Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

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.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his personally kind remarks and I assure him he has won my admiration, and the admiration of all colleagues, for his steady hand at the helm of oversight and intelligence for so many years. And it is my honor to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], the distinguished chairman of the Permament Select Committee on Intelligence.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 216 provides for the consideration of H.R. 1655, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. The Rules Committee met last week to grant this rule, which was requested jointly by the chairman of the committee, Mr. Combest, and the ranking member, Mr. Dicks. As has been customary in the Intelligence Committee, of which I am proud to be a new member, bipartisan cooperation was apparent in the rule request. I am pleased that our Rules Committee was able to grant the committee's reasonable request by providing an open amendment process while injecting a small point of caution for the sensitivity of the subject matter by including a preprinting requirement. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The rule waives sections 302(f), 308(a) and 401(b) of the Budget Act against consideration of the bill, waivers that are all related to the issue of new entitlement authority. Our committee is most appreciative of the detailed and comprehensive explanation the Intelligence Committee provided to us in support of these waiver requests. Section 305 of the bill allows a spouse who fully cooperates in a Federal investigation of his wife or her husband to receive spousal benefits upon a determination by the Attorney General that the spouse has fully cooperated with the Government's investigation and prosecution of national security offenses. Section 601 makes a technical correction to clarify that a retired military officer who is appointed as Director or Deputy Director of Central Intelligence can receive pay at the appropriate level of the Executive schedule. Although we technically have new entitlements, in both cases we are talking about very small amounts of money. In fact, the Budget Committee, which generally plays ``budget cop'' in instances where Budget Act waivers are requested, has reviewed these requests without complaint. This rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment the Intelligence Committee's amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill, as modified by the Government Reform and Oversight Committee amendment striking section 505 now printed in the bill and by an amendment striking title VII. Although we generally try to avoid self-executing amendments such as this, this change in the reported bill reflected a compromise agreement worked out among the committees of jurisdiction. There was legitimate concern in the Government Reform and Oversight Committee about the provision the Intelligence Committee had included in section 505, waiving the 2 percent retirement annuity reduction that NSA employees normally incur when expecting early retirement. This is a pilot program at NSA that raised concerns among our colleagues on the Government Reform Committee and we respect their conclusion that it should not be included in this bill. The second matter deleted from the bill by this rule is title VII, which addressed a consolidation issue within the State Department. This provision had raised some red flags with the Committee on International Relations, and hence agreement was reached to remove it. All in all, I am proud of the level of communication and cooperation among all the committees in agreeing to this consensus product. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, shall be considered by title with the first section and each title considered as read. The rule also waives clause 7 of rule 17 prohibiting nongermane amendments against the committee substitute as modified. In addition, the rule waives clause 5(a) of rule 21 prohibiting appropriations in a legislative bill against the committee substitute as modified. And, as I discussed earlier, [[Page H 8779]] the rule waives section 302(f) and section 401(b) against the committee substitute as modified for the same reasons that made the waivers necessary for consideration of the bill. In addition, the rule requires that all amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record, an important provision to assist the committee in protecting the security of classified matters contained within this bill, while protecting the rights of Members by guaranteeing an open amendment process. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I know my friend from California, Mr. Beilenson, who served his country admirably as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, understands the important of this subject matter. The paradox of the intelligence business is that successes, by their very nature, go unremarked and often unknown to most people. That is because intelligence success stories generally prevent bad things from happening. So the public picture presented of intelligence is generally skewed toward the negative, the problems, the times when things go wrong and the sensational. Clearly, the Ames case and the recent flareup over Guatemala provide two examples of this phenomenon. It is the duty of the members of the select committee, and today of all Members of this House, to see the whole picture and ensure that our intelligence community has the necessary resources and oversight to fulfill its mission. As Members know, there are currently several comprehensive reviews being undertaken to assess the roles and capabilities of our intelligence services. I am privileged to be working on two of those efforts: IC 21, led by Chairman Combest, and the Aspin Commission, now led by Harold Brown. It is necessary to reassess where we are and where we want to be in world events, and then to determine what type of information is needed and how to best ensure that such information is available. In the meantime, I believe H.R. 1655 offers a responsible level of funding for intelligence activities, while setting appropriate priorities for how that money should be spent. As I have grown fond of saying to those who believe the end of the cold war provides a good time to slash funding for intelligence, it hardly makes sense to turn off the radar just as you are sailing the ship of State into the fog, in unfamiliar waters, without a reliable chart. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the bill. The Speaker, I include material from the Committee on Rules for the Record, as follows:

