Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

| Cryptome DVDs are offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome 12-and-a-half-years collection of 47,000 files from June 1996 to January 2009 (~6.9 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. The collection includes all files of cryptome.org, cryptome.info, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org, and 23,100 (updated) pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985.The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost.

Web | cryptome.org | cryptome.info | jya.com | eyeball-series.org | cryptome.cn

16 July 1998

    Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [Congressional Record: June 18, 1998 (House)]
    [Page H4739-H4748]
    From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
    [DOCID:cr18jn98-83]

        PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.RES. 463, ESTABLISHING SELECT
     COMMITTEE ON U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AND MILITARY/COMMERCIAL CONCERNS
                      WITH THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

      Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
    call up House Resolution 476 and ask for its immediate consideration.
      The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 476

           Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
         shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
         to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 463) to
         establish the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and
         Military/Commercial Concerns With the People's Republic of
         China. The resolution shall be considered as read for
         amendment. The amendment in the

    [[Page H4740]]

         nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules
         now printed in the resolution shall be considered as adopted.
         The resolution, as amended, shall be debatable for one hour
         equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
         minority member of the Committee on Rules. The previous
         question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution, as
         amended, to final adoption without intervening motion.

      The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from New York
    (Mr. Solomon) is recognized for 1 hour.
      Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30
    minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield
    myself such time as I may consume. Of course, during consideration of
    the resolution all time yielded is for debate purposes only.
      Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a rule providing for consideration of
    House Resolution 463 to establish the Select Committee on United States
    National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's
    Republic of China.
      This rule provides 1 hour of debate on the resolution, divided
    equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
    Committee on Rules. And right now, that is being filled in by the
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).
      The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute
    recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed in the resolution
    shall be considered as adopted. The rule further provides that the
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution.
      Mr. Speaker, this rule passed by voice vote in the Committee on
    Rules, as did the underlying resolution, and I would hope that we can
    dispense with the rule expeditiously and proceed with the debate on the
    resolution itself.
      Mr. Speaker, the debate over the next several hours will revolve
    around one question and that question is how seriously do we in the
    House take the national security of the United States?
      This Select Committee proposed to be created by this resolution will
    address an issue over which I have had many concerns for at least a
    decade, and that is the transfer of technology which has military value
    to Communist China.
      I have opposed this policy since it began during the Reagan
    administration under my hero, Ronald Reagan, in the wake of the
    Challenger disaster. But until recently, my differences with Presidents
    Reagan, Bush, and Clinton have been strictly policy differences. And
    naturally people can disagree.
      Now, over the past few months, we have seen startling revolutions
    that have brought us to this unfortunate point where we need this
    Select Committee to sort out what appears to be both a national
    security fiasco threatening the very security of this Nation of ours
    and our American citizens, and of course, a potential scandal. I will
    elaborate on and document those revelations during the next debate
    after we finish this rule.
      Mr. Speaker, it suffices to say that we now know that the United
    States' national security has been harmed and indeed it has been
    breached by this policy. And that despite knowing this, and despite a
    Justice Department investigation of the Loral Company's actions vis-a-
    vis China, the Clinton administration allowed this policy to continue
    in February by granting a waiver to Loral to export yet another
    satellite to China. My colleagues ought to pay attention to this and
    just how important that is.
      We also know that Loral has connections to the White House and that a
    Chinese military officer, listen to this, a Chinese military officer
    involved in the satellite launch business in China attempted to buy
    influence with the United States Government. That is reported in every
    newspaper across this country. The New York Times, the Washington Post,
    all newspapers.
      Mr. Speaker, also in the next debate I will elaborate on some
    testimony we heard in the Committee on Rules last night from Jim
    Woolsey, who is President Clinton's first CIA director, now retired.
    Members are going to be shocked at what we are giving to the Chinese in
    the name of business, or should I say ``business as usual.''
      The bottom line is that our technology store is open and the Chinese
    have been buying it. They have been buying the future security of this
    Nation. We need to find out how and why this happened and what damage
    has been done to this country. Is this simply a policy failure of
    massive proportions or is there more to it?
      This is what we have to consider in this legislation. Mr. Speaker,
    the subject matter of this inquiry is of such grave importance that it
    warrants treatment outside the existing committee system which
    continues to serve this House well.

