Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) is pointing to an area that the committee is very concerned about, and indeed the intelligence community has been, as has our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence here in the House. The amendment seems to have no real overall effect on the intelligence community's management account. It decreases the account by $5 million and then increases that same account, but the point that I would make is that this shifting of money would tend to have a direct impact upon both the FBI and the Department of Energy, as well as the broader intelligence community, in their efforts to develop our effort on the intelligence side in the war on terrorism. In turn, in recent years, there has been sizeable adjustment in those accounts that addressed the question of linguistics, the training of people who know foreign language, et cetera, and as my colleague knows, identifying such people, first of all, takes time and takes time to train them, and so we just cannot throw money at it and cause a change like that. I mean, unlike a lot of accounts where we just put money in and something happens tomorrow, linguistic development, that kind of training is very difficult. So it is much more a regular order kind of process. I could describe this in great detail in private between us, but some of the intelligence questions here really should not be discussed in this environment, but in turn, it is an important problem. If I thought a $5 million shift would make a difference and not affect other elements of our war on terrorism, I would support the gentleman's amendment, but I reluctantly oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back. The Chairman carried forward a very full day yesterday, and we appreciate his help. This amendment, and amendments like it that we have seen much of the day yesterday, is a very appealing sort of amendment, for it essentially says we have money in this package, and why do we not take some of it and add additional funding for our troops one way or another. Obviously, that has appeal. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) is a very fine Member from Michigan and he has expressed his concern about the troops before. Yesterday I heard people who had never expressed concern for our troops and, in fact, had not even voted for our bill in the past who were suddenly very, very concerned, and that is a little disconcerting. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I, my colleague and partner, have made every effort in this package and packages before it to aggressively increase funding available for our troops, especially those who are serving our country overseas and those who are in harm's way. This specific proposal adds $265 million to the military personnel accounts. It suggests that it is enough to pay for a $1,500 bonus for each serviceman who is in the region. The offset is to reduce $1 billion for the reconstruction effort in Iraq. I must say, one of the strongest arguments regarding this, besides the fact that we have done everything we can to help our troops in the previous bills and in this one, is the reality that the experts, the generals in charge of our military effort over there, say that their number one priority is reconstruction, because it is the way to, first of all, secure our troops while they are there and, secondly, the way to make certain they get home as quickly as possible is to see the economy of Iraq move forward, get it back on track, and that is part of what this bill is about.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) perhaps use some of his time? And I think the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) will want to close.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I welcome and applaud the gentleman's support. In the meantime, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), one of those Members who experienced our fabulous trip to Iraq recently.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, just recently I went to Walter Reed Hospital, and there I visited Chris Knapp, a constituent of mine from Yucca Valley, California. He had been driving a Bradley not so long before that that was struck by enemy fire. He was hit by shrapnel, was proud of the fact. He showed me the Purple Heart that the President presented him with the day before, as well as the President's personal coin. He talked most, however, about Sergeant Ramirez, who had been so kind to him when he was injured. He did not talk about the fact that the night after he had been with the President, they had taken out his right eye. He urged me to communicate that they need our support. They are there for a purpose called freedom. It was Chris Knapp and his buddies and Sergeant Ramirez who are fighting the good fight over there. All they are asking for today is our real support and not our lip service. Mr. Chairman, I must say it is my privilege and pleasure to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of our committee who provides the endless base of support and provides the point for the fight for our people in Iraq that are defending freedom.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I would like to take just a moment of the time given me to respond to my colleague from California about wiping the slate clean. There is little question that is a piece of what we ought to be about here if we are sincere about playing a role in getting Iraq's economy back on track very quickly. The sooner we do that, the sooner they are going to be able to go forward on their own and further rebuild their oil tapping capabilities, the sooner they are going to be able to go further than they have already progressed with the some 85 percent of the communities within Iraq trying to establish local governments and the like, and the sooner we get their economy back on track. One step to that involves the donors conference in Spain at the end of October. At that point in time, many of the countries that are key, involved in the lending circumstance, will be present. It is our purpose there to actively encourage others to participate in forgiveness of loans, forgiveness of reparations and the like, so that this country will have a chance to get that economy in order. If we cannot do that, if we find ourselves by way of extending loans causing this Spain meeting to become a lenders conference, we will hold this country's opportunity to recover back years and years and years. The people of Iraq have never in modern history had an opportunity for economic growth, private sector growth and the kind of opportunity that is part of a free economy. They have not experienced democracy, the opportunity of freedom. Indeed, a piece of it involves their fundamental economy. What we are talking about here by way of this lending avenue that causes some people politically to feel good about it sounds great. To me it was quite appealing initially. But when you take a hard look at what it practically does to a quick recovery of the Iraq economy, and then in turn what that means in terms of quickly bringing our troops home, it complicates the problem. Our people will be there longer. It will be tougher to stabilize the country. Indeed, we could quash the hope that many of us have for freedom and democratic growth in Iraq.