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 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 include extraneous material.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 216 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m., tomorrow morning, September 8, 1995.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise obviously in very strong support of the House-passed version of the line-item veto. I would point out that taking this up today as we start out the fall session is a promise kept. We said we would do it, we are doing it. I certainly commend the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] for carrying her motion to resolution which we agree with, as we have said, to instruct conferees. I think it is a useful addition. I would point out that by a vote of 294 to 134 in early February, this House acted, I think, very decisively to grant line-item veto authority to the President. We really are committed to establishing this tool to root out unnecessary or wasteful spending where we can identify it, and we can, and unfair tax breaks as well, where we can identify them. Our colleagues in the other body obviously have come up with a markedly different approach to the line-item veto, as we all know, their so-called separate enrollment process, and I frankly think that is a very cumbersome and complex process, and I do not think it can be effective, but we will discuss that in conference. We are going to have our work cut out for us over there. Preliminary discussions, however, make me a little optimistic that we are going to be able to make some progress. I think we are beginning to see some wisdom from people on the other side in understanding our position on this and why we think it is going to work better. I commend particularly the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], as well as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for their efforts of really keeping this on the front burner as we have gone along, even at a time, frankly, when some thought the differences between the House and the other body were going to be too great to overcome. We are back at it, and I think that is right where we should be. Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct conferees reflects a spirit of bipartisan cooperation, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has just reiterated, by urging the conference to move expeditiously so that the line-item veto can begin to work as soon as possible on appropriations measures. This language restates our commitment to implementing the line-item veto expeditiously, as we have promised we would do. I was down in the district as we all were on this recent break, and I can count on two questions coming up any time I get a gathering of more than two or three people in my district. One of those questions is where is the line- [[Page H 8608]] item veto, the other question by them is what about the notch. Mr. Speaker, let us today support this motion and get on with our work in conference.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the rule that I have just filed on the Intelligence Authorization Act includes a requirement that amendments be printed in the Congressional Record before they are offered on the floor. Since it is possible that the House could take up this matter as soon as next Tuesday, and the House is not planning to be in session on Monday, it means that Members desiring to offer amendments to this bill should submit their amendments for printing in the Congressional Record tomorrow. Chairman Solomon already put Members on notice yesterday by a floor announcement and a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to each Member that a pre- printing requirement was likely on this bill. This announcement is just intended as a reminder not to wait too late. In addition, I wish to inform the House that the Rules Committee is planning to meet next Tuesday, September 12, on two bills; H.R. 1670, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act and H.R. 1162, the Deficit Reduction Lock-box Act. The rules on each of these two bills may provide priority in recognition to Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Congressional Record. Amendments to be pre-printed would need to be signed by the Member and submitted at the Speaker's table. The amendments would still need to be consistent with House rules and would be given no special protection by being printed. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House. It is not necessary to submit amendments to the Rules Committee or testify as long as amendments comply with the House rules.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this is the first of the appropriations bills to make it through the conference process, and I wish to commend the bill's managers, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], as well as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the full committee who is here, for making sure that the legislative branch leads the way in the belt tightening that we know is going to be done. This conference report, which obviously funds the conference, comes in at $200 million below the actual amount spent for the current fiscal year. That is a real cut. That is real savings and one we can all be proud of, I think, in these tight budgetary times. Mr. Speaker, the issue has been raised today that somehow the conferees of this spending bill failed because they did not include provisions reforming the gift rule for Members of this House. Well, the first point here is that reform of the gift rule, although it is a matter of great importance and very significant interest to many people, is not within the scope of the legislative branch funding bill. It is an apples and oranges problem. No matter how big an apple gift reform is, it just cannot become an orange because somebody wants to declare it so. It would be a little bit like Cal Ripken showing up at Fenway Park tonight. Wrong place. So from a procedural point of view, raising this issue as part of today's debate I think is way off the mark. Mr. Speaker, after the substance of reforming the gift rules, I do share the interests of many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle of reviewing our gift rules and for the action recently taken in the other body reforming our House rules. I would point out I believe tomorrow there are going to be hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary; our colleague, the gentleman from Florida, Charles Canady, I believe is chairing a subcommittee hearing on the bill of the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, which actually was the forerunner of all of these, which is what got it started, and I believe that we are proceeding apace. I understand the Speaker has made a public statement today committing that we will take this up in due course. In my office we have a strict policy.

