David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank both of my friends for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate between those who care about national security and the security of our Nation's labs and those who care about trade. In fact, national security is our number one priority and should continue to be. In a bipartisan way, we are going to work to address that. At the same time, we can not ignore the very important issues of human rights and of religious persecution. Mr. Speaker, I will take a back seat to no one when it comes to raising concerns about those human rights issues. Ten years ago this summer, I joined with my colleagues marching to the Chinese Embassy to protest the Tiananmen Square massacre. Just last week, I met with family members of the Falun Gong religious movement whose relatives are being persecuted in China. The fact of the matter is, our national interests are best served by maintaining commercial relations with our fourth largest trading partner and an emerging power in the Pacific. The key fact today is that the very same market reforms that underpin our vibrant commercial relationship have been the single most powerful force for change in the 5,000-year history of China. Now, in the last 2 decades, China has undergone a remarkable transformation. I should say to my colleagues who have raised the issue of Taiwan that, 2 decades ago, in Taiwan, there was a very repressive regime. Yet, we maintain commercial relations, and that was key to bringing about democratization. So in the last 2 decades, if we look at China, it has, in fact, undergone a remarkable transformation driven by market-based economic reforms and an open door to trade and foreign investment. Now this transformation is changing Chinese society and accelerating progress towards increased personal freedom, individual economic choice, and access to outside sources of information. Many thoughtful analysts who study these changes that are taking place in China believe that the best hope for freedom and democracy in China lies along this path of reform. About 10 days ago, I called professor Harry Rowen at the Hoover Institution who served in the Reagan administration, in fact one of the great experts on China. I asked him if this year's bad news in U.S.- China relations has caused him to change his mind about the long-term prospects for political freedom in China, which he wrote about 3 years ago in ``National Interests.'' While repression is a reality today, it is just as true that we are witnessing several remarkable pro- democratic developments in China. For the first time in Chinese history, the judicial system gives criminal suspects the same basic rights afforded our system. Forced confessions have been ruled invalid as a means of proving guilt. These reforms have led to a rapid rise in commercial litigation and in cases being brought against the Chinese Government. There are even civil rights lawsuits that exist. Now, I have been following for years, having served as a board member of the International Republican Institute, the work of that arm of the National Endowment for Democracy. We have been working to bolster freedom in village elections. Thanks to our efforts, we have seen in rural life a whole thrust towards elections. Today 500 million Chinese experience local democracy by voting in competitive village elections where half of the winners have been nonCommunist candidates. China's Internet users have doubled to 4 million since the end of 1998, and we now have seen just a report this morning that there are going to be 280 million cell phone users there. This is the right thing to do to maintain our commercial ties. I urge a ``no'' vote on the resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. It is not our intention to make that decision as far as recognition. It will be up to the Chair. Again, there are Members of both the majority and the minority on the Committee on Ways and Means who are on both sides of this question, but it is clear that another Member could be recognized. In fact, the author of the resolution of disapproval is not, in fact, a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and it is quite possible that he could be recognized.

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and would encourage acceptance of my unanimous consent request and again look forward to a vigorous debate.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is the intention for us to proceed, recognizing that there are Members of the Committee on Ways and Means who both support and oppose this resolution, with an equal division of debate so that Members on both sides of this issue will have an equal opportunity to participate in this, and we are looking forward to a very interesting, fascinating, full, vigorous 3 hours of debate on this issue.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time on July 27, 1999, or any day thereafter, to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 57) disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of the People's Republic of China; that the joint resolution be considered as read for amendment; that all points of order against the joint resolution and against its consideration be waived; that the joint resolution be debatable for 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means in opposition to the joint resolution, and a Member in support of the joint resolution; that pursuant to sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion; and that the provisions of sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act of 1974 shall not otherwise apply to any joint resolution disapproving the extension of most-favored-nation treatment to the People's Republic of China for the remainder of the first session of the 106th Congress.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I would simply like to say that I have the privilege of representing the district that adjoins the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) in California, and he was a very dear friend to me. I am looking forward to the memorial service that we are going to have here in Statutory Hall and we are going to be participating in special orders for the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) at some point, I think that is sometime next week, but I think that as my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) has said, that it is very important for us to proceed with our work here. We appreciate the input that has come from a number of Members.