Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield further, I would follow up on the gentleman from Ohio's comments by saying that I have had discussions with absolutely the highest level within the National Science Foundation, and there is no question that there is embarrassment at the highest level relative to the way this pattern developed. And, indeed, not just the results but the format of the study that came from this grant is considerably different than some thought it would be.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I know the gentlemen from Missouri and the gentleman from Ohio are the best of friends, but separate from that, I am sure my ranking member and I absolutely agree with the gentleman's position.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I believe my ranking member and I both would very much agree with that.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I intend to not debate this any further except to say that I hope that the Members would support the amendment by way of a voice vote. It is our intention to send a message here and hope that we can be effective in doing that.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. I believe the gentleman has capsulized my intent. A message is really my intent.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman does.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that there are few Members who have more support and admiration for the work of the National Science Foundation. It is reflected not only in our work on the floor but in the work of our subcommittee as well. But from time to time even the best of our agencies find themselves going astray. And it was not very long ago that just such a misstep or misdirection took place at NSF in the application process for grants that are part of their responsibility. It was my colleague the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] from the other side of the aisle who brought this matter to our attention. And indeed this is not a partisan consideration but a concern by a number of Members on both sides of the aisle. The purpose of this amendment is to address a problem that developed when a grant, as it went forward, caused a cross-section of academics to address themselves to some 200 districts across the country, essentially going into communities asking community leaders why they had not considered running against the person who was in office, regardless of party affiliation--Democrat or Republican--extending probes that, to say the least, have caused a great deal of consternation in districts around the Nation. It is my view that use of dollars in this form, that cross lines, that appear to be essentially almost anti-incumbent, are more than disconcerting to the body. This amendment is designed to send a message rather than anything else. It is my intention to discuss this matter further as we go forward from here.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague having this colloquy regarding the United States-Mexico Foundation and our attempt to provide some funding flows for its work. Mr. Chairman, $1 million is provided in the bill from each of the areas of the bill's responsibility that the gentleman has mentioned: EPA, NASA, and NSF. It is absolutely my intention to see that these funds flow to the foundation in order to coordinate these efforts. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] has been most effective in encouraging this kind of work, helping us better to deal with problems that we have along the United States-Mexican border. There is no question that this sort of prioritization is long past due. It it is my intention to work closely with the gentleman to make sure these agencies work in a cooperative manner.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I would be happy to, if the gentleman makes sure I know the subjects.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner]. Based upon our agreement, it is my intention to encourage the conference to have report language that involves such oversight of any transfer responsibility. I expect I will be successful with that effort. The gentleman has my assurances that the conference on H.R. 2158 will contain the language, insofar as I can convince the entire conference. I will be very surprised if they are not responsive. In addition, I feel the gentleman should know that with this right does go our responsibility to deal in an expeditious manner on any agency request, and ask that the gentleman give me his assurance that he will deal with any such transfer request quickly.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that we have received encouragement on both sides of the aisle from our leadership to proceed as rapidly as possible, and indeed, we have proceeded very rapidly this morning. We have two other bills that need to be completed by Thursday. Because of that, I would have to object.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I might suggest that the gentleman and I are in agreement on his last statement. But frankly, where we do the coordinating is maybe the disagreement here. I frankly have the highest level of confidence in the work that is being done by NASA at this moment, and, indeed, it seems to me if we find ourselves in a situation where we need to review this further, we certainly could readdress the question at conference. In the meantime, at this point I would urge the Members to be most cautious about dealing with a small figure in the total circumstance of our entire budget but a very sizeable figure in terms of flexibility we need in dealing with space station, and the problems with this partnership. Indeed, this is an item that is ahead of its time. I urge the Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. NASA does tell me that the administration does support the $100 million in their statement of administration policy on this bill. Frankly, I get different messages from different locations. But NASA is supporting that policy position.

Mr. LEWIS of California. President Clinton's administration did not.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members as well as those in Members' offices who might be watching this discussion to focus on this amendment with great care. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] and I share in common a great interest in our work in space. We also have had many a discussion and share both interest and concern about international space station and that international partnership that has been formed with the United States and a number of our allies regarding our work in space. It is my concern that there are economic difficulties relative to some in that partnership and especially the Russian part of that partnership. Having expressed that concern in many a forum, I nonetheless suggest that this amendment which would affect $100 million relative to the Russian program for assurance could very well have a serious impact upon that partnership. Indeed, we are attempting to make sure that we continue with a foundation of international partnership in a solid way that allows space station to progress on a schedule and calendar that will assure, indeed, its success. I am most concerned that this action could itself impact dramatically the partnership and, in turn, could affect the schedule for the station. Mr. Chairman, I would love to hear from the Science Committee. If all those things should occur, I would love to hear from the committee what their game plan is at the other end in terms of assuring station success. Now further, it is my view that if this partnership should unravel because of some untoward action, and indeed we could find ourself in a circumstance where station is not just delayed, station could be undermined itself, and that in turn could have a horrendous impact upon NASA's work. With all those things in mind, I know the membership is most sensitive about just how successful we are being these days in space. None of us would have asked for a Mir accident, the tragedy that we have experienced there. At the same time, all of us who focused on that accident know that as a result of that we have learned a great deal. We could not have asked for a more productive and valuable experiment in terms of that kind of difficulty and potential in space. None of us could be more excited than I am about the mission to Mars and the tremendous message it sends to the world about America's future in space. But, indeed, it is very important that we not unilaterally take some untoward action that could indeed undermine the pathway we are on at this point in time.