Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask the question, where these numbers came from. Frankly, I did not want to embarrass anybody.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. Indeed, this is the first year that we will have had this kind of account within our bill to my knowledge.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me go back to my point. The gentleman, I know, has many points that he will make. But indeed, within this bill there is a great variety and mix of accounts that we have tried to balance. I think most of our colleagues understand that one of the issues that has floated around here all year long and has raised a lot of controversy involves FHA loan limitations. It happens that the gentleman has decided to take funding that HUD uses to administer those programs. Literally the progress we made earlier in the year on that FHA issue would be undermined, dramatically undermined by the gentleman's amendment. Whether we like it or not, those funds have to be administered in the fashion that is outlined in this bill or the programs will not be administered. Indeed, it has been suggested that this funding is not included on the Senate side and thereby is not needed. The reality that funds are not on the Senate side is exactly why they are needed at this point within this bill. So while I understand and appreciate the gentleman's circumstance, there is many an account in this bill that I would love to zero to put more money in veterans programs. In the past, I have had some difficulty zeroing programs where I have proposed that we do exactly what the gentleman is talking about. This is a fairly balanced bill. So reluctantly, as I have suggested, I would resist the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise very reluctantly in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very, very important for the House to know and to revisit the reality that veterans programs, especially veterans' medical care programs, have very broadly-based, bipartisan, almost nonpartisan support within the House. Of all the accounts in this very complex bill where we have consistently appropriated dollars above and beyond the President's request, it is the veterans' accounts. Of all the accounts, we have not reduced veterans programs. This account has received that support. We worked, and I would appreciate the gentleman listening to this, we worked very closely with the veterans service organizations regarding the medical care accounts. But let me say to my colleague, I personally have a very strong disagreement with many of those organizations. While I usually join hands with them in supporting additional funding for veterans programs, all too often I cannot get them to join me to go out to the hospitals where veterans are treated and make certain those monies are being spent in a fashion that assures that our veterans are treated as human beings, not as people with a number on their forehead. So the VA has a lot of work to do there. I hope that my colleague would assist me with communicating that to our VSOs and make sure the dollars we are spending are being used in a maximum way for the positive benefit of all veterans being served.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would speak to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) by way of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). If we could, to kind of help work with the time of the day which is running, and as I think the points have been made very effectively, I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and I would be willing to accept the amendment.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. We have had a chance to review the the gentleman's amendment. We appreciate the the gentleman's assistance to the committee, and we accept the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley). I will be glad to work with him on this very worthy project and plan to talk with him between now and conference as well.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, yes, it is.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I certainly agree with the gentlewoman's complimenting the concern of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary) about deference problems; but, the challenge that we have relative to funding these problems that HOPWA programs address deserves our support. Thereby, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my colleague from California yielding to me. I have before me a ``Dear Colleague'' that is signed by most of those Members who have spoken today regarding this matter on the floor. There is a broad bipartisan understanding of the challenge that AIDS provides for our entire society, and I must say that this particular housing problem is a very, very difficult one. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from San Francisco, California and appreciate very much her position.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman I appreciate his bringing this problem to my attention and the committee's attention. It is our intention to not only be responsive to that problem but to have as much flexibility as possible in dealing with those communities' problems.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) by chance?

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman I appreciate where he is coming from. It has been my intention to oppose the amendment as it is presented. If we go through with this process of amending amendments, I am not sure the chairman is going to be able to find himself in that position.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise and suggest to the gentlewoman that I very much appreciate her position. Positions not entirely the same as hers are going to be expressed across the floor, I can tell, in proportionate numbers to the Members who serve in various areas of the country. May I suggest recognizing the value of revising and extending.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am having a bit of difficulty swallowing all of this, and, as a result of that, I read the amendment carefully and I believe my colleague and I are ready to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and I have prepared a very extensive response to this amendment but, frankly, because of the pressures of time and otherwise, let me suggest simply that the National Science Foundation is among the committee's and the Congress' very high priorities. We believe that the American government has played a very significant role in productive research efforts. It is rather standard for critics of NSF often to pick a handful of examples of that which they would call excess, and usually those examples, while they have a title that can be used conveniently, do not reflect at all the specific project in terms of its detail. These items funded by NSF come under very serious review. NSF relies on the judgment of over 60,000 independent reviewers, each of whom has expertise in his or her field. Depending on whether by mail or by panel reviews being used, each proposal is reviewed by an average of 4 to 11 experts and ranked on its scientific merit. As of this moment, approximately 1 in 3 proposals are eventually funded even though well over half are considered to have enough merit to deserve funding. It is important for the Members to know that we support strongly this bill in its present form. It is very important that the Members oppose this amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4194, and that I be permitted to include tables, charts and other extraneous material.