Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 125 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes of debate to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), my friend and colleague, 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. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 125 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1141, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1999. As we just heard from the Clerk, the rule description sounds technically complicated, but Members should keep in mind that this is an open rule which includes the waivers necessary to bring this matter to the attention of the House today and which allows the House to address the major issue of contention, offsets, in full and fair debate. As to the specifics, the rule waives clause 4(c) of rule XIII, which requires the 3-day availability of printed hearings on a general appropriations bill and sections 302 and 306 of the Congressional Budget Act against consideration of the bill. The waiver relating to section 302 of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of the committee's legislation providing new budget authority until that committee has filed its 302(b) report and which also prohibits consideration of legislation providing new budget authority in excess of a subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of such authority, are necessary because the Committee on Appropriations has not filed its final 302(b) suballocation report for FY 1999 and, since there are no final suballocations, H.R. 1141 is technically considered to be in breach of existing suballocations. The waiver of section 306 is necessary because the emergency designations within H.R. 1141 are within the Budget Committee's jurisdiction but were not reported by the Budget Committee. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, and it provides that the bill be open to amendment by paragraph. The rule also waives clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in a general appropriations bill and prohibiting nonemergency designated amendments to an appropriations bill containing an emergency designation. In addition, the rule provides special protection for an amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report if offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) or his designee. This allows the House to consider and vote upon the fundamental issue of offsets. That amendment shall be consider as read, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to grant priority in recognition to members who have caused their amendments to be preprinted in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration. That is an option, not a requirement. The rule also permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce the voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. The rule provides waivers necessary to ensure a fair debate, specifically clause 2(E) of rule 21 and section 302(C) of the Congressional Budget Act for all amendments to the bill. Lastly, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. As I said, it sounds complicated but it is essentially an open rule. Mr. Speaker, Americans are a compassionate people, willing to respond with a helping hand when our friends and neighbors are in trouble, at home and abroad, or when suffering grievously the consequences of disasters, as we have seen in the past year. H.R. 1141 meets a series of needs related to the devastation caused in the fall of 1998 when Hurricanes Georges and Mitch tore through the Caribbean and Central America with an intensity and viciousness rarely seen in nature. The people of the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, and many of the Caribbean Islands are still trying to rebuild their lives and their livelihoods in the wake of these two brutal storms. Mother Nature struck again with a vengeance in January of this year when an earthquake rocked northern Colombia. These three catastrophic events together were responsible for at least 10,400 deaths, injuries to more than 17,000 people, three-and-a-quarter million people homeless or displaced, and an estimated financial cost of several billion dollars. Here at home our farmers have been struggling with their own disastrous problems, stemming primarily from low crop commodity prices. This legislation responds to those and other needs, and to the request of the administration that we move expeditiously toward releasing necessary funding, by providing a total of $1.3 billion in fiscal year 1999 spending. I would note that we expect the Congress to exercise its oversight in the expenditure of the funds in this bill, to ensure that the relief gets to those in need and does not get sidetracked or diverted by bureaucratic or other snafus. I am specifically thinking about the people of Haiti and the very real concerns I have about the stability of Haiti's infrastructure and the misery that exists upon the Haitian people in Haiti. I will certainly be watching closely, and I know others will as well, to see that the money gets to those who need it and where it was intended to go. Mr. Speaker, this bill does something else that is very important. It provides the offsets for nearly all the spending it outlines. Why is this important? It signals that we are committed to changing the way business is done in Washington, to living within our means, and to making the choices necessary to ensure that we never again allow this government to spend our children into deficits and red ink. In the bad old days of soaring deficits it used to be common practice to slap the label of ``emergency'' on a grab bag of spending items in order to circumvent the spending constraints. Well, things have changed. Even though the administration is willing to call most of the items in this bill emergency-related to avoid the offsets, our majority has ensured the bill is more than 90 percent offset, and they deserve a lot of credit, paid for with rescissions from the lower priority programs and accounts with as yet unspent funds. This is a question of prioritizing needs. The one piece of this bill that is truly defined as emergency spending is the payment for monies already spent to cover the costs of deployment of our military resources in the immediate aftermath of these three disasters; the ready response, as it were; the lifesaving missions that were undertaken by our military. Mr. Speaker, the rules of the budgeting game are vague and imprecise. They provide cover for too much spending, in my view. Yet my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, made the extra effort in crafting this compassionate bill, which takes the extra step of responsibly paying for the bulk of its spending. It is my hope that down the road when we discuss reforming our budget process, and we will, because we have introduced legislation, we will make some changes to the current rules to assist in these efforts in the future; changes that would better define what we mean when we say emergency, and that would establish a rainy day reserve fund to better plan ahead for true emergency situations. We know they are going to happen. In the interim, as we proceed with H.R. 1141, I know that there will be debate about the policy of offsetting any or even all of the spending in this bill, and that is a legitimate debate for us to have, and that is why we have provided this rule before us today, which allows for that discussion and ensures that all Members will have a chance to be heard. I urge my colleagues to support this fair, open rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, anyone who has followed the long, tragic, sad history of the Castro regime in Cuba knows all too well the systematic violation of human rights employed by Castro to maintain his grip on power, his deadly grip on power. The resolution before us calls on the Clinton administration to secure passage of a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Commission that condemns the Cuban government for its gross abuses of human rights of the Cuban people. Since the U.S. State Department agrees that ``The human rights situation in Cuba remains deplorable,'' and recognizes that ``the Cuban government has taken no significant steps towards political change,'' it seems to me that the Clinton administration would be eager to back up its rhetoric with some solid action. Making sure the international community does not let Castro's human rights abuses go unchallenged would be a very good place to start. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution, and I commend the sponsors for bringing this issue before the House. It is long overdue.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) who I understand properly claimed my time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York, a new member of our committee and a valued member of our committee, for yielding me this time. Today we embark on a crucial debate directly relevant to the lives of all American men, women, and especially our children. I would argue that the Congress of the United States has no more significant duty than to ensure the greatest level of protection for our national security. With the dawn of the next century just a few short months away, we face a future that is bright with opportunity and promise, some of which we are realizing today, but a future that is also vulnerable to attack, including specifically missile attack, by those who would do us harm. And let us be clear. Those who would do us harm inhabit many quarters of this ever-shrinking world. Many are actively seeking to develop and deploy the technology to provide themselves a ballistic missile capability to use against the United States of America. We do not pursue this debate today to scare people, but rather to engage them in an open-eyed assessment of the world as it is. We all might wish to believe President Clinton's pronouncement that no American child is currently being targeted by a missile, but that is unfortunately not exactly a true statement. Sadly, the 1964 election year Johnson campaign ad of a little girl playing in a field of flowers backdropped by an atomic cloud is still vivid and still a sickening possibility in today's world. Beyond the state of affairs today, there is also the reality that the world's bad guys are moving quickly and with the sense of purpose toward a tomorrow when they can wreak havoc and cause damage with weapons of mass destruction or mass casualty targeted against Americans and our interests. I have always advocated investment in the eyes and ears capabilities of U.S. intelligence so we can have as full a picture as possible about the threats we face as we develop policies to protect ourselves. We need not only to know about the missiles but also about the plans and the intentions of the Saddam Husseins and Khadafis, Khomenis and Kim Jong Ils of the world today. Some might say that since the Cuban missile crisis we have not focused enough on these threats in recent years, perhaps because the policymakers did not want to see the dangers. But, Mr. Speaker, our intelligence says unequivocally that the threat is real, growing, and much more immediate than some had thought. So I strongly believe we must commit ourselves to putting in place a missile defense program as soon as practical. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 is a deceptively simple bill. Its entirety is only one sentence. But the 15 words that comprise the operative text of H.R. 4 speak volumes to the entire planet that we will not shy away from the tough challenge of making America and her people safe from a missile attack. Support this rule and vote for H.R. 4 and do America a favor.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, over the weekend it was reported that the commander of U.S. troops in Latin America has recommended that troops stationed in Haiti be brought home. For most Americans, it will probably come as a surprise to learn that we still actually have troops in Haiti. Indeed, there has been little public discussion of Haiti in the years since U.S. troops helped end a coup and return President Aristide to office down there. In the years since this dramatic operation, the situation in Haiti has gotten worse and what was once touted as the crown jewel of the Clinton administration's foreign policy is now an utter failure. Haiti has been without an effective government for almost 2 years, the judiciary is weak and the legislative branch has been effectively shut down and boarded up. The Haitian executive branch has taken a number of actions outside the constitution and caused concern to those working to consolidate democracy for our island neighbor. The political situation has grown even more tense in recent weeks following the gruesome political murder of Haitian Senator Toussaint, the attack on Senator Chery and the attack on a leading rights advocate. These ongoing attacks are the culmination of a long-standing campaign of intimidation and violence against Haitian and American individuals who are working hard in support of the rule of law, free and fair elections and economic improvement in that impoverished country. In the midst of these troubling developments, there have been two U.S. actions of note: First, the refusal of the Clinton administration to certify Haiti as meeting its obligations in the war on drugs, in other words, they cannot do their job on that. And, second, the recommendation by General Wilhelm that we terminate the U.S. troop presence in Haiti. General Wilhelm had this to say and I quote: ``As our continuous military presence in Haiti moves into its fifth year, we see little progress toward creation of a permanently stable internal security environment. In fact, with the recent expiration of parliament and imposition of rule by presidential decree, we have seen some backsliding. Though our military mission in Haiti was accomplished in 1994, we have sustained a presence that on any given day during 1998 averaged about 496 military personnel.'' General Wilhelm goes on to say that he would ``categorize our presence as being a benevolent one. Through a variety of humanitarian assistance and other local outreach programs, our troops have undertaken infrastructure development projects and provided urgently needed medical and dental care for the impoverished Haitian population. These contributions have been made at a cost to the Department of Defense. By our calculations, our military presence in Haiti carried a price tag of $20,085,000 for 1998.'' The General concludes: ``However, at this point I am more concerned about force protection than cash outlays. The unrest generated by political instability requires us to constantly reassess the safety and security environment in which our troops are living and working. I have recommended that we terminate our permanent military presence in Haiti.'' General Wilhelm's recommendation was bolstered by General Hugh Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Shelton has testified before Congress that he was ``looking very hard at the Haiti operation and drawing that 350 down to a much lesser number'' given the troop commitments around the world and the proposal to deploy U.S. troops to Kosovo. While Generals Wilhelm and Shelton limited their comments to their area of responsibility, overseeing the deployment and readiness of the U.S. military, it is clear that this issue has far broader implications. Respected columnist David Broder reached the following conclusion: ``The lesson is not that we should never be peacekeepers; rather, that there has to be a peace to keep. Sending in the military to impose a peace on people who have not settled ancient quarrels has to be the last resort, not the standard way of doing business.'' Mr. Speaker, many respected individuals are calling on the Clinton administration to get our troops out of Haiti and begin rethinking its efforts to use our soldiers to impose peace on those who do not want it. This is not a good policy. It does not work. I believe the administration would do itself and America credit to heed the advice of these people who I think have made better suggestions that far outpace the Clinton foreign policy.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Lest Members might be a little confused, the gentleman who just spoke so passionately and eloquently about the steel matter and talking about a closed rule was not talking about the rule that we have on the floor now. This is a wide open rule, and I urge its strong support by all Members. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my friend and colleague, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I notice an outbreak of the wearing of the green around the Hill today, and I want to especially extend a happy congratulations for St. Patrick's Day to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), who has a very strong interest in this subject I am advised. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate on this subject only. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present another noncontroversial wide open rule from the Committee on Rules under the benevolent leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for purposes of amendment. It authorizes the chair to accord priority of recognition to those Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. This is an option available to all Members. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. It is a good rule and it should not engender any opposition. The subject matter is important. Mr. Speaker, while the Coast Guard is the smallest of our armed services, its responsibilities are great and vitally important. It is an agency with many missions. We ask the Coast Guard to be responsible for such critical areas as the navigation and safety of our waterways and emergency search and rescue. As a branch of the Armed Forces, the Coast Guard has also helped defend America in every war since 1790. It has a brave and long tradition. To maintain an effective and ready force, H.R. 820, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998, authorizes 44,000 active duty military personnel by the end of fiscal year 2001. Most important to today's debate is the evolving role the Coast Guard is playing on the war on drugs. Last year this Congress reached an agreement with the White House to win the war on drugs, not just trim it back a little and settle for a stalemate. We want to win it. We intend to win this war that is so critical to the future of our youngsters, and this particular legislation helps us on that path. As so often in this city, we have discovered that talk is cheap. The Clinton White House has submitted a budget that is negligent on the war on drugs and abandons the commitment made by the Clinton White House just last fall to help win that war on drugs. In fact, the Clinton budget request does not implement anything within the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act beyond that contained in last year's omnibus bill. H.R. 820 puts our money where our mouth is. It fully funds the Western Hemisphere effort, with an additional $290 million in operating expenses for the next 2 years. This money will have a direct impact at the source of the drug scourge, including additional coastal patrol boats, the creation of a regional law enforcement center in Puerto Rico, several maritime patrol aircraft, several cutters and vessels to be received from the United States Navy. Americans have a right to demand results, not more talk, but results on the war on drugs and H.R. 820 delivers. A recent study by the Institute for Defense Analysis examining effectiveness of cocaine interdiction found strong links between supply disruptions and rising street prices in the United States. It also found that, when street prices rise, use falls, especially among casual users. We know that interdiction works and that taking dead aim at the supply side must be a large piece of our effort. That does not diminish from the efforts, of course, on the demand side that we also must make. H.R. 820 makes good on our commitment on the supply side. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule that allows open debate and consideration of all germane amendments. I urge a yes vote on the rule as well as the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I join my colleague from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in heaping praise on the Coast Guard for extraordinary work under extremely difficult conditions. Anybody who has been in New England in the winter knows just what he speaks of when he talks about being out there on the high seas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 113 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today the House will debate whether to send U.S. troops to Kosovo, an issue that may seem to have little relevance to the lives of many Americans in this time of very blue skies in this country which we are fortunate to enjoy. But appearances aside, the decisions we make about Kosovo will affect the course of the United States and our allies in the world over the next several years. This matters. It is a critically important debate, and I urge Members to give it their most thoughtful attention. Some may question whether this is the right time for a congressional debate, as we have already heard, about sending U.S. troops to Kosovo. Once an agreement is reached, the Clinton administration has announced that it will deploy troops forthwith to begin enforcement of the agreement. So when is the right time to debate the issue? The answer is before our men and women in uniform are placed in harm's way. I am concerned that the administration tends to place U.S. troops into a dangerous situation where they are unwelcomed by both parties and do not have clear marching orders. Serbian President Milosevic, an unsavory strong man in my view, refuses to accept the presence of foreign troops on Serbian soil, and the Kosovar rebels on their part refuse to give up their ultimate goal of independence from Serbia. Of even greater concern is the possibility that the NATO mission may have the unintended consequence of destabilizing the region by encouraging separatism in neighboring areas, a situation we are already familiar with. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo cries out for international attention and assistance. But the real question is: How should the United States of America respond? Is the answer always the commission of U.S. forces no matter what? Listening to the Clinton administration, we would think that bombing and deployment of troops is the only solution available to us. I am also concerned about the implications of the administration's Kosovo plans on the future of NATO. For several years NATO has been grappling with its role in the post cold war period. The administration's headlong rush to support deployment of NATO troops outside the treaty area risks damage to the delicate consensus that underlies the alliance. In April at NATO's 50th anniversary to be celebrated here in Washington the Alliance will announce its new strategic concept for the direction and mission of NATO. Will this document explain why NATO must intervene in Kosovo, an area outside the treaty boundary, but not intervene in an area, say, in Africa where there is genocide and a civil war going where human suffering is just as great. Mr. Speaker, when President Clinton first proposed sending U.S. troops to Kosovo, he laid out the following criteria: a strong and effective peace agreement with full participation by both parties, a permissive security environment, including the disarmament of the Kosovar power militaries and a well-defined NATO mission with a clear exit strategy. These criteria are a good starting point for the congressional consideration. Later today I or others may offer amendments to this resolution to ensure that these criteria and other equally important ones are met before U.S. troops are sent to Kosovo. Before I vote to support sending our men and women in uniform to Kosovo, people in my district want to know the exit strategy as well as the entry strategy. They want to know how this fits into our national interest, and they want to know the costs. These are basic questions that we in Congress should raise so that the American people are fully informed. Getting answers from the administration is part of our job description, especially when the use of our men and women in uniform is involved. This rule provides for full debate. I urge its support.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise regrettably opposed to the amendment, the well- crafted amendment from my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler). It is a good amendment and has led to good debate, but I have a different view of this situation. I think that the underlying resolution, H.Con.Res. 42 that we are talking about cannot be supported in its present form because it is essentially a blank check that grants the Clinton administration authorization to send troops to Kosovo without any limitations or restrictions. I think that is much too broad. The Fowler amendment, on the other hand, would go to the opposite end of the spectrum denying the administration the authority to send troops under nearly all but the most dire circumstances. While the President is the primary architect of American foreign policy, and we all understand that, Congress nevertheless has very important obligations in this area, most notably oversight, overseeing the deployment of our troops. That is one of the reasons we are here. We do this on behalf of the people we represent back home. Finding the right balance is never easy, as we know, but I do believe that the people in my district feel that we should seek something that is more akin to a middle ground solution to either the underlying resolution or the Fowler amendment. The Clinton administration is intent on deploying U.S. troops to Kosovo and maintains that it does not require congressional approval to do so. In response, I believe Congress should be careful not to deal itself out of the process altogether, and I think this debate has been useful and is going to be more constructive as we go along. Many members are concerned about the administration's plan and are not satisfied with standing on the sidelines, which is the practical effect of both the resolution that underlies H.Con.Res. 42 and the Fowler amendment. It is either yes or no. I believe that it is incumbent on Congress to seize this opportunity to offer constructive input and to put into place reasonable requirements before our troops are committed. Rather than providing a blank check or obstructing the way altogether, Congress should require an explicit statement of the national interests involved, the rules of engagement, for example, for our troops; the cost of the mission, for example, of interest to our taxpayers; as well as the entry strategy, the exit strategy, the amount of protection provided to make sure our forces will be as safe as possible; those kinds of questions. As the debate progresses, I anticipate there will be a series of amendments to do just those kinds of things. I am going to oppose, somewhat reluctantly, the Fowler amendment because I think there is a better way to achieve proper accountability from the President about using our troops in Kosovo. I urge my colleagues to understand that there are good choices between the carte blanche of the underlying H.Con.Res. 42 and the no deployment proposal by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler). Those amendments are printed. I urge that my colleagues look at them and in the meantime I urge a no vote on the Fowler amendment.

Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to advise Members of what is contained in this proposed amendment, which actually reflects on some of the concerns we have heard in the debate today, and deals with some of the other amendments that we have all read about that we were considering as other amendments for this particular House concurrent resolution. I would describe generally the resolution that is under consideration as between House Concurrent Resolution 32, which is somewhat of a carte blanche, and the Fowler amendment, which was a prohibition. What we attempt to do here is authorize deployment, but because of some of the concerns we have heard today, call on the President to submit a number of reports and vital pieces of information to the Congress before ordering deployment. These would include reports on a declaration explaining the national interest of the U.S. at risk in Kosovo, and a certification that all U.S. armed forces in Kosovo will be under the operational control of U.S. military officers. We would request further details on the rules of engagement before we have deployment; the military resources that would be required, both the personnel and the equipment; the military exit strategy; the diplomatic exit strategy; the chain of command for the U.S. forces in Kosovo; the percentage of United States participation compared to other NATO countries in any force, concerning particularly ground troops, air support, logistic support, and intelligence support; the impact on military readiness, and that goes to morale and rotation; that we would have information providing a time frame in which U.S. forces could reasonably expect to be withdrawn; that we would have information on the budgetary impact for this fiscal year and the next 5 fiscal years of deployment; we would have an assessment of the threats to our armed forces in Kosovo, the men and women in uniform, and the level of force protection required to give them the maximum amount of protection; the intelligence-sharing arrangements, if any, resulting from a peace agreement; any modification to the intelligence-sharing arrangement within NATO, the present arrangement we have now; the effect of Russian participation in Kosovo on any intelligence-sharing arrangements within NATO; the scope of the mission of the U.S. armed forces, in other words, what is expected, when do we declare success; the means and methods by which compliance with the terms of the peace agreement will be verified, verification; the terms and conditions in any peace agreement, in particular; the details on any secret side agreements; any other military arrangements of the U.S. as a result of the peace agreement or side agreements or obligations; any other obligations of the United States resulting from the peace agreement, such as weapons interdiction; the funding source for the referendum on independence 3 years hence in Kosovo, and the role of peacekeeping forces to enforce any provision of the peace agreement. Mr. Chairman, we should support this deployment to make Mr. Milosevic understand that the United States means business. We should support the deployment with our eyes wide open, if we are going to have a deployment, and that is why we are offering these amendments. I would argue that a successful vote to send the troops can in fact strengthen the hand of our negotiators. I would note that even the minority leader earlier today conceded that we should not deploy troops without a policy. I could not agree more with the gentleman from Missouri. A commitment to deploy has already been made, pursuant to some ad hoc policy determination. Congress needs to be involved. Therefore, now is the appropriate time to take up this issue, before the troops are deployed without a firm policy. That is the explanation, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Columbus, Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this