Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, on this very important subject, to me this subject, Mr. Speaker, is a question of truth and do we believe that the American people have the right to discern the truth. House Resolution 301 is a straightforward rule. It is a straightforward rule change to repeal the exception to the requirement that public committee proceedings be open to all media, all types of media. This resolution continues the process we began in 1995 of opening up our committee proceedings to enhance public scrutiny and greater accountability. The resolution repeals clause 3(f)(2) of House rule XI, known inside this building as the camera rule. As Members recall, when we began the 104th Congress under new management for the first time in 40 years, we instituted an openness policy that said that committee meetings and hearings that are open to the public shall also be open to the media. This sunshine rule reaffirms the right of the public to have all types of media cover most of our proceedings, making it clear that such coverage is no longer treated as a privilege to be granted and taken away at the discretion of a committee or subcommittee. The only deviation from this policy has been the exception found in clause 3(f)(2) giving subpoenaed witnesses the absolute right to decide, for whatever reason, to pull the plug on certain types of media coverage of their testimony at an otherwise public hearing. Mr. Speaker, this exception to the sunshine rule is a holdover from another era. We heard testimony in the Committee on Rules from the distinguished dean of this House, the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. John Dingell], who is one of the most respected and probably one of the most feared committee chairmen ever to serve in this body. Mr. Dingell cautioned us not to repeal this exception for subpoenaed witnesses, and he raised the specter of the McCarthy hearings that took place nearly half a century ago. None of us is proud of that period in the history of this institution. Certainly, we have learned a lot. Clearly, there were excesses as powerful Members of Congress overstepped the bounds of fairness. When the House first began the process of evolving into the modern television age in 1970, Members, remembering the McCarthy era, wisely took a go-slow approach to phasing in audio and visual media coverage of congressional proceedings. But, Mr. Speaker, that was more than a quarter of a century ago. Time does fly. As my children and my grandchildren are constantly reminding me, times have changed. Like it or not, we are living in an era of high technology and instant global communication. Television, radio, and even cyberspace are commonplace in our lives and have become part of the daily media diet of countless Americans. Congress just has to get on with the program, even if we are sometimes a bit slow about embracing the modern technological revolution. My colleagues are aware that C-SPAN is a huge success among the American people precisely because our constituents have come to expect and rely upon seeing for themselves what it is we do, without the filter of someone else's pen or an editor deciding how to package certain information for public consumption; just straight stuff, no spin doctors; viewers draw their own conclusions. Mr. Speaker, I come from the Sunshine State, aptly named for more than just the one most obvious reason, about our wonderful climate, especially at this time of year. We also have in Florida sunshine rules for all levels of government. I have found time and again that sunshine is the best antidote to excess and abuse, and it is indeed the path to truth. I know there is concern about protecting reluctant witnesses from unfair questioning or uncivil badgering before a committee of this House. But rather than turning off the cameras, shutting down the radio, and prohibiting still photography, I submit to my colleagues that the better option is to let all the sunshine in, remembering that the print media are still there. If a witness is unfairly treated by any Member of this House, it will be clear to the people who witness that occurrence on television or on the radio. Furthermore, I expect that our committee chairmen will take control of proceedings under their charge if things get out of hand. It comes down to the fact that I have faith in the American people and I have faith in the Members who run our committees. It is my view that the American people are smarter than some of our colleagues seem to think. They can discern for themselves if they are seeing and hearing a witch-hunt or a show trial or some type of proceeding or some kind of personal grandstanding. My friend, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], vice chairman of the Committee on Rules and former chairman, for whom I have the utmost respect, has lamented the fact that this rules change does some sort of violence to the concept of the people's House. Indeed, this is the people's House, but I would argue just the opposite, that if this truly is the people's House and we want to share it with the people, why would we want to arbitrarily restrict the people's ability to see what goes on in our committee rooms? Mr. Speaker, it is my view that the best way to rein in a bully on a committee dais is to expose him or her to public scrutiny. Audio and visual coverage of the committee event is as much a check on a runaway Member who wishes to bully a witness as it is a check on a witness who may have something to hide from full public scrutiny. I would like for one moment to assure my colleagues that this rules change does nothing, let me repeat, does nothing to the crucial and truly meaningful witness protections that exist in our House rules under rule XI, clause 2. Clause 2(g) provides clear guidance to the committees and subcommittees of the House about when it is appropriate to conduct their business in closed session with no media or outsiders present. These guidelines account for instances where material discussed pertains to national security information, for example, perhaps sensitive law enforcement information, information that would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or information that would violate any law or will of this House. That is quite a broad spectrum. In such cases, a committee may, with a full quorum present, vote by majority to close the proceedings to all except Members and appropriate staff. In addition, clause 2(k)(5) of rule XI provides that whenever it is asserted that testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, such testimony will be taken in closed session if the committee determines by majority vote of those present, a requisite number being present, that the testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. That sounds like a lot of parliamentary lawyerese-type talk, but the bottom line is that there are mechanisms to close meetings to all media coverage if there is justification without arbitrarily discriminating against certain types of media. I should also point out that nothing we do in our House rules in any way limits a witness' constitutional right, specifically the option to take the fifth amendment and refuse to answer questions. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the other body does not have a similar rule to the one we are considering repealing today. There is no absolute ability for a subpoenaed witness at a proceeding in the other body to arbitrarily decide to shut off broadcast coverage of his or her testimony. Life has actually gone on quite well over there in the other body, I believe, without such a rule, and I think that should be of some comfort to those Members who believe the sky might fall in if we make the change proposed here today and let the full sunshine in. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out to Members that this effort was one that was undertaken by Democrat Members as well as Republican Members. The legislative history of committee proceedings in the House has examples of several distinguished Democrat then committee chairmen expressing their interest in seeing this exception to media coverage eliminated. In sum, this rule is a change that will further the cause of sunshine and accountability in the people's House. I hope my colleagues will support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire what the time counts are?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the distinguished subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. conference report on h.r. 2159, foreign operations, export financing, and related programs appropriations act, 1998 Mr. CALLAHAN submitted the following conference report and statement on the bill (H.R. 2159) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes: Conference Report (H. Rept. 105-401) The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2159) ``making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes,'' having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said amendment, insert: That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, namely:

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the House.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would make a few points. I have listened very closely to the debate here and up in the Committee on Rules, and there has been a good deal of Member interest. We have talked about this in our conference and with a lot of Members who have asked questions about this. I think that we are getting to the point where we are beginning to understand here that the truth is what matters; the truth of what actually happens is what is important. I guess I could find some instances where people have been savaged in print and saved by TV. I do not know how many instances there are, but I suspect that Ollie North might think that he was such a person, and probably many other people would think that. It is very hard to explain away nervousness for people who speak before cameras. Some people are more accustomed to it than others. Some people take it more naturally than others. But the fact is nervousness as you are speaking tends to evoke sympathy. People viewing would say, gee, if there is a problem there, it is understood. If it is so egregious, there is a way for the committee to deal with that. I think you can go on with the statement about mistakes show up on TV, and they do show up. Congress occasionally makes mistakes, and when they show up on TV, it is useful for people to see we make mistakes, learn from them, and go on to the next thing, rather than hide the mistakes and sweep them under the rug, which I think the American people are truly tired of. I think when a panel beats up on a witness, and I can think of a few cases where that happens, there is generally sympathy in this country for the witness, and less than sympathy for the panel. So I think as you go through this and take a look at all of the examples that have been suggested to us, we are talking about a problem that does not really exist. We are not changing the Constitution, we are not changing the laws of the land, and we are not going into some new horizon. We are doing what the other body does. I note that all of the media support this resolution, all of the media, the print media, the broadcast media, the TV media. Everybody wants to be sure that the media can operate as the watchdog that we expect the media to be, without the spin doctors, without the filters, the raw truth of what actually is happening there. I have great faith that the people in our country, the people who elect us, the people who hire us and fire us in the people's House, are smart enough and capable enough to discern what is right and what is not right. I think they understand grandstanding. I think they understand a charade when they see it. I think they understand spin when they see it. I think it is important to see it, and that is why we are moving the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this disapproval bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from California, Chairman Packard, for his very hard work, but most especially for his using the line-item process properly. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] got up and said we are here to condone the President's mistakes. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are here to correct the President's mistake with this. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. As one of the House's five majority conferees who secured final passage of the line-item veto, I am pleased to see the process we devised working. When the President first made use of his new line-item veto authority, naysayers and critics rushed to judgment and declared a falling sky. Those of us who support the line-item veto have repeatedly attempted to remind our colleagues that we did not go forward blindly in approving the line- item veto--that we carefully and painstakingly considered mechanisms to ensure that Congress would remain an integral part of the process. Today's consideration of a disapproval resolution on the President's cancellations from the fiscal year 1998 military construction spending bill underscores that fact. In this specific case, as all of us now know, the President has admitted making mistakes in applying the line- item veto to the military construction bill. By passing this disapproval resolution, we are giving the President a chance to correct those mistakes. We all know that there are lower priority and wasteful projects in spending bills that come out of the Congress. That's why we passed the line-item veto. But in this case, most of what the President chose to cancel through the line-item veto were projects that he himself has asked for. I am very concerned that we not continue to make funding for our troops the easy target for spending cuts. National defense funding has already taken a disproportionate share of major hits under this President. For more than one reason the MilCon cancellations were a mistake; here's our chance to right that wrong.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement of October 30, 1997 I call up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 858) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman of our subcommittee.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons], who is a value added member of our committee, believe me. As a decorated serviceman, the information he has given us has been extraordinary, and we welcome him in his first year.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield back, too. Before I do, I want to just point out one other thing. Sometimes we overlook the fact that we have men and women, dedicated men and women in the intelligence community in the United States of America, who are working literally 7 days a week, night and day, to make sure our national security remains nationally secure. I think that is something that sometimes gets overlooked and sometimes gets misinterpreted in our sensationalized and instantanealized media. I think every American should be proud of the folks in the intelligence community and the work they do, and should be thankful for them, as we are. Mr. Speaker, having said that, I urge support of the conference report.