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I will not take that much time, but it is very important to know that within the bill, we do provide for hazardous- duty pay, for the extra funding that is required to make sure that we take care of our troops. Indeed, over recent years, we have done a fantastic job by way of the regular order to improve the pay levels, the housing circumstances, et cetera, for our troops. We are doing everything we can to make sure there is a pattern set there that encourages our people not just to serve, but to reup when they have finished a specific tour of duty. We have made fantastic progress there. And we commit ourselves to continuing that progress. In the meantime, I think it is instructional to mention the very important conversation we had with General Sanchez when our group was in Iraq. The General is in charge of our men and women who are representing us in that country, and he said very clearly that it is impossible to delink the relationship between the security of our troops, the job that they are doing for us in Iraq, from the reconstruction effort in Iraq. If we want to stabilize the circumstances there, he said, secure our troops as well, make sure they are as best possible protected, then we have got to move forward quickly with reconstruction. To take this amount of money out of the reconstruction process is bound to slow it down. That in turn will have an effect upon how long our troops will have to remain there. This is the wrong place to be moving money at this point in time. So I would strongly object to this decision at this moment. I do appreciate the support long-term for improving the living condition and otherwise as well as the current hazardous-duty pay and support for the troops that we are expressing in this bill.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I doubt that I will take the entire 10 minutes at this moment; but it is very important, I think, for the Members of the House to join together and recognize the long-term impact that we may be about effecting today as we consider this very important supplemental. In anybody's book, $87 billion is a lot of money. Indeed, it was not very long ago, 2 weeks ago, the President signed into law the appropriations for the 2004 national defense funding. Those dollars pay for the fiscal year that is ahead of us, for the expenses of housing, of training, of providing food and forage for the men and women who make up our forces. The moneys also involve paying for the assets that they use whether they be airplanes, ships at sea, or arms that they must carry. Those dollars also pay for the research and development that allow us to stay on the cutting edge for the wars that we may have to fight somewhere over the horizon. All of that is a piece of national security or the national defense, a total in that package in excess of $370 billion. There is just not any question that defending America, being the strongest country in the world, is an expensive process. To say the least, our national defense is a priority for the country. Over half of our discretionary money goes into these pools because our people have long recognized that our freedom is critical to our future, and we know very well that maintaining that freedom is a price we must and we are willing to pay. The one thing that is not often said, peace is one thing, maintaining our freedom is very critical, but war is an entirely different thing. War is really expensive. We remain strong as a country because we are peacemakers. From time to time we find ourselves in a circumstance where war is a requirement if we are going to stabilize our future in this shrinking world. We found ourselves in this circumstance in the Middle East. And the war on terrorism, which is a direct result of 9- 11, and the President's taking head-on the challenge of terrorism throughout the world has put us on a track that suggests that America is the only remaining superpower, and we will lead the point insofar as not just maintaining the peace is concerned but also ferreting out terrorism wherever it might exist, wherever it may be harbored. And today we find ourselves in the midst of Iraq, following a military incursion on our part that directly dealt, began to deal with the fact that in that country was one of the world's worst terrorists. Saddam Hussein and his regime absolutely will be remembered in history as one of the worst of all time. Indeed, what he has done to his people, the attitudes and view of the world that he has harbored in his country are among the worst that we have experienced. It rivals all that which Hitler was about and the Holocaust. It certainly rivals Stalin. But to go to Iraq and see firsthand what a terrorist is all about when he runs a country, Saddam Hussein cared nothing about his people. Only those who were his closest supporters did he care about. But from there he did not shy away a moment for murdering by the thousands his own people. To travel to Iraq and see what might happen or even be happening in other countries, to visit the killing fields where indeed we can see in some locations mounds of dirt dug up, we can see clothes sticking out of these mounds of dirt. People have gone there seeking to find the location of their loved ones who were murdered on the very spot. To be in a killing field where the farmer, the local killer designated by Saddam Hussein, chooses to bury people by the thousands under his fields where he grows his crops, it is an incredible scene, one that is impossible to believe almost unless one goes and visits Iraq today. To look at the past, what Saddam Hussein and his regime have done to his people, and people like him threaten to do to the world, certainly is a very important awakening for those of us who have had the chance to visit. We traveled not long ago to Iraq, 17 of us, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, some who supported the war, some who did not; and we came back together almost hand in hand. We spent time thinking through what we had learned and seen and, indeed, thinking through what our responsibilities were. There is little doubt that that trip is made up of people who now support our effort to fight the war on terror. Indeed, the support from that group, if it is reflected in the House, would suggest we are going to have a very solid bipartisan base of support for this supplemental. Speaking for a moment to the supplemental itself, most of the money, the $87 