Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentleman from Alabama for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I must say, while I had not intended to comment at all, it is difficult to let the time pass by without expressing my deep appreciation for the work that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has done with this subcommittee over the years. We had, to say the least, some rough times during this particular appropriations year. The leadership that the gentleman has shown has had a huge impact in our relations around the world, and I appreciate his being patient with me as I try to provide input. I would like to express my appreciation as well to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for her work and leadership on this very tough area. Mr. Chairman, there is little doubt that very few of our constituents across the country are very excited about spending their taxpayer dollars on a thing called foreign assistance. The gentleman from Alabama has been able to provide a backdrop that involves questions, for example, that relate to the child welfare or development fund that have cast a different kind of shadow. Indeed, the public is responding very positively to the positive role that we can play in strengthening democracy around the world as well as helping especially poor people and poor children around the world. For the leadership and work that the gentleman from Alabama has done, I want him to know I very much appreciate his effort.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, this will be a very special Independence Day in Barstow, California where we will celebrate the opening of a museum commemorating Route 66, the Mother Road that led millions of Americans west to the promise of unlimited dreams and horizons in the Golden State. The opening of the museum on July 4 will provide a delightful reminder that the towns and cities of my district provided the hospitality and welcome to most of those Americans making the long drive West. Barstow was--and remains--a friendly oasis from the hours- long drive across the great Mojave Desert. Visitors will have a chance to remember the exciting early days of driving America's highways with old photographs, road signs and a vintage 1926 Dodge touring sedan. The museum has visionary plans of returning Barstow to its status as a way station along the desert highways. It is especially commendable that this museum will be an anchor for another older reminder of the history of Western travel: The Casa del Desierto Harvey House, a historic stop opened for travelers in 1911 on the Santa Fe Railway's trains to and from California. Thousands of train travelers each year stopped to marvel at this towering adobe palace and be served food by the famous Harvey Girls in its elegant dining rooms. This magnificent depot and hotel, which has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places, has been fully restored and returned to use through the efforts of Barstow's civic leaders and volunteers. The location of the Route 66 Museum in this historic railroad structure will provide modem travelers with a fascinating window into the past, and should make Barstow even more of a popular stopover along desert highways. This new museum will add to the reputation of San Bernardino County as one of the top destinations for those who are fans of Route 66 history. It joins another fine museum in Victorville, another historic Mojave Desert way-station, and the San Bernardino Route 66 Rendezvous classic car festival, which draws 600,000 visitors each September in one of the nation's largest free-admission events. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating Barstow and its citizens for renewing their city's rightful place as one of the welcoming points to California, and one of the highlights along Route 66, the Mother Road.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like today to call your attention to nearly five decades of dedication to music and love of community by Mr. Conant K. Halsey, who has guided the Summer Music Festival of the Redlands Bowl through decades when many local concert series declined--and has helped make it into a regional event attended by 100,000 people each year. The Redlands Bowl Summer Music Festival was created in 1924 by founder Grace Stewart Mullen, and is the nation's oldest continuing outdoor concert series that has never charged admission. Thanks in large part to the financial expertise of Conant Halsey, the festival has also never asked for government funding for operations--it has survived and prospered entirely on the donations and volunteer work from those who love good music in the surrounding communities. Halsey, a stockbroker who came West for his health, joined the board of the Redlands Community Music Association in 1953, and took over as chairman when Grace Mullen died in 1967. Under his guidance, the association created an endowment fund that is now self-sustaining--the festival only uses income, not principal. When he joined the board, the annual budget was $50,000--now it is $317,000. In a white dinner jacket and bow tie, Conant Halsey has been a fixture at many of the 940 concerts he has helped stage in the past 47 years. He has made the announcements, led children in the Pledge of Allegiance, and greeted visitors from other states and foreign countries. Mr. Chairman, the City of Redlands is known for its grace and appreciation of culture in no small part because of the continuing success of the Redlands Bowl summer concerts. After 47 years of helping guide that dedication to excellent music, Conant Halsey is retiring from the board on June 30 at the bowl's first concert of the 21st Century. I ask you and my colleagues to please join me in offering our congratulations on this tremendous accomplishment, and wish Mr. Halsey well in years to come.