Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick], a valued member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the time. I rise in support of this fair and open rule. Mr. Speaker, transportation funding is obviously a very important issue to every Member and for all the States in our country, and for growth States like Florida it has a special meaning. And southwest Florida is one of the fastest growing areas in the country and one of the nicest, and it will continue to be fast growing. In my districts, our roads and airports are stretched nearly to capacity by an ever-increasing flow of new residents and tourists. In the past, we have had some very serious concerns about the inequities in highway funding in ISTEA, our funding program. We certainly are not going to get into the fairness issue today related to the distribution of the gas tax. But I am pleased that we are going to be dividing a bigger transportation pie this year, I think that matters a lot, nearly 20 percent bigger I understand for highway spending. I think that is very good news for America. Even with the current funding inequities, this bigger pie of $21.5 billion will mean more dollars for transportation priorities in fast-growth areas like Florida. In the short term, this will help improve safety on our roads and make long overdue improvements, which are obviously needed for those who have been using those infrastructure areas. In the long term, we are going to be looking for a greater share. And in Florida we say our fair share is the formulas that we find in the upcoming ISTEA reauthorization process. But today I am also pleased that the bill provides $1.7 billion for the airport improvement program. Southwest Florida International Airport is the third fastest growing airport in the country, and other airports nearby, like Naples and Immokalee, are also feeling the pressure of increased trade and traffic. Without Federal support available through the AIP to supplement local and State funding, these airports simply cannot respond to the need for capacity expansion programs for upgraded air traffic systems and for the runway improvements that we need for safety. The committee has wisely increased funding levels for this program despite the opposition of the Clinton administration, and I am grateful to the committee. Another issue on the minds of my constituents is the drug war, and it should be on the minds of all Americans. A major component of that struggle, the war on drugs, must be increased funding for drug interdiction efforts by the U.S. Coast Guard. We all know that. Everybody who reads the newspaper, watches television, draws a breath in this country, and opens their eyes and listens a little bit understands what a valuable role the Coast Guard has in drug interdiction. Last week, a hearing was held in the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on the increase in narcotics traffic just through the State of Florida, a serious issue for Florida, obviously, with consequences for the whole Nation. The good news from that hearing is that the different agencies in the war on drugs are increasing coordination so that in south Florida the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Customs Service, and the Coast Guard are all working together. That may sound like a simple thing to say, but it is a hard thing to accomplish. And it is good news when it happens, and it is very effective and it has positive results; and I hope it continues to happen. This legislation ought to help in that direction. Hopefully, the director of the ONDCP, the so-called drug czar's office, will review the Coast Guard's activities and ensure that these funds that we are providing are being used for their intended purpose of drug interdiction. The Coast Guard must be able to respond on the basis of good intelligence with the interdiction efforts necessary to fight the dangerous inflow of drugs on the high seas before they reach our shores. I think most people know that the way we get most of these drug busts is through good intelligence, through good tips, through good information, and then we direct the Coast Guard and the other enforcement agencies to go make the bust. The rest of the time, the random searches and checks just do not have the same kind of success record. I think it is very important that we understand the link between information and the Coast Guard and the money it takes to do enforcement. I commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the chairman, for the work he has done on this bill, and I urge the House to support this fair rule and the bill it makes in order, and I am most thankful for the time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], the distinguished sponsor of the bill. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I have a status report on the time, please?

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, my understanding permits me to answer in the affirmative, and that these arrangements have been made and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Nussle], has also assured me that the potential person who will rise in opposition, that he is prepared to yield 7\1/2\ minutes to that side also.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Nussle].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], my colleague and friend, 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. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 192 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished associate, colleague, and friend, the gentleman from Washington, a member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm that we do not have the unanimous- consent request approved, which would be contrary to the rules. Can the Speaker confirm that to me, that we do not have a unanimous-consent request for an additional 5 minutes?

