Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the relationship between air quality problems and its impact upon people's health is fundamental to all of these efforts. The situation you describe certainly seems to fall within EPA's particular expertise, and again, I join the gentleman in encouraging EPA to review this matter and to bring to bear its own expertise and resources along with the expertise resources of the State and the local governments.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from New York I say that these types of local problems must be addressed, and EPA can offer particular expertise and guidance in providing solutions. I strongly urge, EPA to continue to work closely with him, as well as with State and local officials, to resolve this problem as quickly as practicable.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would be happy to work with the gentleman to incorporate into the conference report a clarification of the committee's intent.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is the committee's intent to allow for section 314 projects under the Clean Water Act to be funded with the $100 million designated for the Clean Lakes Program. In fact, the State is authorized to use any portion of the $100 million under the State and tribal grants heading for section 314 projects. It is vital that we allow States to set their own priorities for specific lake water projects and, in fact, last year we granted States the flexibility to set their own priorities for pollution control projects most critical to that individual State.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the National Research Council that the program is scientifically sound. I believe that we need Mission to Planet Earth to provide us with better scientific understanding of global climate change. I believe that this remote sensing data will help regulatory agencies make sound, scientifically based risk assessments. As I stated earlier, I support Mission to Planet Earth, and I will keep this program in the forefront of my mind when we go to conference with the Senate. I commend the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and many others on both sides of the aisle for their work in support of Mission to Planet Earth.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the NRC that the program's first group of components should not be delayed. Neither this bill nor its accompanying report instructs NASA to terminate or delay these very important missions.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentlewoman will yield, first I appreciate the gentlewoman raising this subject. I am indeed aware of the National Research Council's recommendation which states that the program requires an adequate and stable level of funding. I would like to ensure the gentlewoman and the House that I agree with this recommendation and believe that Mission to Planet Earth must have sufficient fiscal year 1997 funds to succeed. As the gentlewoman knows, there is strong bipartisan support for Mission to Planet Earth and its programs in the Senate. When we go to conference with the Senate on the VA-HUD bill, I expect to spend a lot of time dealing with this program.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest of opposition to the gentleman's amendment. We all know the potential impact of across-the-board cuts, but this 1.9-percent cut indeed could be devastating to this very delicately developed bill. Let me tell the Members what this amendment would do. For those of us who care about VA medical care, this across-the-board cut would impact those programs by no less than $323 million, a minor little cut in VA medical care that we fought so hard today to increase by $40 million. Under those circumstances, that would mean that thousands of veterans would not be able to receive inpatient medical treatment and thousands would not receive their outpatient care. It also would cut $124 million from EPA, $375 million from our housing programs, $258 million from NASA, and $62 million from the National Science Foundation. Mr. Chairman, I think most around here know that this subcommittee has done very diligent work in an attempt to reduce the rate of growth of government. We made by far the largest contribution to those reductions we are looking toward as we move in the direction of a balanced budget by 2002. We are not in that process, though, interested in destroying these programs and particularly undermining our ability to deliver the services out there to people in communities that we all really care about and really need many of those services. So while I know my colleague from Minnesota is sincere in his efforts to cut the budget, we believe we have done the job in as balanced a manner within the committee as possible, and we urge a very strong ``no'' vote on this across-the-board cut.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump].

