Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is not only prudent but part of a vital duty for this Congress to continue to discuss national security and policy questions relating to our ongoing operations in Kosovo. As part of this debate, I believe we must take a longer view of our foreign policy goals using lessons learned in this current crisis. In a nutshell, what does our intervention in Kosovo imply for our foreseeable future as the world's dominant power? And we are. Consider that NATO attacked a sovereign country that offered no military threat to the members of the alliance. Consider that NATO justified its attack on the basis of morality rather than self-defense, and NATO limited the accuracy and effectiveness of its attack to those measures that presented the least risk to NATO participants, even though this format predictably caused innocent civilians' deaths. Where do these actions as a precedent take us? Who else has the ``right'' to mount such an attack? China? Russia? The Organization of African Unity? Some other power? Some rogue Nation? Where else should NATO attack? The principles of morality have no geographic boundaries. We know that. For every ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, there will be several more, in Africa, Indonesia, any other headline you want to pick in the paper. How can NATO not intervene in the next Liberia, Rwanda or East Timor? How committed are we to such attacks? Have standoff smart bombs become NATO's version of diplomatic demarche? Is this what we do every time negotiations stall at the bargaining table? Underlying all these questions is the one most fundamental: What effect do such activities have upon our national security? I have, as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, seen a divergence of the intelligence capabilities and assets towards the Balkans that has left much of the intelligence field elsewhere empty. What then is the end game for this and for future Kosovos? What is the lesson? I have two recommendations on how to get there. First, I suggest we look with the wisdom of hindsight at the role of NATO in attacks other than for self-defense. I believe that the citizens of NATO countries support our purely humanitarian operations outside our territory, but I have less assurance that after the bloodshed on the ground in Yugoslavia, they will so readily support a military attack outside our territory unless it is in clear self-defense. Second, I urge that any future interventions never again leave our national security, the United States of America, so vulnerable to surprise and to compromise. We must not allow such efforts to leave us vulnerable to unanticipated crises with our friends or with our adversaries. We must, in short, have an intelligence and national security structure sound enough and broad enough to handle any such matters as Kosovo, if that is what the future portends, and still stand watch around the world in defense of our national security, which is the number one purpose, the number one duty, and the number one objective of our military.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to take the opportunity in this debate to restate to the whole House and to the whole world the important work that was done by the subcommittee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). I think it is very fair to say that it was bipartisan, it was unanimous, and it was extraordinarily significant, and that just did not happen by circumstance. I rise in strong support of the bipartisan amendment that we have got before us today. Obviously the amendment provides reasonable steps to start the process, to carry out some, not all, of the recommendations of the Cox committee. I want to commend very much publicly the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and ranking member (Mr. Dicks), other members of the committee, for their excellent work, for their very strong leadership in what I think is obviously a vital national security matter, and anybody who reads the report would have to come to that same conclusion. It was a pleasure to be associated with that effort. However I speak as Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the Cox Committee on China both today because I have tried to serve as a bridge between the two organizations. Obviously the intelligence peace is just one part of what the Cox committee did, but it is a very important part, and now that the Cox report has been released, those committee chairmen with jurisdiction over various aspects of our findings on the Cox committee can get down to the business and will get down to the business of taking legislative and other steps to implement the recommendations in the bipartisan undertaking that that committee was. Hence the amendment today. With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, I have asked that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence move forward in 6 specific areas. First we will examine all manner of Chinese directed espionage against the United States. That is no small matter. Second, we will examine Chinese directed covert action type activities conducted against the United States such as the use of agents of influence and efforts to subvert or otherwise manipulate the United States political process, something that is near and dear to our hearts and must not be tampered with. Third, we will examine counterintelligence programs, past, present and proposed, for the Department of Energy, Department of Defense, for the national labs, with the emphasis on the adequacy of the proposed enhancements and the structural changes meant to manage them. Fourth, we will investigate the issue of whether the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was kept properly advised of developments by the FBI and the Department of Energy. This is important because there is conflicting testimony, and oversight is a tradition in this House, but it is also a responsibility in this House. It is built on trust and candor, and we must have that between the branch of government. So that is an area that must be cleared up. Fifth, we will examine issues relating to the role the intelligence community plays in supporting policymakers in determining U.S. export and technology transfer policies. Certainly there is an argument that can be made that we were a little over zealous in selling things that perhaps we should have been more cautious about. That in no way takes away from the thought that my friend and colleague from Connecticut has expressed that we