Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield further, in the Housatonic, I believe they are planning to dredge 12 miles of the river. I have no idea what they are going to do with that dredging material. But, in the meantime, it is amazing to me that my colleague from California would raise the statutory level, when the report language is simply trying to urge this agency to get back on track and follow the laws we have outlined.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding. The question really is by way of comment. The gentlewoman knows that there will be huge amounts of material if dredging is the way we solve this problem. As of this moment I do not believe EPA can tell us what they are going to do with that material. Maybe we are going to create another huge Superfund site, that they can have another area of activity to broaden their responsibilities. But, indeed, all we are doing is by way of report language, no weight of law, per se, nudging this agency to get back on track.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I certainly would not want to interrupt the process here, but I think the gentlewoman knows that the National Academy of Sciences report is not due until April of 1999, and, indeed, this is report language that simply puts the needle where it ought to be applied, to this agency that tends to want to do its own thing, almost regardless of what the law says or what Congress says.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding, for I know that she is very, very seriously concerned about the questions that she has raised, especially about the Hudson. I think the gentlewoman also knows that EPA has not spent years figuring out whether dredging is the best way to solve that problem. We are just suggesting, not in statutory language, in report language, that EPA follow the direction of the Congress and the law. Report language, as the gentlewoman knows, is not law. It is just trying to get their attention, because they have been off track on this issue and on many other issues for too long now. So I urge the gentlewoman to actually look at our report language.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, very reluctantly I rise in opposition to this amendment by my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). As many of you know, Henry Waxman and I have worked on a number of issues in the past that relate to the environment, and we have done things like sponsoring alternative fuels for clean air purposes. The gentleman knows of my work in connection with the clean air amendments in California. But having said that, let me say that this amendment, together with some of the advertisements distributed by what can only be either misinformed or very extreme environmentalists within that community, is nothing less than a bizarre attempt to create controversy where none should exist at all. To label the committee's direction to the EPA, direction that is contained solely within the report accompanying the bill, as somehow being a rider is about the furthest stretch of imagination that I can fathom. These folks are really scraping the bottom of the barrel if their primary objections would somehow raise report language to the level of statutory law. But let me take just a few moments to specifically address some of the concerns raised in the Waxman amendment. With respect to mercury, the committee report directs the agency to, first, complete an ongoing Federal-State study on mercury transport in Lake Superior; secondly, complete another ongoing study on fish consumption and mercury ingestion; and, thirdly, enter into a final study agreement with the National Academy of Sciences in order to prepare recommendations on the appropriate level of a mercury exposure reference dose. Mr. Chairman, these are not new issues. The committee is merely attempting to push the EPA to finish its research before issuing regulations. With respect to utilizing dredging as a remediation tool for contaminated sediments, the committee last year asked EPA to contract with the NAS to conduct a thorough study of this method which was requested to be completed by April of 1999. In part, this study was requested because EPA itself stated in a 1996 report that the preferred means of controlling sediment contamination risk is through national recovery. Subsequently, the committee has become aware of what may be a reversal of this policy. It occurred to us that maybe we should let the NAS report shed some light on this matter before we allow EPA to stir up billions of cubic yards of contaminated sediments. Regarding directions of the committee relative to the Food Quality Protection Act and the Regional Haze Program, the language merely suggests that the agency should follow both its spirit and the letter of the law in implementing these programs. The Regional Haze Program is a case in point. The Clean Air Act sets up a regime for the States to develop visibility transport commissions in order to research and monitor visibility impairment. The law also requires EPA to report to Congress on visibility improvements achieved through implementation of other sections of the Clean Air Act. These and other provisions of the law have been ignored by the agency, and the committee's language merely directs the EPA to get itself back on a firm statutory footing. Finally, the committee's direction with respect to cleanup requirements for facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would do nothing more than tell EPA to maintain the status quo with respect to regulatory oversight of nuclear facility clean up. The Congress has given the authority to the NRC, not to the EPA. Not surprisingly, the EPA is trying to further enlarge its domain by claiming jurisdiction where they do not now have any. If the Congress in its wisdom wishes to give such authority to EPA, so be it. In the meantime, however, this body should not allow the Waxman amendment to circumvent the law and permit his favorite government agency to grow even larger. Mr. Chairman, these and other directions of the committee as contained in the report accompanying H.R. 4194 are intended to put the EPA back on a path of following the law. None of these directions reinterpret the law in any way. None of these directions put a political or partisan spin on what EPA is expected to do. But, for the life of me, Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why anybody in this body would want the EPA to ignore the laws that Congress has passed. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would want this agency to enlarge its domain through its interpretation of what the law means. Yet that is exactly what my colleague from California by way of this amendment would allow to happen. I strongly urge that the gentleman withdraw his amendment, and, if not, that it be soundly defeated.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, first, let me express my appreciation for the gentleman's cooperation and the work that we have been able to do together on this matter. Yes, it is my understanding, as you have outlined. As we move to conference, I would be happy to work with the gentleman to address the issue further.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I proudly yield back the balance of my time that Louis Stokes and I had together.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask for this time simply by way of saying that we have just been through one of the more phenomenal experiences I have ever experienced in the Congress, where spontaneously this body reflected upon their own reactions to one of our colleagues in a way that can only be the greatest of tributes to Lou Stokes and his family. Mr. Chairman, for all the time I have been in the Congress, it has been my privilege to work with, get to know well, and now have as one of my finest friends--Louis Stokes. When I first met him, I knew immediately of the pride with which he looked to the work of his brother, Carl, in his great mayorship that really set a tone for the country. Over the years, he has talked about others and the contributions they have made. Seldom, seldom could you even get a hint that he had any idea of the impact that he has had upon this body and upon the country. So, it is my privilege at this time to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, Louis Stokes.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, as I remind myself of that wonderful sign on a great building in Sacramento, California, ``bringing us men to match our mountains,'' I ask unanimous consent for a call of the Committee.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and probably for an extended period of time will do so. Mr. Chairman, by way of informing the Members, it looks as though we will have at least an hour or so before we have a vote, just so that those who are here and wondering how quickly we will vote will be informed of that. Mr. Chairman, I wanted the Members to know that, before we continue work on the specifics of the Fiscal Year 1999 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill, I want to take just a few moments to recognize the outstanding work of my good friend and the man who will always, in my mind's eye, be my chairman, Congressman Louis Stokes. As most of my colleagues know, this will be the last VA-HUD bill the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and I will have the privilege of working on together. After 30 years in Congress and over 28 years on the Committee on Appropriations, Louis has decided to pursue other interests. Lou Stokes clearly exemplifies everything that is good about the Congress of the United States and, indeed, everything that is great about this wonderful country in which we live. From his early days growing up in public housing through his days of college and law school to his work as an attorney on some of the most important legal issues of our time to his service in the Congress which began in January of 1969, Lou has served with courage, with honor, with dignity, and with compassion. He has represented his district with the finest tradition of service. I must tell my colleagues that my life has been enriched because of the friendship I have shared with Lou Stokes and his wonderful wife, Jay, for this fine American has made all the difference for me in working in this House. I, for one, will miss Lou Stokes, but I dare say that this institution will miss him even more. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my colleague yielding, Mr. Chairman, and I asked for the yield simply because I agree very much with the gentleman's statement. I was inclined to accept this amendment in the initial stages, but because some of our colleagues are concerned about what the language actually means, there is reservation. Nonetheless, I do intend to vote for this amendment and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

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 appreciate my colleague yielding. I think he heard my comments earlier that the chair is going to support this amendment. But I must say that I do have some understanding of the reservations by some on both sides of the aisle, I assume because this is an agency that has a tendency to have a preestablished notion as to the way the world works and as a result they go about trying to make sure that everybody understands that they are right. And that is not exactly the way science works. So that is the reservation.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I did not mean to do that, I want the gentleman to know.

Mr. LEWIS of California. No more amendments, that is correct, and no votes. In other words, the vote will be rolled until tomorrow.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I believe that is correct. I have been instructed that is correct.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do intend to finish the debate on this amendment this evening. We will roll that vote. We will not go any further than the NASA section this evening and so essentially this will be the end of the debate.

Mr. LEWIS of California

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