Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in responding to my colleague's closing remarks, I would say one more time, it was a great pleasure to work throughout this year with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] as well as our colleagues on the subcommittee to produce this conference report, but especially our friendship makes it all the better. I look forward to working with the gentleman in the years ahead. I am also happy to announce that earlier this evening this conference report was deemed passed upon receipt from the House by the other body, thus assuring a swift movement of the bill to the President. We are highly confident it will receive his signature within the next several days. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I am very proud of the work of this subcommittee, not only as reflected in the conference report before us, but throughout the 104th Congress. When we total up that effort, including the rescission bill of 1995, the appropriations product of last session and the bill before us tonight, this subcommittee has reduced spending a grand total of some $18 billion. That is almost $20 billion in reduced levels of spending that significantly impact the rate of growth of Government. That, Mr. Speaker, gives us reason to be proud, for we have proven that the pathway to a balanced budget does not, I repeat, does not, mean the undermining of important people programs along the road. As we have reduced spending wish-lists some $20 billion, we have still very adequately funded programs for America's veterans; we have begun to make sense out of the Federal housing programs, while funding housing for aged and disabled above the President's request; we have supported efforts in space, giving priority to scientific research; and been very generous with the Environmental Protection Agency. At the same time, we have made by far the largest commitment to a balanced budget by reducing discretionary spending throughout the last year and a half. This committee has reduced spending more than any other committee in the House. I congratulate my committee member, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report as we continue together down the roadway to a balanced budget by the year 2002.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. That is correct; is it not.

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

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 H.R. 3666, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in making an effort to conclude this discussion, I just wanted to mention for the record that the motion to instruct is quite unusual. It involves three areas that are really new to this subcommittee, areas that really do not involve our field of jurisdiction. They were included because it is an election year and these items are of concern to many groups out there, and it does sound like good policy. The public should know that if these provisions become law, there are very significant implications in terms of the premiums that consumers and businesses would have to pay across the country to meet this new mandate from the Federal Government. Uncle Sam is not giving us anything for free in this process. Having said that, I do know a little bit about some of this subject area because of my own professional background in the life and health insurance business. I am very disconcerted that we would even be considering these measures in this form without giving them the kind of serious hearings by committees of jurisdictions that they truly deserve. My colleague from California who spoke earlier, Henry Waxman, and I have worked together for many, many a year. He is a very talented Member, without a doubt. Yet over the years when he was the chairman of the subcommittee that did have responsibility in these areas, I did not see measures coming forth from that subcommittee reflecting those expressions that we heard today on the floor. Indeed, it is very close to election, only 8 weeks away. At this point in time, I believe, as the House votes on this, all the Members will understand that we will go to conference on these issues that are not under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. General Leave

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, but I will yield myself 2 minutes by way of closing to make a minor point. Mr. Speaker, I think the House should know that this motion to instruct does involve a number of very important policy areas, instructing the House to take action as conferees dealing with the other body. In the area of mental parity, for example, there are some very real costs that are involved. While in the 1997 year those costs are difficult to measure over a period of 5 years, there will be an absolute cost of somewhere near 550 millions of dollars. That would be a cost obligation extended forward without any discussions at the authorizing committee level, and without any real debate or light of day in terms of the pros and cons related to that very important subject area. As we deal with questions that relate to the newborn, a similar problem. These are issues that through the appropriate authorizing committees could very well have been discussed thoroughly. But suddenly in this motion to instruct we have a package here that, over time, is going to cost a minimum of $110 million. We have identified ways to pay for it without any kind of thorough review. One of the suggestions, as indicated by the other body, is that we might sell Governor's Island, a little spot in New York that is of interest to some of my colleagues. I am not sure if the Members who have had the Governor's Island