must have access to the international marketplace. Quality of life in this country, jobs in this country, depend on our ability to export, but we need to be smart about what we export and make sure it is always to our advantage. And finally, we will examine the policy of treating advanced counter intelligence investigations principally as law enforcement rather than national security matters. We have to determine whether it is more important that a spy end up behind bars, even if it takes years of investigation, than for the hemorrhaging of the national security data that can be stopped. In addition, our FY 2000 intelligence authorization included provisions that respond directly to problems raised in the Cox report and some of the matters in this amendment. These include new funds for such things as red teaming CIA's China analysis, improving CIA information security, background investigations, understanding and defeating foreign denial and deception techniques which are out there, and running more and better offensive operations against hostile foreign intelligence services, which we in fact know are conducting espionage against the United States of America, its personnel and its secrets. We provided funds to improve the Department of Energy's counterintelligence capabilities, analysis of foreign nuclear programs, cyber security and other such matters. We are increasing funds for FBI agent training in counterintelligence and DOD acquisition and information systems protection. We are funding more linguistic capabilities across the intelligence community and many more details we are beefing up. It is important we do this because we have let down. This amendment helps us. We are in support of it.

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this complicated but fair rule and this very important Department of Defense authorization bill that the gentlewoman is bringing forward for our attention so capably today. First, with respect to the rule, Members know that this has been an extraordinarily challenging process. I think that this rule is now ripe for Members' consideration. I congratulate the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and our committee for persistence in navigating what obviously would be described as complex waters, bringing this bill to the floor, particularly the role of the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) that has been helpful. We did the best we could to ensure that the most important areas of debate were covered and to ensure that Members had options to vote on with regard to those major issues. So there will be plenty of debate on these subjects. As for the underlying bill, Madam Speaker, I applaud our colleagues, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for bringing forward a bill that helps chart the future of our Nation's defenses as we embark on the next century. I would point out there is one from each side of the aisle in that combination; in other words, bipartisan. We have repeatedly emphasized the fact that our military has been systematically underfunded and stretched well beyond its means for the past years under the Clinton-Gore administration. As a result, our armed services today have been provided with too little while being asked to do too much. We all know that. Now, with the engagements in Kosovo, Iraq, ongoing missions on the Korean peninsula and a host of other unresolved missions underway, such as perhaps Haiti and Bosnia, we are seeing all too clearly the cracks and strains of a fighting force whose readiness is threatened, whose morale is eroded, and whose training and equipment have declined dangerously. This legislation falls upon the commitment that this House made just a few weeks ago in the supplemental funding bill that such harmful and pennywise shortsightedness should be brought to an end. Madam Speaker, as chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I know too well about the very real consequences we face because of poor planning and lack of long-term commitment on the part of policymakers to investing in a robust and modern defense capability. My committee shares jurisdiction with the Committee on Armed Services over a host of important military intelligence programs obviously. I am happy to say we have always worked in very close concert to ensure that the oversight of those programs is seamless, and I am very pleased with the product before us today. Eyes, ears, and brains are among the most important elements of a strong, smart, and effective defense. That is what good intelligence is all about: force protection, force enhancement. I am grateful for the support that this bill provides. Madam Speaker, America's attention in recent weeks has been riveted by the events of Kosovo and by those disturbing revelations closer to home about foreign penetration of our labs and failure of the Clinton- Gore administration to provide proper protection of our most important national secrets. If there is a silver lining to those two significant front-page matters is that they have helped galvanize public opinion about the imperative of protecting our national security. It is not only protecting our men and women in the Armed Forces and our interests here and overseas, but also protecting the security of our most important national secrets. They matter. This legislation will provide the vehicle for important debate on how we can best accomplish these crucial goals. I urge all Members and all Americans to pay close attention. There really is nothing more important that this Federal Government can or should be doing than providing for the national defense. I believe Americans are counting on this Congress to make up for the shortfalls in the Clinton-Gore administration that have lead us to the situation we find today in our defense. I urge support. I would like to respond to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), my friend and colleague on the Committee on Rules, and say simply that I think it would be a huge embarrassment in not serving the public properly in a representative form of government for us not to discuss the Kosovo situation when we are talking about the defense authorization bill.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chairman how much time is remaining on either side?