Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do, and I appreciate my colleague bringing forward this because it is my intention to see that we make extra effort to tap every resource that is available through the work of NASA. This includes the research that is taking place both in areas like the space station, but also work in other NASA programs. I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] working on this particular issue to assure greater utilization of available remote- sensing information to be used by the agricultural industry of this country and to insure an adequate and wholesome supply of food and fiber for our citizens. I and others are interested in making NASA- based technologies available to farmers and ranchers to provide timely information on crop conditions, projected food, feed, and fiber production, and on any other available information. I would like to tell my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], that I agree and encourage the administration of NASA to increase its effort, and will bring this issue up in a conference committee to include in the report language specifically addressing the issue that the gentleman brought up today. amendment offered by mr. stokes

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], if I though we were eliminating programs that are attempting to control the drug problem in public housing, I would agree with her. But I do not believe that is the case. I know that the gentlewoman will recall that during the rescission process, we put sizeable numbers of dollars in the public housing modernization accounts. There is $2.5 billion in this bill, another $6 billion in the pipeline, and are providing the kind of flexibility that suggests that these drug elimination efforts should take place through public housing modernization. The President just signed the rescission bill today. Within that bill there is the authorization to carry forward that sort of activity, so I feel very, very strongly that while there may be this understanding between us, there is certainly no disagreement regarding the importance and the priority of drug elimination efforts. It is my own view that the Department of Housing has not always effectively carried forward efforts that the Congress outlined for them to carry forward. We are giving them some new direction in this process. We hope to put a different kind of pressure on, and see if it works better. These programs work well in some locations and in other locations they do not work very well. [[Page H 7875]] Further, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman, she and I do have a very fine working relationship. As she knows, she made a personal appeal regarding $10 million that involves a health professionals scholarship program, and frankly, I thought the argument was logical, and in my amendment earlier today, put that money back in. In this case, there is a very specific authorization for an appropriations bill here in the rescission package that allows another approach in terms of drug elimination within housing modernization. I really believe that there is a need to shake this agency, and take those agency subheads over there and rattle them a bit. In no way, shape, or form would the gentlewoman or I take a position that was in opposition to drug elimination grants. point of order

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman for his work. Immediately after, and during the process since, we have been trying to find the funds to respond to Oklahoma City and that disaster. To say the least, one had to actually see what occurred there to begin to appreciate the devastating effect it had upon your community. Above and beyond that, there are similar problems across the country that involve disaster relief. To have an amendment that looks good on paper but in reality is suggesting that none of the other accounts are helping people who are in dire straits is a disservice to the process. So the gentleman's support is very much appreciated. I appreciate the work the gentleman has been doing for Oklahoma City as well.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise very briefly to oppose this amendment. Within this account, we [[Page H 7861]] were very, very sensitive about the question of considering raising rents? Should you? When should you? Indeed, this program has been in effect for a number of years now. There has been one adjustment to that, almost a decade ago. This raises the percentage for rental expenses from 30 to 32 percent. The recommendation of the House-passed Committee on the Budget was 35 percent. The committee chose to back off because of some of the questions that were raised by other Members who are opposing the amendment. The real effect is somewhere in the neighborhood of perhaps $12 a month. This account is growing so rapidly that if it continues on its present pattern, it will push out any number of other very important housing programs that affect the very same people that we are talking about. It is very important to recognize that there is no free lunch in this process. Everybody has to participate. The offset that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] provides in his amendment would essentially zero emergency assistance accounts. We do not have as much money in FEMA in this bill as he suggests he uses as an offset. That alone would have easily allowed me to ask you to call this amendment out of order, but frankly I thought we ought to have the discussion. In fact, the Kennedy amendment would eliminate a compromise between what the Committee on the Budget recommended and what is necessary to see that this program remains whole and viable. He cannot effectively offset it against emergency accounts. Indeed, if he did, he would dramatically affect many of the same people that he is trying to help by way of his amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote on this unworkable amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, as we close this debate on the Obey amendment, I think it is very important for all of those who are interested and are listening to know that the amount of money that is available for NASA is a very small fraction of the total dollars available in this bill. We do not begin to put into station, let alone NASA, nearly the money we put into veterans programs or housing. NASA's programs should probably be in another bill so you would not have these kinds of comparisons that really make no sense at all. America's greatness has been largely achieved by way of America's dreams. It was our willingness to think about a new world, a new future for mankind, that led to America in the first place. It was Americans seeking out their dreams that allowed us to build the West, the pioneer spirit that made the difference not only then, but makes the difference today, not just in our minds, but in our hearts as well. One great dream for the future lies in space. There is absolutely no question there is broadly based support from the public for man's exploration in space. What remains is a partnership with friends around the world. We are, together, attempting to make breakthrough in space that will impact technology and that will create a new opportunity, not only for ourselves, but for mankind. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, which would destroy space station, and I believe destroy all of NASA's programs.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman].

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Houston, TX, Mr. Gene Green. (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall].

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the chairman of the Committee on Science.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].

Mr. LEWIS of California. It is the committee's intention that the funds come for this program from EPA's environmental program and compliance account.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, yes, the committee realizes that the water quality testing program which has been instrumental in solving the coastal water problems which New Jersey experienced in 1987 and 1988 should continue. As the gentleman stated, this program includes spotting of floatables and monitoring and surveying of water quality.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 34 offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] to title I be in order at a later point in the reading of the bill, notwithstanding that title I may have been closed. This has been agreed upon by both sides of the issue in terms of the Members debating it.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. I have no further speakers on this side. It is not my intention to ask for any more time. Indeed, I would hope that we could go to a voice vote on this, because buses are going to the Korean war memorial service. I certainly appreciate the cooperation of the ranking member in this matter.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].