Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, first let me withdraw my point of order. This is a different amendment than I anticipated.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, many Members probably do not realize it, but the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and I have a number of things in common. Among them, before becoming involved in government, we were insurance professionals. I can remember years ago spending a lot of time in the health and life insurance field dealing with this very question. A situation where veterans had private medical coverage, and were getting services at hospitals; and the money was not directly reimbursed for VA medical care purposes and they used it within that pool of funding. To me, that process seemed a bit ridiculous. In the time I have been in the Congress the question has been raised many fold, but indeed it has never been raised quite so effectively as it has been this year. I must say that I do have some reservation about this amendment. While I intend to support it, I nonetheless have some reservation. I have a reservation only because we have language within the reconciliation process where a conference is going on with the other body right now that is likely to statutorily extend this reimbursement process for a number of years. With that reconciliation opportunity, it seems to me that it may be that the veterans service organizations are a bit anxious here. Sometimes they ask their supporters to move a little quicker than they really might like. For example, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], who has done such a fabulous job on this idea, got a commitment from the full committee chairman that, if some way reconciliation fell apart on this matter, that we would return to it in conference on our bill, essentially to try to keep the pressure on those who are dealing with reconciliation. My concern that I would suggest to the VSO's is that they could be taking pressure off of that reconciliation process by this amendment. I hope that that is not the case but it could be. I think it would have been smarter in many ways to wait until later in our process, but frankly ofttimes we find that our friends out there who represent organizations get very anxious and really do not totally have a handle on this complicated process. In the meantime, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, taking up their concern on behalf of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], has indeed brought the issue to us in this form. I am not sure why the House would want to turn it down. It will cause us to discuss it in conference. I would certainly suggest that, from my point of view, no one who is involved in reconciliation presumed this is the way to get off of that hook. We expect them to act positively, and I am going to be strongly urging them to act positively.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let us proceed in this fashion: I will yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] to have him outline what they believe may be an agreement between the parties here, and if it seems to make sense, then the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I will talk about it.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being recognized. I will not take the entire 5 minutes. These two amendments are noncontroversial and supported by the Members from the areas that are affected. The first amendment adds $4 million to VA's construction major projects account for a columbarium at the National Memorial Cemetery in Arizona. The bill already includes the requested $9.1 million for grave site development and improvements of this construction project at the cemetery. The second amendment adds $1.5 million to VA's construction minor projects account for expansion of the existing National Cemetery at Mobile, AL. This will permit the development of 10 acres of city-owned land for burial of veterans in the Mobile area. These two additions are offset by a reduction in the increase recommended by the committee for the grants for construction of State extended care facilities account. The committee recommended an increase $19 million above the 1998 budget request for this account. The amendment changes the increase in that appropriations to $13.5 million above the request. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to support the amendments.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].

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

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

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, could I get the attention of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for just a moment? I am thinking that have it might make sense for the gentleman from Ohio and I to agree to ask unanimous consent to set this aside, this matter aside, until 7 o'clock, in which these parties will come back with language and will revisit this item and agree upon the language or not. If we agree upon it by unanimous consent, we can include it in this amendment and eliminate the money problem and move forward. If we cannot by then, then we will just have an up or down vote on the amendment. What does the gentleman think about that?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, this gentleman only knows of one other amendment. I would love to have the Members get their work done no later than 7 o'clock. In the meantime, I think the Chair's recommendation is a very good one.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is the amendment of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], and he would have to withdraw his amendment. I believe the gentleman wants to have a clear understanding between both sides that there is a strong expression of concern about procedures that have been involved here. They want to make sure that future applications are carried forward with some objective standards, et cetera, that which we have discussed on the record.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield again to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], I believe we have in essence an agreement between the two sides regarding an outline of that which they would like to have discussed with the administration and reviews that should go forward, et cetera, between now and the time we go to conference. I would suggest that the gentleman and I are willing to make a commitment that we will carry this message forward to the conference, and proceed as expeditiously and effectively as possible.

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