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 858) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House insist on its amendment to S. 858 and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, over the last 4 years an increasingly permissive attitude, even a tolerance in some circles, of illegal drug use has regrettably developed. The lack of institutional leadership from the President and from the media on this issue is reflected in the dramatic increases in the use of marijuana and other drugs by our young people. Overall drug use by teens in America has more than doubled since 1992, more than doubled. We need real leadership and we need it now. Today Speaker Gingrich will join the Florida delegation in a hearing to look at the troubling reemergence of Florida as a major drug trafficking route. This hearing is an important step in fighting the complacency and focusing, once again, on winning the war on drugs rather than settling for a stalemate or a draw. I hope the administration will join us in renewing our effort to kick our Nation's drug habit. We could use the help in Florida.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am a little puzzled. I was in the Chamber to deal with another matter and I have been listening to this debate. I am a little puzzled about what is going on. It seems to me that we have got a documented wrongdoing here that has been discussed now in the media, and inspector generals have gotten involved with it, once again showing the worth of having a good inspector general in any of the line agencies, as we have voted in this House recently to approve. And then I take a look at the bill and suddenly discover that a program that has some mischief in it we are being asked to increase by 150 percent, and that it is a program, it turns out, where some of the mischief is involved with the person who is asking for the increase. I am having a little trouble with that. We have a responsibility here not only for legislation but for oversight. How do we look our colleagues, our taxpayers, the people we represent back in the district in the eye and say, oh yeah, we sort of saw that but we winked and nodded at it because it was OK. We went and took a look at the fact and, yeah, they said, oh, they did something wrong. What are these folks doing? Well, these folks are out there instead of ripping stuff up before the cops come through the door, they are making up the justification to cover up, to put stuff in the file. That is intentionally misleading a congressional committee. That is against the law. There are penalties for that. I cannot understand why we are all just standing here saying, oh, this is OK. It is not OK to mislead a congressional committee, and we all know it. They want us to believe that this is just an innocent mistake. Let me read here from the memo that was put into the file, after the fact, to aid and abet this coverup. ``The applicant is potentially competitive.'' Now, remember, this is put in 2 months after the money has been given to the applicant. ``The interview team will need to review the application in depth to determine whether or not the application is in actuality competitive, and if it isn't competitive, how much funding to provide, in what form, and for which initiative.'' That statement is put into the file several months after the money has been given. That is a blatant bald-face attempt to mislead investigators by a line agency over which this institution has oversight under the balance of powers. We are accountable to the people of the United States of America to say this is wrong, we will not tolerate this, and we expect cooperation from the other branch of Government.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Idaho yielding me time and I rise in strong support of his Lockbox amendment. I want to also commend him for his leadership and persistence in this effort. Mr. Chairman, this is not a new concept--the House overwhelmingly voted three times in support of the Lockbox. The proposal, originally introduced by Mr. Crapo, went through a thorough vetting process in the Rules Committee during the 104th Congress. We worked hard to smooth the rough edges and resolve the various technical problems. The end result is the proposal before us--and I am proud to have played a part in getting us to this point. The Lockbox simply makes sense. In the real world, when you say you are going to spend less money, you should spend less money. Only in Washington can you say you are cutting spending and then allow the money to mysteriously reappear for spending somewhere else. It is disingenuous; it hurts the taxpayer; and it contributes to the cynical popular view of this body. The idea is simple--create a deficit reduction account to ensure that hard fought spending cuts are realized. When the House votes to save money--the Lockbox mechanism ensures that the money will truly be saved. Simple though it seems, we have had some resistance to this idea in the other body and I urge the ``mothers'' and ``fathers'' of the Lockbox in the House to continue to press our friends over there to look favorably on this proposal. On the larger subject of reforming our budget process, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, I am continuing to work with Chairman Solomon, Chairman Kasich, and other interested members to develop a more rational and understandable approach to how we spend the Nation's money and enforce our commitments to balance the Federal books. In the interim, this is a good amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this fair and open rule. It is the right process, as each Member can have the opportunity to address the issues that we have in this appropriations bill, the committee's product. I would like to focus my limited time on an area of great concern to my constituents and perhaps constituents of other Members; that is, veterans, the veterans' health care aspects of this. I am very pleased that we are going to provide $549 million more for veterans' medical care this year. That is going to mean a lot to our veterans. I think it is a very responsible increase when you measure it against the resources available. For the first time we are going to try something different. Not all the money for veterans' care is going to come from the appropriators. A portion of it is going to come from allowing the VA to retain third party insurance collections and user