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, ofttimes people are relatively insensitive to the specifics of such a proposal as it might apply to legislative branch, which is this bill. Should we pass this amendment that is being proposed today, what that does to us as we go to conference with the other body on just the legislative branch proposal puts the House at a considerable disadvantage. There are any number of issues that underlie that that we ought to be thinking about. And this is not a partisan consideration. It affects the House of Representatives. And that should be paramount in our minds.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I agree that radon is a serious public health issue and that a multimedia approach is a sensible way to address it. Unfortunately, I have heard many concerns from my constituents about this proposed regulation. I believe other Members have as well. In California alone, if the State does not adopt a multimedia program, the water agencies have stated that this new standard for radon in water would cost water customers some $400 million in the first year of implementation. Would the gentleman agree that it may be appropriate for Congress to pass legislation to provide greater health protection than the proposed radon drinking water rule? My intent is to provide reasonable resources to address radon in indoor air and provide greater certainty to drinking water providers that they will be spending money sensibly.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. We appreciate the committee's cooperation. Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

Mr. LEWIS of California. I certainly will. I appreciate the gentleman extending that hand, for there is little doubt that this problem does not know partisan lines and to be able to work together with him dealing with EPA would be very helpful to me and much appreciated.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, I will if the gentleman will agree to work on a bipartisan approach to this problem that is a good solution. Bipartisan legislation could address the concerns of all stakeholders. I look forward to working with the gentleman.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate very much the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) yielding to me. In turn I want to express my appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member for their longstanding interest in the subject we are about to discuss. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) to enter into a colloquy to clarify the effects of this legislation on EPA's pending radon drinking water regulation. It may surprise some in this body to know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I have a long history of working together on behalf of the environment, particularly in California. The issue of radon gives us another opportunity to work together in a bipartisan fashion. Water districts across the country are understandably concerned about the high costs of treating water for radon while little is done to address radon in indoor air. EPA's own science indicates that 98 percent of the threat from radon comes from sources other than drinking water. Is this the gentleman's understanding?

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention the fine achievement of Lauren Pollini, a seventh-grade student from Home Street Middle School in Bishop, CA. Lauren was a recent competitor in the National History Day Competition (June 11-15) at the University of Maryland. The competition involved students from across the United States who submitted projects on this year's theme: ``Turning Points in History, People, Ideas, Events.'' Lauren qualified for the national competition by first winning California State History Day competitions at the county and state levels. Her essay, entitled ``Sunset School of Weedpatch, California: A Turning Point for Children, Teachers And Community,'' won the State historical research category. Lauren also won three special recognition awards and two historical groups would like to publish her paper in their official publications. Lauren's outstanding accomplishments were undoubtedly guided by the leadership of her teacher, Mrs. Irene Sorensen. Irene is a past winner of the Richard Farrell Award from the National History Day as the 1996 Teacher of Merit. Irene retired this month after 19 years of teaching at Home Street School and leading students to statewide and national recognition. The town of Bishop, and Home Street School are 200 miles from the closest university library or other academic research facility. Yet under Irene's direction, Home Street students have won at the State level and qualified for National History Day nine times during the 13 years of History Day competition. Clearly, the dedication of young students like Lauren, and the guidance of teachers like Irene Sorensen, make our public school system the finest in the world. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me and our colleagues in recognizing Lauren Pollini for her fine accomplishment. To say the least, her fine work is admired by all of us. I'd also like to commend Irene Sorensen for her fine leadership and her devotion to such remarkable educational standards, and wish her well in her new endeavors. Students like Lauren and instructors like Irene set a fine example for us all and it is only appropriate that the House pay tribute to them both today.