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington briefly.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the conference report. The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 858) that authorizes funds for intelligence and intelligence-related activities, and for other purposes, for fiscal year 1998. All such conference reports are, Mr. Speaker, as this one is, a compromise that, unfortunately, represents a significant reduction in funding for intelligence activities from our authorization passed by this body in June. But these reductions, when combined with some of the actions we have taken in appropriations, will mean the intelligence community will do without some much needed resources in several areas. That said, however, this conference report does set the stage for some work we will be doing over the next several years to ensure that this Nation has the intelligence capability it needs. Therefore, I strongly support the passage of this report. I would like to thank the members of the committee who worked hard to craft this bill, particularly the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], the ranking member. I appreciate, as well, the fine efforts of our subcommittee chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. In fact, I thank all the members of the committee who played constructive roles throughout this process; and, indeed, that was every member of the committee. Also, Mr. Speaker, special acknowledgment goes to the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for their cooperation as we came together to make tough decisions on how best to invest in the future of our intelligence community for the benefit of our country. Of course, there is no way we could be here today without the dedication, professionalism and perseverance of the staffs on both sides of the aisle and on both committees. I say that because we have a good working relationship, it is bipartisan, and bicameral, and it shows. Finally, some applause most go to the Members and the staffs of the House Committees on National Security and Appropriations for their sustaining cooperation throughout this authorization's legislative journey. It has been a good working relationship and a good product as a result. Mr. Speaker, this bill could not be more timely. Over the last few days, much time has been spent by Members deliberating very serious issues relating to the future relationship that the United States should have with Russia and with China. Indeed, we will be debating more on China today. Significant questions have been raised regarding these countries' roles in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, proliferation that could result in placing our Nation at serious risk, thus comprising a direct threat to our national security. I do not intend to get into the policy side of this debate here today. Whether we decide that sanctions should be imposed or continued on these countries is secondary, but there is a fact here that simply cannot be ignored. As a Nation, we will not be able to gauge the success or failure of our policies or know the threat without an effective intelligence community. We simply have to have the eyes and ears to let us know what is going on. We are told that there are no Russian missiles aimed at American children as they go to bed at night. Mr. Speaker, how do we know that for sure? How can we make that statement with certainty? How long will it take to retarget such weapons? How can we know how tenuous is the chain of command in the Russian strategic rocket forces? And how are we to catch profiteers trying to steal and sell suitcase nukes, if indeed they exist? And how are we to uncover and disrupt the secret nuclear weapons programs underway in hostile rogue states we read about virtually every day in the paper and see on television every night? The answer to all of these questions is one word, ``intelligence.'' And then there is China, Mr. Speaker. We will soon begin the debate again on the certification of China. Hanging in the balance could be United States access to the Chinese nuclear reactor market, reportedly a $50 billion trade opportunity. Or is it an opportunity? To do this, though, we must have confidence that the Chinese have stopped proliferating weapons of mass destruction components, systems and technologies, something that the Chinese President has promised to do. How good is that promise? But how will we know? How will we know that the technology we provide has been secretly diverted to military programs or to rogue regimes? Again the answer is simple, intelligence. Intelligence is what we count on to answer these questions, and we want these questions answered. Mr. Speaker, weapons proliferation is a sufficiently grave problem for me to argue the need for dynamic intelligence community capabilities. But there are other problems also at play. Terrorism, narcotics, and racketeering are some of the transnational issues we talk about that are endangering our Nation's well-being and for which we must have strong intelligence capability. Also included in the need for intelligence is its crucial role supporting our military forces, our war fighters, mission one, whether they are deployed for war or for other less well-defined humanitarian or peacekeeping missions where we are doing force protection. Intelligence requirements have grown tremendously and intelligence- related technologies have revolutionized our defense and warfare doctrines. As we know, it is intelligence that puts the smart in the smart weapons. But it goes well beyond that. Intelligence is the centerpiece of the doctrine of Dominant Battlefield Awareness, which has been endorsed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and by our Armed