near their territory have been consulted at all. I think probably not. My colleague, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], indicated to me that there had been very little consultation as far as she personally is concerned. I understand Governor's Island may be in another Member's district. If I asked him, I am sure he was not consulted about that transfer. Further, there is another little item that makes up a big part of that package. We are going to sell the airspace rights above Union Station as a mechanism for providing funding for this new solution that the House must face as we try to conclude this bill that is the only train leaving town. It is not the way to carry forward our business, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I do not feel obligated to follow the letter of this procedural motion, as this chairman goes forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself whatever additional time I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I think most Members who are focusing at all upon this discussion know full well that these riders that are being proposed by way of this motion to instruct are items that on the surface look very, very appealing. There is little doubt that it would be foolish of any of us to suggest that Members ought to walk in here and vote knee-jerk, or otherwise, against this proposal. Having said that, I think the public would be misinformed if they thought this appropriations committee of our authorizing committees of jurisdiction had reviewed these issues, held hearings effectively on these issues and really provided the kind of input that the legislative process ought to included. One more time we are asked to support riders at the last moment, and I want the Speaker and my colleagues to know that as I go to conference I will weigh very carefully the amount of input that we have received from those Members who have responsibilities of jurisdiction. By no way, shape or form does this reflect what I consider to be an obligation on my part to respond positively to these last-minute considerations, which fall well outside my jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and they are very helpful comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3666) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but respond or react to my colleague's comments regarding these very, very important matters that now, by way of a motion to instruct, will be directed toward the conference on that bill that has to do with the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing, NASA, EPA, not health care. The gentleman has indicated that this may very well be one of the few trains to leave town and, therefore, these items of great importance ought to be attached to this package just because there will be no other chance. I wanted to be very clear, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first time, that the chairman of the subcommittee has had a chance to even take a look at these items. They address subject areas that are very, very important, but they are subject areas that are not germane to our bill. They are subject areas that, indeed, deserve the light of day that normally would involve our legislative hearing process. They are very important items to the consumers who might be impacted by these items if they should eventually become a permanent part of this bill and have it be signed into law. Just to make a specific point regarding the three items, if one would just address oneself to the 48-hour notice regarding that which should be required of health insurance that is available to people in the consuming public. Essentially this instruction would tell the conferees by way of the House that we should include a requirement of a 48-hour notice within our bill as it goes to the President's desk. Frankly, there are lots of pros and cons to that issue. But indeed I am not sure the American public is ready to receive this issue in this form. Average families out there, after the fact, are going to realize that suddenly there is a new premium added to their insurance contracts because of some action arbitrarily taken by the House, taken by the House without any notice to them, taken by the House without any indication as to how that will impact their future health care circumstances. Indeed, just before we broke for the recess, we had a health care package move forward from the House to the President. That package did not include this 48-hour notice item. Indeed it was much too controversial for the authorizing committees to deal with at the time. So as of this moment, we are about to put them into this train that is leaving town without our knowing whether the arguments in favor weigh on that side or the arguments against weigh on the other side. It is exactly how we should not be handling appropriations bills. I must say that I am tempted to talk with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], my dear friend from Ohio, and ask him in great detail about spina bifida and about mental health parity, but frankly he and I, even in our own subcommittee discussions where we talk off the record, have not had a chance to discuss these matters. Mr. Speaker, I presume he like myself, even though I spent a lot of years in the health insurance business, does not presume expertise in these technical policy areas. This is absolutely the wrong way to legislate, at the wrong time, in an environment that will create problems that we are going to have to live with ourselves in the months and years ahead, and the public at the other end will be scratching their heads and saying is this what we sent them up there to do?