                                  {time}  1230

      But there are eight standing committees involved with some 295
    Members. You would never be able to get to the bottom of this if you
    left it up to each individual standing committee. There is no way that
    we could perform. That is why the need for this Select Committee that
    we propose to establish here today.
      The proposed resolution defines the scope of the inquiry and it sets
    forth the methods, the procedures, and the budgetary components of the
    Select Committee's work. The resolution does not represent an open-
    ended commitment. The Select Committee must wrap up its work by the end
    of the 105th Congress and report to the House.
      That, again, Mr. Speaker, is one of the reasons for forming this
    Select Committee now. We all know that, after next week, the House will
    break and go home for a work period over the 4th of July for a couple
    of weeks. We will then come back and work the remainder of July. Then
    after the first week in August, we will be off, back in the district
    again. When we return after Labor Day, there will be about 1 month left
    before Members have to return to their districts to finish their
    campaign for reelection or election this coming November.
      Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule so we can get on with
    the debate and on whether we should create a special panel to answer
    what I think are very, very alarming questions. Every other Member
    should think so, too.
      Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
      Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
      Mr. Speaker, we are here today to establish a Select Committee on
    U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the
    People's Republic of China.
      A variety of allegations about our relations with China have surfaced
    in the press in recent months. These include the illegal transfer of
    missile technology to China by an American company, a substantial
    campaign contribution to the Democratic National Committee from a
    Chinese military officer through an intermediary, and the question of
    the effect of the political contributions by the CEO of an American
    company which manufactures satellites launched on Chinese missiles.
      At this stage, these are allegations and not proven fact. The purpose
    of this Select Committee is to determine the facts to the extent that
    this is possible. There are some Members on the other side of the aisle
    who would presume that every allegation ever printed or ever aired by
    the media is true. To do so does injustice to our colleagues who will
    serve on this committee and to the individuals whose names have
    appeared in the American press.
      The Democratic National Committee denied that it ever knew any funds
    received by it came from a Chinese military official and returned the
    funds promptly. The Justice Department has an ongoing investigation
    into the question of the possible illegal transfer of missile
    technology by the Loral Corporation and has not yet reached a
    conclusion.
      Mr. Speaker, the entire practice of licensing the export of
    satellites, manufactured by several U.S. companies, to be launched on
    Chinese missiles was initiated in the Reagan administration and was
    implemented and continued during the Bush administration. I would like
    to make perfectly clear that this practice did not originate in the
    Clinton administration, although the manner in which sanctions waivers
    had been granted is a legitimate matter for investigation.
      Further, Mr. Speaker, the CEO of Loral, Bernard Schwartz, who has
    made substantial contributions to the Democratic party has denied that
    there was ever any quid pro quo for contributions for sanctions waivers
    involved.

    [[Page H4741]]

