-author (with Toronto consultant Peter deJager) of ``Managing 00: Surviving the Year 2000 Computing Crisis,'' predicts that, given present trends, ``as many as 50 percent of small businesses may fail.'' Meanwhile, White House special adviser Koskinen has tried to lower expectations of what his office can do to help the economy as a whole. ``We have to figure out how we can help people organize themselves. There's no way for me or the federal government to manage this problem.'' Regarding the government's own functions Koskinen has promised a full report on preparations by early 1999. But Congress is not about to wait that long. After holding several discouraging hearings this winter and spring, Rep. Steven Horn, R-Calif., a former university president who heads the House Government Reform and Oversight subcommittee on technology, last week graded the federal efforts an ``F.'' He demanded that ``The president and his administration must set priorities if the conversion is to be successful . . . Now is the time for the president to designate the Year 2000 problem as a national priority.'' It seems likely that pressure will continue to grow on the president, and on Vice President Al Gore, a technology enthusiast, to expand federal readiness efforts. Publisher and possible Republican presidential contender Steve Forbes has been particularly outspoken, terming the situation a ``leadership crisis, rather than a technology crisis.'' Horn and Forbes have gained credibility from reports issuing lately from the government's independent General Accounting Office and the inspectors general in various departments. The reports cite deficiencies in most departments, indicating that at the present rate of change, a number of major federal functions are unlikely to be Y2K compliant on time. For example: Some failures of mission-critical defense systems are ``almost certain,'' reported the GAO, unless the pace of fixes is greatly increased. The Department of Defense has spent $2.9 billion, but lacks key management and oversight controls, the GAO says. If the Defense Message System fails, ``it would be difficult to monitor enemy operations or to conduct military engagements . . . Aircraft and other military equipment would be grounded.'' The Labor Department already has spent $160 million of the $200 million allocated to it to help states convert computers that handle unemployment insurance. Labor's inspector general told a congressional committee he fears for the department's ``benefit payment systems for job corps students and injured coal miners, longshore and harbor workers and federal employees and their families.'' Only 13 of 61 systems in the Labor Department have been identified as Y2K compliant. The Education Department is so tardy that it still has no comprehensive Year 2000 plan. Despite recent improvements, it is uncertain that the Department of Health and Human Services will be able to process some $200 million in Medicare payments or the $170 billion awarded annually in research grants for cancer and other diseases. The problems of HHS, like the IRS, are compounded by computer problems beyond the Y2K threat. Experts told the Horn Committee that the Federal Aviation Administration is so far behind in Y2K readiness that it may have to ground planes in 2000. However, White House adviser Koskinen is more optimistic, believing that the FAA will have completed its repairs by the end of the year and will have another year for testing. The Social Security Administration, with 92 percent of its project completed, is in better shape than any other federal agency. The Horn Committee graded it an A+. But, as Internet columnist Victor Porlier notes, the agency has been working on the problem for seven years, yet even it is not finished. What does that say about the prospects of agencies that have barely begun? Also, how will a fully functional agency such as Social Security persevere in sending out checks and meeting its own payroll in 2000 if a dysfunctional IRS and Treasury Department cannot collect and distribute federal money? Finally, says Porlier, Social Security's experience, wherein systems had to be tested early and repeatedly, underscores the importance of adequate time for testing and debugging before systems can be certified as truly 2000 compliant. That time is fast disappearing.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague for this very thoughtful piece of legislation. I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for his assistance as well as this bill has gone forward. There is something wrong with this picture, Mr. Speaker and Members. First, I think most people understand that particularly in the summer months, citizens in southern California become especially concerned about our air. As the weather warms up, something seems to be ever present, and oftentimes in my own valley in San Bernardino County one can hardly see the mountains. Yet over the years we have made very significant progress as it relates to cleaning the air, particularly cleaning the impact upon the air that comes from mobile sources. The American automobile newly produced today is a clean automobile, and yet shift the scene just a bit to the south. Cars and trucks standing in line in both directions on the border puffing smoke, and the air can absolutely be cut with a knife at this time of the year. To suggest that those vehicles that are commuting across our border should not meet the same standards required by American vehicles is absolutely not acceptable. This legislation will take a significant step in the direction of solving that problem. Currently, California law requires that foreign-plated vehicles which commute daily into the State must meet California vehicle standards. However, the law is not being enforced by Federal agents at the border who do not have the authority necessary. This bill would provide for that authority. It would lay the foundation to see that foreign-plated vehicles which do not meet our standards do not cross our borders. It is, as the author has suggested, a common sense bill which in a very practical way addresses this very serious difficulty. The gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) should be commended for this work. It is a reflection of his past background as a member of the Air Resources Board in California. He brings that talent to the Congress and continues to work on the fight for clean air at home as well as across the country.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional requests for time, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) correctly characterizes the nature of the problems in VISN 3, and I would like to assure her that it is my intention that the VA comply with the directive included in the report to provide VISN 3 with a one- time credit of $20 million. To further address her concerns, I have a letter from VA Deputy Secretary Gober which clarifies that it is his agency's policy to honor appropriations report language.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I must say to my colleagues in the House that the description made of our bill a moment ago is so far from being a reflection of the work of this committee that I cannot help but respond. This committee has been a part of that significant effort to reduce patterns of growth in the Government across the board. We have reduced patterns of growth in every category except the veterans' category. This subcommittee has consistently adjusted funding for veterans in a positive way. In a bipartisan way, we have expressed our concern about veterans and indeed have made significant strides in the direction of improving the quality of care delivered to veterans across the country.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must reserve a point of order against the amendment because it would increase the level of budget authority outlays in the bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. This rule states that it shall be in order to consider en bloc amendments proposed only to transfer appropriations among objects in the bill without increasing the levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill. The amendment would increase the level of budget authority outlays in the bill and, therefore, I make a point of order.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is attempting to soften my heart relative to my colleague here. I would prefer that he come back just a little later when we will discuss this matter much more extensively.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must say we welcome the authorizers presence when we have our bill on the floor any time. I know authorizers often like to use appropriations bills to effectively implement their work, especially when these kinds of disagreements occur from time to time.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I guess I will have a colloquy with my friend.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I believe the brownfields program is a good program and the committee supports efforts to turn abandoned and possibly contaminated properties into thriving commercial areas. On the other hand, both the GAO and the Inspector General have issued reports questioning some past EPA grants to nongovernmental organizations, where scarce dollars have gone for case studies, conferences and workshops. The committee's intent is to ensure that brownfields funds are used appropriately within the boundaries of the law that my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), has done so much to develop in the first place. In that spirit, but with those reservations, I reluctantly support the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title III through page 65, line 16, be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I concur with the gentleman's view that the current text of the bill before us does not authorize activities not currently authorized under CERCLA.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.