billion we are talking about, most of the money is going to our forces, to secure and sustain our troops. Some $65 billion of the money goes to our troops. The balance, about $18.5 billion, is for the reconstruction of Iraq. Let me speak to that piece of it for a moment for the Members have heard me talk about finances for our troops time and time again, but to that piece of it that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is responsible for, the reconstruction of Iraq. It is very important for all of us to know that that money is designed simply to jump-start this economy, to begin the work that is necessary, to make sure that we can put pressure on the world to help with Iraq's circumstance. For once we relieve it of this huge burden of debt that Saddam Hussein created, really some mix that involves over $200 billion worth of debt. We then can apply some of the funding we are talking about in this bill to reconstructing some of their basic utilities, creating circumstances where decent water systems can go forward, where an industrial base is possible, where investment for the world economy makes sense. Once Iraq gets to that point, that engine will have begun to run, and I am confident if we follow through here, if we have the patience and the hope to follow through, Iraq will progressively come in among free nations. For the first time in their history, people will have a chance for freedom, and they will see the doorway and the promise of private economic opportunity. Indeed, what we are about to do today is history-making. If we go forward here with hope and patience, there is little doubt that the bill we pass today will change the world that is the Middle East. We have the potential of adopting a model that will put pressure on the whole system there, and it is my view that then there truly will be real hope for democratic and free change in the countries in the Middle East, and, indeed, we will be back on the roadway to peace.

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 continues and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill, thus, dealing with the authorizers' business, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states specifically in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it is changing existing law.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my colleague's expression of concern here. I must say that this Member feels very strongly about the relationship between authorizing committees and the Committee on Appropriations. He is an able member of the authorizing committee. I certainly do not want to impose appropriations' position on their work. So I encourage him to consider a lot of these things by way of the authorizing process, and then we will talk about it. Point of Order

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I know it is obvious to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) that I look forward to continuing to work with him.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I guess this is a parliamentary inquiry. I, frankly, would like to be able yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) a minute of my time before I express my reservation.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition and am happy to yield a minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). I would like to hear the rest of his statement.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I must say to my colleagues that I am very appreciative of the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) expression of concern about making sure that we control the funds that flow from us by way of the Department of Defense to a variety of our needs. But let me say to my colleagues that none of these are new authorities. Indeed, many of them were in the supplemental that we passed in April, and many are in the annual appropriations bill that was just signed into law recently. If I could take a moment to discuss what this provision actually does, it is a provision that would prevent us from reimbursing allies like Pakistan and Jordan as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) suggested, but that was a rather straightforward thing that was discussed out front by the Department. It is money for reimbursement for military activities and support they gave us to our benefit. They were activities that we wanted to accomplish, and reimbursement was understood. It is the kind of activity that we have carried forward from time to time over especially the last couple of years since 9-11. Among other things, the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) provision would specifically prevent expenditure of $73 million in efforts to counter drug activities in the area, for example, specific drug activities I am concerned about in Afghanistan. We are interested in drying up this problem, and we should be in it together; and I do not think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) really means to dry that up, but that is the effect of part of what he is doing here. It would also prevent DOD from being able to reprogram funds, as he suggests. Those funds provide flexibility for the Department, which they often need, especially in a circumstance like this when we are really in a war setting; but they do that reprogramming after approval from the authorizing in the Committee on Appropriations. It is not an unusual thing. It is a part of our regular activity. It does tend to deny the kind of flexibility that we need for these sorts of military activities, but essentially the gentleman's provision strips out language we carried in provisions of this bill and other bills, language which combines the need to give our forces all the flexibility that is a part of a very difficult region. I am not sure that he is really getting a handle on what he had hoped to prevent that he thinks happens out there, but this is a relationship between the committees and the Department of Defense, similar to the ones that the gentleman has between his committee and the Energy Department. It is not always perfect, but it works pretty good so far. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, beyond being charming, I agree with most of what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is saying.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I have been involved in this sort of providing of flexibility for a long, long time. The gentleman from Massachusetts was not correct in suggesting that they could reprogram money out of drug control efforts. Indeed, if they want to make some reprogramming from one drug control effort to another, they have to come to us to get our permission before the fact. Indeed, I think the gentleman is chasing after windmills that do not exist in this particular provision. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from San Diego, California (Mrs. Davis of California).