Services. But, the Defense Department needs to make the hard decision to invest more for intelligence if it truly desires to achieve the capabilities it says it needs to support our forces. I encourage them to take that message during the next year. Indeed, I find it somewhat puzzling that if this is the direction that DOD wants to go, why are there continued efforts to, ``tax'' defense intelligence agencies and programs even more? Why has the Defense Reform Task Force apparently been talking about significant cuts to defense intelligence, up to 25 percent? That is a big cut. Why are those in the Joint Chiefs' office asking our commands to consider a 10-percent reduction in staffing of joint intelligence billets in the field? These types of actions do not indicate a sense of seriousness on behalf of the DOD that backs up their commitment to intelligence. Giving our war fighters the best possible informational edge is not debatable. We also need a real commitment from Congress. As we review our intelligence capabilities over the coming year and as we look at next year's budget submission, we must keep in mind that intelligence is a vital part of our Nation's defense, not a cash cow bill-payer for it. That brings us up to this conference report, Mr. Speaker. Let me be blunt. I do not believe that the intelligence community is sufficiently prepared to meet the demands that are being placed upon it now, much less in the future. In other words, the community simply cannot deliver all that is expected or all that is desired of it today. I think that is a shame. The fact that many forget is that we cannot turn intelligence on and off like a light switch. We cannot treat this like we are cramming for a test on a final exam. It just does not work that way. It takes time to build and maintain the proper capabilities. But that is something we have got to do. Regardless of how this Nation responds to an issue, whether it is through diplomacy or whether it is law enforcement or whether it is military action, intelligence is the key to success and we simply must have it. Good intelligence, I think as we all know, is better than insurance. It saves lives. It prevents calamities. It heads off those nasty surprises. But like insurance, you have got to have it before the crisis happens. So now we must invest for our future. In this conference report, we are doing that. We are doing the right thing and making the right choices, though coverage in some areas is admittedly light and I think dangerously light. I encourage my fellow Members to support this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] for his very compelling remarks, and I think we can all see what an extraordinary job he does on this committee and what incredible leadership he gives us, what participation, and what championship of projects that he knows about and cares about deeply, and we share the same views, perhaps not the same energy level on some of them. I think as regard to DARO, the issue is not about the capability, the issue is how we make it work best, and I know that the gentleman knows that I am committed to that.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have until publication of the last edition of the Congressional Record authorized for the first session by the Joint Committee on Printing to revise and extend their remarks and to include brief, related extraneous material on any matter occurring before the adjournment of the first session sine die.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report on S. 858 just agreed to.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 305, I rise to announce the following suspensions to be considered today: H.R. 2534, H. Res. 122, H.R. 2614, S. 813, S. 1139, S. 714, H.R. 2513, S. 1377, and H.R. 2813.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 931, which would designate the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness Area and the Ernest F. Coe Visitor Center in the Florida Everglades. The Everglades National Park--A unique national treasure--celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. As we celebrate this important milestone, it is fitting that we recognize the contributions of both of these individuals. As anyone familiar with the everglades knows, Marjory Stoneman Douglas had dedicated her life to the everglades. Her landmark Book, ``The Everglades: River of Grass'' brought attention to the unique everglades ecosystem and helped set in motion the tremendous restoration efforts now underway. Mrs. Douglas, who celebrated her 107th birthday on April 7, was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her efforts. Ernest F. Coe helped lead the charge to establish the Everglades National Park and is widely regarded as the park's ``father.'' Coe's dedication and leadership in this area led to the authorization of the park in 1943 by Congress and the dedication by President Truman in 1947. Over the years, the everglades and its surrounding ecosystem have fallen victim to neglect and misunderstanding. Congress and the State of Florida have supported action to save the everglades, and have worked to ensure that a coordinated, effective restoration program moves forward. The ongoing south Florida initiative promises to combine existing programs with new targeted efforts to address many immediate and long- term needs of the everglades, including: fresh water supply and timing, wildlife protection, pollution prevention, Florida Bay improvements, and more. As we continue to work on the larger issue of everglades restoration, I believe S. 931 offers us the opportunity to recognize the contributions of two individuals that have done so much for this national treasure and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support it.