Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the committee and I have discussed this whole subject area very extensively. The gentleman has brought to my personal attention some of the serious difficulties that actually exist out there in this hospital system. I want the chairman to know that our subcommittee is committed, following the time we get through with the conference, to bring our committee together to have public hearings regarding this matter, and to bring in the authorizers as well, to make sure that we get at the bottom of the very questions that are being raised. It is not going to be taken lightly by this subcommittee.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) for a colloquy.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley), as one of the Members concerned with these things in the Committee on Armed Services, I know the gentleman from Alabama does understand how difficult this process has been. We have worked hard to address the Chiefs' requirements, given current budget restraints. I appreciate the gentleman's particular concerns about this funding shortfall and the impact it will have on his constituents who work on the M113.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I am happy he brought this funding matter to our attention. We definitely will be discussing it in conference, and I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. I do, Mr. Chairman. I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just advise the gentleman that I did not reserve a point of order against this wonderful amendment that he is now presenting.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a moment to have the House know that this was the end of the first session in which Dave Killian has provided a leadership role on the other side of the aisle. He is a very able member of the Committee on Appropriations staff and worked with us for many, many years. I want to express our appreciation for his efforts this year, as well to express my appreciation for all of the staff on both sides of the aisle, and in particular Kevin Roper, who is my staff director, but especially to Betsy Phillips, who has been here all day on her birthday. Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. DeFazio

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 on H.R. 4576, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until midnight, June 1, 2000, to file a privileged report on a bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Let me continue my statement. I would like to continue my statement.

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

Mr. LEWIS of California. I am making the point about the aggregate number.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, with that I believe I made the point that I do not want our enemies to know how much we are not spending as well as how much we are spending, and I think that is in the national interest, in the security of our country's interest and perhaps, well not perhaps but very much in the interest of peace.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as most of my colleagues know, for a reasonably short time I have had the privilege of chairing the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense that deals with national security. As some of my colleagues have mentioned, there are some of our individual military items that are in what we call the black world. They are kept secret. They are kept secret for a reason, and that is beyond just their technological potential and capability. There are a lot of things about those systems we would not want our enemies to know. I realize that this amendment has little to do with that, for we are not being asked to peel back the onion, even though the gentlewoman just suggested there are many things that are classified that she would prefer to be unclassified.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I understand what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) was saying, but I am just making a suggestion that there is a parallel here. One of the pieces of information that is largely public at this point has to do with our submarine force. There are people who would suggest that we do not need very many more submarines. There are others who suggest we ought to have at least as many as we have, and one of the reasons is because they go under the water and nobody really necessarily knows where they are. In the straits near China, it might be interesting to have leaders wonder whether we are there or not. Well, I make that point because there is a parallel here. Our intelligence effort is considerably smaller than some of us would like it to be and revealing that number might suggest to many as to why many of us are so concerned. On the other side of that, there is reason and value in suggesting that maybe our enemies or potential enemies think that we spend a lot more money than we do. I would like them to think that, frankly, and there is value in having them think that. Now, the point that I am making is that this fabulous democracy that we have the privilege of representing here involves the people sending us to this great forum, to sit in committees, to sit on this floor, argue pro and con, develop the information that leads to logical policy conclusions. The public sends us here because they cannot come here to do that detail work. They send us here also knowing full well that there are items relative to the national interest, that not only are they not able to participate day in and day out about but indeed they think we should do it with competence and sometimes in confidence. The fact is that there is not a ground swell of public outcry out there saying we have to have this number. It has been debated here on the floor for several years, but the numbers of people who are really interested perhaps are reflected by the numbers of Members who have gone to our committee room to read these bills. Outside of our committee, I believe the number last year where someone came in was seven Members actually went in to read the bill, and I frankly wonder if they read the whole bill. The first page on there shows them what the number is. There are four so far this year. So there is this huge ground swell out there suggesting that the public has no confidence in us in this very delicate area. I would suggest that the public that actually studies this area knows there is value in not having our enemies or our potential enemies know how little we spend or how much we spend. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express very strong support for this very fine product as produced by the committee. Further, I, too, want to express my deep appreciation, as well as my compliments, to both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) for creating an atmosphere within our committee on the floor that is totally nonpartisan, a very important element to have the kind of support we need for this product that is so important to the future of our country. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4392. Mr. Chairman, I have a unique responsibility when it comes to the Intelligence Community and the intelligence functions of the United States. I have the pleasure of serving as an authorizer on the Intelligence Committee as its Vice Chairman under Chairman Goss. And, as Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee I have the responsibility for the appropriations for our intelligence systems, people and missions. In these two capacities, I am privileged to have an excellent vantage point from which to understand the U.S. Intelligence Community. Mr. Chairman, I have looked at this year's intelligence budget request from many angles, and I can tell you the bill before us today is a good one. Chairman Goss, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Dixon have done a thorough and responsible job of looking at the capabilities of the intelligence community, its needs, and moreover, its problems that must be addressed and corrected. This bill makes major recommendations for improving the ability of the individual Intelligence Community agencies to communicate and collaborate virtually anywhere in the world. This bill will also improve, and better secure the information technology infrastructures at the National Security Agency. Further, it makes a clear down-payment on improving the real-time tactical reconnaissance assets for the military services. Mr. Chairman, what this bill does is focus the limited funds that we are able to muster on the critical needs of the nation's intelligence functions. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note the close working relationship between the Intelligence Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. In my many years as a Member of Congress, I have rarely seen, let alone been able to be part of, such a great working relationship between committees. This working relationship allows both committees to focus on the real problems and priority issues within the Intelligence Community. That, Mr. Chairman, is what this bill does, and I recommend all my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4392.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Taking back my time, the fact is that short- term clean CRs have worked from time to time. It is when we get in confrontations between the administration or between parties that often the process falls apart. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and if it should pass, to oppose the bill.