      On all these matters, Mr. Speaker, we should not presume a conclusion
    before the Select Committee has been authorized, its members named, and
    before it ever meets.
      Clearly, there is a valid reason for the establishment of this
    committee. We need to get to the bottom of all these questions.
    Hopefully, it will be done in an objective and fair manner and will not
    become a partisan witch-hunt.
      Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned that the mandate of this
    Select Committee is very broad, and I intend to discuss this issue when
    we debate the resolution creating the Select Committee. I am concerned
    as well about some of the unilateral authorities that have been granted
    to the chairman of the Select Committee.
      But right now, we are considering the rule for debate on the
    resolution creating the Select Committee. I hope my colleagues on the
    other side of the aisle will refrain from engaging in a public hanging
    of anyone involved in this very important matter until such time as a
    Select Committee has met and made its findings and recommendations to
    the House.
      Mr. Speaker, while I support this closed rule, I note that my
    Republican colleagues chose not to allow for the consideration of a
    very sensible amendment relating to the funding of the Select Committee
    which was proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit).
    Consequently, it is my intention to oppose the previous question in
    order that I might be able to offer a substitute rule which would make
    the Condit amendment in order.
      That being said, Mr. Speaker, I have confidence that the designated
    chairman of this Select Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr.
    Cox), and his designated ranking member, the gentleman from Washington
    (Mr. Dicks), will conduct themselves and the proceedings of this Select
    Committee with the greatest degree of integrity and bipartisan spirit.
      They are both known as faithful to the principles of the political
    parties to which they belong, but more importantly, they are known for
    their fairness and their ability to work for the best interests of our
    great Nation.
      Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the Democratic members of the Committee
    on Rules, based on what has happened in the House during the past year
    and a half have a number of concerns about the provisions of H. Res.
    463. I will address those concerns when we begin the debate on that
    resolution.
      Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
      Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
    just to briefly comment on what was said by my good friend, the
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).
      The gentleman mentioned something about a public hanging, and let me
    assure him and everyone else there will not be any public hanging from
    this side of the aisle on this matter. This is an extremely important
    matter.
      I think what we need to be concerned about are cartoons like this one
    that are appearing across this Nation. It is a picture of the White
    House, and it has a slogan here that says: ``Relax, Hillary. I have
    convinced the Chinese to return the technology.'' The return of the
    technology is an intercontinental ballistic missile, one of 13 that the
    Communist Chinese have today of 18 that they have aimed at the United
    States of America.
      That is how serious this whole debate is. I for one will not try to
    hang anybody here today, especially since we have gone to great lengths
    with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who will speak in a few
    minutes, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks); I do not see
    him over there, but both of these gentlemen are two of the most
    respected and admired Members of this body.
      They are not partisan Members. Certainly, they are excellent
    selections by the majority, by Speaker Gingrich, and by the minority
    leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) to head up this
    committee on this vital, vital issue.
      Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the former mayor of Charlotte, the
    gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), a very important and
    distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.
      Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, in the past month, we have learned that the