Mr. GOSS. I think due course is coming a lot sooner than you think.

Mr. GOSS. Deliberate speed means different things of course on different sides of the aisle, but I think at this point we have a promise to go by early next year on this, and we are going to start the hearings tomorrow.

Mr. GOSS. I do not know what the effective date is. I think it remains to be seen, but I think it is very clear that we can start the hearings tomorrow. Along those lines, I have to point out that others have offered all kinds of bills. I have a lobbyist-paid travel bill that is in. It has a handful of Members' bipartisan support. Unfortunately, some of the colleagues I hear discussing this issue today are not on that bill. I hope they will take a good long look at it. I think efforts are underway to tighten the disclosure requirements to bring sunshine and accountability into our process. Certainly as Members know, these principles sound easy, but they are not as easy when you start applying them, because you have to define what a gift is. If somebody gives you a memento, it is hard to make that distinction occasionally. I think most Members agree that we have to be wise and judicious in what we do, and I think it is very clear that both the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the Committee on Rules, both of which I am on, are interested in this along with the Committee on the Judiciary. It has a terrific amount of interest, it is underway, it is going forward. To somehow say that we are off on the wrong track here because the appropriations process, which we all know is on a very tight timetable which needs to go forward, to suddenly now throw a monkey wrench on that process because it does not have what is clearly a nongermane, inappropriate, out of scope issue in it, does not do us a service here at all. We need to get on with this rule, we need to get on with the conference, let things happen, and we need to take up the gift reform and the lobby reform and campaign reform as we have promised we would do in the right season when their time comes, and that season apparently starts tomorrow.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to report back to my colleagues some refreshing news. Even while areas of my district remain under water due to excess flooding, the enthusiasm for the momentum for change in Washington has not subsided in Florida. Americans in my district are taking it upon themselves to get through these rough times they are having with Mother Nature. They expect no less from us here who deal with meeting the many challenges with good governance in Washington. The constituents I spoke with over the recess remain committed to the message they sent last November: Fiscal responsibility, fiscal discipline. They realize there are going to be tough choices in the coming months. Yes, there does exist a certain level of concern on some issues. However, they are asking, demanding that we make those tough choices inherent in saving and strengthening Medicare, reforming welfare, balancing the budget, ensuring a successful future for our kids and grandkids. My constituents know those floodwaters are going to go down. They also know this Congress is committed to stopping the flood of red tape and overspending we have experienced in this Nation in the past years.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the distinguished chairman.

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] and congratulate him for his fine work on an extremely complex rule that took a lot of work to get done, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] as well, and I am delighted there is support on both sides of the aisle, for it deserves it. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule also, and I will use my time to indulge in a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the honorable chairman of the Committee on Commerce, because two points have come up in discussion today regarding local government authority which I think can be clarified and need to be clarified. Chairman Bliley was Mayor Bliley of Richmond, and this gentleman was mayor of a much smaller town, but they were both local governments and there was a great concern among some of our local governments about some issues here, particularly two, as I have said. I want to address the issue of zoning. Mr. Speaker, as to the cellular industry expanding into the next century, there will be a need for an estimated 100,000 new transmission poles to be constructed throughout the country, I am told. I want to make sure that nothing in H.R. 1555 preempts the ability of local officials to determine the placement and construction of these new towers. Land use has always been, and I believe should continue to be, in the domain of the authorities in the areas directly affected. I must say I appreciate that communities cannot prohibit access to the new facilities, and I agree they should not be allowed to, but it is important that cities and counties be able to enforce their zoning and building codes. That is the first point. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the bill does not restrict the ability of local governments to derive revenues for the use of public rights-of-way so long as the fees are set in a nondiscriminatory way.

Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that very clear explanation.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished chairman the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon] for yielding this time to me. I must commend him for his patience, persuasion, and persistence in seeking a reasonable compromise on the host of highly contentious issues that pervade the Labor-HHS and Education appropriations bill. As Members know, while the bats were swinging in Bowie, MD last night for the congressional baseball game, our Rules Committee and Members on all points of the political spectrum were at work in the Capitol seeking common ground on the terms of debate for this bill. Some might call this bill the ``mother of all appropriations bills'' since it covers a tremendous scope of topics and allocates more than $60 billion. The sticking points have become highly visible sore thumbs--including the extraordinarily difficult issue of Federal funding for abortion. This rule does about the best it can do to allow for a relatively free and fair debate on the major issues--while keeping within a somewhat manageable timeframe. I am particularly pleased that this rule makes in order a lockbox amendment offered by Mr. Crapo. This much-discussed and long awaited amendment commits the House to ensuring that savings agreed to on the floor of the House will indeed be used for deficit reduction and will no longer be permitted to be spent on other spending projects. We have worked hard to translate this seemingly simply concept into a workable procedural device--one that can accomplish its mission without derailing the entire appropriations process. I think we have done it-- and we did so in a bipartisan and deliberative way. Sure, many of us would have preferred that we reach this point sooner in the process. But I am convinced it was better to do lock-box right the first time. Mr. Speaker, we have got a long debate ahead of us on a host of important subjects. I urge support for this rule. I hope to have a dialog with Chairman Bliley on the subject of local land use and local ability to earn revenues in the utilities area and some other things as we go along in this and other legislation. There are many things ahead of us in the days ahead. This is an important appropriations bill. This is a good rule. It is going to get the full debate it deserves. I urge support for this rule so we can get on with our debate.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, as somewhat of a technician in the effort to devise a lockbox mechanism that could work and still meet the legitimate need of flexibility for those who must write our spending bills, I am pleased to rise in strong support of this lockbox proposal. Our Rules Committee--members and staff--worked long hours to ensure that lockbox would be more than just a catchy phrase--that it would be a powerful and workable budgetary tool to help us meet and maintain our commitment to a balanced budget. And I believe we have succeeded in that effort. When the House and the Senate vote to save money in spending bills, those savings should not be spent elsewhere, they should be credited toward deficit reduction. On its face, this appears to be a simple matter--and the principle, that a cut should be a cut, truly is simple. But given the complexities of our current budget process, this simple principle becomes complicated in its application and one can get hopelessly mired in arcane commentary on such things as 602(a) allocations, 602(b) suballocations, statutory spending limits, and the like. These are beltway terms but they are important to understanding the minutia of how this thing will work. As chairman of the Rules Committee's Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, I am deeply committed to reforming our entire budget process--it is complicated, it is cumbersome, it is confusing, it is often redundant, and it is generally geared toward spending and preserving the status quo. While we proceed on the larger reform effort, there is no reason not to move forward now on this one important piece of the budget process reform puzzle. I urge strong support for this lockbox proposal.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important on a day when we are going to devote in this chamber very serious deliberative debate on the subject of whether we are going to get involved and to what degree in a hostile situation in a place called Bosnia, that it is important that we also review where we have troops now that are somewhat in harm's way and doing American business overseas in another area where we have a major investment that has been very, very troublesome, although not as attention-getting because the atrocities are nowhere near as bad as the genocide we are seeing in Bosnia, the former Yugoslavia. The place I speak of is Haiti, of course. I was there for the 25th of June elections and for the International Republican Institute as the chairman of the Election Observation Team, and I was personally much maligned for the way that we operated down there, and the IRI was much criticized for the report we issued as a result of those elections. Curiously enough now, all the observers who have watched those elections and judged what is going on in Haiti have come over to the report that we issued and basically been much harsher and critical about the process in Haiti than even the IRI report. I guess it is difficult to be out in front of the pack sometimes, but what is important now is to find out where we are going next. The commentary in the Washington Post yesterday, which I will quite because it is notable that the Washington Post has come around to this point of view, says, quote, ``Early hopes, including our own, that Haiti was getting up momentum and building an electoral system turn out to have been wrong.'' That is a very strong admission from the Washington Post, which generally is very favorable to the Clinton administration's policy games. It follows a little bit after the OAS commentary that came last week that said that it would be hard to call what happened in Haiti full, fair, free election. Larry Pasullo, who used to work for the Clinton administration as their top expert on Haiti, who was fired because they did not like the message he was bringing back, has made comment recently after looking at what happened in Haiti that there has been no real