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate, and we are poised to make history. At the beginning of the 106th Congress, Speaker Hastert stood right here in this well and made a very eloquent speech. He came from the Speaker's chair down here to address the House, and he said that he had several things that he wanted to see us address. My colleagues will recall that improving public education was a top priority. We earlier passed the Education Flexibility Act, and just earlier we passed the Teacher Empowerment Act. He said that he wanted to save Social Security and Medicare. What have we done? Well, with bipartisan support we passed a Social Security lockbox, and we also had a very strong commitment to rebuild our Nation's defense capability. And what have we seen from that? Well, we have seen, obviously, very strong support in a bipartisan way for the Department of Defense authorization bill and at the same time, we are now getting ready to proceed with the defense appropriations bill, with bipartisan support. Today we are going to, in just a very few minutes, pass the rule that will lay the groundwork for us to pass this very, very important opportunity to do exactly what we did back in 1981, say a little bit of money should be able to stay in the pockets of the American worker. The fact of the matter is this rule, under which we are considering it, is a very generous rule, much more generous than rules that have been used for consideration in the past. We are giving the Democrats not only the substitute that my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), will offer, but we are also allowing them a motion to recommit with instructions, something that they did not often give us in the past. So we are being overly generous in this rule, even though many of them have come down here and criticized us on it. When we think about this issue of debt reduction, my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), is right, we want to deal with the issue of debt relief. In the first 5 years, what is it we are going to see? For every one dollar in taxes reduced we are going to see $6 in debt reduction. That seems to be a very strong commitment that we have been able to work out. We have to work only on our side because we get no cooperation on legislation like this. We do not get any support or help for what it is we are trying to do here. Now, I guess they are trying to help us. It sounds like they want to step forward and help us, Mr. Speaker, and we welcome it. The fact of the matter is, if we were to walk down the street and find a wallet that had an identification in it and some cash, we would return those dollars. Similarly, as we look at the issue of an over charge that is there, we would return it. Well, I am very proud of the fact that since we have had Republican Congresses, it has been the Republican Congress that has brought us this surplus. We have a responsibility to turn dollars back to the American people, and we are going to do that. We are going to do that. So I urge my colleagues to support this rule and proceed with strong support for the Archer bill.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time and congratulate her on the fine job that she is doing. As my friend from Martinez, California, has just said, this is a bipartisan bill. It is very important. At the beginning of the 106th Congress, we established four priorities that we wanted to address. Number one of those items was to improve public education. We all know that as we look at education in this country, we have a superb postsecondary education system, but at the primary and secondary level, we have some great school districts around the country and some great, great schools, but we also have some very serious problems. So as we look at improving public education, what is it that we must do? We have got to provide a little more flexibility to those school districts so that they can address many of the needs that are out there. Now, we saw the much heralded call for 100,000 additional teachers. That is great. It sounds wonderful. But it seems to me as we look at school districts around the country, there are issues other than simply adding teachers that they want to address. And what H.R. 1995 does is it allows for that flexibility. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the others who are working with Democrats to make sure that this is a bipartisan issue. I am also proud of the way that we have structured the rule. It, in fact, has an equal number of amendments from our friends on the Democratic side and an equal number of Republican amendments. I think that with the kind remarks that have been made by Democrats here in support of the committee work, although yesterday afternoon I have to admit there was kind of an interesting debate and it is not unanimous. There are some who frankly want to still have more Federal involvement in the area of education and they want to involve themselves in micromanaging it. We want to provide flexibility. This bill does that. The rule allows for a free-flowing debate. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, many of us are committed to improving and emphasizing programmatic oversight, we jointly asked the Congressional Research Service to conduct bipartisan oversight training for Members and congressional staff. Two sessions have already been held and the third will be held on July 26. So far they have been a great success, and I would like to express my appreciation to the Congressional Research Service, particularly Mort Rosenberg and Walter Oleszek, for their extraordinary efforts to make this such a great success. At our first oversight workshop, Lee Hamilton, former Democratic Chairman of the International Relations Committee and the Iran-Contra Committee, shared his thoughts and insights with the attendees. He stated in part: Oversight is designed to throw light on the activities of government. It can protect the country from the imperial presidency and from bureaucratic arrogance. It can expose and prevent misconduct, and maintain a degree of constituency influence in an administration. The responsibility of oversight is to look into every nook and cranny of government affairs. Overlook is designed to look at everything the government does, expose it, and put the light of publicity to it. It reviews, monitors, and supervises the execution and implementation of public policy, to assure that ``the laws are faithfully executed.'' I wholeheartedly agree with our distinguished former colleague. As chairman of the Committee that is charged with the responsibility of safeguarding the privileges and prerogatives of this esteemed institution, I believe Congress should vigorously conduct oversight in order to fulfill the legacy of our Founding Fathers--which is ultimately to preserve and protect our fragile democracy. Mr. Speaker, I believe all members can benefit from the thoughtful comments of Lee Hamilton, which are included as follows: Oversight: A Key Congressional Function Introduction I very much appreciate the kind remarks by my friend and former colleague David Dreier. As David mentioned, we devoted considerable attention to ways of improving congressional oversight during our work on the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress in 1993-94. We held a number of hearings and made several recommendations for structural reforms, some of which have since been implemented. Oversight of how effectively the Executive Branch is carrying out congressional mandates is an enormously important function of Congress. It is at the very core of good government. Congress must do more than write the laws; it must make sure that the administration is carrying out those laws the way Congress intended. The purpose of oversight is to determine what happens after a law is passed. As Woodrow Wilson put it (and I find myself quoting Woodrow Wilson more and more these days): ``Quite as important as lawmaking is vigilant oversight of administration.'' As more power is delegated to the executive and as more laws are passed, the need for oversight grows. That is why I have been particularly concerned about the weakening