Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, in the time I have spent in and around Iraq I have seen a fabulous facility at Camp Doha that is meeting most of our challenges in the region. I see it developing significantly in the future. I don't see a need for a permanent facility in Iraq. I doubt there will even be a suggestion of that. On the other hand, I think the discussion was very healthy.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, further, I look forward to working with both the gentlemen and am anxious to do everything we can to make this thing work as we deliver aid and support to the people in and around New Orleans.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. This amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentlewoman a question on my time. Do you know how many additional speakers you may have?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. This amendment directly amends existing law.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I must say that I think you know me well; that my colleagues do as well. I feel very strongly about the rules of the House and I feel very strongly about the way we operate with each other. I must say I have regretted from time to time all the lessons learned when the former majority ran the House. But because of that experience, I must propound my point of order. So, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.'' This proposal directly changes existing law.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.'' The amendment includes an emergency designation and as such constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for the Chair's ruling.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Very briefly, Mr. Rogers is the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, and is doing a very fine job attempting to reorganize the direction of the country in regards to homeland security. In the processing of reorganizing, we brought 22 agencies together. When you bring bureaucracies together you have difficulty starting a direction that is right the first time. Mr. Rogers has recognized that. There is a lot of money that has already been appropriated that is in the pipeline that can be applied to many of these priority challenges. Mr. Rogers has done a very fine job of prioritizing and pushing this agency. There is enough money in the pipeline to give the priorities the appropriate funding. So I would argue very strongly for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I believe my colleagues know that the Appropriations Committee gives the highest priority to improving and extending oversight to money that is expended. Indeed, I have personally spent a lot of time working with the Inspector General. We have added money in this bill to the Inspector General specifically to make sure oversight is increased and is very adequate. I am concerned, for example, about the money that may be available even to east Texas as a result of this work. I intend to make sure that we do what is right in connection with our response to this issue. I would urge a ``no'' vote and appreciate my colleagues supporting that ``no'' vote.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states, in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.'' And this amendment gives it affirmative direction, in effect. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: any amendment in a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. This amendment directly amends existing law.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must say that my good friend, perhaps, has a prescription for success here, but I must say I must make my point of order.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I certainly will.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 4939 and that I may include tabular material on the same.