Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 3666 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 456, the bill be considered as read; and no amendment be in order except for the following amendments, which shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, and shall be debatable for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and a Member opposed: An amendment offered by Mr. Koble for 60 minutes; An amendment offered by Mr. Gutknecht for 20 minutes; An amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas for 10 minutes; An amendment offered by Mr. Kingston for 10 minutes; An amendment offered by Mr. Markey for 40 minutes; An amendment offered by Mr. Roemer for 20 minutes; An amendment offered by Mr. Weller for 10 minutes; and An amendment offered by Mr. Orton for 10 minutes.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, at this point let me say that we do have a serious problem with PCB's, but also with a number of amendments remaining on this bill. Let me say to the author of the amendment it is my intention to accept the amendment, and we will have some discussion, hopefully between now and the time we go to conference. There are some very serious difficulties remaining for the country, as well as, indeed, the world, but I would suggest that we accept the amendment and see if we can move forward.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate both the gentlemen, particularly the gentleman from Ohio's comments recognizing this difficulty, and it is a policy problem that needs to be approved. I must say that at this point I do not see us dealing with it in a serious way, and I would hope as we go forward here that we do come together and find real solutions.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me suggest to the gentleman, as well as the gentleman who is offering the amendment, that this discussion and this issue reminds me very much of the low-level radioactive waste issue that is facing many of our States currently. Years ago we in the Congress recognized the problem of accumulations of low-level radioactive waste in location after location around the country. So we sort of regionalized it and said that areas or States would create compacts where this could be accumulated. Then when we got to the point where there was such a site located, the local people became involved and nobody wanted something like this in their own backyard. We have a PCB problem that is very real. We have to deal with it. Candidly, we are not going to particularly be successful opposing this amendment at this point, but it certainly is not helping us really get a handle on this important problem. In the final analysis, we have a responsibility to do that.

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 would like to have a discussion with the gentleman in the well.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I was very hesitant to even reserve the point of order relative to the gentlewoman's proposed amendment, largely because I believe her amendment and this discussion is very important. There is not any question that if we do not use the moneys we deliver with priority and properly to serve our Nation's veterans. I think she makes a very, very important point. Since I have had this job, the Department has indicated that they are going to be responsive to our requests for similar prioritization. I would urge the gentlewoman to keep her eye on this target, for it is an important one. I think it is very significant that Members who are not necessarily on this subcommittee put the needle in our side, as well as the Department's side, to make sure that we follow through in this process. So while the gentlewoman suggests she is going to withdraw the amendment, nonetheless she has provided a great service by providing this very important point to us.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I must say to the gentlewoman that I am sure many of her constituents would remember in just as crystal clear a fashion the needs that they had when the disasters faced them personally that involved FEMA's work. And they have been very responsive to Texas. To presume that time and time again we can tap their account without having to pay the price eventually and have dollars not available when another kind of disaster affects either her State or Louisiana or my State of California could be a very big mistake.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] to close.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time or a small piece thereof. First, I very much appreciate my colleague from California having this discussion with us. There is little question of the tremendous contribution that has been made by the American Museum of Natural History in New York and particularly, in this case, its literacy center. As the chairman and our colleagues know, we are committed to making certain that the public have access to that which we develop and learn about as we proceed with our presence in space. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] has suggested that we should not designate this program at this time. He has, in conversation with me, indicated that there is an authorization process potential in the other body. He knows full well that I intend to proceed as best I can as we go to discuss these things with the other body. In the meantime, I have indicated to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] that we are willing at this point to accept his amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I am very concerned that we make certain that we are not adversely affecting one program over another as we proceed in this process. But is has been my understanding that funding as proposed is adequate for indoor air quality. It seems to be pretty clear that there is not a need for an 11- percent increase over the 1996 level. If, in the meantime, we want to make sure that we are providing adequate funding, if we can work together between now and conference, I am sure that we can be assured together that the numbers are correct and get this job done.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to focus just for a moment, for I do not rise in opposition to this amendment. In fact, I intend to suggest to my colleagues that we accept this amendment. However, before doing that, I would like the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] to note that I had the privilege in my past life to serve in the California State legislature as chairman of an air quality subcommittee. There I led the fight of a very, very important and early environmental battle. It led to the creation of the toughest air quality management district in the entire country, one that has served as a model for the country. I know from that experience and others that work on behalf of the environment has absolutely nothing to do with partisan politics. I have heard the gentleman today on the floor consistently inject Republican versus Democrat on issues that are critical to the American people and have nothing to do with politics, especially partisan politics. So, I am very disconcerted by that pattern of the gentleman to try to partisanize almost every issue that comes to the floor. Having said that, we need effective and adequate reporting. There has been dramatic decreases in the problem we are dealing with here, and it is time to consider readjusting. Timing is the question. I would urge the gentleman to restrain himself in terms of creating polarization around here when the environment is best served by our working together and recognizing that we are all concerned about our environment. So, I would suggest to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] that I am willing to accept this amendment, if he feels the same.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] be permitted to offer amendment number 54 on page 64, line 4, a portion of the bill not yet read.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, at the request of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], I ask unanimous consent that the pending demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan be withdrawn.