of congressional oversight in recent years. Congress has given too much focus to personal investigations and possible scandals that will interest the media, rather than programmatic review and a comprehensive assessment of which federal programs work and which don't. For those of us who care deeply about the institution of Congress, this has been a disturbing trend. Thus I strongly support the efforts of Speaker Hastert to have the House return to its more traditional oversight functions. Congress needs to get back to the basics on oversight. The Speaker's recent comments on that have been right on the mark. Under Dan Mulhollan's direction, Walter Oleszek and Mort Rosenberg of CRS have assembled several excellent panels for this series of oversight workshops. You will be hearing from some people with real expertise in this area. In the few minutes I have with you today I want to discuss briefly the importance of good oversight and some of the lessons I learned from my time in Congress about what makes oversight successful. I. Importance of Good Oversight A. Nature of Congressional Oversight I believe in tough, continuing oversight. Oversight has many purposes: to evaluate program administration and performance; to make sure programs conform to congressional intent; to ferret out (in the oft-heard phrase) ``waste, fraud, and abuse''; to see whether programs may have outlived their usefulness; to compel an explanation or justification of policy; and to ensure that programs and agencies are administered in a cost-effective, efficient manner. Oversight is designed to throw light on the activities of government. It can protect the country from the imperial presidency and from bureaucratic arrogance. It can expose and prevent misconduct, and maintain a degree of constituency in an administration. The responsibility of oversight is to look into every nook and cranny of governmental affairs. Oversight is designed to look at everything the government does, expose it, and put the light of publicity to it. It reviews, monitors, and supervises the execution and implementation of public policy, to assure that ``the laws are faithfully executed''. Congress can use several tools to make federal agencies accountable, including periodic reauthorization, personal visits by members of staff, review by the General Accounting Office or inspectors general, subpoenas, and reports from the Executive Branch to Congress. Several types of committees-- authorization, appropriations, governmental affairs, and special ad hoc committees--can all play important roles in oversight. Congress needs a large number of oversight methods to hold agencies accountable because the various methods have their own strengths and weaknesses. Oversight hearings, for example, cannot be called every day, so committees may turn to reports or on-site visits to agencies. In many ways Congress underestimates and undervalues its power in oversight. Agencies start to get a little nervous whenever someone from Congress starts poking around, and that is probably to the good overall. Federal bureaucracies do not stay on their toes unless they expect review and oversight from Congress. B. History of Oversight Oversight has been a key function of Congress since its very beginning. It is an implied power, not an enumerated power in the Constitution. It is based on the constitutional powers given to Congress to pass laws that create agencies and programs, to provide funding for these agencies and programs, and to investigate the Executive Branch. The first congressional oversight investigation took place in 1792, an inquiry into the conduct of the government in the wars against the Indians, and they have been taking place ever since. Congress overhauled its oversight responsibilities in 1946 with the passage of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. It reinforced the need for ``continuous watchfulness'' by Congress of the Executive Branch, and placed most of that responsibility in the standing committees rather than in specially created investigatory committees. The extent of congressional oversight has fluctuated in recent decades, with some Congresses taking it much more seriously than others. In the 96th Congress, for example, Speaker Tip O'Neill gave it very high priority and called the 96th the ``oversight Congress''. More recently, Speaker Gingrich shifted the emphasis of oversight, seeing it not just as a way to oversee but to shrink the size and reach of the federal government. He also used it to aggressively investigate the White House. Speaker Hastert, as I noted earlier, is encouraging the committees to move away from oversight as political micro management to oversight as congressional review of agency performance and effectiveness. C. Importance of Policy Oversight The oversight responsibilities of Congress are critical to good policy. Most important policy issues are complex, and Congress is seldom able to specify fully all the details of a governmental program in the original legislation. The Clean Water Act, for instance, sets the goals and general procedures for improving the quality of the nation's water resources, but the specific rules and regulations for achieving these aims are left to Executive Branch officials. For several reasons, Congress needs to carefully monitor how its broad intentions are translated into actual programs: First, tough monitoring by Congress can encourage cost- effective implementation of a legislative program. Every year the President sends Congress specific funding requests for thousands of federal programs. These requests can often be cut back, as Members seek to identify the minimum funding levels needs for a program to be effectively implemented. Such oversight efforts are an important means for reducing governmental waste and making government work better. Second, Congress must assure that the program, as implemented, reflects the intent of Congress. In complex issue areas such as environmental policy or health care, agency officials may simply misinterpret a piece of legislation or they may use the discretion they have been given in the law to shift policy toward their views, the President's views, or the views of special interest groups. Third, Congress must continue to monitor programs to determine whether unintended consequences or changing circumstances have altered the need for the program. Programs need consistent and regular review and assessment over time. Members of Congress are helped in that task by their close connection to their constituents, which gives them special opportunities to observe on a day-by-day basis the strengths and weaknesses of federal programs as they are being carried out. D. Decline in Oversight In recent years, the traditional oversight activities of Congress have generally declined, for a variety of reasons: The shorter congressional workweek means that committees do not meet as often as they used to, reducing time for oversight. The power of the authorizing committees--which is where most of the oversight was done--has declined over the years. Monitoring the myriad of federal programs is tedious, takes time and preparation, and is often quite technical. It is typically unglamorous work, and most Members see little political benefit from engaging in it. Members do not rank oversight at the top of their responsibilities. For most