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am very impressed by the presentation by my colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Gutknecht. And to paraphrase his grandmother, I would say, ``If you do not always do what you have always done, you are not going to get what you always got.'' The objective of the gentleman is not different than our mutual effort to eliminate the deficit. The subcommittee takes this work very seriously. It is very important for all of us to know that the House, particularly this Member, as well as the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] are committed to changing the pattern of spending that have been a part of our past. But that does not mean that we have to overnight tear the heart out of important programs or undermine very carefully crafted efforts to move in the direction of reducing all traditional patterns of spending. What we are about here, in all of these efforts, is to reduce the rate of growth of our government. We all recognize that there are other elements to the government process than just spending. There are growth opportunities in terms of our economy. The taxing system is producing more revenues. Indeed, over time, as we reduce the pattern of spending and the revenues grow, we get to 2002 and we have a balanced budget. That is our objective. The time we suggest that the way to solve the budget is to cut every program, eliminate programs that are very important to people, is the time we have a counterrevolution. That could lead to real disaster in terms of our economy. We are attempting to make sense out of this process in this bill. So far, through the rescission process, the 1996 bill this year, this subcommittee will have passed over $17 billion of reduced spending, a significant shift in pattern for this subcommittee. I tell the author of this amendment, as I oppose the amendment and ask that the Members vote ``no,'' I tell the author that I too am committed to balancing this budget. I am a absolutely convinced we are on a pathway to help with that, especially in terms of discretionary spending.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise really to discuss the remaining business, briefly, to give Members a sense for the time that we may have left. If you would like to discuss the time that we have left, I would be glad to try. Before we get to that point, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I have talked a lot about this new environment between both sides on this appropriations bill, of which we are very appreciative. I must say that there is one more item that has added greatly to the work that we have done and facilitated the process as much as possible in this environment. I hope the Members will express their appreciation for a very, very fine job of chairing this committee during this very difficult process by the gentleman from Texas. At this point, we are aware of just five more amendments. We understand the sponsors will agree to a time agreement as follows: One amendment each for the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller], the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton], and the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], and each amendment will be considered for 10 minutes equally divided, 5 minutes on each side for each amendment, and we could take less than that, by the way.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I listened to my colleague who presents this amendment with great care. I know that one of his very serious priorities is that of addressing the question of NASA's work in space. I must express my appreciation to him this year for not presenting his amendment to eliminate the space station, which has been kind of a consistent pattern. Monkeys in space is probably a better subject, but I would urge my colleagues to focus just for a moment upon the very fine words of my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the former chairman of the Committee on Science. We all know that with the time that men have spent in space up to this point, there are a number of serious difficulties and questions we have relative to their potential impact upon the health of those men and women who will spend lots of time in space in the future. That is what the space station is about. It is a significant piece of our commitment to NASA's work; it is a very important part of our leadership in the future. The fact that we are involved in this kind of work with Russia and other of our allies relates very much to that partnership that itself interrelates to space station. So one more time, I appreciate the gentleman not presenting an amendment that would eliminate space station. But the more we can undermine our effectiveness in dealing with human space flight, the better, I would suppose. In this case we are talking about first a very short-term experiment that did send monkeys into space with measuring devices. After gathering that data along with a lot of other data, we have a process whereby there is a panel of experts who will review all of that data and suggest where we can go with the next step to make certain that we are taking every precaution that saves human lives as they participate in our work in space. It is simple to laugh at something like this, especially if you do not care about the program. It is easy to joke about Russia, I suppose, if you do not care about those international partnerships. But indeed this is not a laughing matter. We are talking about one of America's very, very future programs dealing with our future horizon. We should lay the foundation to make certain that we are doing everything to protect those men and women who will participate on behalf of American interests. I believe in the most sincere and strongest terms that I would urge Members to reject this amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise very reluctantly to suggest to the gentlewoman that while I oppose this amendment, I do so with great sensitivity to not only the problem that she is concerned about but the difficulty we have relative to some of our most important housing programs that need to be taken care of by way of the authorizing process. There is little question that we have difficulty with public housing across the country that has been long neglected, where buildings are boarded up, and on the other hand we have a shortage of housing availability for people who have stopped becoming part of lists because the list are too long, as you have suggested. I am very empathetic to that problem, but I am afraid your amendment, as I can best interpret it, might very well find ourselves moving back in the direction of the one-to-one replacement policy position that we just moved aside or tried to set aside or get rid of. One-to-one replacement in the past simply said that if we were to eliminate or tear down a dilapidated public housing unit that we had to replace it with another unit. What really happened, because there was no funding available, is that led to a scourge across the country with public housing having a blight placed upon it as people looked at boarded-up facilities and wondered what are these people doing? So we are attempting to move in a direction that makes some sense. My colleague, at the same time, is faced with a very real shortage problem in her community, as I am in my community. It is a problem that we have to deal with. It is a problem that potentially could lead to a lot of expenditure, and frankly, I think it has higher priority than some of our other expenditures. But within this bill at this point in time, frankly we are not in a position to effectively implement that which my colleague is suggesting because of its policy implications. It needs to go before the policy committee, and while I know that the gentlewoman is going to withdraw her amendment, and I appreciate that, it is important for the gentlewoman to know that at this point in time, we need to work together with the policy and authorizing committee people as well.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman and I discussed this earlier, and she has been very, very sensitive about the time problem we have this evening. Absolutely I commit that we will continue this dialogue. It is very important that the gentlewoman and I and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and the authorizers work together, for this ought to have a different priority in terms of funding that eventually works its way through appropriations bills and it has in the past. I very much appreciate the gentlewoman's bringing this to our attention.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I know of no other amendments to the bill.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York.