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like today to praise the efforts of Larry Sharp, the president of Arrowhead Credit Union, who has been named Business Leader of the Year by the San Bernardino County Sun for the success he has brought the credit union, and his commitment to community involvement for himself and his business. Larry Sharp took over financial management of the San Bernardino County Central Credit Union in 1982, vowing to turn around within 24 to 30 months the troubled financial institution that served local government employees. Under his management, the credit union turned a profit within 18 months. During Larry Sharp's 18-year tenure, what is now known as Arrowhead Credit Union has grown from 24,000 members with assets of $42 million to nearly 100,000 members and assets of $404 million. But the credit union is much more than a financial success under Larry Sharp. It has become a community asset. Under his leadership, Arrowhead Credit Union donated funds to create a classroom at California State University, San Bernardino, that helps students learn realtime securities trading just as if they were working for a broker. The credit union has also given free space to create the Community Advancement Resource Center, which helps small businesses and start- ups. The credit union has set aside $250,000 for micro-loans for businesses using the center, which is a cooperative venture between the university's Center for Entrepreneurship, the Inland Empire Small Business Development Center and the U.S. Small Business Administration. Arrowhead plans to open a branch this year on San Bernardino's West Side, whose primarily African-American and Hispanic residents have not been served by a local financial institution since 1984. And the credit union has pledged $20,000 a year to the CORE 21 program of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership to foster high-tech jobs in the area. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that under Larry Sharp's leadership, Arrowhead Credit Union has shown the kind of leadership that helps a community prosper and grow along with its businesses. I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating him on the well-deserved recognition as Business Leader of the Year.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I would be happy to revisit this matter going into conference to ensure that the committee has all available information to make the best possible judgment on the appropriate funding level for this program.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes a change in existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2, rule XXI.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we are at a very, very critical time in America's history. There is little doubt that in the past, as Ronald Reagan raised the question of a strategic defense initiative and a thing dubbed, by some, Star Wars, that one of the fall-outs of all of that discussion is that media across the country would make a mockery of the suggestion that we might be challenged by way of a missile threat. Over time, the public came to the point of believing that we actually had a missile defense system. They actually, in sizeable percentages, think we have this in place. The reality is that these are very hard things that we are about. The business of hitting a missile with a missile or a bullet with a bullet is very difficult stuff. But we have technology moving forward that offers huge potential in terms of America's capability to defend itself from an errant missile attack, from a rogue Nation reacting in a fashion that would make no sense. Nonetheless, this President, William Jefferson Clinton, has asked us to put in this budget a dollar amount for long lead procurement, for development, laying the foundation for us to have the sensors and other equipment in place to measure whether this kind of defense system actually has potential to protect our people. He is not doing that lightly. At the same time, the President has just finished a personal round of discussions with Mr. Putin. We all know that President Clinton is a very persuasive fellow, especially when he is one on one, and as of this moment, Mr. Putin is reconsidering the role of a shield in terms of Russia's interests as well as our interests. They are not rigid on this matter, and in no small part because I believe this President is very persuasive. All of the experts that I have had the privilege of spending a lot of time with in recent years suggest to me that perhaps America has no near peer in the world for maybe as long as 10 years. I believe that that is likely the case. Over time there is a chance that China may come online and that India indeed might develop a competitive spirit in Asia. Laying the foundation for that, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there lies the strongest argument for this $288.5 billion bill, is to set the stage for America to be ready to defend our country if we need to long- term. Our actual purpose is not that. Our purpose is to set the stage that causes those leaders in Asia to know that America is so good and so able to defend herself that there must be other avenues to making it to a successful path in this shrinking world. What we hope is that the future leaders of China and India, indeed, will look around and say, wait a minute, why should we waste our resources following that pathway when the marketplace itself will work? Indeed, what we are about here is seeking to provide leadership for peace. We talked about costs a while ago. Some of the costs that were discussed would suggest that we should not put a lot of money in R&D to make sure we are the best of the best in the future. The F-22, for example, will cost in just a short time ahead some $61 billion as we go out to make sure this tactical fighter system will work. Peace and building for peace is not cheap, Mr. Chairman. This bill reflects the only real reason to have a national government; that is, to make sure that we are prepared to fight if we need to, but most importantly, to pursue those pathways to peace. I must conclude my remarks by suggesting to all my colleagues that peace indeed is very, very expensive, and the most serious of our responsibilities as a national government. But we cannot begin to calculate the cost of war, Mr. Chairman. What America's leadership is about is to lay a foundation that will almost guarantee that leaders of common sense in the future will not want to follow a pathway that follows confrontation and war.