Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), from beautiful downtown San Diego and other territory in California. (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my chairman yielding this time to me, and I want to take just a moment to express my personal deep appreciation for the work of both our chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks]. I would further like to say that within this committee the atmosphere of growing almost nonpartisanship is a very refreshing development in the Congress, indeed an area that is so critical to the United States, our intelligence programing, to have people working together in a fashion that recognizes that the importance and strength of the country is what we are about is very, very encouraging to me. I would like to compliment our staff on both sides of the aisle for their very fine work they have done throughout developing this measure. Stepping aside for a moment and reacting to the discussions regarding the DARO and airborne reconnaissance programs, I must say I believe this committee has done a fabulous job over some time at highlighting the importance of these reconnaissance programs, and the work of the DARO is the result of the efforts of this committee, and indeed a great deal of progress we have made in this area is a direct result of the efforts of the committee. And so I am very encouraged by the interest on both sides of the aisle and expect that there is little doubt that we have gotten the attention, the clear attention, of those in DOD that we should have in order to make further progress as we go forward. In the area of keeping us on the cutting edge of technical capabilities which is so important to our intelligence success, I would like to mention just a few things, the first being that investment in satellite systems that utilize cutting-edge technology that are smaller and operationally more flexible, and they can be acquired within greatly reduced time lines, eventually will reduce the overall cost to these programs, and yet they are very, very important programs to us. If we do this correctly, that is by following the pattern of faster, better, cheaper, we certainly will have dividends that in turn can be applied to other areas of significance to our work. I would mention that reinvesting some of those dividends and items that relate to downstream activities, like the processing and exploitation, analysis, as well as dissemination of our products, is a critical part of effective use of intelligence assets. I must say it is one thing to spend a good deal of money developing information; it is another thing to be able to use it in a way that means something to our interests, and those sorts of investments are very important as we go forward with developing more effective intelligence systems as well as programs. Another area is investment in research and development to keep us on that cutting edge. There is not any question in my mind's eye that there is not another area of American Government's work that is more critical than making sure that we are technologically capable and on the edge than in the field of intelligence. America, without any doubt, in this changing world remains the strongest country in the world, indeed the leader and the hope for democratic and free opportunities in the future. No small part of that is because of the work of the intelligence community. We always and often most hear about problems that we may have in our intelligence work because that is when ofttimes those activities and that work becomes public. Very few know about the real successes that have made a difference for freedom throughout the world, and that is the responsibility in no small part of this committee as we carry out our oversight functions, and it is my privilege to participate in the work, the very fine work, of the committee and the leadership of our chairman and our ranking member.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague yielding, and I must say that as Floyd is recognized in a special way by the 31 Members from New York, those of us who make up the 52 Members of California want you all to know that we have not just the greatest respect for the work of Floyd Flake, but most importantly, we feel in our hearts the warmth that goes out to Floyd as he continues his work, for his gentle nature has been felt across the Halls of this House from the day he arrived here. Floyd is one of those very, very special people who cares about people most. Floyd, I want you to know that as you leave this House and take with you our friendship as well as our respect, you also take with you our prayers for your continued good work. I would ask as you go forward in New York that you continue to pray for those of us in this House, for we need the help of you as well as your parishioners. You are a fantastic representative of the best of this country, and God bless you for all that you have done with your life.

