Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

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

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I will use just a few seconds to close. We oppose this amendment for security purposes. This language should remain in the bill to make certain that Dubai Ports World does not have any management control or authority over any of our major ports.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order. 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.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I thought that is why you were asking to speak. But that is okay. Just go right ahead.

Mr. LEWIS of California. We are on the amendment dealing with the Dubai Ports. Does the gentleman know that?

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am doing this in no small part because I have been looking for an accurate description of ``holy pictures'' for some time now since I have been dealing with my friend from Wisconsin, and in this process we are going through today, I think I may have found at least one snapshot. What we have done in this bill is attempt to respond to a very serious concern on the part of the American public regarding having a country or an organization that is related to a country in the Middle East having authority or control over any of our ports in this country. It is viewed by many as a serious national security issue, and this is a national security bill. Our goal is to make certain that we have thought through this Dubai Ports World deal very carefully before moving forward. The language is to stop that deal. It is rather straightforward. The 62-2 vote in the committee indicates the broad cross-section of public reaction reflected in the membership to going forward without some action on the part of the committee, and thus this language in the bill. It is rather straightforward. I welcome this discussion today, and intend to be as helpful as I can to those opposing our language.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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, that the following amendments may be offered at any point in the reading: An amendment by Mr. Gilchrest regarding section 3011; and an amendment by Mr. Sabo, regarding the Defense Production Act; and that each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request 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; and that each amendment shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield, I am happy to do that, but also, if you wanted to take up the other amendment, I would be glad to stand in for the other gentleman who is not here.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 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 express my appreciation to the gentleman for his cooperation. In the meantime, I must 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.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, because the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) is so cooperative and such a great friend, I hate to have to exercise my procedural responsibilities here, but, Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides appropriations for an unauthorized program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part, an appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law. Madam Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for an earmark that is not authorized. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. It has been withdrawn.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam 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 changing existing law.'' This amendment states a legislative condition, and I am asking for a ruling of the Chair.

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.