Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, following the comments of my colleague, the gentleman from California, George Brown, I would like to repeat one of the points that he made. The National Science Foundation's operating expenses are approximately 4 percent of the agency's budget. That is a figure that compares quite favorably with the 10 percent in overhead costs, which is the norm for nonprofit research foundations. Beyond that, it probably competes very well with a broad cross-section of other Federal Government programs as well as agencies. The argument that taking this action merely reflects the actions planned for fiscal year 1998 by the administration is sending the wrong message is it relates to these percentages. Congress has already supported the Foundation and its efforts to promote sound science research. We should take this opportunity to show that we continue to support the Foundation and will not let the administration compromise the operations of the agency by reducing its capacity to conduct merit- based reviews of proposals prior to awarding grants. Fundamental to the merit-based review process is an adequate staff to prepare documents and abstracts for use by peer panels. Reducing the staff by up to 10 percent, as is likely under this proposal, would hinder the operations of the organization and place the peer review process in jeopardy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we have learned over time that when we present an amendment or a bill on the floor that involves funding for veterans medical care, the House is going to pass that amendment regardless of what the amendment does. As we have gone through this process over the last year-and-a-half, every one of the accounts in this bill have been asked to reduce their rates of growth. But every time we have had a discussion relative to restraining areas of growth in the veterans accounts, to say the least, the House has indicated that, these programs are a sacred cow to Members on both sides of the aisle This Member has spent a great deal of time since assuming this chairmanship attempting to evaluate the past history of veterans programs, what the veterans authorizing committee has done for veterans, and the responses of the Committee on Appropriations. The one thing that I would like to suggest to the membership as well as to others who are listening, it is most disconcerting to me that we seem to be very proud of the funding levels provided to veteran programs. We pound our chests and tell our constituents how great we are, and yet seemingly, many of us have failed to try to measure effectively how these funds are being used out there in the hospitals where the veterans are supposedly being served. I must tell you, we treat veterans like sacred cows on the House floor and sometimes they are treated like cattle out there where the service is delivered, and it is time that we changed that, and the authorizing committees as well as the appropriations committees should take a serious look at the way these services are being delivered. Oh, we are so proud, but I must say, I know of a veteran who slept in the hall of a hospital for 2 weeks in Los Angeles recently because he was just being ignored, despite the money that was provided. These stories drive this Member nuts. In the meantime, I must suggest that we do none of these things without pain. This account has been treated differently than any other within our entire bill. And with this amendment, we go beyond the President's request which is already an increase of $444 million, and add another $40 million. But we take it from other accounts. Each of you have an interest in these accounts, so you should know exactly what this amendment does. It reduces $79 million from HUD housing; that is, aged housing, disabled people, and the poorest of the poor. It reduces $26 million from EPA, $54 million from NASA. It is a 0.4 percent across-the-board cut. Well, frankly, that is easy to do. You say it is a small amount, but every account should give, except very select accounts. I would suggest to the Members that this across-the-board cut jeopardizes the amendment in the long term, for I believe the other body will look somewhat askance at this action. Indeed, the question of this general funding will be seriously attended to in the conference committee. So while I have suggested to the authorizing committee I had other sources in mind to increase this account, they chose an across-the- board cut. I think the general membership should know that the authorizing committee chose this action rather than other specific tradeoffs that were feasible offsets.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I just want to say that from the perspective of the majority, and I believe the minority, it is our intention to accept this amendment and clearly it would receive a positive vote. I would just as soon not take too much time of the House as we go through these votes.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment on page 67, a portion of the bill not yet read.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am tempted to lightly say we are just looking for some rain. amendment offered by mr. lewis of california

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take 5 minutes of the time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have not made up my mind.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LEWIS of California. The logic is that if that should pass, there is not a need for a lot of other amendments.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, it is a matter of other business taking place around the Capitol that is very important now. If we have a series of votes now, that will not help that process, so we are going to delay the vote on this and the gentleman's amendment will follow.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues, I must say that this is the first occasion, at least in my recollection, that I have seen the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] present an amendment on the floor, at least on one of my bills. I must say, as I was watching him make that presentation, he reminded me of one of my brothers, and I wondered what he was doing here, a younger brother, I might mention, Mr. Hostettler. Unfortunately, for that and other reasons, I rise reluctantly to oppose the amendment by my colleague. I do realize that not all the Members of the House support the AmeriCorps program. There are a couple of other potential amendments that would impact funding of the corporation as well. I know that Members may differ as to why they do not support the AmeriCorps program. I personally have felt from our first involvement in this program that we needed to carefully evaluate its effectiveness. We are in the midst of trying to continue to move forward on that evaluation at this very moment. I believe the program has merit and deserves a chance to prove itself. I am also very sensitive to some of the questions that have been raised by my colleague. He particularly mentioned one that involved campaign activity, which I must say, if it did actually take place, would be against the law. I am sure the corporation is not advocating that sort of activity. However, some young person could have found themselves in excess, and we want to review that sort of activity with great care. As stated in a committee report, there is need for a further independent evaluation of this program. But lack of further evaluation does not warrant eliminating the program, at least at this point. I also believe that Senator Wofford, who is making beneficial modifications to the program, has provided a good deal of energy and time, not just working on the program, but communicating to us about his efforts. Zeroing out the funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service simply ignores the experience of this past year. There is no way that I can see where this bill can be signed into law without funding for the corporation. I mean it made the bill veto bait doing the fiscal year 1996 debate. So let me suggest to my colleagues that there are two points here. First, the House has been very responsive to the work of the committee dealing with a very, very difficult series of Federal responsibilities, balancing one program or agency against another. At this point in time, I don't believe that we should inject an item that would very likely lead to a veto of all this work. It does not matter to me specifically in terms of the level of funding, but indeed to zero out the program would help none of us in the final analysis. We have been down this road before; I do not wish and do not believe the leadership wants to have last year's fight all over again. Mr. Stokes and I both want this bill to be signed. I think it is a bill the President will be able to sign when we get through the conference, and so I urge the Members on that basis and others to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, I can say to the gentleman we have had a very thorough discussion in our full committee and here on the House floor. There is no question that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has a serious point that he wants to make. He has made that point very well. Between now and conference, there is not any question that we will continue to consider the result of this and it will be discussed thoroughly in conference.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LEWIS of California. We will try to see if we can get him to yield.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the request is 20 minutes on each side.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, there has been a bit of discussion on both sides regarding the question of time limitation earlier, and, as I understand it, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] are in agreement separately to have 20 minutes on each side on this amendment. Presuming that, I ask unanimous consent to limit the time to 40 minutes, 20 minutes on each side.