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to read part of a Charleston Post and Courier editorial: General Wilhelm did not suggest that the United States should give up and walk away. He proposed U.S. military forces should visit Haiti periodically. Unfortunately, as the General told Congressmen, the 500 American soldiers--that number is actually 503 American soldiers--who remain have to spend much of their time defending themselves from attack. They should not be exposed in this way. Instead, detachments of troops, ready for combat if required, should be sent to Haiti to demonstrate U.S. commitment to upholding the rule of law. It would be wrong to keep troops in Haiti merely to disguise the fact that U.S. intervention, hailed as one of President Clinton's major foreign policy achievements, has failed. I would point out that that editorial absolutely parallels the advice we are getting from the military. Now, we have heard testimony that Haiti needs to be treated the same as everybody else. I agree. That is what we are trying to do is take out the permanent troops and replace them with the periodic deployments which are characteristic for the area. Secondly, we are trying to reduce the strain on the readiness of our troops because, Lord knows, we need them and the reduced strain would be helpful to the military. Thirdly, we are trying to increase troop safety. In fact our troops have been fired on in Haiti. Many people do not know that. Fourthly, many of the activities that are going on in Haiti that we need to help with are better suited with other NGOs. We will help those other NGOs as we have in the past and will continue to do in the future. That is where the help should be coming for the Haitians. There are other reports coming from Haiti, well founded at this time, of new brutality and unfortunately involves brutality by people in Haiti, Haitians who are trained by the U.S. This is not good. Things are going sour in Haiti. The gentleman from Connecticut has pointed out that we have now got a problem in Haiti. I do not know if the gentleman has noticed that we have got a dictatorship returning to Haiti in the past several months and that we no longer have all the elements of democracy down there that we seek to have. The dictatorship has in fact returned. But that is not the reason for the amendment. The reason for the amendment is to give Haiti a better chance to treat it the same as everybody else, to get the right kind of help going to Haiti and to get our troops back where they need to be. This is the defense authorization bill. This is not the Haiti relief bill. This is the defense authorization bill. The military has recommended we get those troops out of there on a permanent basis. We should listen to the military. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am expecting the arrival at any time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), who is my co-colleague on this subject. Mr. Chairman, over the last several years, the Clinton-Gore administration has asked the military to do more with less, and I think that deserves our time, so I am going to discuss this matter pending the arrival of the gentleman from New York. The result of having to do more with less, I think, is very plain to see. Declining morale and a military on the verge of being hollowed out confront us just at the time when we seem to have more demands on our military in so many other places. The solution seems simple, as even President Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen admits when he said, ``We have to find a way to either increase the size of our forces or decrease the number of our missions.'' I could not agree more. Earlier this year the commander of U.S. forces in Latin America, that would be General Charles Wilhelm, recommended we end our permanent troop presence in Haiti. In its place General Wilhelm recommends the periodic deployment of troops, as is the norm throughout the Western Hemisphere and the Caribbean. General Wilhelm's recommendation is sound on a number of counts, and I believe Congress should endorse it. Maintaining a permanent presence in Haiti unnecessarily puts our troops at risk. A clear indication of this is the fact that about half our soldiers in Haiti do nothing more than protect their fellow soldiers. The situation is that tense. That is what is happening. The deployment to Haiti strains military resources. We already know there is a call for those resources elsewhere. The financial cost is approximately $20 million per year. We also know there is a need for those resources elsewhere. The training, readiness and operational tempo are affected as well, as the military has clearly stated in much testimony before the United States Congress. Our presence in Haiti duplicates work more appropriately done by nongovernmental organizations. Even our commander in Haiti, the person on the front line, the person responsible, Colonel Morris, frankly admits that much of his troop's work could be done by private sector groups. We are talking about building schools, building wells, doing other humanitarian work which desperately needs to be done in Haiti. Finally, and from my perspective most importantly, our military planners clearly believe that the permanent deployment is less effective than periodic deployments would be. In other words, we get more bang for the buck, do more for Haiti, and do more for ourselves if we go to our norm of periodic deployments. General Wilhelm's recommendation is right on target: End the permanent troop presence but allow the military to conduct routine periodic deployments as the situation warrants. Unfortunately, our military's pleas for a commonsense approach seem to have fallen on deaf ears among the Clinton administration's policymakers and political advisers. It is time to restore Haiti to the norms in the hemisphere and end the permanent troop presence there. I think it is good for America. And in the end, I think it is a much more effective way to help the Haitian people, which is what we are trying to do. For these reasons, I am very pleased to join the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, in offering an amendment that would essentially formalize General Wilhelm's recommendation. And I strongly urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is addressing me as ``the gentleman from Florida,'' is the gentleman asking, do we want to keep the troops in Haiti to stop Haitians from leaving the oppression in Haiti? Is that what this is about?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, June 9, 1999.