fees, something like $600 million, we expect. This is in response to an administration request and a provision in the bipartisan budget agreement. I think it is a good idea, but I understand that the veterans' community is a little concerned that we have not planned realistically enough, given recent trends of collecting these kinds of fees. I share that concern, and I am going to be supporting an amendment that is going to be offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, to place a fail-safe provision in the bill in case the funds are not sufficient. So either way the veterans can be assured they are going to have the moneys they need for veterans' care. There is nothing wrong with experimenting with new ways to fund the VA as long as we are certain that the money gets to the veterans, and that it is done fairly and equitably and put where the veterans are. That gives me the biggest pause with this bill we have got before us. The report accompanying the bill contains controversial language that would reinstate the funding inequities of previous years that we saw in the VA medical care system, and it could deprive many veterans in my district and elsewhere of needed health care. That language seeks to reverse a funding formula put in place by the VA and approved in last year's VA-HUD bill, in fact, overwhelmingly approved, to ensure that the dollars flow to the veterans where the veterans are. The numbers paint a very clear picture. Since 1980, Florida and Arizona and other similar places have registered a large growth rate, in fact in Florida and Arizona nearly 25 percent in their veterans' populations. While in other States, New York comes to mind, that is dropped by nearly 20 percent. Obviously we have to adjust the funding. There is no reason why veterans in southwest Florida with service-connected disabilities should be turned away in order to serve lower priority, routine needs of nondisabled counterparts in other areas of the country. That is unfair. It is bad policy. I hope that the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will not pursue that language in the conference. I urge a ``yes'' vote, nevertheless, on this wide-open rule and for the bill that it makes in order. I believe that the Committee on Rules has done an excellent job on this. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, NY, for yielding me the time and I rise in support of this mainly open rule. Mr. Speaker, the Interior appropriations bill, which is what this is, provides important funding to protect our natural resources for future generations, including our children. The underlying bill is an excellent example of doing more with less. We are going to save money by focusing our limited resource in priority areas. Even though this bill spends $100 million less than last year's appropriation, it still provides important funding increases for our national parks, the National Forest System, and the National Wilderness Refuges, which many Americans and American children use. Especially important for my home State of Florida, this is a vehicle for the crucial Everglades restoration funds. These funds permit us to meet the Federal commitment in our ongoing effort to restore and preserve for future generations, especially our children, the unique river of grass. Another important provision is the extension of the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas exploration moratorium, which protects Florida's fragile coastline from oil slicks and pollution. Each year for the last 13 years Congress has passed this moratorium, and I am pleased that the committee has once again seen fit to include this commonsense measure. So many people enjoy our beaches and shores, including, of course, all Americans, many visitors, and especially our children. As always, there are some issues in this bill that remain controversial and probably always will be. But the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has done an outstanding job balancing the very diverse views of this body. This rule likewise reflects a genuine workable compromise. I think it is a good process. I think the rule is a good rule, and I think it is a good bill. If the NEA is the only way to culture in America, then we have got a problem. This rule provides for us to look at other ways to get public money, tax dollars, to the public for the purpose of the arts. Those who suggest the sky is falling on the arts if the NEA is cut back or curtailed do not understand that there are many ways and many aspects to the arts. I believe that the block grant opportunity is one we should examine, and will under this rule.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be in the somewhat unique position of serving the House and my constituents as a member of the Committee on Rules and as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I certainly feel in very good company, following the footsteps of our former colleague, Tony Beilenson, who in the 101st Congress served in both capacities, and did so in great distinction from the other side of the aisle. I am proud to be able to fulfill obligations to both committees in bringing forward to the House Resolution 179, making in order H.R. 1775, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998. I believe this rule is without controversy. With the approval of this rule by the House later today during a debate on the bill itself I will be describing in more detail the specific provisions of the unclassified portions of H.R. 1775. All Members have been advised that the bill's classified provisions are and have been available for review in the Committee on Intelligence spaces. For the purpose of this rules debate, I would simply like to point out to the House that this measure reflects several months of very hard work and bipartisan cooperation by the Members of the Committee on Intelligence and its staff. It is a bill which I think is solid, professional, and necessary, and a bill which I believe faithfully fulfills our obligation to the American people to conduct vigorous oversight of our Nation's intelligence programs and activities. We are the line of defense in that area for the people of this country. We take our job seriously. Mr. Speaker, as to this rule, House Resolution 179 is a fairly traditional rule for this type of legislation. As in past years, the rule is a modified open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Intelligence. My