Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. My colleague from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] suggests that he does not have this amendment to kill the space station or to even do serious damage to manned space flight or serious damage to NASA's mission. Nonetheless, with great consistency my colleague has demonstrated opposition to the fundamental work that NASA is doing and especially man's venture in space. In the past, we have had these discussions within our subcommittee. We have talked a lot on the floor about the difficulty of these competing accounts, having housing competing with money against veterans' medical care and against EPA and, indeed, competing with NASA. When dollars get tighter and tighter, it is extremely tough competition. In the past the committee even made the decision to eliminate a station, for example. What my colleague fails to recognize is the general public knows often a little better than we know, either in committee or on the floor. For when that occurred in the past, literally Members, many of whom were not very active in terms of the committee work here, came to the floor in support of man's mission in space. They provided an amendment on the floor to return money in funding for the space station in the face of committee opposition. The public's will was heard by sizable margins, and moneys were put back into this very bill in order to make sure that we continue with what is a part of the American pioneer spirit. There is no question that the public supports our work of man's presence in space. The gentleman's relatively small amendment would not have very much effect but it would significantly impact the upgrades and maintenance of space shuttle. It would significantly affect the flights of space shuttle. We need to have funds available to make sure as we go forward with this work, we do it with all of the equipment that is necessary.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. chairman, far be it from me to stand and defend the Russians' role in this international partnership. We asked them to participate with us and we sought the partnership as much as anybody. We have allies in Europe who are very much involved and committed to this partnership. Canada, the same. The Russians, for example, do contribute some 250,000 pounds of hardware to this project. That is a lot of rubles. In the meantime, there is not any doubt in my mind that the vision of America of man in space very much is intrigued with man's presence in space by way of a space station. Much of the public support for the work of NASA would indeed be on a very thinly based glacier of ice if it were not for that vision of man in space. Space station is a very important part of our international partnership that affects peace, but it also is fundamental to America's support for this kind of scientific as well as space activity. I urge a very strong no vote to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join in a colloquy with my colleague from Ohio.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my colleague yielding and involving me in this colloquy. I hope my colleagues, know just how intensely the gentleman from Ohio has worked on this matter. Indeed, he has insisted that it be at the top of the subcommittee's priority list. Although there is not a lot of money involved, Mr. Hoke is doing a very effective job of making sure that we focus upon this important question to him and to his district. The committee has been pushing NASA, to take a number of steps to help consolidate programs, to reduce personnel, to emphasize on efficiency in every possible way. the debate last year flowed around the potential of closing entire centers. This was really an effort to get everybody to pay attention to the need for efficiency in NASA and other Federal agencies. In connection with that, NASA is responding to suggest that the aircraft consolidation proposal was a high priority for the agency in its zero-based review plan released in 1995. It is my intent that NASA and the NASA inspector general reach a meeting of the minds so they both would make the same recommendation with respect to these aircraft, regardless of the final finding. The gentleman reports correctly on the preliminary work of the IG. The agency would then review the preliminary report and respond to it. Then the IG will come forth with a final report. I am willing to take a hard look at whatever the recommendation is and hope that we get a unanimous recommendation coming from all the sources involved.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering on behalf of myself and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] is a relatively straightforward amendment and I believe is necessary to address a serious health problem in the Toms River area in the State of New Jersey. This issue was brought to my attention by my very good friend from new Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] and his three distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. It is my understanding that the entire New Jersey delegation representing both sides of the aisle is supporting the intent of this amendment. The amendment will simply add $1,200,000 of excess budget authority available under the committee's 602(b) allocation to the Hazardous Substance Superfund and then stipulate that these funds are to be used by the agency for toxic substance and disease registry to conduct a health effects study of the Toms River cancer cluster. Mr. Chairman, I would note that in the committee report, we stipulate that certain studies be conducted by ATSDR using funds available to them. If we had all the necessary details relative to this matter prior to markup, I am confident that we would have included this provision in the report in a similar manner. It has not been our practice to stipulate these health studies in bill language, nevertheless, I am convinced that the health concerns in the Toms River area are so critical that it is absolutely necessary that we take this unusual action of including specific funds for this health study. I want to mention, Mr. Chairman, that my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], has been very effective in articulating the priority of this manner, and for that reason, not only do I bring it to the House's attention and ask for its support, I know of no opposition to the amendment and know of no other Members who are eager to speak on my side of the question. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I would simply say his understanding is correct.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as you know from previous discussions, as modified by the rule of H.R. 3666, this last proviso is, technically speaking, meaningless. The intent of preappropriating the $861 million contingency on further legislation obviously left open the possibility of the authorizing committee's legislation triggering our preappropriation. Unfortunately, the reinterpretation of what this language should look like to avoid a BA problem has resulted in this required change rendering the whole proviso essentially without any meaning. Neverthless, the proviso still represents a commitment on the part of the committee and the majority to take the necessary appropriation step of providing this $861 million as soon as the program is reformed and reauthorized by the authorizing committees. The money actually awaits in a special seaside in the budget resolution pending this reauthorization. The matter is not all illusory, as opponents would have us believe. The Chairman, the committee stands ready, willing and able to proceed in an appropriations sense. We have been long waiting the reauthorization that would fix this broken program. We have begun a dialog with the administration regarding their suggested intent that they want to fix the program. If we find ourselves at a place where reasonable reauthorization takes place, we intend to fund this effort.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] be permitted to offer amendment number 10 to a portion of the bill not yet read and that the time be limited to 5 minutes on each side.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, even though we have accepted this amendment, let me say to the gentlewoman that my colleagues from New York especially have brought this museum to my attention. Between the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], in whose district this museum is located, they have educated me in a short time. It is a magnificent effort of private funding and the expanding of a very, very important commitment on the part of the people of New York. I am sure we can work with each other and attempt to continue to make progress in the weeks as well as the months ahead.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] that I appreciate her bringing this very important matter to our attention. I agree that it is also very important that chief officers, firefighters who take immediate charge of fires and disasters, receive the training they need to protect both the firefighters under their command and the lives and property of our citizens. I certainly agree that the U.S. Fire Academy should begin to develop a curriculum for this kind of training. Four hundred thousand dollars, it seems to me, even in these difficult times, is a modest price to pay to assure that chief officers are fully prepared when they arrive at the site of disasters, where property damage alone can cost much more than the figure under discussion. I would say to the gentlewoman that I would be glad to work with her to ensure that the conference report directs FEMA to review this matter and to report their findings to the Congress no later than the first of next year. If appropriate, I will strongly urge the U.S. Fire Academy to develop a curriculum for this training and to begin to offer this training program as soon as possible. Our chief fire officers should not be forced to learn the skills needed to take charge of a fire or disaster site on the job. We should assure that they are fully prepared well before they are faced with these circumstances, and I must say I appreciate deeply the gentlewoman bringing this to my attention.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] that I am very aware of this commitment to this project, as well as his concern about environmental matters that affect the country, and especially New York. The gentleman has discussed many such items, including this watershed problem with me in some detail. I very much appreciate the gentleman bringing it to our attention. There is little question that I informed the gentleman that dollars are mighty thin, and we are having great difficulty providing specific funding for individual projects. But between now and the time conference, I think we will better know about the availability of funds. The watershed agreement is, as the gentleman suggested, a model that is widely supported in both Houses of the Congress. The committee and I will do everything possible to seek funding for the project in conference.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] that the citizens of Cataldo sound very much like the citizens of beautiful San Bernardino County. It is a great pleasure for me to enter into this discussion with the gentlewoman. I very much appreciate her bringing to my attention and to the committee's attention this very important issue. As in this case, human lives, property, and an important interstate highway could be protected with a relatively small expenditure. It certainly bears further review. While I am not sure if allocating these funds is within FEMA's authority, some people are trying to limit the authority of my subcommittee. In the meantime, it very much involves serious potential property damage and threat to human life. I will examine the possibility and try to help exercise every option we have available.