change there. We still have one-man rule. It is just a different man, and we are not sure we have democracy blooming at all. Dr. Pastor of the Carter Institute, who has recently come back, I think put the final nail in the coffin. Quoting from the New York Times of last week, the Carter Center, normally a strong supporter of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti, said today that last month's elections in Haiti were riddled with fraud and that the Clinton administration should not back a series of reruns and runoffs that many Haitian political parties are threatening to boycott. So it seems that just about everybody who gave it a fair assessment understands there is a mess. Now, we have sent a very high-level delegation down to Haiti. It is curious they would be going to Haiti rather than Bosnia, where the trouble seems to be a little more intense. But, nevertheless, we have sent the first team apparently down to Haiti to negotiate. Again, what has happened is that observers are saying we are acting with a very heavy hand. This is supposed to be a democratic nation emerging in democracy, making its own decisions with all the institutions of democracy, including a fair, free, political program and election process. Even the Washington Post has come up, and I will quote again yesterday's editorial, ``Hence, the dispatch of a high-level American team the other day to move Haitian electoral reform along.'' It is an intrusive way to do delicate business, but the alternative is worse. To say that it is intrusive to go down there and tell the Haitians how to run their own country is a bit of an understatement, even for the Washington Post. What has happened in Haiti is that, finally, they have fired the incompetent who was running the electoral council down there, and the opposition parties have all called for the removal of the total election council and replaced them with nonpartisan people. Unfortunately, President Aristide has not listened to the other political parties in the country. He has only listened to his own party, and he has replaced the president of the election council with one of his party partisans, who has no credibility with the others, and, consequently, nothing has happened except we have changed seats one more time. We have now still got all of the people except the Aristide people calling for a totally new electoral council and totally new elections. That is not a step forward by any means. On other fronts down in Haiti where we have invested over $2 billion, $2 billion of American taxpayers' money in the last year or so, we have found that things are not going well either. We had a delegation of business people who came to my office and the office of many others last week, and they said that, basically, there is nothing conducive to economic development going on. All of the money we are sending is just being squandered away one way or another. It is not going to meaningful programs. We are still pouring money in, but the good things that need to happen, the reform of the judiciary system, the encouragement for business, the regulations that allow for stability and certainty in the banking sectors, those types of things are not happening at all. So, consequently, the score card is not good, and it is a dim situation. This is not an ``I told you so.'' But it is a good question for the administration. Where are we going and what is next in Haiti?

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and my colleague the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] for yielding me this time. I hope his district and mine remain safe from Hurricane Erin and all others remain safe from Hurricane Erin bearing down on us. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the bill, S. 21. I am most grateful to the leadership of this House--and to Chairman Gilman-- for the prompt work undertaken to ensure that this House has a debate and a vote on the subject of the escalating atrocity that is Bosnia and Herzegovina. No doubt, the gruesome and abhorrent reality of death, destruction, and debasement of human life in Bosnia, presents enormous challenges as does working through the ponderous international machinery now is use. Although no one believes that resolving this terrible crisis is an easy task, there is at least one clear and obvious step that the United States should be taking, namely lifting the arms embargo and allowing the Government of Bosnia to exercise its right to self-defense. The administration seems to be arguing that it was all wisdom and that Congress should not participate in any resolution of this tragedy--but the administration has long had its chance to do the right thing on its own--and its policies have failed to do the job. I am proud that this House, following the lead of the other body, will demonstrate that we are not afraid to stand up for what is moral and what is right. We will direct the President to lift the arms embargo against the Bosnian Government, something we should have done some time ago. I am pleased that Chairman Solomon and our Rules Committee responded to this urgent need--even at a time when our committee time and time on the floor is at such a premium--and developed a fair rule that allows significant debate, while ensuring an opportunity for the minority to present an alternative of their choice. Support this rule and support S. 21.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just simply would like to say that the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has made a very important point about our concern about the line item veto, and I would like to have included, among the extraneous material that we are putting in the Record today, a statement from the Speaker of the House to the chairman of the Committee on Rules which says, from the Speaker, that he is committed to moving forward on line item veto and to that end he has promised to schedule a motion to go to conference on the line item veto and to appoint conferees press on the first day of House business in September. So we have achieved getting his attention and commitment to getting forward with that, and I will put that in the Record at this point. We have a fair and open rule that allows Members to offer cutting amendments on an appropriations bill, and it is an honor to bring this appropriations bill to the floor with this good a rule on this important subject. The