fair, modified open rule. This is a very targeted bipartisan bill, and this rule provides ample opportunity for debate and amendment. It is not all there is to be said on the subject of education, but it is a very excellent place to start on a targeted basis. The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, or Ed-Flex as we call it, is a step towards local control, away from the dictates of Washington. We all know education is a priority interest in our Nation today. It needs to be. We are not doing as well as we need to be. But education is not about what Washington does. It is about teaching students. It is about students learning. Ed-Flex will empower our school districts with the ability to undertake more effective and innovative reform measures and do what works best for them in their schools. For too long schools districts have had to operate within the confines of Federal programs, which often act as an obstruction, despite our best intentions here, but an obstruction rather than an aid. While I would prefer to remove these restrictions all together, providing a waiver process for all States is at least an incremental step in the right direction. Ed-Flex will extend to all 50 States the option to waive certain Federal and State regulations in exchange for increased accountability and results. Accountability. That is what Americans are asking for. It seems to me that the best people to determine what our kids need are not Federal bureaucrats but the folks down at the district level who are directly accountable to parents and involved at the front lines. During the past 3 decades, Washington has attempted to micromanage our schools, without very much success, it seems. There is a role for the Federal Government to play in public education, I agree, but it must be very balanced and it must be very careful. Ed-Flex will give our local districts the opportunity to make the most of Federal and State resources by giving them the freedom to tailor existing Federal programs to the specific needs of their students. At the same time, we do not have to exchange flexibility for accountability. States that wish to participate will have to provide clear achievement objectives and then produce solid academic outcomes. We remove the red tape, not the accountability in this piece of legislation. I am encouraged by the results of the States that are already participating in Ed-Flex, particularly for the poor and disadvantaged students. Something is working here. It is my hope that we will agree to extend this opportunity for success to all our schools and to all Americans. They deserve it. There is a wide variety of opinion and debate on education, and there will certainly be times when Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives have legitimate disagreements. This should not be one of those times. We have a good rule today to get this issue on the floor and to get this matter underway so it is available to our students sooner rather than later. Other issues, that obviously we wish to address, we have assurances from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that he will be bringing them forward, and we look forward to those as well.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 91 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward another noncontroversial open rule under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman David Dreier). The rule waives clause 4(a) of rule XIII requiring a 3-day layover of the committee report against consideration of the bill. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and makes in order our committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purposes of amendment. The Chair is authorized to accord priority in recognition to members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, and finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. This is an otherwise wonderful rule that should certainly engender no controversy, and deserves, I believe, the support of the full House. H.R. 707, which this carries, is the straightforward commonsense solution to a very real problem that impacts folks in my district and, of course, throughout the country as well. The problem we are facing is not a new one: How to improve the way we plan for and deliver assistance to communities that have the misfortune to be hit by natural disasters. I commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), my Florida colleague, for her leadership on this important issue and for the substantive, bipartisan work product which she has delivered. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 707 improves the process by outlining seven specific, objective criteria for awarding grants and by requiring mitigation projects to be cost-effective. H.R. 707 increases the role of the State and local governments in the short term and requires FEMA to develop a process for delegating a greater portion of the hazard mitigation piece to the States after fiscal year 2000. Having witnessed a number of natural disasters, regrettably in my own district and elsewhere, I know that hazard mitigation is best accomplished at the local level, where people tie down their roofs and board up their windows. This bill clearly moves in that direction. This is a sound approach that will help our constituents at every stage of the process. Our communities will be better prepared for disasters and, when one hits, the process to receive assistance will be streamlined and more efficient. I know that will be welcomed news. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 707 complements an effort that the Committee on Rules has been working on in conjunction with the Committee on the Budget to fix our broken budget process. One of the pillars of our bill, the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act, is the creation of a reserve fund to budget up front for emergencies, an initiative long championed by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the former governor of Delaware. H.R. 707 enjoys the support of several major organizations, including many at the front lines such as the American Red Cross and the National League of Cities. In fact, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) has been working closely with the administration and has incorporated a number of recommendations from them in this package. As a result, FEMA is also supporting H.R. 707. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that effective mitigation saves lives and money. H.R. 707 is a good bipartisan bill that is long overdue. I encourage my colleagues to support this open, fair rule, as well as the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we have no requests for time at this point. I only urge that Members support this fair, open rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week Haitian Senator Toussaint was gunned down in front of his home in a gruesome, politically- motivated murder. Toussaint had been a member of the OPL, the political party that has controlled parliament in Haiti and is the opposition party for current President Preval and former President Aristide, and it is no coincidence that the loss of Senator Toussaint also means the loss of OPL's majority status in the Haitian Senate. Mr. Speaker, it is also no coincidence that in Haiti those who are targeted for surveillance, intimidation and even worse are Haitian and American individuals who are working in support of the rule of law; free, fair elections; and economic improvement in that impoverished country. The United Nations has called attention to the crises, noting there is increased polarization in the country and new risk to constitutional government, but there has been precious little word out of the Clinton administration. Mr. Speaker, the crown jewel of their foreign policy is badly tarnished, and we need a new approach to Haiti's failed democracy. We are filing such legislation today, and I urge Members to read it and support it.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, today Haiti is a very grim place. The economy is in shambles, crime is prevalent, and the parliament is dysfunctional. There has been no progress scheduling necessary elections, despite President Preval's recent assurances he would. Another indication of how bad the situation has become in Haiti is the Clinton administration's refusal to certify Haiti as meeting its obligation in the war on drugs, even though U.S. taxpayers have spent millions of dollars in the past few years trying to build a competent police force in Haiti. Now we learn of the politically motivated murder, the brutal assassination of one of Haiti's nine remaining Senators on Monday. The predilection for solving Haiti's problems through violence continues as does the slide towards authoritarianism. Later this week I will join several of my colleagues in introducing a bipartisan resolution calling on the Organization of American States to intervene. The crown jewel of Clinton's foreign policy is tragically tarnished. It is time we stopped adding more to this bad debt.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, Pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(a)(2) of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I am pleased to transmit herewith the Rules of Procedure for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the 106th Congress. The enclosed rules were adopted by the Committee on February 24, 1999. Rules of Procedure for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Revised February 1999) 1. subcommittees (a) Generally (1) Creation of subcommittee shall be by majority vote of the Committee. (2) Subcommittees shall deal with such legislation and oversight of programs and policies as the Committee may direct. (3) Subcommittees shall be governed by these rules. (4) For purposes of these rules, any reference herein to the ``Committee'' shall be interpreted to include subcommittees, unless otherwise specifically provided. (b) Establishment of subcommittees The Committee establishes the following subcommittees: (1) Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence; and (2) Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence. (c) Subcommittee membership (1) Generally. Each Member of the Committee may be assigned to at least one of the two subcommittees. (2) Ex Officio Membership. In the event that the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the full Committee do not choose to sit as regular voting members of one or both of the subcommittees, each is authorized to sit as an ex officio Member of the subcommittees and participate in the work of the subcommittees. When sitting as ex officio Members, however, they shall not: (A) have a vote in the subcommittee; (B) be counted for purposes of determining a quorum. 