Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 402 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the situation is that the distinguished gentleman from Ohio has one more speaker, and he is going to yield to that speaker in a minute. I am going to yield to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and then ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) to close for our side. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to Members in response to a procedural statement just made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that there is no need for the House to go into secret session, because the gentleman's complaint is about the offsets, not about the need for the intelligence matters. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for purposes of debate on this issue only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 402 is a modified closed rule that will allow the House to consider H.R. 3579, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1998, in an expeditious and responsible manner. The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(L)(6) of rule XI, requiring a 3-day layover of the committee report; clause 7 of rule XXI, requiring a 3- day availability of relevant printed hearings and reports on general appropriations bills; or section 306 of the Budget Act of 1974, prohibiting consideration of legislation within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget unless reported by that committee. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It also provides an additional 30 minutes of debate on the provision of the bill in title III relating to the prohibition on the use of funds in the bill for military operations against Iraq. This time is to be equally divided between the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and an opponent of the bill language. I am sure Members on both sides of this issue would agree this is a timely and important debate, and I am pleased we were able to accommodate additional time for this purpose. The rule provides that the bill be considered as read and that amendments printed in part 1 of our Committee on Rules report be considered as adopted. The rule waives points of order against the bill, as amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in a general appropriations bill, or clause 6 of rule XXI, prohibiting reappropriations. Additionally, the rule makes in order the amendment printed in part 2 of the Committee on Rules' report and provides that such amendment may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. The rule waives all points of order against this amendment, which is a manager's amendment designed to meet a specific need in the Northeast. For the record, I have been advised by the chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), that additional specific needs for the State of Florida, this recent emergency and tragedy that has happened in that State, have not been incorporated in this bill because of the timing of matters. These points will be addressed in conference with the other body, I am informed. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for a motion to recommit with or without instructions. It is a somewhat complicated rule, which is why I have taken so long to lay it out. There are other points about it that are worth noting by Members. What we are attempting to do today is move ahead with an important supplemental spending bill made necessary by a series of natural disasters and several ongoing military missions in need of additional funding in this fiscal year. I have heard little disagreement about the merit of the funding proposals that are included in today's legislation. We have all been saddened, in fact horrified, by the devastating impact of a series of storms and weather phenomena associated with El Nino in congressional districts across the country. I think we also all recognize that the young men and women doing the hard work of peace in such places as Bosnia and the Persian Gulf rely on us to ensure that they have the resources necessary to conduct their missions as safely as possible. Whether we agree with the long-term policy that put them in harm's way or not is not the issue at this point. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, there has been much public commentary and disagreement among Members about the process by which these needs are to be met. We did hear much testimony yesterday from Members seeking to offer amendments to this bill. Most of the amendments were in some way or another in violation of House rules. Some of them dodge the tough issue of offsets, and some were not germane to the subject matter of this bill. Based on that, and the importance of getting this bill done quickly, we have crafted a structured rule that seeks to keep the focus on the matters at hand; that is, the emergencies and keeping our military supported. For instance, I know that some of our colleagues believe this bill should have been tied to funding for the IMF and United Nations funding. Given the complexity and the clear controversy surrounding both of those matters, I believe that marrying them with the disaster and defense proposals would only serve to delay our ability to get needed relief to victims and provide adequate funding for our troops overseas. We cannot allow our efforts to help flood- and storm-ravaged communities or bring peace of mind to our troops to become bogged down in protracted negotiations over International Monetary Fund and United Nations funding. Those matters will be the subject of a subsequent bill next month. In addition, we have discussed the ramifications of funding these needs with and without spending offsets. I am pleased that this legislation incorporates offsets for the spending it proposes, a difficult task in these times of tightened belts in light of last year's budget agreement. By adopting this rule, the House will go a step further and declare its support for the general policy that all spending in this bill should be offset. I salute the appropriators for doing due diligence in coming up with the offsets for the new spending in this legislation. They have remained true to the principle of fiscal responsibility our majority has espoused since taking control of this House in 1994: There is no free lunch when it comes to