Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 1268, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. I wanted to say to the gentlewoman, first, I very much appreciate the thrust of her amendment. While we are prepared to accept her amendment, let me add to that there could be some resistance, perhaps, on the part of the State Department. If there is resistance, it is because they have never seen fit to apply the existing law to overseas contracts. I think that is a small mistake on their part, frankly, if they have not. I think the gentlewoman is not just raising an important point but a point that needed to be made.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Let me say to the gentlewoman that her amendment is overdue. I am happy to accept it and I am happy to be her partner on behalf of small business in America.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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 which violates clause 2 rule XXI. The rule states that an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law or imposes additional duties. I ask for the Chair's ruling.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York yielding. Como esta.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit largely because I believe on both sides of the aisle the body recognizes that the reason for this supplemental is to provide as quickly as possible money flows in support of our troops. This is a supplemental dealing with our challenges in the Middle East especially. It is a supplemental dealing with the crises that have resulted from the tsunami. But, in the meantime, the gentlewoman is suggesting that we should recommit this bill to add $150 million. The best thing that we can do for our troops is to move this bill very quickly and send it on its way for a conference with the Senate. There is absolutely no question that to have a recommittal motion be successful that would add $150 million to an $82 billion package, the vast percentage of which is in support of our troops, at best is a technical exercise. To recommit for the sake of recommitting is not a reflection of how seriously we are taking the challenge we have of supporting our troops. So I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit, and I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to recognize that we must move forward with this supplemental. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. . . .

Mr. LEWIS of California. Who says we do not have enough money? . . .

Mr. LEWIS of California. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the mission is the veterans service organizations are a great voice for veterans here in Washington. Like the gentleman, they are constantly pounding their chest saying, I am calling for money, more opportunity for veterans. I insist that they help us go back to where the hospitals are and see that veterans are treated like real human beings in those hospitals. I cannot get the VSOs to do it. Maybe I can get the gentleman to do it because the gentleman is obviously more concerned than the VSOs are about those veterans benefits and the way they are being treated. Mr. Chairman, I ask, would the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) join me in that effort, or does the gentleman believe the money is being spent very well at veterans hospitals?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Let me say that we made a major effort to see that veterans in our hospital did not have to walk around with folders under their arm. We insisted on computerization within that hospital. The gentleman could help me a lot helping the VSOs to really work with veterans where they are being treated or not treated so well. Point of Order

Mr. LEWIS of California. In the last year?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I attempt to visit my hospital regularly as well. And, indeed, visit the veterans who are now back at Walter Reed or Bethesda. Indeed, we all should be concerned about that priority. But, frankly, I am a bit incensed by the gentleman's suggestion yesterday that would indicate that we do not give priority on a bipartisan basis to veterans. I would ask the gentleman to join me in a special mission. Would the gentleman consider the mission?

Mr. LEWIS of California. San Diego Veterans Medical Center in La Jolla. And does it happen to be in the gentleman's district?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that hospital needs a lot of work. I assume the gentleman suggests that veterans ought to be first in line if we do some refurbishing?

Mr. LEWIS of California. And was the gentleman involved in that?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to remember, what is the name of that hospital. I am trying to remember.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman would have discussed that with me at the time. We had a similar problem at Loma Linda Veterans Medical Center, the sister hospital of the Jerry Pettis Veterans Hospital, and we found a way to do seismic retrofitting by way of using a laser. No portion of the hospital needs to be closed down while the work is being done. Thereby, patients can actually be in the hospital while the work is being done. We did not have that discussion. Mr. Chairman, has the gentleman visited that hospital in the last years?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to say upfront to the House that it is not my intention to speak on the time I have reserved in opposition to this proposition, so I am asking for a chance for an exchange here with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have spent a good deal of time behind closed doors in appropriate security to discuss matters like this, but especially to express our concern that the Department of Defense communicate regularly with the Congress relative to activities that might involve areas that are, indeed, secure. I have never told the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) this before, but I will never forget as a mere member of the Subcommittee on Defense and a member of the Intelligence Committee discussing a program that was in the black that I knew about because I happened to be in the back room, but a program that the Department of Defense was not very excited about. We ended up advancing some money to have that program go forward. I have no idea if we would have been unsuccessful with that effort if they had known how serious we were. It is important that we communicate with each other. Communication is a two-way street not a one-way street. So for those listening across the river, it is very important to know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is serious about this, and the leadership of the House is serious about it as well.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my chairman yielding me time. I really come today to express my very sincere and deep appreciation to both the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for the fabulous job they do of working together on behalf of all of us to try to make sense out of our budget process. To say the least, the world on both sides of the aisle and across the country would love to suggest that we provide for them every program at a maximum level that they might have on their wish list. And in turn, that same world wants us to make sense out of balancing our budget. These gentlemen are faced with that horrendous and impossible task, and to them we owe a great debt of gratitude. As the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) suggested, I have now the responsibility of chairing the Committee on Appropriations where, as they help us struggle with the budget, we spend money that has a propensity to violate that which is their guidelines for sensible budgeting. But in turn, over the years as I have observed this process there has been far too little communication, that is meaningful communication, between those on the staff level but also the professional level within the committee itself, between the appropriations process and the budgeteers. I must say that in the time I have had this job, the short time, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has gone out of his way to say time and time again, we want to work with you. I have committed myself to trying to have the Committee on Appropriations once again be a committee designed to preserve dollars, not just spend dollars; and, indeed, if we are successful in that effort, we will be in partnership with our budgeteers, attempting to make sense out of the budget and eventually balance that budget. We are not in this alone. And the issues that flow around stabilizing our economy know nothing about partisan politics. And I must say that the Committee on the Budget has provided guidelines; in the past we have not always followed those guidelines. It is my intention to work as partners in this business so we can all be successful. And I can say without any reservation, if we are successful, moving our bills this year very rapidly so they are ready for conference in the early spring, it will be in no small part a success of the work you all have done. I appreciate that very much and look forward to continuing this relationship.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the Chair giving me a moment to express my deepest appreciation to the entire House for the way they handled the discussion on the bill that has just been passed. I especially want to express my appreciation for the fabulous staff work on both sides of the aisle who allowed us to move this bill as expeditiously as we have. The bill involves sizeable amounts of money designed essentially to support our troops, wherever they may be, but especially in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, I want to also express my deep appreciation to my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who cooperated every step of the way, a demonstration that we do not have to agree on everything; but in terms of supporting our troops we are in agreement. I very much appreciate the work of the House, as well as the committee.