Members, constituent service is number one, legislation is number two, and oversight is number three. The media do not pay much attention to traditional oversight work. They usually like to focus on scandals. Congress has permitted the desire for media coverage to drive the hearing and oversight process. There is simply less interest in government reform. And constituents rarely contact their Members asking them to engage in systematic program review. But another factor has been that the oversight priorities of Congress have shifted away from the careful review of programs to highly adversarial attempts at discrediting individual public officials--looking at great length at, for example, Hillary Clinton's commodity transactions or charges of money-laundering and drug trafficking at an Arkansas airport when Bill Clinton was Governor. Congress has certainly investigated federal officials throughout congressional history--from its earliest investigation of the Indian wars to the Teapot Dome scandal of 1923 to Watergate and the Iran-contra hearings (which I co-chaired). The authority of Congress to conduct investigations can be a crucial check on executive powers. But recently there has been too much personalization and not enough policy in congressional oversight. Certainly for many years a lot of congressional oversight has been done for partisan purposes, and that doesn't necessarily make it bad. But spending too much time on personal investigations weakens the oversight function of Congress. It consumes Executive Branch time and resources and, more importantly, diverts congressional time and resources from the more constructive work of policy oversight. That's why Speaker Hastert 's attempt to redirect congressional oversight is a good sign, and I am hopeful that it will be successful. II. Nature of Good Oversight You will hear from a host of experts during these oversight workshops explaining in considerable detail the role and nature of congressional oversight. So let me briefly give you a few observations to help set the stage for your discussions--some specific examples of what I thought worked well when I was in Congress plus a few general lessons I learned about how oversight should be handled. A. Specific Examples from Committee Work Much of my oversight work in Congress was done on the Foreign Affairs/International Relations Committee. We had the responsibility of overseeing all foreign policy activities and agencies. Let me give you a sense of some of the main methods I used that I found particularly helpful. Regular hearings: Congressional hearings are one of the most important methods of oversight. Yet, hearings can be unproductive when Members simply read prepared questions and aren't ready to ask the tough follow-up questions. So I gave particular attention to regular hearings on United States policy. I found them particularly helpful in forcing Executive Branch officials to articulate policy and explain the rationale behind it--something they do not like to do. One good example would be the extensive oversight I had relating to U.S. programs of assistance to the former Soviet States--the Freedom Support Act--as well as Eastern Europe-- the SEED Act. Closed briefings: Regular, indeed weekly closed briefings were essential to educating ourselves on complex issues. I instituted a monthly series of ``hot-spot'' classified briefings for Members done by the CIA on particularly volatile areas including Bosnia, the situation in Rusia, North Korea, and other issues that most Members do not routinely pay attention to. Letters for the Record: One technique I developed, which I found to be a good way to exercise oversight, was to press the Administration for written explanations and clarifications of various aspects of U.S. foreign policy, which I would then insert into the Congressional Record. I did this, for example, to help pin the administration down on its position on arms sales to Taiwan, on the Nuclear Agreed Framework with North Korea, on the train-and-equip program for Bosnia, and on U.S. policy vis-a-vis Turkey. Sometimes I had to go back to them several times to get a meaningful response. Since educating and informing the public is at the heart of oversight, I found the publication of letters to be very important. I was impressed by the interest these letters generated. Staff travel: I required staff to make a periodic trips with focused objectives to the areas of the world they covered. For example, Committee staff made repeated trips over a several year period to Bosnia, to look into specific aspects of the Dayton peace process including how U.S. assistance was being spent, and the role of U.S. peacekeeping troops in the region. This travel, in combination with the travel of staff from other committees, served to demonstrate to the Administration and local officials in Bosnia that Congress was paying close attention to how resources were being spent. I also required staff to write extensive reports on the main findings and accomplishments of their travel. Informal contacts: I made sure staff had informal and frequent contacts with Executive Branch officials. If you get to know people before a problem on crisis, you are in much better shape when there is one. Staff has close contact with officials at the State Department, DOD, and the NSC on all aspects on the Middle East crisis, in Bosnia, as well as U.S. relations with Russia and the NIS. My staff and I were able to work closely with U.S. officials on such issues as the Middle East, Russia, Yugoslavia, China, and North Korea in part because of longstanding personal contacts with lay people. Reports to Congress: Although Congress has in many ways gone overboard in the reports that it requires of the Administration, sometimes this is a very useful tool. For example, I had the State Department make reports on the economies of major recipients of foreign aid. We need to know what effect our assistance is having in key countries. GAO investigations: GAO has enormous resources, and probably does more detailed oversight work than congressional committees can. I found GAO particularly helpful on foreign assistance programs, the Lavi fighter the Israelis wanted to build with U.S. help but which did not make sense, and on specific overseas projects which ran into trouble. B. General Observations on Successful Oversight Let me now turn to a few general thoughts and observations about what makes oversight successful: First, oversight works best when it is done in as bipartisan a way as possible. Certainly there will be times when the committee chairman and the ranking minority member will disagree, but they should be able to sit down at the beginning of a new Congress and agree on the bulk of the Committee's oversight agenda. Second, policy oversight is aided when there is a constructive relationship between Congress and the implementing agency. Much oversight by its very nature is adversarial, and that is particularly appropriate when an agency has engaged in egregious behavior. But excessive antagonism between the branches can be counterproductive and do little to improve program performance. Oversight should put aside petty political motives, and it should act constructively not destructively. Oversight should be conducted seeking good ideas. Third, oversight should be done in a regular, systematic way. Congress