friend, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], will take care of that part for the minority. The rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill which shall be considered by title and as read. In addition, based on consultation with the parliamentarian, the rule waives points of order against the committee amendment for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI, which is the germaneness section, and clauses 5(a) and 5(b) of rule XXI prohibiting appropriations on an authorization bill and prohibiting the consideration of tax or tariff measures which have not been reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. These waivers are quite technical, but I would like to briefly explain them so Members understand what we are doing. The germaneness waiver is necessary because the committee mark which comes in the form of an amendment in the nature of a substitute is broader in scope than the bill as originally introduced. This will come as no surprise to most Members. The rule XXI clause 5(a) waivers pertain to three specific sections of H.R. 1775: sections 401, 402, and 603. On those specific sections, as on many of the issues in this legislation, the Committee on Intelligence staff has been in close contact with the staff of the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations which has not, to my knowledge, objected to these waivers. In fact, we have worked closely with the appropriations staff on this point. Regarding the 5(b) waiver that pertains to the Committee on Ways and Means, I submit for the Record correspondence between the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on Rules. The provision in question, which is section 305 of H.R. 1775, is a 1- year extension of the deferral of sanctions provision in current law. Section 305 continues, until January 6, 1999, the President's current statutory authority under the National Security Act to delay imposing a sanction upon his determination that proceeding with the sanction could compromise an ongoing criminal investigation or an intelligence source or method. This subject matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and within the scope of the prohibition outlined in clause 5(b) of rule XXI. So by way of history, this deferral authority was in fact first included in the fiscal year 1996 Intelligence Authorization Act, was extended for 1 year in the fiscal year 1997 intelligence authorization bill and here we have it again. Through the exchange of correspondence, the Committee on Ways and Means and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have reached an accommodation to allow the 1-year extension provided by section 305 to remain in H.R. 1775, as reported, and to coordinate future activity on this subject. I understand, therefore, that there is no objection to granting the waiver and I understand further that there will probably be some colloquy during the debate time on the rule on this point. Mr. Speaker, the rule allows for consideration of all germane amendments, but in the interest of ensuring that sensitive classified information is protected, the rule has required that Members have their amendments preprinted in the Congressional Record prior to consideration of the bill. This has proved to be a prudent and helpful and nononerous requirement in past important intelligence authorization bills, and we have made every effort to ensure that Members have had ample time to consider and to file their amendment and to receive appropriate staff assistance from our committee, if desired. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for the traditional motion to recommit with or without instructions. Thus I believe this unanimously supported rule in the Committee on Rules is fair, appropriate, and noncontroversial. Accordingly, I urge support for the rule. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following correspondence: Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC, July 8, 1997. Hon. Bill Archer, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Bill: I am writing to you concerning your objection to the inclusion of section 305 in this Committee's Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (H.R. 1775). I understand that staff have consulted on this issue and resolved the matter to our satisfaction. To that end, it is important that for future purposes we set out our agreement that this provision falls squarely within the scope of Clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI, which provides that no tax or tariff provision may be considered by the House that has not been considered by the Committee on Ways and Means. We appreciate your authority over tax and revenue provisions and in no way seek to undermine that jurisdiction. I will work to defeat any additional tax or revenue increasing provision that any other Member may seek to attach to this bill, both during floor consideration of this bill by the House and during Conference Committee meetings with the Senate. This provision is of critical importance to the protection of intelligence sources and methods whenever a proliferation violation has been identified and sanctions are deemed to be the appropriate method of discipline. This provision supplies the President with the necessary flexibility to address the competing interests of punishing the violators and protecting our national security interests at the same time. I appreciate your recognition of this important aspect of this section of our bill. I will also offer any modification of this provision in future Intelligence Authorization bills, beyond a mere reauthorization for additional periods of time, will be subject to consultation between our Committees, and subject to points of order pursuant to Clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI. Based upon this understanding, I would ask that you withdraw your request to the Committee on Rules to strike section 305 from H.R. 1775 prior to consideration by the full House. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard and I look forward to your support for H.R. 1775. With all best wishes, I remain Sincerely yours, Porter Goss, Chairman.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Texas for his wise words and support on this matter. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Rogan]. The question is on the resolution.

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.