Jerry Lewis

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation on budget totals for fiscal year 2005 on July 22, 2004. The amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the committee allocations and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act. I ask for the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I have asked for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, I am very empathetic to the concerns of the gentleman from California. We expect fully to address those concerns in regular order. Therefore, 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.'' The amendment includes an emergency designation and as such constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say it is our intention to pursue the questions the gentlewoman is asking. It may very well be in conference on the supplemental that it is appropriate, but frankly in some ways we take from Peter to pay Paul. We can pursue this is regular order, and I prefer to use the supplemental process for those emergencies that we cannot deal with in regular order. Because of that, I am not pursuing the recommendations at this time. We will follow through, however, on the questions that the gentlewoman is asking. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, it would be my intention for us to have serious discussions including the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and his staff and our people so that we know that the air is cleared.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman can then, in this complex field, understand when he used the term ``restrict'' that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) might be a bit disconcerted. Does the gentleman see what I am saying?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order so we can accept the amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, speaking further on the point of order, I would simply, calmly say to the gentleman that I very much agree, as the entire House agrees, that we must be responsive to the medical needs of our veterans, especially those who are coming back at this very moment. There is not any doubt that the new Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee is designed in the fashion to be very responsive to the needs of veterans. I urge the gentleman to recognize that we have begun hearings in connection with that already. It is our intention in regular order to move these bills very quickly, and there is absolutely no doubt that the needs of these veterans, beyond money that is already in the pipeline, will be met as a result of regular order.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I do so in order to have a very brief discussion with the gentleman who is chairman of the authorizing committee. I think many of you in the House know that I spent a lot of years in my life making an honest living in the life and health insurance business so I know a little bit about this subject. The gentleman is raising a number of questions that are very legitimate questions. I do not think there is a conflict here. I just wanted the gentleman to know that it is my intention to examine these serious questions between now and the time we go to conference. I am absolutely certain we can at least clear the air on any remaining problems between now and then.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Of course.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to extend this conversation for too much longer. I think it is an amendment that we can accept. I think it is the amendment that takes out $1 million and puts $1 million back in. I am very happy with that.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, let us not describe what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) did. We will be here for hours. Either we do this my way or we do not.

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

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

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 appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law. The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect. I ask 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 do.