    President may have turned a blind eye to an issue that caused harm to
    our national security by helping the Chinese improve their ballistic
    missiles. We have also learned that he may have ignored the Secretary
    of State and the Director of the CIA and the Pentagon. Also, the
    President may have accepted campaign donations from the Chinese Red
    Army at the same time he changed the U.S. policy to benefit China's
    missile program.
      Mr. Speaker, there may be an innocent explanation for this chain of
    events, but the American people have not heard it yet. These are
    serious matters, because China has 13 missiles aimed at U.S. cities. It
    would be shocking if this is the problem that we believe it is with
    national security.
      So far, the administration has avoided answering even the most basic
    questions about its China policy. So today the House will take the
    bipartisan and necessary step of creating a Select Committee to look
    into these matters.
      I hope and pray we will simply discover an unfortunate set of
    circumstances that involves no illegality. But both Republicans and
    Democrats in this body recognize that these national security questions
    deserve a careful look from a serious, bipartisan panel. I urge my
    colleagues to support this resolution to create a Select Committee on
    China.
      Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
    Washington (Mr. Dicks).
      Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today just to make a few brief
    comments. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) asked me to be the
    ranking Democratic member on the Select Committee.
      I have had a chance over the last couple of days to sit down with the
    gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who is going to be the chairman of
    this endeavor, and I basically support what we are doing. I think there
    are serious questions that need to be investigated, and we need to have
    the facts.
      I would ask all of my colleagues to try to see if we cannot lower the
    rhetoric on this subject. This is not a policy that started under the
    Clinton administration. As the chairman of the Committee on Rules
    appropriately pointed out the other day in the Committee when we were
    discussing this resolution, this policy started under Ronald Reagan and
    was continued by George Bush and by Bill Clinton.
      Both President Bush and President Clinton granted a number of waivers
    to allow our commercial satellites to be launched on Chinese boosters.
    I know much has been made about the question of whether there was some
    improvement in the overall military capability of the Chinese. Let me
    remind the House that the Chinese Communists possess only a handful of
    nuclear weapons aimed at the United States. Obviously we worry about
    that. It is their effort to have a strategic deterrent.
      I would remind my colleagues that we still have 18 Trident submarines
    and 700 land-based missiles. We have the B-2 bomber and the B-1 bomber,
    which are capable of delivering nuclear weapons. So I find the idea
    that somehow the People's Republic of China has gained some military
    superiority over the United States as a result of these transfers not
    to be accurate.
      What I hope we can do is to lower the rhetoric and get at the facts.
    Let us look at the facts and find out what happened. The administration
    has said that they made these decisions without any concern about
    political contributions. We will need to look at that.
      We also need to see what the People's Republic of China has been up
    to. There are some concerns about that. We also need to look at this
    policy. Today, on the front page of the New York Times, there is a
    story that the administration is now reviewing a sale of commercial
    satellites that is to be made to the People's Republic of China. This
    is different from our policy of allowing Chinese launchers to be used
    to launch US-owned satellites.
      This is another, and I think a very serious issue. I hope that, out
    of this, we will go back and look at our policy. Is our policy correct?
    Is the policy that President Reagan started and Bush and Clinton have
    continued the right policy for the United States? I think that is the
    most important issue. We may want to revisit that. I think that is
    certainly something that we will look into in this investigation.