2. meeting day (a) Regular meeting day for the full committee (1) Generally. The regular meeting day of the Committee for the transaction of Committee business shall be the first Wednesday of each month, unless otherwise directed by the Chairman. (2) Notice Required. Such regular business meetings shall not occur, unless Members are provided reasonable notice under these rules. (b) Regular meeting day for subcommittees There is no regular meeting day for either subcommittee. 3. notice for meetings (a) Generally In the case of any meeting of the Committee, the Chief Clerk of the Committee shall provide reasonable notice to every Member of the Committee. Such notice shall provide the time and place of the meeting. (b) Definition For purposes of this rule, ``reasonable notice'' means: (1) Written notification; (2) delivered by facsimile transmission or regular mail, which is (A) delivered no less than 24 hours prior to the event for which notice is being given, if the event is to be held in Washington, DC; or (B) delivered no less than 48 hours prior to the event for which notice is being given, if the event is to be held outside Washington, DC. (c) Exception In extraordinary circumstances only, the Chairman may, after consulting with the Ranking Minority Member, call a meeting of the Committee without providing notice, as defined in subparagraph (b), to Members of the Committee. 4. preparations for committee meetings (a) Generally Designated Committee Staff, as directed by the Chairman, shall brief Members of the Committee at a time sufficiently prior to any Committee meeting in order to: (1) Assist Committee Members in preparation for such meeting; and (2) determine which matters Members wish considered during any meeting. (b) Briefing materials (1) Such a briefing shall, at the request of a Member, include a list of all pertinent papers, and such other materials, that have been obtained by the Committee that bear on matters to be considered at the meeting; and (2) the staff director shall also recommend to the Chairman any testimony, papers, or other materials to be presented to the Committee at any meeting of the Committee. 5. open meetings (a) Generally Pursuant to Rule XI of the House, but subject to the limitations of subsection (b), Committee meetings held for the transaction of business, and Committee hearings, shall be open to the public. (b) Exceptions Any meeting or portion thereof, for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, or any hearing or portion thereof, shall be closed to the public, if: (1) the Committee determines by record vote, in open session with a majority of the Committee present, that the matters to be discussed may: (A) endanger national security; (B) compromise sensitive law enforcement information; (C) tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person; or (D) otherwise violate any law or Rule of the House. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a vote to close a Committee hearing, pursuant to this subsection and House Rule XI shall be taken in open session-- (A) with a majority of the Committee being present; or (B) regardless of whether a majority is present, so long as at least on Member of the Minority is present and votes upon the motion. (c) Briefings All Committee briefings shall be closed to the public. 6. quorum (a) Hearings For purposes of taking testimony, or receiving evidence, a quorum shall consist of two Committee Members. (b) Other committee proceedings For purposes of the transaction of all other Committee business, other than the consideration of a motion to close a hearing as described in rule 5(b)(2)(B), a quorum shall consist of a majority of Members. 7. reporting record votes Whenever the Committee by record vote reports any measure or matter, the report of the Committee upon such measure or matter shall include a tabulation of the votes cast in favor of, and the votes cast in opposition to, such measure or matter. 8. procedures for taking testimony or receiving evidence (a) Notice Adequate notice shall be given to all witnesses appearing before the Committee. (b) Oath or affirmation The Chairman may require testimony of witnesses to be given under oath or affirmation. (c) Administration of oath or affirmation Upon the determination that a witness shall testify under oath or affirmation, any Member of the Committee designated by the Chairman may administer the oath or affirmation. (d) Interrogation of witnesses (1) Generally. Interrogation of witnesses before the Committee shall be conducted by Members of the Committee. (2) Exceptions. (A) The Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, may determine that Committee Staff will be authorized to question witnesses at a hearing in accordance with clause (2)(j) of House Rule XI. (B) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member are each authorized to designate Committee Staff to conduct such questioning. (e) Counsel for the witness (1) Generally. Witnesses before the Committee may be accompanied by counsel, subject to the requirements of paragraph (2). (2) Counsel Clearances Required. In the event that a meeting of the Committee has been closed because the subject to be discussed deals with classified information, counsel accompanying a witness before the Committee must possess the requisite security clearance and provide proof of such clearance to the Committee at least 24 hours prior to the meeting at which the counsel intends to be present. (3) Failure to Obtain Counsel. Any witness who is unable to obtain counsel should notify the Committee. If such notification occurs at least 24 hours prior to the witness' appearance before the Committee, the Committee shall then endeavor to obtain voluntary counsel for the witness. Failure to obtain counsel, however, will not excuse the witness from appearing and testifying. (4) Conduct of Counsel for Witnesses. Counsel for witnesses appearing before the Committee shall conduct themselves ethically and professionally at all times in their dealings with the Committee. (A) A majority of Members of the Committee may, should circumstances warrant, find that counsel for a witness before the Committee failed to conduct himself or herself in an ethical or professional manner. (B) Upon such finding, counsel may be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. (5) Temporary Removal of Counsel. The Chairman may remove counsel during any proceeding before the Committee for failure to act in an ethical and professional manner. (6) Committee Reversal. A majority of the Members of the Committee may vote to overturn the decision of the Chairman to remove counsel for a witness. (7) Role of Counsel for Witness. (A) Counsel for a witness: (i) shall not be allowed to examine witnesses before the Committee, either directly or through cross-examination; but (ii) may submit questions in writing to the Committee that counsel wishes propounded to a witness; or (iii) may suggest, in writing to the Committee, the presentation of other evidence or the calling of other witnesses. (B) The Committee may make such use of any such questions, or suggestions, as the Committee deems appropriate. (f) Statements by witnesses (1) Generally. A witness may make a statement, which shall be brief and relevant, at the beginning and at the conclusion of the witness' testimony. (2) Length. Each such statements shall not exceed five minutes in length, unless otherwise determined by the Chairman. (3) Submission to the Committee. Any witness desiring to submit a written statement for the record of the proceedings shall submit a copy of the statement to the Chief Clerk of the Committee. (A) Such statements shall ordinarily be submitted no less than 48 hours in advance of the witness' appearance before the Committee. (B) In the event that the hearing was called with less than 24 hours notice, written statements should be submitted as soon as practicable prior to the hearing. (g) Objections and ruling (1) Generally. Any objection raised by a witness, or counsel for the witness, shall be ruled upon by the Chairman, and such ruling shall be the ruling of the Committee. (2) Committee Action. A ruling by the Chairman may be overturned upon a majority vote of the Committee. (h) Transcripts (1) Transcript Required. A transcript shall be made of the testimony of each witness appearing before the Committee during any hearing of the Committee. (2) Opportunity to Inspect. Any witness testifying before the Committee shall be given a reasonable opportunity to inspect the transcript of the hearing, and may be accompanied by counsel to determine whether such testimony was correctly transcribed. Such counsel: (A) shall have the appropriate clearance necessary to review any classified aspect of the transcript; and (B) should, to the extent possible, be the same counsel that was present for such classified testimony. (3) Corrections (A) Pursuant to Rule XI of the House Rules, any corrections the witness desires to make in a transcript shall be limited to technical, grammatical, and typographical. (B) Corrections may not be made to change the substance of the testimony. (C) Such corrections shall be submitted in writing to the Committee within 7 days after the transcript is made available to the witness. (D) Any questions arising with respect to such corrections shall be decided by the Chairman. (4) Copy for the Witness. At the request of the witness, any portion of the witness' testimony given in executive session shall be made available to that witness if that testimony is subsequently quoted or intended to be made part of a public record. Such testimony shall be made available to the witness at the witness' expense. (i) Requests to testify (1) Generally. The Committee will consider requests to testify on any matter or measure pending before the Committee. (2) Recommendations for Additional Evidence. Any person who believes that testimony, other evidence, or commentary, presented at a public hearing may tend to affect adversely that person's reputation may submit to the Committee, in writing: (A) a request to appear personally before the Committee; (B) a sworn statement of facts relevant to the testimony, evidence, or commentary; or (C) proposed questions for the cross-examination of other witnesses. (3) Committee's Discretion. The Committee may take those actions it deems appropriate with respect to such requests. (j) Contempt procedures Citations for contempt of Congress shall be forwarded to the House, only if: (1) reasonable notice is provided to all Members of the Committee of a meeting to be held to consider any such contempt recommendations; (2) the Committee has met and considered the contempt allegations; (3) the subject of the allegations was afforded an opportunity to state, either in writing or in person, why he or she should not be held in contempt; and (4) the Committee agreed by majority vote to forward the citation recommendations to the House. (k) Release of name of witness (1) Generally. At the request of a witness scheduled to be heard by the Committee, the name of that witness shall not be released publicly prior to, or after, the witness' appearance before the Committee. (2) Exceptions. Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Chairman may authorize the release to the public of the name of any witness scheduled to appear before the Committee. 9. investigations (a) Commencing investigations (1) Generally. The Committee shall conduct investigations only if approved by the full Committee. An investigation may be initiated either: (A) by a vote of the full Committee; (B) at the direction of the Chairman of the full Committee, with notice to the Ranking Minority Member; or (C) by written request of at least five Members of the full Committee, which is submitted to the Chairman. (2) Full Committee Ratification Required. Any investigation initiated by the Chairman pursuant to paragraphs (B) and (C) must be brought to the attention of the full Committee for approval, at the next regular meeting of the full Committee. (b) Conducting investigations An authorized investigation may be conducted by Members of the Committee or Committee Staff members designated by the Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, to undertake any such investigation. 10. subpoenas (a) Generally All subpoenas shall be authorized by the Chairman of the full Committee, upon consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, or by vote of the Committee. (b) Subpoena contents Any subpoena authorized by the Chairman of the full Committee, or the Committee, may compel: (1) the attendance of witnesses and testimony before the Committee; or (2) the production of memoranda, documents, records, or any other tangible item. (c) Signing of subpoenas A subpoena authorized by the Chairman of the full Committee, or the Committee, may be signed by the Chairman, or by any Member of the Committee designated to do so by the Committee. (d) Subpoena service A subpoena authorized by the Chairman of the full Committee, or the Committee, may be served by any person designated to do so by the Chairman. (e) Other requirements Each subpoena shall have attached thereto a copy of these rules. 11. Committee Staff (a) Definition For the purpose of these rules, ``Committee Staff'' or ``staff of the Committee'' means: (1) employees of the Committee; (2) consultants to the Committee; (3) employees of other Government agencies detailed to the Committee; or (4) any other person engaged by contract, or otherwise, to perform services for, or at the request of, the Committee. (b) Appointment of committee staff (1) Chairman's Authority. The appointment of Committee Staff shall be by the Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member. The Chairman shall certify Committee Staff appointments to the Clerk of the House in writing. (2) Security Clearance Required. All offers of employment for prospective Committee Staff positions shall be contingent upon: (A) the results of a background investigation; and (B) a determination by the Chairman that requirements for the appropriate security clearances have been met. (c) Responsibilities of committee staff (1) Generally. The Committee Staff works for the Committee as a whole, under the supervision and direction of the Chairman of the Committee. (2) Authority of the Staff Director. (A) Unless otherwise determined by the Committee, the duties of Committee Staff shall be performed under the direct supervision and control of the staff director. (B) Committee Staff personnel affairs and day-to-day Committee Staff administrative matters, including the security and control of classified documents and material, shall be administered under the direct supervision and control of the staff director. (3) Staff Assistance to Minority Membership. The Committee Staff shall assist the Minority as fully as the Majority of the Committee in all matters of Committee business, and in the preparation and filing of supplemental, minority, or additional views, to the end that all points of view may be fully considered by the Committee and the House. 12. Limit on Discussion of Classified Work of the Committee (a) Prohibition (1) Generally. Except as otherwise provided by these rules and the Rules of the House of Representatives, Members and Committee Staff shall not at any time, either during that person's tenure as a Member of the Committee or as Committee Staff, or anytime thereafter, discuss or disclose: (A) the classified substance of the work of the Committee; (B) any information received by the Committee in executive session; (C) any classified information received by the Committee from any source; or (D) the substance of any hearing that was closed to the public pursuant to these rules or the Rules of the House. (2) Non-Disclosure in Proceedings. (A) Members of the Committee and the Committee Staff shall not discuss either the substance or procedure of the work of the Committee with any person not a Member of the Committee or the Committee Staff in connection with any proceeding, judicial or otherwise, either during the person's tenure as a Member of the Committee, or of the Committee Staff, or at any time thereafter, except as directed by the Committee in accordance with the Rules of the House and these rules. (B) In the event of the termination of the Committee, Members and Committee Staff shall be governed in these matters in a manner determined by the House concerning discussions of the classified work of the Committee. (3) Exceptions. (A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1), Members of the Committee and the Committee Staff may discuss and disclose those matters described in subsection (a)(1) with-- (i) Members and staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence designated by the chairman of that committee; (ii) the chairmen and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and staff of those committees designated by the chairmen of those committees; and (iii) the chairman and ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on National Security of the House Committee on Appropriations and staff of that subcommittee as designated by the chairman of that subcommittee. (B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1), Members of the Committee and the Committee Staff may discuss and disclose only that budget-related information necessary to facilitate the enactment of the annual defense authorization bill with the chairmen and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Committee on Armed Services and the staff of those committees designated by the chairmen of those committees. (C) Members and Committee Staff may discuss and disclose such matters as otherwise directed by the Committee. (b) Non-disclosure agreement (1) Generally. All Committee Staff must, before joining the Committee, agree in writing, as a condition of employment, not to divulge any classified information, which comes into such person's possession while a member of the Committee Staff, to any person not a Member of the Committee or the Committee Staff, except as authorized by the Committee in accordance with the Rules of the House and these rules. (2) Other Requirements. In the event of the termination of the Committee, Members and Committee Staff must follow any determination by the House of Representatives, with respect to the protection of classified information received while a Member of the Committee or as Committee Staff. (3) Requests for Testimony of Staff. (A) All Committee Staff must, as a condition of employment, agree in writing, to notify the Committee immediately of any request for testimony received while a member of the Committee Staff, or at any time thereafter, concerning any classified information received by such person while a member of the Committee Staff. (B) Committee Staff shall not disclose, in response to any such request for testimony, any such classified information, except as authorized by the Committee in accordance with the Rules of the House and these rules. (C) In the event of the termination of the Committee, Committee Staff will be subject to any determination made by the House of Representatives with respect to any requests for testimony involving classified information received while a member of the Committee Staff. 13. classified material (a) Receipt of classified information (1) Generally. In the case of any information that has been classified under established security procedures and submitted to the Committee by any source, the Committee shall receive such classified information as executive session material. (2) Staff Receipt of Classified Materials. For purposes of receiving classified information, the Committee Staff is authorized to accept information on behalf of the Committee. (b) Non-disclosure of classified information Generally. Any classified information received by the Committee, from any source, shall not be disclosed to any person not a Member of the Committee or the Committee Staff, or otherwise released, except as authorized by the Committee in accord with the Rules of the House and these rules. 