lacks a continuous, systematic oversight process, at it oversees in an episodic, erratic manner. On the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress we recommended, for example, that each committee do a systematic review of all of the significant laws, agencies, and programs under its jurisdiction at least every 10 years. My sense is that there are activities of government that have gone on for a long time without full-scale review. Fourth, oversight must be comprehensive. There are vast number of activities of the federal government that never get into the newspaper headlines, yet it is still the task of Congress to look into them. When I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee, for example, we even held oversight hearings on everything from Yemen and to the future of NATO. Oversight that is driven by whether we can get cameras into the hearing room is not enough to get the job done. I am impressed by how decisions about oversight are made on the basis on how much media attention can be attracted. The relationship between the decline of oversight by Congress and the decline of investigative journalism bears further examination. Being comprehensive in oversight also means casting the net widely to look at the variety of federal agencies involved in a particular area, not just the main one (for example, not just looking at foreign policy actions of the State Department, but also of Commerce, Defense, Agriculture, CIA, etc). As I said earlier, it is the responsibility of oversight to look into every nook and cranny of government. Fifth, the oversight agenda of Congress should be coordinate to eliminate duplication. The administration often complains, with some justification, about the burden of redundant oversight and duplicative testimony. Different committees shouldn't cover the same ground over and over, while other important areas and programs fall through the cracks. Committees currently do prepare their oversight plans, but I sense no one is in charge of coordination. Sixth, continuity and expertise are critical to successful oversight. Excessive staff turnover and turnover of chairmen harm the institutional continuity and expertise so essential to the job of oversight. This is also why I generally favor having standing committees do oversight rather than special, ad hoc communities. Also, oversight should not be used or directed by interest groups. Seventh, there is such a thing as too much oversight. Good oversight draws the line between careful scrutiny and intervention or micro-management. Congress should examine broad public policies, but it should not mettle and it should avoid a media show. It should certainly expose corrupt and incompetent officials, but it should avoid attacking competent, dedicated officials. Oversight requires reports to be informed, but the reporting requirements should not be excessive. In general, the quality of oversight is much more important than the quantity. Eighth, good oversight involves documentation. The more you can get things in writing, the better off you are. Ninth, follow-through is also important. It is one thing to ask agencies to improve their performance, but it requires the work of Members, committees, and staff aides to make sure that the changes have taken place. Tenth, Member involvement in oversight is important. Certainly much of the work needs to be done by staff. Yet I found that Members often left too much of the responsibility with staff. Having Members involved brings additional leverage to any oversight inquiry. Eleventh, good oversight takes clear signals from the leadership. Structural reforms and individual efforts by Members can be helpful, but for oversight to really work it takes a clear message from the congressional leadership that oversight is a priority and that it will be done in a bipartisan, systematic, coordinated way. The key role of the House Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader in successful oversight cannot be overstated. And finally, there needs to be greater public accountability to congressional oversight. The general public can be a very important driving force behind good oversight. Congress needs to provide clear reports from each committee outlining the main programs under its jurisdiction and explaining how the committee reviewed them. As citizens understand how important congressional oversight is to achieving the kind of government they want--government that works better and costs less--they will demand more emphasis on the quality of oversight by Congress, and they will be less tolerant of highly personalized investigations that primarily serve to divert Members' attention from this critical congressional function. Conclusion My personal belief is that conducting oversight is every bit as important as passing legislation. President Wilson thought that ``the informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislating function.'' Our founding fathers very clearly recognized that ``eternal vigilance is the price of liberty''. A strong record of congressional oversight of--``continuous watchfulness''--will do a lot to restore public confidence in the institution. It will show that Congress is taking its responsibilities seriously and is able to work together. I'm not Pollyannaish about all of this. Certainly there will be roadblocks and obstacles in the effort to strengthen and improve oversight. The work is not particularly easy under the best of circumstances, and we can't expect all of the hard feelings and distrust about the direction of oversight in recent years to dissipate overnight. But it is my firm belief that this is an area in which Congress simply must do better. And your willingness to participate in these workshops gives me good reason to think that this is an area in which Congress will do better.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him for his superb management of the rule. And I compliment the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the others who have spent a great deal of time, such as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), who have worked long and hard on this very important measure. Mr. Speaker, I was going to talk simply about the issue itself, but I feel compelled to respond to the remarks of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), my friend, when he referred to the unfairness of this rule. Just a few hours ago, at 12:30, I referred to the fact that on the State Department authorization bill, the bill that is designed to deal with the problem that we have with embassy security around the world, we made in order a number of amendments, 41 in fact: 22 Democratic amendments, 12 Republican amendments, and 7 bipartisan amendments. On this bill, we make in order only Democratic amendments. Now, I often have to fight the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my friend, in the Committee on Rules who is often trying to withdraw Democratic amendments that we have made in order on bills. I am happy to say that he did not do it on this one. We have, in fact, made in order an amendment from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), my friend, an amendment from the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a bipartisan amendment, all amendments that have been offered by the Democrats. I am proud of this rule which will allow us to provide for a free and very, very open debate. Let me take a couple of minutes to talk about this very important issue. I am proud to have worked with many of our colleagues on the issue of global trade and Africa. It is no secret, in fact, it was said by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) in our committee yesterday, the poorest continent on the face of the earth is the African continent. And this bill is designed to not only address the concerns that exist among those 48 Nations in Sub-Saharan Africa but also to address concerns that exist right here in the United States of America. The Cold War is over. We are very proud of the legacy of Ronald Reagan and George Bush in bringing an end to the Soviet Union. I remember spending time in Angola and other spots when I traveled in the latter part of the last decade throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, and that has come to an end. Now what we have seen is a very fragile move towards political pluralism and democratization taking place in Sub- Saharan Africa. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 434 goes a long way towards encouraging even further moves towards free markets, further moves towards representative democracy, and we need to herald those things. But it is also important to note that this bill is not only designed to address the concerns that exist in that very important part of the world, Sub- Saharan Africa; it is designed to address the concerns that exist right here in the United States of America. I agree with some critics. We should not spend all of our time simply thinking about other parts of the world. Our priority here is to deal with our national security interests. The best way for us to maintain, or one of the best ways for us to maintain our national security is to do everything that we can to have the highest standard of living possible. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) just referred to the fact that there will be 133,000 jobs created because of exports going from the United States to the 48 nations in sub-Saharan Africa. We also have to remember something else. What is it that gives us the highest standard of living the world? It is the fact that the world has access to our consumer markets. So we are going to create a chance for that struggling single mother who is trying to make ends meet to have the chance. She is going to have the opportunity to have a higher standard of living by being able to buy clothes for her children, by being able to purchase other things that are very important. That is what free trade is all about. We have so often argued that trade is not a zero sum game. Trade is, in fact, an issue which is a win-win all the way around. Mr. Speaker, that is why I encourage bipartisan support for this rule and enthusiastic support for what I think is a very, very important piece of legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, a ``Dear Colleague'' letter will go out today announcing that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of July 18 to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1074, the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act of 1999. The Committee on Government Reform ordered H.R. 1074 reported on May 19 and filed its committee report on June 7. The Committee on Rules may meet on Wednesday, July 21 to grant a rule which may require that amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record. In this case, amendments to be preprinted would need to be signed by the Member and submitted to the Speaker's table by the close of legislative business next Wednesday. Amendments should be drafted to the bill as reported on Committee on Government Reform. Members should also use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted, and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating, not only the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for his superb management of this rule, but also the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the vice chairman of the committee who joins us here, and the entire Committee on Rules staff, well not the entire staff, but many members of the Committee on Rules staff who are here. I am proud of the fact that we, well many hours ago, opened this legislative day with work of the Committee on Rules. We are ending what will be this legislative day with work of the Committee on Rules. In just about 8\1/2\ short hours, we will be beginning the next legislative day with work of the House Committee on Rules. So we thank them very much. We enjoy this support and enthusiasm. We also have a Committee on Rules member and staff members of the minority side who are here. So I think that it is a great testimony to the hard work of this very important committee, which I am proud to chair. As has been said by both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), we were able to make a large number of amendments in order for the minority. In fact, by a 22 to 12 ratio, the Democrats are favored when it comes to amendments here. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) said, we have seven bipartisan amendments. Now, frankly, this is a very, very serious measure. It was just a little less than a year ago that we saw the tragic bombings that took place in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. It had a very, very devastating effect on, not only Americans here at home, but obviously on any American who was overseas. This bill is designed to ensure that those Americans who proudly stand and represent the greatest Nation on the face of the earth and missions around the world have enhanced safety as they proceed with that very important work. I want to say that we have successfully seen the demise of the Soviet Union and an end to the Cold War due in large part to the stellar leadership of President's Ronald Reagan and George Bush. We have, however, come to the realization that we do not live in a world that is free of any kind of threat. We not only face military threats, but we of course, as this bill addresses, continue to face the threat of terrorism. So it is my hope that we will be able to move ahead with, again, what I believe to be a very fair and balanced rule. I congratulate the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman), the gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman Bereuter) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith), all of whom are again here at this late hour to help us proceed with debate on the rule. Then we will, in the coming days, consider this important legislation. I hope that we will finally be able to see this bill, the State Department authorization language, become public law, which is something to which many of us have aspired for a long period of time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 244, to honor and congratulate our United States Women's Soccer Team. The hard work, strength, determination and talent exhibited by these women captures the American spirit. It is this type of spirit that inspires us all to never give up on our dreams. In a sport that is not traditionally an American strong suit, these women worked tirelessly to attain a dream and awoke to 90,000 cheering fans helping make that dream a reality. As a Southern Californian, I am particularly pleased that the Pasadena Rose Bowl played host to the World Cup finals. I was also honored to have the U.S. women's team grace the field of Pomona-Pitzer College in my congressional district to practice their talents. These women demonstrated ``grace under fire'' and were ``class acts'' in their representation of the United States. They set an example that all U.S. teams and Americans should aspire to emulate. I look forward to cheering these women on in Sydney next summer as the United States defends its gold medal. I am confident that these women will, once again, make America proud.