Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. It has been withdrawn.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I must say to the gentleman that I do have similar questions that are very much like this in northern California, critical circumstances; and it just is not appropriate in the portion of this emergency bill. Because of that, I would have to oppose the gentleman's request.

Mr. LEWIS of California. The amendment seeks to add $430 million for armoring levees in addition to the $170 million already contained in the bill. The supplemental bill before us provides the request of $170 million to armor the most critical portions of the hurricane protection system that are judged by the Corps of Engineers to be the most critical to providing near-term protection to the citizens of New Orleans. The funding, as provided, is not geographically specific and can be used across the entire hurricane protection system to armor the areas identified by the Corps as the most vital. This funding is sufficient to address the most essential armoring requirements as identified by the Corps of Engineers. According to the Corps, only 16 percent of the requested $170 million can be expended in 2006. Given that the Corps will only be able to expend a very limited amount of the $170 million this fiscal year, the provision of additional funding will not result in more near-term protection for the region. Activities that occur predominately in fiscal year 2007 and beyond do not qualify for emergency funding in this supplemental. They should be addressed in the regular order of our fiscal year 2007 energy and water bill. The amendment also seeks to add an additional $35 million to accelerate the study phase of the Morganza to the Gulf project. I would like to point out that the study was funded at $11 million in 2006 through both the regular bill and the supplemental funding. The study is ongoing, and it is funded for activities through this fiscal year. The construction activities require additional authorization. This study does not rise to the level of an emergency. I urge my colleagues to work with me to pursue this in regular order. I must mention to my colleague that I have these kind of problems in northern California, that I can similarly put in this emergency supplemental. But, frankly, they are more logical for regular order. So, with that, I would ask my colleague to consider withdrawing his amendment. Failing that, I am afraid I must oppose the amendment and ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on its adoption.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, the Air Force and the Navy together requested $55.9 million for base exchange projects at Keesler Air Force base, and the Naval Construction Battalion Center Gulfport in Mississippi. The request for Keesler was $40 million. The request for two projects at Gulfport, $15.9 million. The committee has not included funding for these facilities. Base exchanges, including construction, are typically resourced through non appropriated funds. The exchanges use their sales revenue to fund their operations as well as their capital costs. Congress provided $3.8 million to construct a temporary exchange at Keesler in December in the December supplemental. But now we are being asked to build a permanent facility at over 10 times that cost. The committee is concerned about setting a precedent for using military construction funds for exchanges. We have been told that the Army and Air Force Exchange Service has a $251 million capital budget for Fiscal Year 2006, and the Navy Exchange has a capital budget of $68 million. We believe that they should first look to their capital budgets to prioritize and fund these projects. The committee is also concerned about the exchanges policy of self insuring these facilities. This means that when a disaster happens, like Hurricane Katrina, a fire and so forth, the taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill. That is why we had directed the Department of Defense to take a hard look at the possibility of privately insuring these facilities. We don't tell AAFES or NEX what to do with their non appropriated funds. But we are concerned about them passing on these risks and costs to taxpayers. The committee will continue to take a look at this issue as we go into conference with the Senate. But at this point, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment. I very much appreciate the gentleman's cooperation and would appreciate his further cooperation. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. On the amendment that we are considering, Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, let me say how much I appreciate the cooperation of Mr. Conaway this evening. He has been helpful at every end of our business. But in the meantime, I have this responsibility that causes me to make a point of order against the amendment, because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on 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. In this case, this amendment imposes additional duties. So, Madam Chairman, I ask for a ruling.

Mr. LEWIS of California

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 amendment includes an emergency designation and as such, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. At the end of this part of the process, that is right. We will go to Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, regretfully, I must make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. Section 17 of chapter 2 of the House Practice book states in part, ``It is not in order to strike or otherwise amend portions of a bill not yet read for amendment.'' And for that reason I would make a point of order.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. I always understand the gentleman.

Mr. LEWIS of California. If I could respond to the gentleman, the gentleman has been more than cooperative and I appreciate what he has to say. From this gentleman's perspective, it is not our intention to take any additional amendments. We are very, very close to an agreement and I would hope that you and I can see our way through this long enough, a few minutes to make sure that we can get out at a reasonable time.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), my mentor, the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who now chairs the Subcommittee on National Security.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 4939 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 725, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; An amendment by Ms. Millender-McDonald, regarding funding for election activities under FEMA; An amendment by Mr. Hinchey, regarding limitations on foreign media; An amendment by Mr. Hinchey, regarding funding for contracts using other than competitive procedures; An amendment by Mr. Melancon, regarding funding for flood control programs; An amendment by Mr. Melancon, regarding agriculture disaster relief for Louisiana; An amendment by Mr. Jefferson, regarding funding for HUD and FEMA disaster relief; An amendment by Mr. Jefferson, regarding increased funding for HUD; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, regarding increased funding for rental housing under HUD; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas to strike certain Secretarial authorities to waive low- and moderate-income requirements; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, regarding limiting certain funds on gulf coast elections; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, regarding approval of disaster loans; An amendment by Mr. Paul, regarding funding for the State of Texas; An amendment by Mr. Tierney, regarding establishment of a House Select Committee; An amendment by Mr. Conaway, to strike section 3010; An amendment by Mr. Conaway, regarding LIHEAP funding and ANWR and OCS drilling; An amendment by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, regarding demonstrations within cemeteries; An amendment by Mr. Nadler, regarding ocean shipping containers; An amendment by Ms. Velazquez, regarding deadlines for SBA loans; An amendment by Ms. Velazquez, regarding SBA loan rates; An amendment by Mr. Hall, regarding child care subsidies; An amendment by Ms. DeLauro to repeal avian flu liability provisions; An amendment by Mr. Berry of Arkansas, regarding the enrollment period for Medicare benefits; An amendment by Ms. Kaptur, regarding establishment of a House Select Committee; An amendment by Ms. Lee, regarding FEMA termination of housing activities; An amendment by Mr. DeFazio, regarding limitation on funds with an exception for constitutional activities; An amendment by Mr. Reyes, regarding funding for pandemic flu; An amendment by Mr. Reyes, regarding the Veterans Administration; An amendment by Mr. Gingrey, to strike funding for the Historic Preservation Fund; An amendment by Mr. Westmoreland, to strike section 3006; An amendment by Ms. Foxx, to strike funding for the Broadcasting Board of Governors; An amendment by Mr. Flake, to strike section 3007; An amendment by Mr. Inslee, regarding FISA; An amendment by Mr. Brady of Texas, to strike certain language regarding HUD funding distribution; An amendment by Mr. Brady of Texas, regarding HUD funding distribution among the States; An amendment by Mr. Brady of Texas, regarding additional funding for Texas; An amendment by Mr. Brady of Texas, regarding additional funding for Texas offset by State Department and FEMA disaster relief funds; An amendment by Mr. Brady of Texas, regarding redirection of HUD funding for educational costs in Texas; An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, regarding educational and cultural exchange programs; An amendment by Mr. Waxman, regarding DOD contracts, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Neugebauer, eliminating funding in title II, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Obey, regarding availability of certain LIHEAP funds, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; 30 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Sabo, regarding funding for Homeland Security, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes (and which shall be in order at any point in the reading); An amendment by Ms. Lee, regarding Iraq, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Jindal, regarding funding for VA offset from FEMA disaster relief; An amendment by Mr. Jindal, regarding defense programs offset from FEMA disaster relief; An amendment by Mr. Jindal, regarding funding for military construction offset by FEMA disaster relief; An amendment by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, regarding military construction. Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee or by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.