taxpayers' money. Everything has a price, and all spending must be done in the context of making choices. They are tough choices, but we are accountable. That does not mean that I agree with each and every choice that was made in this bill, nor does every other Member. In one area involving funding for the airport improvement program, I think the wisdom of this House will enhance the judgment made by the Committee on Appropriations. In adopting this rule, we will adopt an amendment that restores cuts proposed to the airport program, cuts that could have seriously jeopardized the continued progress of airport expansion and air travel safety across this country, in my view, and in the view of many others. Mr. Speaker, we know this bill will not meet every need for the current fiscal year. Even as the Committee on Appropriations was marking up this bill, the administration was preparing an additional natural disaster-related funding request of $1.6 billion. Since that time, sadly, we have seen additional damage done to communities from violent storms. I gather the weather forecasters say we could see more. Mother Nature has never adhered to our congressional timetable and probably does not care much about our policies, either. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, I continue to be troubled by the difficulty we face each year in coping with such natural disasters, emergencies whose specific timing, severity and targets are not predictable, but our only certainty is that we know that they are going to come at some time, somewhere, in some form. Somebody is going to be hurt, and we are going to have victims looking to the government for relief. I will continue my efforts to find a better way, perhaps through a rainy-day type of reserve fund that we can better plan for these contingencies and make our spending decisions more predictable and rational in the future, but now we have to cope with the disasters at hand. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me speak in general to an issue raised by the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations about funding in this bill for intelligence-related activities and programs. There is some money within this bill for intelligence and intelligence-related activities that are critical to our national security interests. Although some have suggested that this funding is only a result of congressional prompting, let me assure the Members that this request is not from whole cloth. These are areas that the administration has identified as being a significant need at this time. The requests go to the very fiber of protecting our domestic tranquility. This is accomplished by ensuring that we will have the human and technical means necessary to protect our deployed forces, to protect American citizens abroad and their interests, and to provide the eyes and ears that truly supply the first line of defense for our Nation. We have let down this defense, particularly over the past year, and we have to make some repairs. These investments that we have before us are not always easy, but who among us is ready to further put our Nation at risk? I daresay, not a Member of this House. Having been charged by all of this House to keep the portfolio on intelligence and to keep watch over this area of our national security, I can affirm to every Member that the items in this bill are needed and they are needed now. In closing, I wish to commend, again, our colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work in getting this bill to the House expeditiously and in a fiscally responsible way. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time remains on either side?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask for a statement of the time remaining?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), who is on the Committee on Appropriations and who is able to talk on this subject. (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules, who we are pleased to welcome back.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, a great many Americans think that asking Members of Congress, Republican or Democrat, to reform campaign finance reform is asking the fox to watch the chicken coop. And I agree that, until there is sufficient public outcry and understanding to fully change the inequities and loopholes in our campaign law, politicians, presidents, and the biased media will continue to use this issue as a political football. Having said that, I do believe that H.R. 3485 makes important improvements in the way we manage our campaigns. I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his very hard work and this good legislative product. This bill ends the abusive practice of using union, association and corporate mandatory dues for political campaigns. It provides a ban on raising or spending soft money on national political parties and candidates and a ban on disbursements of soft money by foreign nationals, and it makes clear that only American citizens should be able to make political contributions. I am also pleased that this increases accountability and disclosure by expediting and expanding FEC reporting requirements. Although I strongly support H.R. 3485, I wish to include a significant component of my own campaign finance reform bill requiring that a high percentage of all contributions come from the geographical area a candidate seeks to represent. After all, it only makes sense that the majority of our contributions should come from the folks we represent. But, as I said, H.R. 3485 is a good bill. It is incremental, the changes are incremental, but they are better than no change at all. No one should be encouraged into thinking that this is the final or total solution to the problems facing the current campaign system. They are very great problems. Nevertheless, this is a very good beginning; and I urge strong support. For those of my colleagues who do not get all of the pieces in this that they wanted, such as getting the taxpayers to pay for campaigns or having other limitations, please use the same spirit I did of compromise on this. I did not get everything I wanted either. But it is an awfully good start. And the alternative is going to the American people and saying, we did nothing on campaign reform. Who wants to be among those who voted ``no'' on campaign reform?