    [[Page H4742]]

      I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules and my
    Democratic friends on our side of the Committee for all the work that
    they have done to try and help and cooperate. I feel very sorry for my
    good friend and colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit)
    because his amendment was not made in order. He is going to speak on
    that.
      I would say one final thing. Some people use the Iran contra model as
    the way we should proceed. Remember, in the Iran contra model, once the
    Select Committee was created, all other investigations in other
    committees stopped.
      We have too many committees now looking into this subject. I hope
    once we create this Select Committee which will have outstanding
    Members who are going to do a highly professional job, the House will
    let the Select Committee do its job. That is why I share the concern
    that we may be spending too much money on too many different
    investigations. Let us do one and do it well and do it in a way that
    will be of use to the House and of use to the American people.
      Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
      Mr. Speaker, I urged at the beginning of the consideration of this
    resolution that people on the other side not engage in any public
    hanging at this point. These are serious matters. They deserve to be
    debated. They deserve to be resolved by this Select Committee in a
    serious bipartisan manner.

                                  {time}  1245

      My colleague from the State of North Carolina, when she got up to
    speak, talked about a contribution to the President from a Chinese
    official. There was no contribution ever made to the President from a
    Chinese official. There was a contribution made to the Democratic
    National Committee, which the Democratic National Committee said it had
    no knowledge of and returned.
      Let us lower the rhetoric and let us go on to the policy questions
    involved in this matter.
      Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
    Condit).
      (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
    remarks.)
      Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say I agree with the
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the chairman, this is a very
    important committee, and I support every effort to take a serious look
    at the allegations. I think it is serious for this country and we ought
    to take it seriously.
      But saying that, I would like to speak just a moment to my amendment
    that was in the Committee on Rules yesterday that was denied. And I am
    really surprised that it was denied, particularly because the other
    side of the aisle, on a regular basis, makes statements that they are
    interested in saving taxpayers money, and that is what my amendment
    did, was try to save some money.
      It takes money that this Congress has already set aside for
    investigation and transfers it to the Select Committee without changing
    the focus, scope or intent of the Select Committee.
      The Select Committee is asking for $2.5 million for 6 months. The
    Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has spent approximately $3
    million during an 18-month period. This year the Committee on
    Government Reform and Oversight has allocated $1.8 million. It shows
    approximately $1.5 million remaining in the unspent fund category.
    Additionally, of the original $8 million in the special reserve fund,
    more than $1.3 million is still uncommitted.
      What my amendment simply does is put some attention on this Congress
    to pay attention to the money that we spend on these multitudes of
    investigations that we do around here; that we ought to pay attention
    about duplication, and we ought to have some interest in how we invest
    the taxpayers' money.
      There is no dispute over here. These are serious allegations. I have
    the utmost confidence that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and
    the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) will do everything in their
    power to get to the bottom of the issue and, hopefully, resolve this.
    But I also want to caution us, it is $2.5 million in 6 months, then we
    go to a year and it is another $2.5 million, then we are up to 5, and
    who knows where we are going. We need to be mindful of this.
      And that is why I encourage my Members, the Members on this side of
    the aisle as well as the other side of the aisle, to vote for the
    recommit. The recommit simply says, let us take the money that has
    already been allocated to investigations and put it toward this special
    committee that we are putting together today. It is a reasonable
    proposal.
      It is not a partisan proposal, Mr. Chairman. It is a sincere proposal
    for us to pay attention to how we spend money and to be responsible for
    how we do investigations around here.
      Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
    to respond.
      The gentleman would seem to infer that maybe some people on this side
    of the aisle do not care about fiscal responsibility, and I would just
    like to remind the gentleman that about 5 years ago I authored a book,
    it is called The Balanced Budget, a Republican Plan. It was long before
    its time, but it told us how we could balance the budget in 1 year, not
    in 7, or 6, or 5, or 4, or 3, or 2.
      My colleagues ought to read it, because that is actually the bill
    that I introduced back on June 22nd, 1995, that actually did that, and
    that is what the Congress finally came around to doing. And, boy, we
    had to bite the bullet to vote for those kinds of cuts to get the
    welfare spending under control and put this House back in fiscal order.
      Let me just say to the gentleman, the gentleman's amendment was not
    made in order for, among other things, technical reasons, because it is
    not germane; it is an attempt to micromanage another committee, and we
    do not allow that.
      Secondly, if this resolution were brought to the floor as a
    privileged resolution, which it normally would be, and it is how we
    have brought other resolutions creating select committees to the floor,
    as privileged resolutions, it would be unamendable. So this amendment
    would not be considered anyway.
      Third, I just want to point out again, and again commend the
    gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
    Dicks), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), on the
    other side of the aisle, as well as the Democrat minority leadership
    and our leadership, because we have worked diligently on a bipartisan
    basis to take away all of the partisanship out of this bill.
      The question of funding did come up, and we worked with both sides of
    the aisle, with anyone that was raising a question, anyone, and we came
    up with the language that is in the bill today. At the very last
    minute, my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit),
    brought an amendment up to the floor, after the bill was already
    finished and after we had already made all the decisions.
      So I think the gentleman does protest too much, and that is why the
    gentleman's amendment was not made in order.
      Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
    Thomas), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on House
    Oversight, who waived jurisdiction on this measure so it could come to
    the floor in a timely and expeditious manner, and we will let him
    explain the funding level.
      (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
    remarks.)
      Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding
    and affording me an opportunity, having waived the committee's
    jurisdiction on the funding, to respond to an amendment that is not in
    order.
      And, frankly, I am pleased that the Committee on Rules did not make
    the amendment in order, because as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost)
    said, after all, these are serious matters and it should be debated
    seriously, he then yielded to the gentleman from California (Mr.
    Condit) who, as part of his appeal on his amendment, brought up the
    question of funding in a context which, if anybody objectively examined
    his discussion, was to impugn other investigations or the expenditure
    of money in this particular Congress by

    [[Page H4743]]