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to interrupt the thought of the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], but at this moment she just brought to mind the reality that just a few years ago we had a serious debate on this floor regarding desert lands in the West and some people were suggesting that maybe those lands would not be bad for grazing. There was an amendment on the floor which opposed grazing, which eventually passed. The same two gentlemen on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] strongly opposed the grazing on that land, when it was obvious that not only would it be difficult land for grazing in terms of 20- mile-an-hour grazing, nonetheless, logical use of that land. It was imposed by exactly the same people, who, from what I can tell, want no grazing anywhere, and especially they are ready and willing to hurt the small farmer who is hurt most by the adjustments they are discussing here.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I could not help but react to the remarks of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] regarding the earlier two amendments that were just referenced. Indeed, in that case there was a very strong bipartisan vote in opposition to those amendments. I would hope that the same kind of logic and sense would apply to this amendment and we would get the same kind of bipartisan support.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would respond by saying to my colleague that I very much appreciate his involvement in this critical issue, a critical issue to us, those of us who focus on this problem in the Congress, but to the country as well. Mr. Speaker, I would respond further to the gentleman by saying that I agree that EPA has worked closely with us in developing the particulate matter research program outlined in H.R. 2158. They have pledged to fulfill the requirements in the statement of managers to the best of their ability. I expect them to exercise sound judgment in the distribution of funds and be prepared to reorient certain of their efforts upon completion of the NAS research plan.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, certainly the gentleman is correct. The legislation, in fact, directs EPA to ensure that quality researchers participate in broadly based, comprehensive, competitive, and peer-reviewed research programs. Only when we bring together a diverse community of the best scientific minds on this matter, both inside and outside of government, can we feel assured that science is being used to lay a credible foundation for policy. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman allowing me to participate in this colloquy.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley]. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, that is correct.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would again yield, that is correct.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the language requires that Superfund be reauthorized by May 15, 1998, in order to receive the additional funds. It certainly is my intent that such a reauthorization be comprehensive reform of the Superfund law.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report on H.R. 2158, and that I may include tables, charts and other extraneous materials.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we bring H.R. 2158 to the floor, I would like the Members to know that while this is a very complex bill that involves appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for agencies such as all of our public housing programs, for issues that flow around the Environmental Protection Agency, issues that are very important to the future of our general economy, this very controversial bill comes to us in a circumstance where these agencies are faced with the overall effort to reduce the pattern of growth of spending for the Federal Government. So we are dealing with a shrinking dollar circumstance and very important and competitive programs, and yet this bill comes to us in a way that very much reflects the best of bipartisan work in the House. For that work I want to pay special tribute to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], as well as his very fine staff that has cooperated so much with us in developing this bill. Without their support we would have perhaps a lot of controversy today, but instead I think we have before us truly a model reflecting the way the Committee on Appropriations, working with their authorizing committees, should present bills on the House floor. I think the Members should know that in that environment, so many important issues competing with one another, about 90 to 95 percent of our bill has not been authorized for one reason or another. That is, the authorizing committees have not, over several years in some instances, been able to move bills through the House and the Senate and send those bills to the President's desk for signature. So the bill finds itself in a position where much of the language in the bill reflects some of the priorities of our authorizers as well, as we go about trying to deal with the competition for dollars between these various programs. Let me illustrate just a bit of that for the Members. The fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD bill reaffirms our commitment to serving veterans, protecting the environment, providing housing for the poorest of the poor, and ensuring America's continued leadership in space. In spite of the difficult challenges in putting this conference report together, the final product represents a balance of tough choices as well as common interests. The bill meets the important test of keeping the appropriations process on track to meet the vital objective of attempting to balance the budget shortly after the turn of the century. I might add that since the fiscal year 1995 rescission bill, this subcommittee has saved the American taxpayer nearly $25 billion from the President's request. Yes, I say some $25 billion as we make our contribution to reducing the rate of growth as we go forward with these very important programs. Let me take just a moment to list some of the bill's funding highlights. Within the Department of Veterans Affairs, we have provided a total agency budget of $40.452 billion. We have increased the Medical Care