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), for yielding. I think, as the gentleman knows, it is just possible that reporters even of an esteemed newspaper like the New York Times do not have access to all of the material that might be available that is pertinent to this discussion. I think the gentleman further knows that every Member of the House does have the opportunity to go to the intelligence room, to read the material that is there, that is a clear evaluation of that which has been suggested by a number of sources, some of which are very, very poorly developed sources. I would urge my colleague to take advantage of both your responsibility, but also your opportunity to go to the intelligence room and read that material for literally the protection of America's involvement, and so I would appreciate my colleague considering that.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I guess much of the world knows that last year our subcommittee went about what many thought to be impossible, that is, we came together in a forum that was entirely nonpartisan, beginning to attempt to address the question of future tactical fighter capability for the country. At question was the reality that we had three aircraft lines moving forward in terms of research and development. We had potential production costs that were almost endless. Yet our objective out there by 2020 and 2050 was to make sure that America had the best possible tactical aircraft available for our men and women who defend freedom in the world. As we raised this question about the F-22, our point was to say this appears to be an aircraft that can meet our needs in the decades ahead. But, indeed, if we commit to that line before we know that it really works, we could commit ourselves to a procurement line that is horrendously expensive; and we could find ourselves on a pathway not similar to that which was the B-2 not so long ago. So the committee dared to ask, should we insist upon testing, actual flight testing of this aircraft before we went forward with that long- term procurement? The committee made some very difficult choices and began a debate in the Pentagon that was a very, very healthy debate. As of this moment, the Congress in this bill has provided for the advance procurement funding that was our agreement last year. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I agreed in the process that if the testing that we required, that pattern was followed, that we in turn would commit to the funding of 10 production aircraft. That agreement that we are going forward with here today is a reflection of both, I think I can speak for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and myself, that we are keeping our word in terms of that commitment. Let me assure my colleagues that under our bill, none of the funds provided for the 10 aircraft in fiscal year 2001 may be obligated until these tough testing requirements are fully satisfied. It is absolutely necessary that we follow this pathway because if we are going to make the expenditure to fully buy out this aircraft as it is now planned, it is a very, very big expenditure indeed. With that, let me suggest as of this moment, the F-22 is doing very, very well; but it has some very tough testing ahead of it. We look to that with great interest and will continue to ask the kinds of professional questions that is our oversight responsibility.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentlewoman, I cannot express deeply enough how strongly I appreciate her work with us by way of her participation on the authorizing committee. I am certainly happy to give her my assurance that we will look at these programs carefully as we go to conference.

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

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, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I are pleased to bring before the Membership today the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill for the Department of Defense. This bill, which received strong bipartisan support in our subcommittee and the Committee on Appropriations, passing through the committee with no amendments, continues the efforts of the Congress to ensure that our Nation's military is ready for the challenge of the 21st century. Those challenges are daunting as any we have faced during the Cold War, and I am gratified that my colleagues understand that our security and the defense of freedom must remain above partisanship. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the beginning of this that the foundation laid by our subcommittee is designed to make certain that America remains as the single superpower well into the next century. Indeed, the foundation laid in this committee's product is a direct result, first of all, of the work done by my colleague and my chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) when he was chairman of this subcommittee, and now as full Committee chairman and before that, the foundation was further laid by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) when he was chairman of the committee. I must say, if we have a committee in the House in which both parties work better together, I do not know what committee that is. For indeed, this is a product of the work of our very fine staff working with the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle who recognize just how critical it is