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention the fine work and outstanding public service of the U.S. Forest Service as it prepares to open the long anticipated Grassy Hollow Visitor Center on California's Angeles National Forest, Valyermo Ranger District. Under the leadership of U.S. Forest Service district ranger Bill Helin, the visitor center will open at a public ceremony on August 17. The grand opening of Grassy Hollow Visitor Center represents an innovative approach to the management of our natural resources. Recently passed legislation enables national forests to operate facilities largely as a business, reinvesting revenues directly to the specific site generating those revenues. This type of management is attributed largely to unique community-based partnerships involving the Forest Service and local citizen groups in the area. This is an indication that the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well at the Forest Service. Like other similar facilities, the Grassy Hollow Visitor Center will be a gateway to our local national forest. More than providing information to the general public and our youth, this center will share tenets of responsible land stewardship which is vital to the long-term viability of our local natural resources. Mr. Speaker, as competition for Federal dollars becomes more intense over time, the management of the Grassy Hollow Visitor Center provides a model to be emulated across the country. I commend Bill Helin for his leadership in promoting local partnerships and the conservation of our natural resources. It is only appropriate that the House recognize Grassy Hollow Visitor Center as it opens its doors for the first time on August 17.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, one of my great frustrations is that over the years I have felt that those of us who live in southern California indeed should learn and read and write and speak Spanish. Unfortunately, we have not accomplished that. Nonetheless, it was 40 years ago that I first got to know a gentleman who knows more about language than anybody I know in public affairs. A professor by the name of S.I. Hayakawa, an expert in general semantics talked of the importance of language as a unifier of people. Years later the then Senator `Sam' Hayakawa sponsored legislation similar to that before us today. The first Member of the House to bring this matter to my attention, our friend Bill Emerson, gave the highest priority to English serving to unify us by its designation as the country's official language. I urge you to support H.R. 123, and as you do so, keep in memory our colleague and friend, Bill Emerson.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Speaker, responding to the gentleman from California, this bill is designed to add additional land to the Manzanar Historic Site. I think the House knows that that was a major location whereby Americans of Japanese descent were interned during World War II, and it is combined with a rather fantastic environmental project taking place between the country of Inyo and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further under his reservation, I must say I very much appreciate the cooperation of my colleague from California as well, all of my colleagues from California. This is a very important measure.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today to pay tribute to some of the finest journalists I know--men and women from the San Bernardino County Sun newspaper in my hometown of San Bernardino, CA. These talented professionals have achieved distinction in their field and have been recently recognized as some of the most talented journalists in our country by Gannett News Service. The San Bernardino County Sun, under the stewardship of editor Arne Garson, was named a gold medal winner and a finalist for the outstanding achievement award for best news performance. Garson, for whom I have tremendous admiration and respect, was also selected as a finalist in the editor of the year category. A number of fine journalists from the Sun were also recognized in a variety of categories: Mark Muckenfuss for investigative reporting; Cassie MacDuff, Michael Diamond, and John Whitehair for business and consumer reporting; Mickey Enkoji for feature writing; and Mark Zaleski for color photography. All of these professionals were selected as among the best journalists in the country by a respected panel of their peers. Mr. Speaker, once again the San Bernardino County Sun has distinguished itself as one of the best newspapers in the United States. I ask that you join me and our colleagues today in recognizing Arne Garson and his fine staff at the Sun for their continuing commitment to excellence in journalism.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention the fine work and outstanding achievements of Dr. C. Kumar N. Patel, the vice chancellor of research and a professor of physics, chemistry, and electrical engineering at UCLA. Dr. Patel has been awarded the 1996 National Medal of Science, America's highest scientific honor, by President Clinton. The National Medal of Science recognizes Dr. Patel's leadership and innovative contributions to science for the betterment of society. In announcing his selection, the White House noted Patel's invention of the carbon dioxide laser, which the White House described as a ``major scientific and technological breakthrough which continues to be an important tool in manufacturing, medical treatment, scientific investigations, and materials processing.'' Dr. Patel, who holds 35 major scientific patents, came to UCLA after 32 years at AT&T Bell Laboratories. Among his many achievements, he has made significant research contributions in the fields of gas lasers, nonlinear optics, molecular spectroscopy, pollution detection, and laser surgery. He maintains active research in the spectroscopy of highly transparent liquids and soils, and surgical, medical, and industrial applications of carbon dioxide and other high power gas lasers. After beginning his career at AT&T Bell Laboratories in 1961, Dr. Patel became head of the Bell Laboratories Infrared Physics and Electronics Research Department in 1967 and director of the Electronics Research Laboratory in 1970. He became director of the Physical Research Laboratory in 1976, and executive director of the Research, Physics, and Academic Affairs Division in 1981. In 1987, he became executive director of the Research, Materials Science, Engineering, and Academic Affairs Division. Dr. Patel came to UCLA in 1992 and was touted by the UCLA search committee as ``one of the most extraordinary scientists in America.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me and our colleagues in congratulating Dr. Patel for his leadership and commitment to the advancement of science. It is only fitting that the House pay tribute to this outstanding National Medal of Science recipient.