    the majority for efforts that apparently they believe do not fit the
    profile of serious matters debated seriously.
      I am sorry the gentleman from California felt it necessary to inject
    that, because this gentleman from California would love to remind him,
    since he was a member of the majority in the 103rd Congress, at that
    time, the committees, in totality, spent more than $223 million.
      Now, that is not adjusted for inflation, because, frankly, constant
    dollars look good enough, two Congresses later in the 105th we are not
    spending 80 cents on the dollar. We are only spending $180 million.
      So if the gentleman is looking for savings. The new Republican
    majority has provided it both in the 104th and in the 105th. We are not
    spending at the level my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
    spent.
      In addition to that, the amendment that was rejected said that the
    money should have to come from another committee in its unobligated and
    unexpended context. That money would nowhere near meet the needs of
    this particular committee, if that was where the ``not more than $2.5
    million'' would be found.
      Let me say that the $2.5 million that we are discussing is nowhere
    near, when the gentleman was in the majority, the $2.9 million in
    adjusted dollars that the Iran contra hearings cost, which produced
    absolutely nothing. Our hope is that we get a serious resolution of
    what we believe to be a serious matter that will be discussed
    seriously.
      And finally, let me say this, as the gentleman leaves. In all of
    those other previous select committees, not once, whether it was Iran
    contra, whether it was the Select Committee on Aging, whether it was
    the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, whether it was
    the Select Committee on Hunger, not once in those previous Select
    Committee creations was there a distribution of the resources, in terms
    of staff, two-thirds, one-third, not in any of those instances. Iran
    contra, for example, was 80 percent majority, 20 percent minority.
      I want to underscore that the chairman of this committee, working
    with the ranking member, has committed that outside of those joint
    staff, which they will agree to jointly, that the majority will use
    two-thirds of the resources and the minority will get one-third. So
    that this Select Committee, thank goodness, will not be in the
    tradition of the select committees that had been created in previous
    Congresses by the previous majority, which hogged all the resources and
    did not produce results.
      What we have here will be a fair, equitable distribution. We will
    have a serious discussion of serious matters.
      So I want to compliment the chairman of the Committee on Rules and
    the other members of the Committee on Rules who saw the wisdom of
    voting down this very poorly drafted and constructed amendment, which
    would not only invade the prerogatives of another committee, but
    frankly, would not provide near the resources that I believe will be
    used wisely by this particular committee.
      When we begin the discussion of funds and how and where they are
    going to be used, if it is necessary to remind the now-minority of
    their previous transgressions, we will be more than willing to do so.
    If my colleagues provide time on their side to go beat dead horses, we
    will keep the record straight. They did not create a fair funding
    mechanism under previous select committees, and they spent more money
    than this Select Committee. This Select Committee will spend less than
    Iran contra, and it will be fairly divided. That is the difference with
    the new majority.
      Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
    (Mr. Hall), a member of the Committee on Rules.
      Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for
    yielding me this time. I rise in support of the motion that will be
    offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the Condit amendment.
      I share the concerns that many people have said already today
    concerning the possibility of U.S. companies providing expertise to
    China for use in its ballistic missile programs. I have been concerned
    about this kind of technology being transferred for a number of years,
    under the last two Presidents as well. However, I have concerns about
    the cost of this investigation. This resolution would spend $2.5
    million more in additional funds. I believe it should use existing
    funds.
      In 1993, the House of Representatives had four select committees, and
    the Select Committee on Hunger was allocated for a year, every year,
    about $600,000. The most expensive of the four select committees in
    those days was the Select Committee on Aging, and I believe they spent
    somewhere between $1.2 and $1.4 million.
      While we need to get to the bottom of this issue on China, I believe
    the existing funds in the current legislative branch appropriation
    should be used. There is enough money there.
      I just want to correct the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) in
    what he said when we had the other select committees, that there was
    not a fair and equitable distribution of the money. And the fact is,
    that is not true. When I was chairman of the Select Committee on
    Hunger, we were very fair in our distribution of the money. Two-thirds
    of the money went to the majority, a third went to the minority. So the
    statement he made was not correct. We were very fair.
      I would hope that we would look at the funding of this. This is far
    too much money to spend on a select committee. We should go with the
    motion that will be provided to the amendment offered by the gentleman
    from California (Mr. Condit).
      Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
    to point out to another very distinguished Member, that I respect more
    than most, and that is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tony Hall). He is
    one of the most sincere Members that we have.
      But I would say to the gentleman that that is exactly what we are
    doing. If the gentleman will look at page 5, it says not more than
    $2,500,000 is authorized for expenses of the Select Committee for
    investigation and studies. And it goes on to say, out of applicable
    accounts of the House of Representatives, which comes out of the
    legislative branch appropriations.
      Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
    Dreier), the very distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on
    Rules.
      Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Glens Falls, New
    York, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, for
    yielding me this time.
      I rise in strong support of both the rule and the resolution, and to
    say that I am very pleased that in a bipartisan way there has been an
    agreement on both the establishment of a Select Committee and on the
    funding levels for the committee, and the fact that they will be coming
    out of the already appropriated legislative branch measure.
      I rise as a very strong proponent of what has been known as the
    Reagan-Bush-Clinton policy of engagement with the People's Republic of
    China. I still feel very strongly about the need to ensure that we do
    maintain contact and engagement and, among other things, normal trade
    relations with the People's Republic of China, because I believe the
    power of the free market is very, very great, and we should not do
    anything that would possibly diminish it.

