Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the requirement of clause 11(a)1 of rule X, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence be composed of not more than 20 Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner, of whom not more than 11 be from the same party.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 20) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 19) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5630) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5630) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, Mr. Speaker. I am very happy to explain to her why on December 11 the House is again considering the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. As Members will recall, the President vetoed an earlier version of the legislation on November 4. In doing so, the President indicated that his objections were limited to a single section of the bill, the so-called ``leaks provision,'' and he asked Congress to return the same bill to him with the ``leaks provision'' deleted. It had been my hope to do exactly that. In fact, the day the veto message was received by the House, Mr. Dixon, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and I introduced H.R. 5630, a bill identical to the previous conference report, save for the leaks provision, which was removed in its entirety. The same day the House passed H.R. 5630 and sent it to the Senate for what I had hoped would be speedy consideration, passage, and transmittal to the President for his signature. I am deeply disappointed that this is not exactly what transpired. The other body did last week pass H.R. 5630, but in doing so removed an additional provision. That provision, which was agreed to in our House- Senate conference and approved by the full House and Senate, was designed to improve the performance of the National Reconnaissance Office's launch program, and to save millions of taxpayers' dollars in the process. I hope we will have a chance to hear from our colleague, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who is the author of the NRO language in just a moment. But I want to register my disappointment with the process. In reviewing the record of debate in the other body, there is no rationale given for striking the provision about the National Reconnaissance Office, and it appears to me to be an unjustified and inexplicable action. Under normal circumstances, therefore, I would absolutely refuse to agree to this amendment. However as a practical matter, there is no real possibility of convening a second conference committee to resolve this problem before time runs out on the 106th Congress. Therefore, noting that the remaining parts of this legislation are still vital to the U.S. intelligence community and will contribute to improving our national security, I am reluctantly asking the House to pass H.R. 5630, which will, finally, send this bill to the President for his signature. Still, I recognize much time and hard work went into developing the National Reconnaissance Office launch provision, and I do not want to see that work go to waste. I am pledging to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and other Members that I am planning to make NRO launch issues, including all aspects of Air Force support for this activity, a top priority for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the 107th Congress.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, as I stated in conference, as I stated earlier, and as I would state again, I believe the provisions would have improved greatly the management and performance of the NRO's launch program. I, too, am extremely disappointed in the Senate's action, which I also concur is shortsighted.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Delaware has my commitment that, early in the 107th Congress, the committee will study and draft such reforms based upon the good work of the gentleman from Delaware, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), and others on the committee, which have been reflected in the bill. In fact, we have already done this. We have passed it, as the gentleman has said, both in the House and the Senate. I think we had good product, I think we had good process, and I am sorry we find ourselves in this predicament. However, I think the best resolution, as has been outlined, is to go forward with the vital bill. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) has my commitment that we will go back, and perhaps we can improve even more on the improvements the gentleman has already recommended to us.

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5630, the bill just considered and passed.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding time to me. I obviously am as stunned as everybody else, and I am sorry beyond belief. I send my deepest sympathy to his colleagues, and to his family, of course. I will say that I had the privilege and pleasure of working with Julian, both on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and out of that came a very easy, comfortable friendship. It was very genuine and very deep. I think the candor and trust between us is as far as ever goes between human beings. I will miss him more than I can say. I am truly in shock. I think, if I could find a legacy to talk about briefly, it was the model working relationship. I think we had to deal with problems that had to rise above partisanship or other interests where we had to focus on issues. Julian brought, as everybody knows here who worked with him, a great deal of perception to whatever he was doing, and an incredible persistence. He was a very pragmatic man. But the things that stood out as hallmarks when all the hard questions were asked and all the hard work was done, he had a wonderful sense of humor and he was very fair. I trusted Julian's judgment completely, as did everybody else, because we knew it was a fair deal when he got through examining the issue. What a wonderful thing to be able to say about somebody. I think my last memory of Julian is what I will cherish. It was in Frager's Department Store. He was trying to buy a light switch and I was trying to buy a light bulb, and we were both having troubles. I think that maybe says something about us both, worrying about the world's problems, and sometimes the details get to us. Often as we go through life we hear people, we as Members of Congress hear people say things about Congressmen. I would hold Julian Dixon up as a Congressman that I am very, very proud of. I do not know how one does better. When somebody talks about United States Congressmen, I think of Julian Dixon . He was the best. We will remember him that way, but boy, I am sorry we have to remember him at all. I wish he was with us.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 5630, the Clerk be authorized to make such technical and conforming changes as may be necessary.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5630, the bill just considered and passed.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I want to assure the gentleman that I believe this is a nonproblem. If it turns out I am wrong, and I do not think I will be, I will be certainly a part of the solution.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the message, together with the accompanying bill, be referred to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House discharge the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from further consideration of, and hereby pass, H.R. 5630.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member, for yielding; and I would be happy to explain the request. As Members have just heard, the President vetoed the intelligence authorization bill, H.R. 4392. In doing so, the President cited a single provision, the prohibition on unauthorized disclosure of classified information, which we have just heard in the reading, as well intentioned but unacceptable in its current form. It is worth noting that the President accepted a share of the blame for the administration's, and I quote, ``failure to apprise the Congress of the concerns'' he expressed in his veto message as the bill was making its way through the legislative process. But the veto message concludes by encouraging Congress to, and again I quote, ``send me this bill with this provision deleted.'' So at this late date, it is my belief that the best course of action is to do just that, to remove the one provision and send the authorization back to the President for his signature. The bill before us, H.R. 5630, is identical to the version of H.R. 4392 that passed the House and the Senate on October 12 of this year with one major exception. The language, formerly section 304, prohibiting the unauthorized disclosure of classified information has been removed in its entirety. All the other provisions remain the same. I would stress that it is my intent that the provisions in H.R. 5630 be implemented in accordance with the recommendations contained in the conference report that accompanied H.R. 4392. Passage of H.R. 5630 by the House today would send the revised version of the fiscal year 2001 Intelligence Authorization Act to the Senate for what I hope will be a speedy consideration and passage in that body. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), the ranking member, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the vice chairman, our appropriator, for cosponsoring H.R. 5630. I believe that all we want is to get this important bill back to the President for his signature.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from California will yield, I am very happy to confirm exactly that point. That is not the intent, to create a double standard. The intent was to create a uniformity of protection for classified information. We think we got it right. If it turns out that is wrong and there is something demonstrable, obviously we are prepared to go back and reaffirm our intent and make sure that that intent happens. There is no double standard. I think we discussed this not only in committee but in the discussion on the floor when we passed the bill. I think my comments are consistent, and, I hope, helpful.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the dean of the Florida delegation and the person who is most responsible for crafting the mechanics that have brought this legislation to the floor today.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only on this resolution. H. Res. 656 provides for consideration of S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. In addition, the rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. This is the standard rule for this type of conference report, and it is without controversy as far as I know. I urge my colleagues to support this rule. The Water Resources Development Act, more commonly known as WRDA, is a critically important vehicle for environmental restoration projects. This year's bill is particularly noteworthy because it includes a plan to restore the Nation's Everglades in Florida. This restoration effort is the largest, most comprehensive restoration program ever attempted. Not too long ago, most folks would have predicted it would be impossible to craft a restoration plan that gets it right and also wins the support of every major stakeholder involved in the Everglades. But that is exactly what this Congress has done. It is precisely the model for how we should deal with all of our environmental issues. We drop the posturing. We quit using the trite catch phrases. We bring people together, and we actually sit down at the table and rationally discuss the issues and work in good faith for the greater good based on science-based principles. I am not entirely naive, and I understand that the reason it worked with the Everglades is that the parties realized that this was too important to let go further amuck. But this precisely is my point. All environmental issues are important and should deserve the same attention and the same approach. We should not sacrifice the environment anywhere for short-term gain. I hope that the folks out there who make a living doing so will learn the lesson of the Everglades. Mr. Speaker, folks on the other side of the aisle talk a lot about a do-nothing Congress. I note that President Clinton asserted recently that this has been one of the most productive sessions ever, which I think is a real tribute to our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), frankly a direct disavowal of the statements of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), Minority Leader, that we are a do-nothing Congress. But today's action is yet another in a very, very long list of examples that prove the Republican Congress delivers on Americans priorities. The challenge this Congress faced was to craft the plan that truly improves the hydrology and the hydroperiods and restores the unique natural environment of the Everglades, along with the other partners involved, the state of Florida and the interests that are involved in the areas of the Everglades. The costs of doing nothing were far too great. The magnificent Everglades have suffered through years of neglect and misunderstanding. Doing nothing would have ensured disaster. Disaster, incidentally, had begun spreading to Florida Bay and even to the nearby coral reefs, which are unique in themselves. Even so, as is often the case, the impulse to do something can often lead to unintended consequences. So, technically, we faced an incredible challenge. As daunting as the engineering problems are, even more so is the challenge of getting various stakeholders who often would not even speak to each other to find common ground. That is the snapshot of the immense challenge that we faced at the beginning of this process. Well, here we are with a conference report, a final agreement. So it bears asking how we have tackled what Florida Governor Jeb Bush has now termed ``perhaps the defining environmental issue of this new century''. I think it is the defining issue. The Everglades bill is simply at the top of a very long list of environmental achievement for this Congress. A lot of folks deserve our thanks for getting us here. The State of Florida and Governor Jeb Bush have demonstrated an unmistakable commitment to this effort and led at every point in the process. The Clinton administration also deserves our praise. In terms of steering the proposal through Congress, our two Senators deserve an inordinate amount of praise and recognition. In the House, the entire delegation supported the effort. But the House efforts were kept on track by the patience, perseverance and able leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), our delegation chairman. I do not believe it is an understatement to say that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) was the key to our efforts here in the House. Anyone who cares about the Everglades should extend their gratitude to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). I think he has done an extraordinary job. It goes without saying that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) did an impressive job of stewardship on the Everglades, as well. This is, after all, where the bill comes from. And I want to commend them for their leadership in this regard. Mr. Speaker, all these folks and many more deserve our thanks for making this historic achievement possible. This is a noncontroversial rule. It is an historic environmental restoration bill. As far as I know, it has bipartisan support. I encourage my colleagues to support both the rule and the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the west coast of Florida (Mr. Miller) my close colleague and distinguished friend.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the distinguished chairman of the Florida delegation, a man to whom many nice and well-deserved compliments have been paid in getting us to this point. (Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), my friend and colleague from the east coast, who also has been very instrumental in pulling all the parties together in an amicable way to reach this solution.