Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my colleague. Mr. Chairman, I believe the body knows that we have not had any significant funding for this program since 1995. The reason for that is that the voucher program essentially has been in serious disarray. It has not delivered service or money in a way that really made sense to those of us who know that we have challenges here in terms of serving poor people, but at the same time, as we try to meet those challenges, we would like to have the programs involved to work effectively. This current year is the first year for some time we have provided significant dollars. There is some $100 million in the current fiscal year. That involves some 17,600 vouchers. We are really taking a hard look at the way HUD is implementing this program. We want to measure whether or not they will get the job done this time. What this amendment suggests is that before that measurement actually takes place we ought to kind of double the program. We would go from 17,600 vouchers to 34,800. We would go from $100 million to $197 million. Now while I have a good deal of empathy for what we are attempting to do here, frankly, I think we ought to deal as much as we can in the real world. The other body is more skeptical than we. They are providing some $40 million in their proposal this year, frankly, in no small part because they have some of those questions from the past still remaining. So I would urge the body to realize that we have only got so many dollars to go around. We ought to be conservative in connection with this in the most positive way. We want to make sure the dollars that are a part of the bill for serving people are being used well, and so let us go one step at a time here. With that reservation in mind, thereby, I urge the body to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must say to the body that our colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) has played a very significant role in dealing with this problem, for there is money in the pipeline now pushing forward that research on the part of the Veterans Administration that is taking place as a direct result of his own work with our committee as well as the entire Congress. I very much appreciate that, and we intend to continue to work with the gentleman, and as we go to conference, I want to make sure that there is emphasis one more time.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Weller, I understand that there is a very high rate of cancer in areas surrounding these Superfund sites.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. LEWIS of California. We look forward to working with the gentleman, and appreciate his concerns.

Mr. LEWIS of California. In our discussions, it has been my distinct impression that the City of Topeka has taken steps to correct this problem, is that correct?

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) for purposes of a colloquy.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), a member of the committee, for a colloquy.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the Vento amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part that no amendment to a general appropriations bill shall be in order if changing existing law. This amendment, by requiring owners of Preservation-eligible properties to provide 1 year notice of prepayment to tenants and State and local governments, imposes additional duties and constitutes, therefore, legislation in an appropriation bill. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman is correct.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) for a colloquy.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the picture the gentleman has drawn for me is most disturbing, and I want you to know I will be urging the EPA to take this into consideration and expedite the remediation of the remaining Ottawa sites as soon as able possible, consistent with the agency's priority listings.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to work with the gentleman from Iowa. I might mention to the gentleman that his district and mine have this identical problem, for our territories involves open spaces where people have to travel many, many miles for this kind of service. As the gentleman is aware, the VA's community-based outpatient clinics were established expressly to address this problem and have been a great success. Moreover, the decision to establish outpatient clinics are made not in Washington, but at the VISN level with local input to address regional and local veterans needs. That being said, I would be happy to work with the gentleman in communicating his very real concerns to the VA.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), as we have discussed personally and in many a way she has attempted to bring this item to my attention, it indeed is our intention to address this question in the conference. We are going to do everything we can to not only recognize the importance but to assist the gentlewoman and her district as well.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield whatever time she might consume, within limits, to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 4194, and that I be permitted to include tables and charts and other extraneous material.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for the Members who are present to know that our bill will be taken up one more time on Tuesday of the coming week. Further discussion regarding matters that relate to the bill will be taking place at that time in case there are those present who might have been expecting some further activity on the part of the committee this afternoon. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, we will do everything we can to ensure that EPA is not permitted to exceed the scope of its current authorized activities. I might add that we have made serious effort to put pressure on EPA in a number of other areas, and they are not always as responsive as I might like.