                                  {time}  1300

      Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I joined with several of my colleagues
    when this issue first came to the forefront, colleagues of mine who
    have joined with us over the years, working to make sure that we have
    maintained normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China
    and we sent a letter to the President, which I would like to share with
    my colleagues. And I do so not trying to in any way raise the level of
    rhetoric, which I think appropriately both the gentleman from Texas
    (Mr. Frost) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) have said
    that we ought to keep on a balanced level, but to remind our colleagues
    why it is that we are here dealing with this issue.
      In the letter that was dated May 22nd, we wrote, Mr. President, each
    of us has been deeply involved in supporting the policy of engagement
    and maintaining Most Favored Nation status with the People's Republic
    of

    [[Page H4744]]

    China. We support a strong and stable relationship that is bolstered by
    free market reforms and the seedlings of democratic progress in that
    country.
      The first and foremost responsibility of the Executive Branch is to
    protect national security. Therefore, we are deeply disturbed by the
    very serious charges regarding the transfer of rocket technology to
    China. These charges call into question the fitness of your
    administration to carry out a sound China policy. We have questions
    regarding the apparent decision of the administration to place narrow
    commercial considerations over national security concerns. The fact
    that large campaign contributions were accepted from firms that stood
    to gain from such decisions is even more troubling.
      Our greatest concern is that your administration has undermined its
    own ability to carry out our Nation's foreign policy toward China.
    Absent the ability to command respect both at home and abroad, your
    administration will not be able to move this critical relationship
    forward.
      Therefore, we implore you to work quickly with the appropriate
    Congressional committees to make available all relevant information
    related to the matters in question. It is in our national security
    interest to resolve these questions so that we can build support for a
    policy of engagement in China that is firmly rooted in our national
    security interests.
      I strongly support the establishment of this committee, and I support
    the efforts that I believe can be addressed and put together in a
    bipartisan way.
      Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
    California (Mr. Waxman).
      Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
    yielding.
      I support the creation of this Select Committee. I think we should
    have a thorough investigation of the issues surrounding the possible
    transfer of sensitive technology to China. What I am opposed to is the
    use of Congressional investigations for partisan political purposes and
    the waste of taxpayer dollars. It does not serve the American people to
    have multiple Congressional committees spending millions of dollars
    investigating the very same issue over and over and over again.
      Unless we reject this rule and adopt the Condit amendment, we will
    have redundant investigations that are wasting millions of dollars
    investigating the very same issue.
      In March of this year, the Burton committee was given $1.8 million to
    continue its investigation of the influence of foreign contributions on
    U.S. policies. That was the mandate to the Burton committee. I want to
    point out to my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
    that, notwithstanding all his complaints about what the Democrats did
    not do and how he is doing better in the allocation of money, on that
    Burton committee the Democrats were given 25 percent, not the third
    that we were all promised by the Republican Party.
      But that committee, nevertheless, was given $1.8 million to do this
    investigation. A major focus of it was to have been whether
    contributions from China influenced U.S. foreign policy and national
    security. Now we are going to create a Select Committee and we are
    talking about giving it $2.5 million to investigate the very same
    issue.
      The resolution authorizing the Select Committee specifically directs
    the Select Committee to investigate, and I quote, any effort by the
    government of the People's Republic of China or any other person to
    influence any of the foregoing matters through political contributions.
      That is what this Select Committee is going to investigate. That is
    what the Burton committee was investigating. It does not make sense to
    have a Select Committee investigating the same issues and then to have
    the Burton committee investigate it as well.
      The $1.8 million given to the Burton committee to investigate these
    issues should be transferred to the Select Committee and let the Select
    Committee do this job of investigating this matter. We should have one
    thorough, credible bipartisan investigation, not multiple, redundant
    investigations and use of taxpayers' money for partisan purposes and
    wasting that.