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I learned this evening of the death of my friend, my congressional classmate, and my colleague, Steve Schiff. His family and close friends in New Mexico and across the country are certainly all in our prayers. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak briefly about this. I was not able to be here during the memorial resolution because of the duties of the Committee on Rules. I think it is important that those of us who knew Steve well have an opportunity to reflect, even briefly. Steve possessed a trait in Washington that is all too rare. His word was simply as good as gold. He was certainly one of the most conscientious Members I have every worked with. He was responsible, hardworking, and I think he made an extraordinary contribution to every project that he participated in. I know he was very well regarded by his colleagues. That was certainly one of the reasons why he was asked to take on the difficult services of a job in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, a responsibility that I shared with him during one of perhaps the most tumultuous episodes in this House's recent history. In his work of the House to resolve what I would call difficult and sensitive matters, Steve proved to have necessary skills: experience, judgment, guidance, a good shoulder to lean on, a lot of rational demeanor, and above all, principles, very solid principles that never moved, the principles that got the job done. He was the right person in the right place at the right time for this House, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude and thanks for that very difficult assignment. It turned out that Steve's work on the Ethics Committee, ironically was one of his last high-profile accomplishments in Washington. And it was not something that he or any of us particularly enjoyed. It was a duty, as with all his duties, that he discharged with integrity and accountability. I will say that he was an inspiration for all of us during those long and frustrating hours and days and weeks. And it was a time, incidentally, when he was sick and we did not know it. And all through that period this was true. For his entire public service career, Steve ably and thoughtfully represented the people of New Mexico's First Congressional District. It is quite a record and a great legacy. I am honored to have served with Steve. I will miss him. I extend my deepest sympathy to his family.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, Arlington National Cemetery is more than just a place or burial for our veterans. It is a symbol of honor, respect and American tradition. It is a tragedy when these principles are threatened by inconsistency or irresponsibility. There has been an outpouring of anger and suspicion in my district and elsewhere following the accusations that Arlington waivers were being handed over on the basis of campaign donations or political clout, rather than meritorious service to our country. People are questioning the integrity of those charged with overseeing the process. Today, we are responding because our veterans deserve better. Burial at Arlington National Cemetery shouldn't be diminished by red tape. But if it takes some Federal legislation to protect our commemoration of those who have sacrificed for our Nation, then passage of H.R. 3211 is the right thing to do. It is my hope that this again will help restore faith among our deserving veterans and the American people by clarifying once and for all the proper standards and procedures for burial in Arlington's sacred ground. I urge adoption.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for the following rollcall votes: 50, 51, & 52. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on: 50 & 52 and ``no'' on: 51.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for yielding me time and I rise in strong support of this open rule. I commend my friend from Louisiana, Chairman Tauzin, for his leadership on this issue. He's right--we need to tighten current laws on wireless privacy. It's important to ensure that our constituents are afforded privacy protections when they are using their cell phones or other wireless devices. But we should remember that under current law it is already illegal to tap into wireless conversaiton--both Congress and the FCC have spoken on this matter. It is abundantly clear that telecommunications technology is exceeding our regulatory protective efforts. As Chairman Tauzin testified in Rules Committee yesterday, with the clip of a wire an off- the-shelf scanner can become a stalking device. Even FBI agents have testified that they no longer use their cellular phones for fear of being tapped. H.R. 2369 makes some good improvements and toughens the penalties in certain cases--this is progress. But we need to recognize that no law will guarantee our privacy without rigorous enforcement of the law. As the cellular industry grows so will this problem--today's scanner crisis will be something far different tomorrow. What we can and must do is insist that the folks we charge with administering and enforcing these laws do so. I am hopeful that his commonsense legislation will send a strong message that we are serious about publishing those individuals who perpetrate these assaults on personal privacy. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule as well as the underlying bill.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, March 9, 1998, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 10, for morning hour debates.

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to advise Members of the House that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has scheduled a public hearing at 3 p.m. on Monday, March 16, 1998. This hearing has been arranged so the committee may take testimony about the report of the Inspector General of the CIA regarding allegations that the CIA was somehow involved with the spread of crack cocaine to California during the 1980s. As Members know, since the publication in August of 1996 of a series of articles in the San Jose Mercury News, our committee has been conducting an oversight investigation into the validity of the very serious allegations made by those news stories. This public hearing is an important step in that process. We have invited the CIA's Inspector General, Mr. Fred Hitz, to discuss his investigation and to walk us through the conclusions in his report, which has been available to the public since the end of January. In addition, I wish to inform Members who have an interest in this subject and who may wish to comment on the IG's report that they are welcome to testify before the subcommittee on March 16. Members wishing to avail themselves of this opportunity should contact the committee as soon as possible so proper arrangements can be made.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker I thank my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, for yielding. I rise in support of this override effort because I am a strong supporter of the line-item veto and the process it provides for ensuring careful scrutiny of Federal spending. In this case, Mr. Speaker, Congress is asserting its power of the purse, insisting to the President that we have carefully considered the items in the military construction spending bill that the President--I believe in haste and in error--chose to line-item veto. Contrary to the claims of some naysayers, we did not write Congress out of the spending process when we crafted the line-item veto. Quite the contrary, in fact, we provided very explicit procedures by which Congress could assert its authority-- as we witness by today's proceedings. Some pundits and even some Members have pointed to the President's application of the line-item veto on the military construction spending bill as an example of why the line-item veto isn't a good idea. I firmly disagree. The line item veto has accomplished exactly what those of us who spent years bringing it about intended--it has brought greater accountability and sunshine to the process of spending the taxpayers' money. And it has provided a real opportunity for saving more than one point $2 billion. Sure, in the cynical world of budgeteers and inside-the-beltway types, that may seem like a rounding error--but to the American people, $1.2 billion is serious money. And there's more to come, I am sure. I share with many of my colleagues some disappointment that this President did not spend more time and take more care in developing sound criteria and preparing to use the powerful new tool we delegated to him in the form of the line-item veto. But I remain firmly committed to the idea that we did the right thing by implementing the line-item veto--and I hope this exercise of override will chasten the administration to think first and line item second during the upcoming budget cycle. I urge support for this override effort.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of germane debate only. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) would say that this was a great rule also.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).