14. procedures related to handling of classified information (a) Security measures (1) Strict Security. The Committee's offices shall operate under strict security procedures administered by the Director of Security and Registry of the Committee under the direct supervision of the staff director. (2) U.S. Capitol Police Presence Required. At least one U.S. Capitol Police officer shall be on duty at all times outside the entrance to Committee offices to control entry of all persons to such offices. (3) Identification Required. Before entering the Committee's offices all persons shall identify themselves to the U.S. Capitol Police officer described in paragraph (2) and to a Member of the Committee or Committee Staff. (4) Maintenance of Classified Materials. Classified documents shall be segregated and maintained in approved security storage locations. (5) Examination of Classified Materials. Classified documents in the Committee's possession shall be examined in an appropriately secure manner. (6) Prohibition on Removal of Classified Materials. Removal of any classified document from the Committee's offices is strictly prohibited, except as provided by these rules. (7) Exception. Notwithstanding the prohibition set forth in paragraph (6), a classified document, or copy thereof, may be removed from the Committee's offices in furtherance of official Committee business. Appropriate security procedures shall govern the handling of any classified documents removed from the Committee's offices. (b) Access to classified information by members All Members of the Committee shall at all times have access to all classified papers and other material received by the Committee from any source. (c) Need-to-know (1) Generally. Committee Staff shall have access to any classified information provided to the Committee on a strict ``need-to-know'' basis, as determined by the Committee, and under the Committee's direction by the staff director. (2) Appropriate Clearances Required. Committee Staff must have the appropriate clearances prior to any access to compartmented information. (d) Oath (1) Requirement. Before any Member of the Committee, or the Committee Staff, shall have access to classified information, the following oath shall be executed: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose any classified information received in the course of my service on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, except when authorized to do so by the Committee or the House of Representatives. (2) Copy. A copy of such executed oath shall be retained in the files of the Committee. (e) Registry (1) Generally. The Committee shall maintain a registry that: (A) provides a brief description of the content of all classified documents provided to the Committee by the executive branch that remain in the possession of the Committee; and (B) lists by number all such documents. (2) Designation by the Staff Director. The staff director shall designate a member of the Committee Staff to be responsible for the organization and daily maintenance of such registry. (3) Availability. Such registry shall be available to all Members of the Committee and Committee Staff. (f) Requests by members of other committees Pursuant to the Rules of the House, Members who are not Members of the Committee may be granted access to such classified transcripts, records, data, charts, or files of the Committee, and be admitted on a non-participatory basis to classified hearings of the Committee involving discussions of classified material in the following manner: (1) Written Notification Required. Members who desire to examine classified materials in the possession of the Committee, or to attend Committee hearings or briefings on a nonparticipatory basis, must notify the Chief Clerk of the Committee in writing. (2) Committee Consideration. The Committee shall consider each such request by non-Committee Members at the earliest practicable opportunity. The Committee shall determine, by roll call vote, what action it deems appropriate in light of all of the circumstances of each request. In its determination, the Committee shall consider: (A) The sensitivity to the national defense or the confidential conduct of the foreign relations of the United States of the information sought; (B) the likelihood of its being directly or indirectly disclosed; (C) the jurisdictional interest of the Member making the request; and (D) such other concerns, constitutional or otherwise, as may affect the public interest of the United States. (3) Committee Action. After consideration of the Member's request, the Committee may take any action it may deem appropriate under the circumstances, including but not limited to: (A) Approving the request, in whole or part; (B) denying the request; or (C) providing the requested information or material in a different form than that sought by the Member. (4) Consultation Authorized. When considering a Member's request, the Committee may consult the Director of Central Intelligence and such other officials it considers necessary. (5) Finality of Committee Decision. (A) Should the Member making such a request disagree with the Committee's determination with respect to that request, or any part thereof, that Member must notify the Committee in writing of such disagreement. (B) The Committee shall subsequently consider the matter and decide, by record vote, what further action or recommendation, if any, the Committee will take. (g) Advising the House or other committees Pursuant to section 501 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. Sec. 413), and to the Rules of the House, the Committee shall call to the attention of the House, or to any other appropriate committee of the House, those matters requiring the attention of the House, or such other committee, on the basis of the following provisions: (1) By Request of Committee Member. At the request of any Member of the Committee to call to the attention of the House, or any other committee, executive session material in the Committee's possession, the Committee shall meet at the earliest practicable opportunity to consider that request. (2) Committee Consideration of Request. The Committee shall consider the following factors, among any others it deems appropriate: (A) The effect of the matter in question on the national defense or the foreign relations of the United States; (B) whether the matter in question involves sensitive intelligence sources and methods; (C) whether the matter in question otherwise raises serious questions affecting the national interest; and (D) whether the matter in question affects matters within the jurisdiction of another Committee of the House. (3) Views of Other Committees. In examining such factors, the Committee may seek the opinion of Members of the Committee appointed from standing committees of the House with jurisdiction over the matter in question, or submissions from such other committees. (4) Other Advice. The Committee may, during its deliberations on such requests, seek the advice of any executive branch official. (h) Reasonable opportunity to examine materials Before the Committee makes any decision regarding any request for access to any classified information in its possession, or a proposal to bring any matter to the attention of the House or another committee. Members of the Committee shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine all pertinent testimony, documents, or other materials in the Committee's possession that may inform their decision on the question. (i) Notification to the House The Committee may bring a matter to the attention of the House when, after consideration of the factors set forth in this rule, it considers the matter in question so grave that it requires the attention of all Members of the House, and time is of the essence, or for any reason the Committee finds compelling. (j) Method of disclosure to the House (1) Should the Committee decide by roll call vote that a matter requires the attention of the House as described in subsection (i), it shall make arrangements to notify the House promptly. (2) In such cases, the Committee shall consider whether: (A) to request an immediate secret session of the House (with time equally divided between the Majority and the Minority); or (B) to publicly disclose the matter in question pursuant to clause 11(g) of House Rule X. (k) Requirement to protect sources and methods In bringing a matter to the attention of the House, or another committee, the Committee, with due regard for the protection of intelligence sources and methods, shall take all necessary steps to safeguard materials or information relating to the matter in question. (l) Availability of information to other committees The Committee, having determined that a matter shall be brought to the attention of another committee, shall ensure that such matter, including all classified information related to that matter, is promptly made available to the chairman and ranking minority member of such other committee. (m) Provision of materials The Director of Security and Registry for the Committee shall provide a copy of these rules, and the applicable portions of the Rules of the House of Representatives governing the handling of classified information, along with those materials determined by the Committee to be made available to such other committee of the House. (n) Ensuring clearances and secure storage The Director of Security and Registry shall ensure that such other committee or Member (not a Member of the Committee) receiving such classified materials may properly store classified materials in a manner consistent with all governing rules, regulations, policies, procedures, and statutes. (o) Log The Director of Security and Registry for the Committee shall maintain a written record identifying the particular classified document or material provided to such other committee or Member (not a Member of the Committee), the reasons agreed upon by the Committee for approving such transmission, and the name of the committee or Member (not a Member of the Committee) receiving such document or material. (p) Miscellaneous requirements (1) Staff Director's Additional Authority. The staff director is further empowered to provide for such additional measures, which he or she deems necessary, to protect such classified information authorized by the Committee to be provided to such other committee or Member (not a Member of the Committee). (2) Notice to Originating Agency. In the event that the Committee authorizes the disclosure of classified information provided to the Committee by an agency of the executive branch to a Member (not a Member of the Committee) or to another committee, the Chairman may notify the providing agency of the Committee's action prior to the transmission of such classified information. 15. legislative calendar (a) Generally The Chief Clerk, under the direction of the staff director, shall maintain a printed calendar that lists: (1) the legislative measures introduced and referred to the Committee; (2) the status of such measures; and (3) such other matters that the Committee may require. (b) Revisions to the calendar The calendar shall be revised from time to time to show pertinent changes. (c) Availability A copy of each such revision shall be furnished to each Member, upon request. (d) Consultation with appropriate government entities Unless otherwise directed by the Committee, legislative measures referred to the Committee shall be referred by the Chief Clerk to the appropriate department or agency of the Government for reports thereon. 