account over the President's request by roughly $100 million to a total of $17.661 billion. That is $648 million over the 1997 level. We have increased the Medical and Prosthetic Research account by $38 million over the President's request to a total of $272 million. Within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, we have provided a total agency budget of $24 billion. Our bill increases housing for the elderly, section 202, by $345 million over the President's request to a total of $645 million. This measure also increases housing for the disabled by $20 million over the President's request to a total of $194 million. We have increased funding for the Community Development Block Grant programs by some $75 million to a total of $4.675 billion. Furthermore, we funded the HOME investment partnership program at $1.5 billion. We also funded the Native American Housing Block Grant program at $600 million. Finally, we provided the funding necessary to renew expiring Section 8 contracts, which have been discussed by more than one of my colleagues today. We have also accomplished a critical goal of both bodies, as well as the administration, by reducing Federal subsidized rent under Section 8 rental assistance programs to more closely resemble market rates. In fiscal year 1998 alone, this provision saves the committee nearly $560 million. Further, it fairly addresses the concerns of residents and taxpayers, as well as building owners who, after all, entered into this partnership with the Federal Government in the first place. Within the Environmental Protection Agency, we have provided a total agency budget of $7.363 billion, an increase of $564 million over the 1997 level. We increased the Superfund program by over $100 million over the 1997 level to nearly $1.5 billion, and provided also $650 million in additional Superfund funding which is subject to the enactment of an authorization bill in the year ahead of us. Further, as a result of recently announced National Ambient Air Quality Standards, we have provided $49.6 million for particulate matter research, as an underpinning to try to make sense out of those standards and the impact they may very well have over time on our economy. We have funded State and Tribal Assistance Grants at $3.2 billion. This represents a $300 million increase over fiscal year 1997 levels for important Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water programs. Within the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, we have provided a total agency budget of $13.648 billion. This amount includes $5.5 billion for the Human Space Flight account, $5.69 billion for the Science, Aeronautics, and Technology account, and nearly $2.4 billion for Mission Support. We have provided the National Science Foundation with a total agency budget of $3.429 billion. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has been funded at $829 million, including $320 million for the Disaster Relief account in that package. In closing, I want to express one more time my thanks to my ranking member and good friend for continuing to work in a spirit of bipartisanship and goodwill on this very important measure. Over the last several years the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I have worked very closely together in the finest tradition of the Committee on Appropriations, and I am grateful to him for that. I also want to thank and commend our very capable staff, beginning with Mr. Del Davis, who has been of great assistance to Mr. Stokes; to Dave Reich as well, Fredette West, Frank Cushing, Paul Thomson, Tim Peterson, Valerie Baldwin, Rose Roberts, a detailee who is spending time with us and carrying on very important assistance, Alex Heslop, Dave LesStrang and Jeff Shockey for their hard work and long hours in putting this diverse and complex bill together. Mr. Speaker, I wish to note that within the Statement of Managers there are a few corrections that we want to clarify at this point, before I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], if my colleagues will be patient with me. I wish to note that there are certain items contained within the Statement of Managers that were either printing errors or were inadvertently left out of the final draft. Regarding particulate matter research under the EPA's Science and Technology account: on page 114 of the Conference Report and Statement of Managers, in the fourth line on the last paragraph, the word ``near'' should be included so the sentence would read, ``Initiate key near-term research.'' Regarding section 107 grants under Housing and Urban Development, the conferees included some $32 million. However, the breakdown of the funding levels was inadvertently omitted from the Statement of Managers. The breakdown is as follows: $4 million for technical assistance, $6.5 million for Community Development Work Study, with a $3 million set-aside for Hispanic-serving institutions; $500,000 for the National Center for Revitalization of Central Cities; $7.5 million for the Community Outreach Partnership program; $7 million for Insular Areas; and $6.5 million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Regarding Economic Development projects also under HUD, the fourth item down on page 96 of the Statement of Managers should be in the town of Arab, Alabama, not Arab, Illinois. Regarding including the Hazardous Substance Superfund under EPA, the conferees failed to note in the Statement of Managers that $2.5 million is to be made available for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center. Regarding NASA's Science, Aeronautics and Technology account list of projects on page 132, the Statement of Managers should include the following, which were inadvertently omitted: $2 million for the Bishop Museum in Honolulu, Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I include charts and graphs pertaining to my statement at this time in the Record: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08OC97.000 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08OC97.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08OC97.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08OC97.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08OC97.004

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a member of the committee, for his statement and a colloquy.