that America be ready for the 21st century. Mr. Chairman, let me say that this bill in many ways is a very forward-leaning bill. Among other things, perhaps most important, we have taken seriously the efforts on the part of the new chief of the Army, General Eric Shinseki, to develop a vision and a transformation strategy that will take our Army into a posture that will cause it to be the Army we need well into 2020, 2025, 2050. Indeed, it is the Army, the men and women of our military, who make a critical difference in terms of America's strength. So I am proud to say that the bill is designed to accelerate the efforts on the part of General Shinseki in building that vision for the future. Mr. Chairman, we are approximately $1.2 billion above and beyond the budget request in connection with the Army's vision implementation. We have gone forward, rounding out the first interim brigade that Eric Shinseki is recommending, and we are fully funding as well a second brigade in support of his effort. We have included language that will require the Army to give us direct feedback so that we can monitor carefully the progress that is being made in their effort at Fort Lewis, Washington. Let me say that as we look to the next century, the Members should know that we are hurdling into an age of warfare that will require heretofore unimaginable speed, complexity, and flexibility for our fighting machines and the men and women who design, build, and operate them. Imagine, if you will, a battle where most of our fighter pilots never see their enemy before they are engaged. Imagine pinpoint attacks on enemy ground targets from 35,000 feet in the air or 100 miles away at sea. Imagine computer-guided flying machines that never put our personnel at risk. Imagine planning and executing a battle on foreign shores from the computer stations in the Pentagon. This is no longer the stuff of science fiction. Our Armed Forces faced many of these challenges in their engagement in Kosovo, and it is indicative of the rapidly changing climate that the Congress and our military leaders must address for the real future. Mr. Chairman, America, as I have suggested, is the country which will preserve freedom in the next century. This bill is designed to set the stage to be sure that we are ready for that. In connection with a fundamental piece of our direction, the bill includes over $40 billion for the kind of R&D that will make sure that the assets are available that are required to do that sort of research that assures America's strength. I might mention 2 other areas in which the bill is making an effort to lean forward. I would point out the fact that most are aware today of the reality that we could face some serious challenges in our communications systems, especially the computer in the months and years and the decades ahead. We have begun within this bill by providing a $150 billion pool to begin to help us figure out what the questions are that need to be answered in the arena that we now describe as cyber war. I might further mention that one of the elements that was more controversial in last year's bill relates to America's future efforts in terms of having the best available tactical fighters. This bill provides for the funding that was part of an agreement regarding the F- 22 aircraft that took place last year. While the Air Force is going forward with the kind of testing that we feel is absolutely necessary to be sure that the F-22 is the airplane we hope it to be, we have laid the foundation with those commitments to testing while providing the funding, the full funding for 10 production aircraft that will keep them on a pathway to further tests of that aircraft. Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very healthy appropriations bill that is some $19.5 billion beyond last year's appropriation. The total amount is $288.5 billion. Further, we should state for the Record that the bill is approximately $3.5 billion beyond the President's budget request. It is a bill that has broadly-based bipartisan support. Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to bring before the membership today the Fiscal Year 2001 appropriations bill for the Department of Defense. This bill, which received near-unanimous bipartisan support in our subcommittee and the Appropriations Committee, continues the efforts of Congress to ensure that our nation's military is ready for the challenges of the 21st Century. Those challenges are as daunting as any we faced during the Cold War, and I am gratified that my colleagues understand that our security and the defense of freedom must remain above partisanship. The bipartisan path we follow today toward strengthening our nation's forces was forged by my chairman, Bill Young, in his years as chairman of this subcommittee. Before that, the groundwork was being laid by our ranking member, Congressman John Murtha, when he chaired the subcommittee. Their wealth of knowledge and commitment to our military are precious assets to Congress. I would also like to commend the hard work of all of the members and staff of the Defense Subcommittee. This bill is truly a fruit of their combined labors. The Appropriations Committee submits to you today a Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations Bill for the Department of Defense that we believe will allow our armed forces to embark on a new millennium in military technology, deployment strategy and world view. It will allow us to demonstrate our commitment to our nation's defense by providing $288.5 billion in new budget authority. We are hurtling into an age of warfare that will require heretofore unimaginable speed, complexity and flexibility for our fighting machines and the men and women who design, build and operate them. Imagine a battle where most of our fighter pilots never see their