16. committee travel (a) Authority The Chairman may authorize Members and Committee Staff to travel on Committee business. (b) Requests (1) Member Requests. Members requesting authorization for such travel shall state the purpose and length of the trip, and shall submit such request directly to the Chairman. (2) Committee Staff Requests. Committee Staff requesting authorization for such travel shall state the purpose and length of the trip, and shall submit such request through their supervisors to the staff director and the Chairman. (c) Notification to members (1) Generally. Members shall be notified of all foreign travel of Committee Staff not accompanying a Member. (2) Content. All Members are to be advised, prior to the commencement of such travel, of its length, nature, and purpose. (d) Trip reports (1) Generally. A full report of all issues discussed during any Committee travel shall be submitted to the Chief Clerk of the Committee within a reasonable period of time following the completion of such trip. (2) Availability of Reports. Such report shall be: (A) available for the review of any Member or Committee Staff; and (B) considered executive session material for purposes of these rules. (e) Limitations on travel (1) Generally. The Chairman is not authorized to permit travel on Committee business of Committee Staff who have not satisfied the requirements of subsection (d) of this rule. (2) Exception. The Chairman may authorize Committee Staff to travel on Committee business, notwithstanding the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) of this rule-- (A) at the specific request of a Member of the Committee; or (B) in the event there are circumstances beyond the control of the Committee Staff hindering compliance with such requirements. (f) Definitions For purposes of this rule the term ``reasonable period of time'' means: (1) no later than 60 days after returning from a foreign trip; and (2) no later than 30 days after returning from a domestic trip. 17. disciplinary actions (a) Generally The Committee shall immediately consider whether disciplinary action shall be taken in the case of any member of the Committee Staff alleged to have failed to conform to any Rule of the House of Representatives or to these rules. (b) Exception In the event the House of Representatives is: (1) in a recess period in excess of 3 days; or (2) has adjourned sine die; the Chairman of the full Committee, in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, may take such immediate disciplinary actions deemed necessary. (c) Available actions Such disciplinary action may include immediate dismissal from the Committee Staff. (d) Notice to members All Members shall be notified as soon as practicable, either by facsimile transmission or regular mail, of any disciplinary action taken by the Chairman pursuant to subsection (b). (e) Reconsideration of chairman's actions A majority of the Members of the full Committee may vote to overturn the decision of the Chairman to take disciplinary action pursuant to subsection (b). 18. broadcasting committee meetings Whenever any hearing or meeting conducted by the Committee is open to the public, a majority of the Committee may permit that hearing or greeting to be covered, in whole or in part, by television broadcast, radio broadcast, and still photography, or by any of such methods of coverage, subject to the provisions and in accordance with the spirit of the purposes enumerated in the Rules of the House. 19. committee records transferred to the national archives (a) Generally The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available for public use in accordance with the Rules of the House of Representatives. (b) Notice of withholding The Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority Member of any decision, pursuant to the Rules of the House of Representatives, to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the full Committee for a determination of the question of public availability on the written request of any Member of the Committee. 20. changes in rules (a) Generally These rules may be modified, amended, or repealed by vote of the full Committee. (b) Notice of proposed changes A notice, in writing, of the proposed change shall be given to each Member at least 48 hours prior to any meeting at which action on the proposed rule change is to be taken.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague and friend from Georgia for yielding time to me. I rise in strong support of this effort to expand the accountability of our Federal government, something all Americans are interested in. H.R. 350, the Mandates Information Act, is based on the very simple yet powerful truth that more information is better than less in a democracy. We have proposed this legislation in the interest of making the public more aware of what we do in this body, specifically in bringing light to the often hidden costs of the laws that we pass. We took a major step in this direction in 1995 when we implemented the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, UMRA, as it is known, requiring public disclosure and debate on matters that involve Federal mandates on State and local governments. At our Committee on Rules joint subcommittee hearing on this bill a few days ago, James Bloom presented the Congressional Budget Office's 1998 report on UMRA, how it was going, replete with information about the types of mandates proposed and considered by this Congress last year and the very real cost consequences of those provisions for State and local governments, and there were some. In my view, in that compendium of information we got from CBO and in CBO's analysis of our actions, it demonstrates that UMRA is working as intended. In other words, it is a good piece of legislation. We have more information now than ever before, and the public has a benchmark by which to judge what it is we do and how much it costs. Now we are completing the UMRA process, applying the same type of procedural checklist and sunshine accountability to matters involving mandates on the private sector. This bill is good news for our small businesses and for our entrepreneurs, and it is also good news for consumers. It will help the public and the Congress focus attention on the question of cost, reminding us that for every good idea, there can be, regrettably, unintended and sometimes expensive negative consequences that we should be aware of. It arms all of us with more information about the by-product of the actions we take here in our legislation, and that is good news for a democracy. While I understand the concerns expressed by my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) with regard to this bill, I see this bill as a positive contribution to the legislative process, and I see it from the perspective of the Committee on Rules, where we deal with legislative process. I believe this is a bill that will not hamper our ability to pass good, thoughtful, and deliberative, responsible legislation. On the contrary, I think it will focus on cost and accountability, which is something we care about. I commend the bipartisan sponsors of this bill, especially the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit). I urge support of this legislation. I do this in good conscience as a sound environmentalist from southwest Florida.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish all of my colleagues a happy new year. As we begin the 106th Congress today we all share in the commitment to move forward with the agenda of the American people, as we have heard in the statements already made this morning by leadership, including providing more efficient and responsive government, something we all want, tax reform, education reform, preservation of Social Security and protecting our national security, all those big challenges that we have as a body to take on. Before we can proceed on these matters, however, we must put in place the rules under which we will operate. This rules package is fairly thin, actually. It does not need to be big. It is not particularly controversial and I do not think it should be at all. The message here is that the rules we have, put in place by the reforms that began in 1995 when we took over as a majority, are working pretty well. I am proud to have been part of the effort in 1995 and the refinements we made in 1997, all of which assured us that only modest adjustment would be needed now in 1999, and that is what we are here about today, some modest adjustments. I want to particularly applaud the chairman of the Committee on Rules, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member, my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), as well as all the Parliamentarians and staff, all of whom worked for literally years on the recodification of our rules reflected in today's package. This effort, which leads to fewer, easier-to-read rules for this House, without making substantive changes in those rules, was indeed a monumental task. As anyone who has tried to follow the arcane specifics of House rules and parliamentary proceedings knows, this streamlining and housekeeping is truly a public service. I congratulate them for the work done. All in all, I urge Members to support the basic package, which provides some commonsense updates and revisions to the rules of this House. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak a little longer about one provision of this package, that which extends the life of the Cox Select Committee on China, for the limited specific purpose of facilitating declassification of its report. I was privileged to serve on this committee, which worked in a quiet, deliberative, efficient and bipartisan manner under the leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), to conclude our serious and complicated business. The request the Select Committee makes of this House for an additional 3 months, without any additional funds, is very reasonable. A declassified version of the report will helpfully advance public understanding of our complicated relationship with China on the subject of transfer of technology and its effect on our national security, something that we are all charged with the responsibility for. Having said that, I urge my colleagues to consider this package as favorable.