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the only reservation that I would have raised if I had an opportunity to raise a reservation was that one of these amendments apparently has a very significant impact upon the conference members who have not had an opportunity to discuss this in conference, and there are a number who feel very strongly they need an opportunity to discuss it with their leadership before they have this vote on the floor. If we now have the vote, we will go, but the leadership should hear from them before they have such a discussion.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding me the time for just a moment. I must say that the courage my colleague is demonstrating here is very important for the House to note. I am not surprised that our new Members are here opposing even a cost-of-living adjustment, for they have not been through the process of compromise and very, very difficult effort that was put together to make sense out of Members having to vote one way or another on their own pay. But I can tell my colleagues what they do not realize is that they really are cutting off the future opportunity of their families to have a decent standard of living over a significant period of time as they serve in the House. Above and beyond that, I think it is very fundamental for us all to understand this is a leadership issue. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] rose and spoke on this issue on the floor, the only Member of the leadership. The members need from time to time to be protected against themselves. Indeed, even the author of this amendment did not know the other day that we had not had a cost-of-living adjustment for 4 years in a row with this amendment. He was unaware of the impact that this is already having upon families across the place. Indeed we are leaving the House to people who are either born with a silver spoon in their mouth and they have got their own millions or people who could not get better jobs in the first place. That is not the direction the House needs to go in. I urge the Members to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention and submit for the Record a letter I recently received from Henry Chrystie of Yucaipa, CA, that raises some intriguing ideas and questions relating to the challenges mankind will face in the future. As Congress strives to make wise and prudent decisions to guide our country, Mr. Chrystie's thoughts will give all of us a little more to think about. To the powers that be. Ever since I was 14, in 1927, I have understood that, in my lifetime, men would be on the Moon and Mars, and I knew how it was going to be done. I now understand why. It is because we humans are expanding our population at such a rapid rate that in the future we are going to be hard pressed to provide space and food for ourselves. We will convert sea water, and we will convert the deserts to provide more livable land. We will also get into some real knockdown drag-out fights over who has what. We will wish we had laid the groundwork for the human race to expand outward toward the universe, which is our destiny. This is the massive problem we will be forced to face. If this sounds dire, then show me that I am wrong. It takes a lot of foresight to be in a position of responsibility, such as a Congressperson. Some of you have it but, unfortunately, some of you do not. You killed the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence even though any mathematician knows that it has to be out there because of the huge numbers that establish that probability. Now you seek to cut off funds, such as to NASA, etc. because you don't seem to understand how important long-range research and planning is. Are we going to stall around until we are in a real bind, or are we going to continue our long-range research and studies so that we will be able to cope with our needs as they develop? It is up to you, the powers that be, to very carefully consider this problem because the future of the worlds' population is in your hands. I for one, hope you have the brains to make the right decisions. All I can say to you is--think--very carefully. You must continue to support NASA, Mars Surveyor, Galileo, New Millenium, and related activities.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I do, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as all my colleagues know, as a result of these last couple of days this is a very important, a very interesting, a very complex bill. To say the least, it is a difficult bill with many a compromise, an attempt to balance and measure and weigh carefully that which makes good sense for all those who care about the subject areas of this legislation. In the discussion that we had earlier regarding the AmeriCorps program, we did essentially come to an agreement within the House that involved an amendment that raided the Hostettler amendment. We left a minimum basic level for AmeriCorps in the bill as a result of that amendment, and indeed it was our understanding that we would work with that as we move towards the conference, and it relates to a lot of the rest of the bill. Later an amendment came to us that was not one that we had talked about before or had any in-depth discussion, but it was an amendment heartfelt but also that put this program against veterans' programs, and my colleagues know we discussed what we do with those programs. So we kind of reversed ourselves there, and this motion to recommit is essentially to take us back to the position that we were in earlier in terms of our general understanding about this and a lot of another items. So, with that, I know some Members have reservations, but we are in the process of measuring this program carefully, and at this point in time I would strongly urge my colleagues to respond to my ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] who has cooperated in depth in this program, and I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I will even yield that to the gentleman from Ohio, if he would like.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I had not intended that we have this discussion since we were going to accept the amendment. We obviously are going forward with discussion. So I think it is important to say in response to my colleague that EPA is now moving into phase 3 of their implementation of TRI. Part of this phase is the expansion of the TRI to several more industries and hundreds of additional substances. The reporting requirements and cost to business for this will be enormous. However, the committee's action to reduce TRI by $1.5 million was not intended to affect this issue. The reduction was taken to prohibit EPA from moving into the collection of toxic use data which is also part of their phase 3 plans. As we stated in this year's report, in last year's report, and in the 1996 conference report, collection of toxic use data is not authorized by law. The authorizing committees of the House and the Senate agree on this position. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.