enemy before they are engaged. Imagine pinpoint attacks on enemy ground targets from 35,000 feet in the air or 100 miles away at sea. Imagine computer-guided flying machines that never put our personnel at risk. Imagine planning and executing a battle on foreign shores form computer stations in the Pentagon. This is no longer the stuff of science fiction films. Our armed forces faced many of these challenges in their engagement in Kosovo. And it is indicative of the rapidly changing climate the Congress and our military leaders must address for the real future. The bill we bring before you today strongly supports the need for the most forward-looking technology in our aircraft, ships, ground weapons and missile defense. We must press forward in developing this technology, looking not to today but to 2020, 2050 and beyond. The most crucial commitment we must address, however, is the one we make to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who are the reason America is the remaining superpower, unrivaled in our ability to defend and support freedom anywhere in the world. The members of the Defense Subcommittee believe we must show our unequivocal support for our military men and women by providing them with the best pay and benefits, best working conditions, and best living conditions possible. Every member of Congress should take time in the coming year to visit military installations and experience the inspiring morale and commitment of our troops. What you will find is an enthusiasm and level of technical expertise that would be the envy of our nation's business leaders. We are depending on these young men and women to operate some of the most sophisticated machinery and complicated battle plans in the world. When they receive adequate training and support, they rise to that challenge. But you will also see a desperate need for barracks renovation and improved maintenance at our military installations. You will hear of a disturbing lack of spare parts, that combined with a high operating tempo has left much of our advanced equipment on the tarmac or in repair facilities indefinitely. In spite of these shortfalls, we can still count on our men and women in uniform to dedicate themselves to protecting their nation. We must dedicate ourselves to providing the support they need to do that well. To address the needs of our troops, the bill provides $2 billion more than in FY 2000 for active and reserve personnel pay and benefits. We fully fund a pay raise for the troops. We add $250 million to the budget request for enlistment bonuses, housing allowances and other personnel investments. We have also increased funding for military health care and medical research by $988 million over last year. A portion of these funds will implement the plan approved by the House in the authorization process to improve access to health care for service members, their dependents and the retired medical community. Operation and maintenance accounts receive $1.2 billion more than requested by the administration. This will continue help us tackle the critical shortages in facilities maintenance, field-level equipment maintenance and logistical support and spare parts. It also funds such basic needs as cold-weather clothing, body amor and shipboard living needs for sailors. While this spending bill provides numerous incentives for our military leaders to reach toward the future, I would like to highlight two areas that we believe are particularly urgent. The first is the Army Transformation, a much-needed overhaul of our basic ground forces. The subcommittee members enthusiastically support the Army Chief of Staff, General Ric Shinseki, in his vision to create new Army brigades, and eventually divisions, which he believes will be able to place a very strong, mobile force into a battle situation within 96 hours. The Chief has proposed to jump-start this process by standing up, in fiscal year 2001, two new medium combat brigades. Our spending bill would fully fund those brigades. And we strongly urge the Army to reform its internal structure to revitalize and modernize procurement processes. We must put an end to weapons systems that take 30 years to develop. The other forward-looking element of the bill is a $150 million addition over the budget for what are popularly known as ``cyber-war'' systems. The recent international outbreak of the Love Bug virus is only the latest danger signal that anyone anywhere in the world is capable of compromising our computer systems. The military must be on the cutting edge of information technology and its uses, but we must also recognize that the growing use of this technology brings potential vulnerabilities. Finally, I would like to briefly address a subject many of you will remember from last year: Our tactical fighter program and the F-22. This year, we have funded the first 10 production models of this fighter, which has the potential to be one of our most fabulous assets. But our bill continues the requirement that critical Block 3.0 avionics software be tested in the aircraft before production begins, and also requires a report of the adequacy of testing overall. In conclusion, I believe this spending bill commits Congress to providing the support our military leaders need to defend our nation, and defend freedom around the world. This commitment must be continued and increased in future years, for while ensuring peace is expensive, the alternative is war, whose costs are unimaginable. At this point I would like to insert for the Record a brief summary of the funding recommendations in this bill. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T07JN00.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T07JN00.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T07JN00.003 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.