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields]. The amendment, as he has said, would add $178.5 million to the Corporation for National and Community Service, with an offset in the FEMA disaster relief account. The difficulty with this is obvious to those members who have been following the appropriations process. There is a lot of controversy that swirls around this program. There is a need for careful reconsideration as well as evaluation. There are a number of amendments before us that would reduce the spending for AmeriCorps. Recognizing that we will have a number of votes in connection with Americorps funding, the passage of this amendment would be in and of itself a budget-buster. It does not match the outlay requirements and is potentially subject to a point of order. Unfortunately, the offset that is proposed by my colleague, Mr. Fields is FEMA. That is, he suggests we could take this money from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, an account that seems to be everybody's favorite account. FEMA is everybody's favorite account when they have a disaster in their district and their State and they need some help. FEMA is also everybody's favorite account when they see some money sitting there that is not spent yet and they want to tap it for one of their favorite programs that may affect their district or their State. Indeed, when we had our major budget conference in which we put five Appropriations Committee bills together and sent them to the President, there was a need for a big offset, roughly $1 billion. The administration and Congress went to FEMA, took away its money and used it as an offset to fund other spending priorities. Eventually we have got to pay the piper for past and future disasters. FEMA needs these funds. There are disasters and obligations outstanding out there, and indeed America should keep its commitment to those people who faced those disaster circumstances. So because of that, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in order to have a little discussion with the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for just a moment. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much where my colleague is coming from, and I just want to make a couple of points here. First, let me point to the State of Texas, the State of the gentlewoman who just spoke. I want to mention that since 1988 there have been a number of disasters for which we have appropriated and obligated funds. In the State of Texas since that time, there have been 15 major disasters. The total projections of costs are $305,366,000. Of that, $298 million has already been obligated to address very serious problems in which FEMA was asked to respond. In Louisiana there have been eight major disasters, $77,891,000; $62 million of that has been obligated and the balance is in the offing. Very serious needs. Louisiana has not had a major disaster of late, but who knows what happens around the corner. So FEMA becomes the quick whipping boy or the quick source when we have difficult problems in one sense, but then we look to it as a source for our favorite programs as well. Let me suggest to the gentleman that we have just recently had a vote in which we were successful relative to the program for which she seeks to increase funding. We have a number of amendments before us that would reduce that spending. If we go forward with this amendment and have a vote that ends up being in the negative, it could provide considerable incentive in terms of those other amendments that remain before us. So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman to consider that as he decides whether to take this amendment to a vote or not.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do so to announce for my colleagues our plan as to how we are going to proceed. It is my intention to proceed out of order with the Solomon amendment No. 49, then proceed with the regular order of reading. I believe there are only two amendments left in title III. We will then be on title IV, the last title of the bill, and will try to move as quickly as possible on this title. We do have a number of amendments left. if Members would restrain themselves, not just in terms of time but maybe consider eliminating amendments where there is duplication, it would expedite the work of the House. I am sure all our colleagues would appreciate that effort. Amendment Offered by Mr. Solomon

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra]. The amendment would transfer the $30 million earmarked for quality and innovative activities to the $201 million earmarked for AmeriCorps grants. If this amendment is adopted, there would be no need for the series of amendments involving number 16, 17, 19, and 20, because this amendment would terminate all quality and innovative activities. It reduces those accounts further than any of the other amendments. Innovative and demonstration grants help to build the ethic of service among AmeriCorps programs, and persons of every age who participate in the program. Disability grants, these grants assist programs to enroll participants with disabilities and to accommodate their participation. Mr. Chairman, there are people who have questions about AmeriCorps; however, AmeriCorps has not had adequate time to be evaluated. There are some very positive results as well as questions developing on the horizon. I want a bill. Yet, I really believe I will not get a bill signed into law if this amendment and others like it were to be passed. I must say that if we have a bill that does not include quality and innovative grants, I personally would be very disconcerted by this level of funding. Clearly, at a level of $365 million in this total program, there is no reason to add funds for AmeriCorps grants. The various programs are well balanced. So, I would oppose my colleague's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.