letter referred to is as follows: Office of the Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 27, 1995 Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon, Chairman, Committee on Rules, Washington, DC. Dear Jerry: I want to thank you for your valuable contributions and ongoing efforts to move the Line-Item Veto Act to conference at the earliest practicable date. The line-item veto is one of the most important commitments we made as a party in our Contract with America. I have every confidence that with your help and leadership we can resolve the vast differences that exist between the House and Senate passed bills over how best to fashion and implement the line- item veto authority for the President. Although some have suggested we should delay the process of working out the differences with the Senate, I want you to know I am committed to moving forward on this bill. To that end, you have my promise to schedule the motion to go to conference on the line-item veto and to appoint conferees on the first day of House business in September. You can be assured that I share your dedication to enacting this central component of our Contract with America. Sincerely, Newt Gingrich. 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 resolution. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington.) The question is on the resolution.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the floor yet another very fair and simple open rule. H. Res. 205 provides for one hour of general debate, equally divided between the majority and the minority. Following that, any Member can offer amendments in accordance with the rules of the House. Members are encouraged, but not required, to preprint their amendments in the Record, so that we can engage in full and well- informed debate, and I think that is something that has actually worked out pretty well. In addition, the committee granted limited waivers for the consideration of H.R. 2126, including waivers of clauses 2 and 6 of rule XXI regading unauthorized appropriations and reappropriation within this bill. The need for these protections, due to lack of the authorization for many of the programs, has been thoroughly debated, so I will not debate it here. We all know we have a problem between the authorizing and the appropriations cycle and that is part of the budget reform that we hope to bring forward. In order to expedite the floor schedule and allow the House to complete its schedule appropriations work before the August break, which I think is of great interest to every Member and [[Page H 8035]] probably the Nation at large as well, the committee granted waivers of clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI and clause 7 of rule XXII, regarding 3-day layovers for the committee report. The report for H.R. 2126 has been available since Friday, however, and Members have had the weekend and then some time today to review this report. I would also point out that we have been through much of this in the authorizing process already as well. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the last waiver granted is a technical one for section 306 of the Budget Act regarding measures under the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget reported by other committee. I would like to point out to Members that the two ``offending'' sections of the bill, 8021 and 8024, have been removed at request of the Committee on the Budget by a self-executing amendment, so I think that problem is behind us. Mr. Speaker, that may seem like a lot of explanation for what really is, in essence, a very simple open rule, but I am confident that we have a very fair, I would say very open rule that will allow us to fully consider this vital appropriations measure. Providing for our national defense is one of the few charges specifically given to the Congress of the United States under the Constitution and we cannot shirk our responsibilities in this area. Freedom is not free. The American people demand a strong and ready force, capable of dealing with whatever crisis may arise, wherever it may happen, whenever it may happen. We obviously must ensure that our armed services are the best trained, best equipped, best provided for, both for their benefit and ours. There are a few, I suppose, who still argue that the demise of the Soviet Union meant an end of all major threats to the United States' interests, therefore, we do not need much defense. Mr. Speaker, those folks are wrong, in my view, and I think in most Americans' views. Vigorous military buildups in countries like Iran, North Korea, and China pose new challenges to American interests across the globe, not to mention the real threat we face from the slow but steady spread of nuclear capability to new countries and, possibly, to terrorist groups. Nor could we totally ignore genocide as we now witness it in former Yugoslavia. Threats to democracy and our national security come in many forms, in many ways these days. No, to most of us there is no question that we need a strong and ready defense, and I am pleased that after several years of steadily declining budgets and uncertain leadership from the administration these past 2 years, we now have a Department of Defense appropriation bill that begins to meet the needs both long term and immediate of our armed forces. Make no mistake, many of the items funded in this bill are not for future acquisition of some high-tech weapons systems, but they are for things like food, clothing and other basic necessities for our men and women in the service. The chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security Appropriations, my friend and distinguished colleague from Florida, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], presented the Committee on Rules with a list of these basic requirements that were not being met until now. That list, containing lots of nuts and bolts necessary to keep our forces fit, was put on a roll that stretched almost across the entire width of the Committee on Rules hearing room. We may even get to see that roll again before this debate is over. So I congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and the rest of the Committee on Appropriations for their very hard work on this particularly important appropriations bill. I urge support for the rule and support for H.R. 2126. I include for the Record the following information: