Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

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. At this point I see none on the floor.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my colleague yielding. I know he will continue with his statement. I want the body to know that I very much share his concern. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have discussed this issue. He expresses his concern very clearly; as did the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). It has been my privilege to work with the gentleman for years, and I know of his commitment to the Department and our work. Indeed the Administration does owe us the courtesy of adequate and appropriate response time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is with great pride that I bring before the House H.R. 1268, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2005. This is my first appropriations measure as the new Appropriations Committee chairman. I am especially proud of the extraordinary effort put forth by the committee's members and staff to report a bill that will better permit our troops to prosecute the war on terrorism and will do so with a price tag less than that requested by the President. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the House pay special attention to three of my colleagues who have come back from the private sector to help serve this committee. Frank Cushing is my staff director, and David LesStrang and Jeff Shockey are my deputy staff directors for the Committee. I really appreciate their willingness to make great sacrifice to come back. Six of the committee's 10 subcommittees participated in the development of this measure which provides $81.27 billion in urgent and emergency spending. The lion's share of that amount, some $76.8 billion, is for defense-related expenditures. This funding represents an increase for defense needs of $1.8 billion above the President's request, which I hasten to note is entirely for enhanced support for deployed, soon-to-be deployed, or returning troops in order to assist in force protection and to increase the survivability of the troops in the field. To provide these important resources for our troops, we reduced other, nonessential DOD requests by some $600 million as well as nearly $1 billion in foreign assistance-related programs that were either not well justified or did not meet the strict definition we applied for emergency spending. In addition, another $1 billion of extremely important and time-sensitive non-emergency foreign assistance approved by the committee was completely offset by a rescission of funds originally appropriated in fiscal year 2003. With my colleagues' indulgence, I would like to take a few moments to give the House a flavor of the urgent procurement needs that the committee has included in the measure for our troops. Those include up- armored Humvees and other new Humvees, medium and heavy trucks, night vision devices, handheld stand-off mine detection systems, jammers, improved high-frequency radios, Strykers to replace combat losses, add- on armor kits, small-arms modifications and ammunition, body armor for both the Army and Marine Corps, and medical supplies. In addition to our providing these necessary resources for our troops, the committee was compelled to fully fund the Army's modularity program at this time because of the urgency to address the significant challenges the Army now faces in mitigating stress on the current active duty combat force. To meet this problem, the Army will not only create 10 additional combat brigades; all of the current combat brigades will be redesigned to enhance their ability to deploy more rapidly and operate more independently on the battlefield. I might add that our determination to procure additional equipment beyond the President's request will allow forthcoming troop rotations to receive much of their equipment prior to deployment, clearly an obvious benefit to the success of our troops. Beyond the requirements of our defense community, the bill provides $656 million to meet the human needs resulting from last December's horrific tsunami. In addition, the bill includes $592 million for the construction of the U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad. While that money for the embassy is a reduction of some $66 million, or 10 percent, from the President's request, construction of the embassy compound has been deemed urgent because of the imminent security threats to some 4,000 U.S. personnel in Iraq. Thus far, 45 personnel with the U.S. mission in Iraq have been killed, including two American citizens who were killed by a rocket attack on our diplomatic compound the day of the Iraqi elections. Providing the funds now will greatly reduce the amount of time our personnel remain in harm's way. Despite the additional needs we have recommended on behalf of our troops, the committee's bill is $614 million less than that requested by the President. This reduction comes largely as a result of reductions in proposed foreign assistance spending. Mr. Chairman, I believe this measure is responsible both in how we have responded to the needs to provide for adequate resources in making this fight against terrorism and also in how we have carefully scrubbed each and every program so that we can say with utmost assurance that this is a fiscally sound piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, as I close my remarks, I wish to express my deep appreciation for my ranking member from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as well as to each and every member of the committee. I have already expressed my feelings about our staff on both sides of the aisle. All of them have worked so diligently to prepare effectively this legislation. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at the outset, I am very proud of this measure I bring to you, my first measure as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I certainly urge the Members to adopt this bill. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.006 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and HUD.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would take a moment to suggest to the gentleman that he may not be aware of it because he does not serve on those subcommittees, but there were at least six hearings in a variety of subcommittees and other meetings regarding this matter before we got organized. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. 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 bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance, not only because we are working with the minority leader of the House, but because the gentlewoman is from California, that I must move to table the resolution.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentlewoman being so generous with the time available. It is a great privilege to work with the Committee on Rules on this very important issue that we have been trying to finalize here in the House for a couple of years. I rise in very strong support of H.R. 39, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users, known as TEA-LU. I want to commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and his ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for the effort they put into this package. It is a bill that reflects much of the balance of the needs of the Members of the House. As the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) will recall, I have spent a lot of time working with Members of this committee from the first day I walked into the Congress. Years ago, my first committee assignment was to the Committee on Public Works, which is the heart of this work itself. The chairman believes that a key to a successful 6-year transportation bill involves the revenue of the bill itself. Indeed, I understand that the chairman has worked rather intently to find mechanisms whereby we can be assured that enough money is available to meet the many demands across the country, including such things as indexing the gas tax, a proposal that I myself was involved in many years ago in the State legislature. It is a fact that the demands for transportation systems that work are a primary national concern. The major lacking regarding that is money availability. So I am very much appreciative of the chairman's difficulties. I appreciate the gentleman from Alaska's (Mr. Young) efforts to meet the enormous demands from the Members across the country. My colleague from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) mentioned an item, a highway transportation item, that is very critical to her constituency, the people of West Virginia. That can be replicated across the country. Almost every district faces these challenges. I do, as I speak to the challenge, express also some concern about the guarantee within this bill that essentially would suggest where we fall short of money under current circumstances, additional funding will come by way, or likely come by way, of the general funds. As all of the Members know, we are working intently this year to move our appropriations bills ahead of schedule and indeed under budget. As we go about that, there are a lot of pressures on our dollar availability as relates to the general fund. So I really rise to express concern about things like the following: The funding floors mandated in TEA-LU would require discretionary appropriations of about $1.7 billion from the general fund for 2006. Because those funds remain short, obviously, such a conflict will create difficulty in moving forward with the regular appropriations process. In addition to the mass transit difficulty that is obvious to anybody who will but look, the highway category of TEA-LU guarantees $37.4 billion in highway budget resources. This is $1.6 billion over the President's request of $35.9 billion. As you can see, we have great difficulty moving our way through this process and making sense out of the budget, too. It is my intention to work very closely with the chairman and the ranking member to make sure that these challenges are handled in a way that meets all of our needs. In turn, I look forward to working with members of the committee and the House to try to be responsive to challenges they face relative to transportation as well.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague from California yielding me a moment. Doris knows that Bob and I were very, very dear friends. We came to the Congress together. At that time we talked a lot about our hometown, for the Matsui family knows that Arlene and I consider in many ways Sacramento to be really our second home. It was our privilege to spend a decade there working in the legislature on behalf of public affairs; and the reputation of the Matsui family went well ahead of their service here. Bob served as a member of the board of supervisors and was a fabulous local leader. In turn, his tragic loss was a shock to all of us, but clearly the voice expressed by that vote by the people in that district that surrounds and includes Sacramento is a reflection of the fact that their people know and deeply believe that Doris is the person to reflect the view and the future that Bob would have for the country. Doris, I want you to know that we do not just welcome you to the family today but it is very important for you and I to know that we will continue to work together on behalf of California and our second home; and, indeed, there are wonderful things as well as great things in the future that need to be done. So welcome, God bless you, Godspeed.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations have until midnight, March 11, 2005, to file a privileged report, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I would be happy to try to respond. At this moment it is my anticipation that we will be in the Rules Committee on Monday next in the evening, sometime in the late day, I suppose; and hopefully we will be on the floor on Tuesday. If not on Tuesday, Wednesday.

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule XI I submit for printing in the Record the Rules and Practices of the Committee on Appropriations as follows: Practices: Committee on Appropriations