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington for his typical superb job in managing this rule. It is a very fair, balanced and open rule. It is nice to see that, because as my good friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) knows, in years past we have had slightly controversial rules as we have dealt with this very important Interior appropriations bill. I want to say that every year, millions of Americans and foreign tourists as well come and enjoy our renowned park system. In my important talking points here, the Florida Everglades are mentioned out of respect to my friend from Sanibel, FL (Mr. Goss) the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules. And also the Angeles National Forest which according to the gentleman from Ohio is in fact the most utilized of our National Forest Service system. That is why this bill itself is very, very important. One of the other things that I think we need to touch on that is key is the focus on dealing with fires which has been a real issue for us in the Angeles National Forest. Obviously the funding that has been placed into this bill by the gentleman from Ohio is going to be helpful in dealing with that. I want to raise one other issue that I discussed with the gentleman from Ohio when he testified yesterday afternoon before the Committee on Rules. That has to do with the issue of the adventure pass. There has been a lot of concern raised in the San Gabriel Valley in eastern Los Angeles County about the adventure pass. As the gentleman from Ohio appropriately pointed out yesterday, it is a pilot program that is under way right now. But the concern that has been raised by a number of my constituents has been the fact that they have not yet been able to see tangible evidence that the resources that have come in from the use of that adventure pass have in fact gone towards improvement or dealing with the Angeles National Forest itself. And so I want to take a very close look at this program. We know that it is well-intentioned and the idea of having a user fee rather than taxing people who do not in any way utilize some kind of service is again laudable but we want to make sure that that fee that is there in fact does go to address the needs of those who are in fact paying for that pass. And so I want to see us move ahead. There are a number of, I think, very important questions that need to be raised, but I do want to congratulate again the gentleman from Ohio and all of our colleagues who have worked long and hard on this bill.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding to me, and I congratulate him on the superb management of this rule. The framers of our Constitution wanted the process of lawmaking to be difficult, and they wanted this place to actually be inefficient because they did not want one person to get too much power. When I think about where I was 13 years ago, I was a Member of the House Committee on Banking, and I joined with the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and several of our former colleagues who are no longer here, Doug Bernard, Steve Barlett, Jack Hiler and others. At that time, we began crafting legislation that allowed for the establishment of financial services holding companies with what is known as a three-way street for affiliation among securities, banks, and insurance. It obviously was the wave of the future, and it is something that we are finally dealing with today. Those efforts are finally coming to fruition after nearly a decade and a half. It is happening because of the work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) sitting back there in the back of the Chamber, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the Committee on Banking, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who is back in the cloakroom who last year brought us very close to a victory. I think that we unfortunately have gotten to the point where we are allowing what has been said earlier, very, very petty partisanship, to undermine what is a very, very important issue that needs to be resolved. Before we get to the issue of H.R. 10, as we all know, we have to pass this rule. This is a good rule which should have Democrats and Republicans supporting it. It makes in order as the underlying bill an amendment in the nature of a substitute which represents the extraordinary work of those people I have mentioned. I think that it helps us deal with these very, very competing interests that have been out there. This amendment, the bill that we are going to be considering once we pass this bill is, as the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) said when he stood up, the strongest pro consumer effort we could possibly have, the strongest privacy language that we could possibly have. Now, there has been a lot of criticism leveled at my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske). He and I were mentioned in my hometown newspaper today. The fact of the matter is, I encourage those critics on the medical privacy issue to read the bill, and I am just going to share a couple of lines. It says: An insurance company shall maintain a practice of protecting the confidentiality of individually identifiable customer health and medical and genetic information, and may disclose such information only, only, with the consent or at the direction of the customer or as otherwise required, as specifically permitted, by Federal or State law; and compliance with Federal, State and local law, compliance with a properly authorized civil, criminal or regulatory investigation by Federal, State or local authorities is governed by the requirements of this section; or in broad protection risk control. The fact of the matter is there are tremendous consumer protections in here to maintain the privacy. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to complete my closing statement. I encourage my colleague to actually read the bill. Now, let me make a couple of comments here about the rule. If I can close my statement, because I am talking about this issue. We are trying to pass this rule. I have read the bill, and I encourage my friend to read exactly what I have read. Let me say that as we look at efforts by my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, and by my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), these issues were put forward with one thing in mind, to try to delay this process even more than it already has been delayed. The goal is, in fact, to put this off for weeks. They would very much like to do that. So I think that we have, in fact, put together a very, very important measure that finally moves us beyond 1933 and depression-era legislation. I do not think it moves us far enough, but this is a small and first step. We know there is bipartisan support for most of the provisions in this bill. We know that there is bipartisan support for these packages. I hope very much that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join in supporting what is a very, very important measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from South Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During consideration of this rule, all time that I will be yielding is for debate purposes only. Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 775, the Y2K Act. The rule waives points of order against the conference report and its consideration. The rule further provides that the conference report be considered as read. This rule is a fair rule which will enable the House to expeditiously consider this important and very timely matter. Mr. Speaker, we all know the year 2000 is right around the corner, and most Americans have heard that some computers may, I underscore may, have a problem dealing with this historic date change. Now, I am not an alarmist, and I hope that we will not suffer major problems, but that does not mean that we can sit back and ignore this very important issue. The fact is we live in the computer age. We have a digital economy. Therefore, we have a responsibility to do what we can to help people solve Y2K problems before anything goes wrong. That is what we are doing here today by passing this bipartisan conference report on H.R. 775, the Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act. Mr. Speaker, I come to this issue with the belief that the American private sector is clearly the most energetic, creative, and powerful force in the world. In particular, our high technology, computer and software companies are the best and the brightest. If anyone is up to tackling this technology challenge, they are. Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that they are on our team. But make no mistake about it, there are some hurdles standing in the way of the kind of teamwork and cooperation needed to solve Y2K problems. A broad coalition of private sector companies believe that uncertainty regarding unbridled Y2K litigation is the biggest hurdle for them of all. This view is not limited just to the high-tech and computer companies. It cuts across the business community large and small, including retail, manufacturing, and services alike. Fixing the Y2K computer bug should not be a partisan issue. That is why over a year ago I began to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and with a broad private sector coalition, to enact a targeted Y2K litigation reform bill. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that we are now nearing the finishing line. In particular, I want to applaud the work of my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) for joining in this bipartisan introduction of H.R. 775. The conference agreement is clearly a product of compromise, and that is not a criticism of it. It says a lot about the leadership and skill of our colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the gentleman from Detroit, Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). I will say that I greatly appreciated when the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) was able to sit upstairs in the Committee on Rules with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) in support of this conference agreement. When I joined my friend from Fairfax, Virginia (Mr. Davis) in introducing H.R. 775 on February 23, we talked about the importance of enacting meaningful bipartisan Y2K litigation reform as quickly as possible this year so that we would lift the shadow of frivolous litigation in time to do some good. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing today. So I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan conference report. It is a credit to this institution and to the bipartisan teamwork that is so often critical to enacting meaningful legislation. So I urge support of both the rule and the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 234 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers at this time, and I would urge that we move ahead with the expeditious consideration of this rule. I hope that my friend on the minority could help us move along. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would simply like to congratulate the gentleman on his remarks; and I would like to associate myself with the gentleman's statement.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is expected to meet the week of July 12 to grant a rule which may limit amendments for consideration of H.R. 434, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. The Committee on Rules is also expected to meet the week of July 12 to grant a rule which may limit amendments for consideration of H.R. 1211, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001. Any Member contemplating an amendment to H.R. 434 should submit 55 copies of the amendment and a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules no later than noon, Tuesday, July 13. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on June 17. Any Member contemplating an amendment to H.R. 1211 should also submit 55 copies of the amendment and a brief explanation of the amendment to us up in the Committee on Rules no later than 4 p.m. on Tuesday, July 13. For those who are not aware of it, the Committee on Rules is located in room H-312 in the Capitol. That is right upstairs. Amendments should be drafted to the text of H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act of 1999, as introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) on July 1, 1999. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I would like to begin by not only congratulating the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) but, of course, my colleague on the second row here who worked long and hard as a member of the Committee on Rules and, yes, I want to even congratulate, we have once again made this a bipartisan effort, when I heard the word ``terrific'' used three times by my friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and I know that we will see very broad bipartisan support for what is I think a very important measure. We are all appalled at the thought of telemarketers getting access to information. We all want to do everything that we can to stop that. In fact, the base text of this bill has the strongest consumer privacy protection we have ever had. But guess what? This amendment, that we are all going to be, I hope, overwhelmingly supporting based on the statements that I have been hearing, will be even tougher. The fact of the matter is this is a very balanced compromise. Why? Because privacy is a first priority. That is what it is that the American people want. But there are some other demands that they have. They also demand low cost and integrated financial products and services, they demand on- line banking and brokerage services, and they demand protection against financial fraud. Quite frankly to meet these demands, all of these demands, affiliates have to be able to share some information. That is why I am convinced that this now bipartisan effort which has seen many Members involved is in fact the balance that is needed for us to deal with the issue of privacy as well as meeting consumer demands. I encourage my colleagues to support it.