Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for raising the question. We mentioned it earlier. It is very important that Members know that we will be trying to structure votes so that there will be free time between 2 and 4 for the Korean Memorial ceremony.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, there is no problem with that on this side at all. I expect that we may have a series of amendments, five or six or seven, some of which will not request votes, and if there are three or four, I think that is very workable.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would be happy to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman.

Mr. LEWIS of California. It is a pleasure doing business with the gentleman.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I appreciate very much the clarification of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] of the facts involved in this circumstance. I understand the complexities involved with international wastewater cleanups. I agree with the gentleman that the EPA's action in this instance was in the best interests of the residents not only of his district but of our State. I look forward to finding a long-term solution to the New River problem. I expect any future actions by the EPA to continue to be in consultation with the appropriate international agencies.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am doing this for a very brief colloquy with my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], whom I promised we would have this an hour ago. He has been very patient. I appreciate it.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], but also the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] for not objecting. I think the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] knows that I must unfortunately rise to oppose this amendment largely because we have made a very, very significant cut in HUD, almost 25 percent. We have pushed them to the wall. [[Page H 7881]] This probably takes us to RIF's, and the data before us would indicate that the RIF cost may run as high as $47,000 a year per person. We are not sure we would raise any money. Our objective is to try to be as sensitive as we can from this point forward. I understand where the gentleman is coming from. I would hope he would continue to support the rest of our efforts to cut back government. We have gone a long way with HUD already. I would resist and urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we did use an offset of $50 million to help housing accounts. That leaves $20 million approximately. We are talking about some $300 million under the recommendation of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. We were attempting to help some of these same people by that former offset but also trying to deal with the real world in terms of what is actually available in the account.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the following amendments and all amendments thereto be given specific time limitations as outlined in each of these items: On item No. 64, 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side; 65, 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side; 69, 40 minutes, 20 minutes on each side; 12, 40 minutes, 20 minutes on each side; 44, 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side; and No. 2, 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side. I would state with that that Members have requested the reservation of points of order possible on item 64 and item 2.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and to enter into a discussion, a colloquy, some people say, but a personal conversation with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio, and I have been endeavoring to try to put on some reasonable debate on a variety and mix of amendments in order that we could accomplish a couple of things; originally to get us out of here by 10 o'clock tonight, and that was very successful; but also to have the Members help us realize that the more we can restrain ourselves tomorrow, the more likely it is, even if we should come in at 9 o'clock tomorrow, that we will be able to get out of here by 3 o'clock in the afternoon. I thought that we were going toward limiting a certain number of amendments that would give us an assurance of being out. I think instead now we are going to ask for some time limitations. I know full well we will be coming back in with a full plate in the morning and encouraging the Members to restrain themselves then. Otherwise, while I will be urging that the Speaker and others limit 1-minutes in the morning very severely, I would further be suggesting that we might have to work late into the evening, for we do intend to finish this bill tomorrow. It is not necessary that we go beyond 3 o'clock, but there is a tendency for us to multiply amendments when we take 12 hours to think about them. With that, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I have discussed this between ourselves and with friends. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each of the following amendments and any amendments thereto be debatable for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent of an individual amendment: The first is amendment No. 48 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side; the second is the amendment No. 26 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], for 20 minutes; and in all these cases, it is divided equally on each side; third, amendment No. 57 offered by the gentleman form Indiana [Mr. Roemer], for 50 minutes; fourth, amendment No. 66 offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] or the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], for 90 minutes; fifth, amendment No. 55 or 56 offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] or the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], for 20 minutes; sixth, amendment No. 7 offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] or the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], for 40 minutes. There is no particular order, but nonetheless, those would be the amendments being considered, and it does not limit other possibilities of amendments.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I hate to do this in the middle of somebody's vote on an amendment.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman. If this bill goes forward in a reasonable fashion and becomes law, I would guess it would be time out for awhile.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Is the chairman telling me the gentleman has no time on his amendment to the amendment?

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must say, that the gentlewoman is demonstrating a good deal of understanding of the process by raising the question in this fashion, for should we wait for some preliminary action at least all the way through conference, that could take us to September or October, and Lord knows what happens beyond that. In the meantime, we ought to be acting on this and I intend to do everything I can, along with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and indeed if we have not come close to helping the gentlewoman solve the problem by then, conference is very appropriate.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentlewoman bringing this matter to my attention. It is obviously a very serious circumstance. I think the gentlewoman heard me say that one of my difficulties with EPA is sometimes they are not nearly so responsive as I might like. But in Superfund, especially, we have had, to say the least, some major problems with the way that program is implemented. To suggest that Superfund might be able to be used effectively as an advisor as well as a source of revenue and otherwise to deal with a human circumstance like this tells a different story that is a very important story. I would be more than pleased to work with the gentlewoman and communicate with EPA, but to push them also to be responsive to this serious emergency circumstance. I might further suggest that FEMA, indeed, could be a source as well and I would like to talk with the gentlewoman carefully about various avenues that we could pursue. My ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] is more than responsive to me in these kinds of circumstances and it is my guess that working with the gentlewoman, we together could have an effect and I know that we both would be willing to.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, first I want my colleagues to know that the gentleman from Texas has been very, very effective in advocating his case regarding this problem, communicating to each of us just how serious it is. The committee's action provides a major step in making sure Americans who live in the colonias are truly part of America. I very much appreciate not just your work but the courtesy and intelligence with which you have shared your problems with me. We look forward to continuing to work with you and help in every way we can.

Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman would yield further, you were describing to me earlier some very specific circumstances relative to a danger sign and otherwise. I think it would be helpful to have some of that concern on the record.

Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield, first I very much appreciate the gentleman asking me to enter into this colloquy, for I feel very strongly that the gentleman is on the right track. I think he has described the circumstances accurately. There is not an ordinance, or a local law in place. It is not necessary to have this language. It seems to me as we go to conference in view of that, that we ought to be working to eliminate this language. I feel very strongly that the voice of the gentleman ought to be heard in these matters and I am going to do all that I can to see that it is heard.