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until Monday, June 7, 1999, the Speaker, majority leader and minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, as the designee of the majority leader, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding to me. I want to confirm that the bipartisan House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is obviously well aware of our colleagues' concerns on what went wrong in the bombing, and we are going to do our best to provide information to our colleagues and to all Americans who are interested in the subject. It was a bad mistake, it had serious consequences and we believe the public right to know in this matter needs to be brought forth in a timely way, and we believe this schedule will work.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to let the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts continue.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Committee on Rules, which shares original jurisdiction over this legislation with the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Ways and Means. Obviously, I very strongly support this bipartisan procedural mechanism to lock away the social security trust fund. That is what we are here for. The nuts and bolts of what we are doing here today are actually very simple, but their impact is very, very significant and very reassuring, I think, to our senior citizens and to our younger workers. What this bill says is that we will completely wall off the social security trust fund, so much so that we will not allow a deficit to be created in the rest of the budget. That is a major departure from where the rules leave us currently. It is big progress. The not-so-secret secret about the Federal budget is that when there is overspending in the nonsocial security part of the budget, then the social security part of the budget is automatically, automatically tapped to cover the shortfall. That is how it is. That is how it is not going to be anymore, because we are going to fix that. This social security lockbox says that from now on, this activity will be forced out into the open and will be prohibited by our rules. In order to break the lock on the lockbox, Congress is going to have to explicitly vote to do so in a publicly-recorded vote. In the other body, where recent history suggests to some that spending may indeed be out of control, a three-fifths vote will be needed. This procedural firewall will remain in effect at least until legislation expressly for the purpose of reforming both the social security and the Medicare programs is enacted. It is important to note that we have taken the extra steps of including Medicare reform in the mix. We are opting to err on the side of caution with this added cushion to make sure we take care of both programs crucial to the retirement security of all Americans. In addition to the new point of order created by this proposal, there is also the new requirement that the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, as we know it here, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, and any other government agency must exclude social security receipts in their displays of budget totals. Currently we allow for two sets of totals to be displayed, one with and one without counting the social security reserves. That current practice in my view and in the view of many others creates the temptation for overlap between the general fund and social security. I must say, that appears to be a temptation that the Democrat majority of the past 40 years could not resist. This legislation is designed to remove that temptation once and for all. No more raiding social security. Mr. Speaker, to me this is as much about accountability and coming clean with the American people as it is about locking away social security. For too long the Federal bureaucracy has been able to have its cake and eat it, too; to talk about social security off-budget, but still using the trust fund as a soft landing pillow for the overspending free fall. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is the keeper of the gate when it comes to our budget process. We manage the points of order that are designed to constrain our actions in the budget process. H.R. 1259 adds an additional restriction and forces Congress and the President to be accountable for locking away the social security trust fund. When we passed our budget resolution this spring, we pledged that we were going to implement a real lockbox for social security. Now we are here. We are delivering on our promise. That is very good news for our seniors, and frankly, it is about time. This is bipartisan and I think it deserves our support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.) Mr. Speaker, first I include for the Record the following letter: Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 24, 1999. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: I ask that the Committee on Rules be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1259, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999. As you know, the bill was sequentially referred to the Rules Committee on March 24, 1999. Specifically, Section 3 (Protection of Social Security Surpluses), among other things, establishing Budget Act points of order against consideration of a budget resolution, an amendment thereto or any conference report thereon and any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference report that would cause or increase an on-budget deficit for any fiscal year. The provisions of this section fall primarily within the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee. It is my understanding that the Leadership has scheduled the bill for floor consideration the week of May 24. To accommodate the schedule, I agree to waive the Rules Committee's jurisdiction over consideration of this legislation at this time. However, in order to assist the Chair in any rulings on these new points of order, I will be submitting an analysis of them into the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this bill. I have included a copy of this analysis with this letter. Although the Rules Committee has not sought to exercise its original jurisdiction prerogatives on this legislation pursuant to clause 1(m) and 3(i) of House rule X, I reserve the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee over all bills relating to the rules, joint rules and the order of business of the House, including any bills relating to the congressional budget process. Furthermore, it would be my intention to seek to have the Rules Committee represented on any conference committee on this bill. Sincerely, David Dreier.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).