      One investigation will save the taxpayers millions and prevent this
    investigation from being used for partisan political purposes.
      Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
      Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
      Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to my colleague from
    California (Mr. Thomas) with respect when he makes reference to when we
    were in the majority and Iran Contra investigation. I want to let him
    know that I voted with him, I voted with him to reduce the cost of
    investigations. I voted with the chairman to reduce the cost of
    investigations to bring a halt to that. Welfare reform, a significant
    group of Democrats voted with the chairman and with the gentleman from
    California (Mr. Thomas) to try to save money to try to reform the
    welfare proposal.
      I am not a Johnny-come-lately on this issue of saving money on
    investigations. I have brought this issue up time and time again in the
    committee, asking the chairman not to duplicate, not to spend money
    twice to get the same information.
      When we had the other body doing the investigation, I asked them not
    to duplicate. When the other body was doing their investigation, I
    consistently asked the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform
    and Oversight not to duplicate.
      So I tell my colleagues and I tell the gentleman from California (Mr.
    Thomas) I am not someone who just comes here today at the last minute
    to bring this up. I brought this up consistently. It is a sincere
    attempt to try to change the way we investigate each other around here.
      Let me tell my colleagues, if they think our side of the aisle did it
    wrong so they are going to do it wrong, that is not a good enough
    reason. We need to put a stop to this. We need to try to save money
    when we can. And we need to not duplicate.
      There are a lot of people whose lives are destroyed because we
    duplicate and we ask them to do things over and over again and spend
    money, and I think we need to be more mindful for the American people
    than that.
      Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining on each
    side?
      The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Both Members have 10 minutes
    remaining.
      Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
    from California (Ms. Pelosi).
      Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
    yielding and his hard work on this very, very difficult issue.
      Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express some concerns about the
    resolution that we will have before us soon, a resolution to establish
    a Select Committee on National Security and Other Concerns with China
    before us today. It is a troubling one to me.
      The concerns presented here are serious and they are important.
    Congress has not only the right but the responsibility to exercise
    oversight of policy decisions. Indeed, the Committee on National
    Security and the Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on
    International Relations are the appropriate venues for such oversight.
      When there is a connection between campaign contributions and policy
    decisions, that investigation is being done by the Justice Department.
    Over the years, I have been proud to work very closely in a bipartisan
    fashion with my Republican colleagues on the China issue, including the
    gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from New York (Mr.
    Solomon), whom I respect very highly and will miss very, very much when
    he is going on to happier things. The gentleman from California (Mr.
    Cox), who will chair this committee, is one of the finest Members of
    this body. I respect his intellect, his sense of fairness and
    appropriateness in dealing with these issues. It is not anything
    against him that I have the question, but concerns about the nature of
    this committee.
      I have worked closely with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith)
    and others who have consistently opposed the current U.S.-China policy.
    These people that I mention and others on the Republican side have real
    standing in criticizing the consequences of the policies.
      As my colleagues know on both sides of the aisle, I have pulled no
    punches in

    [[Page H4745]]

    criticizing the President, whether he was a Republican President or a
    Democratic President, for what I think is the wrong China policy. But
    as one who has consistently joined with some of my Democratic and
    Republican colleagues in raising concerns about the Chinese military
    for many years on this floor, I see today's action as a move by the
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) and the Republican leadership to
    exploit the China issue.
      As I say, as one who has worked very hard and long on this issue, I
    regret to see that the Republican leadership has just walked lock step
    with the Clinton administration on China and, as responsible as
    President Clinton is and his administration is, on the consequences of
    that China policy.
      Allowing U.S. satellites to be launched on foreign rockets is a
    policy started under President Reagan, continued under President Bush
    and President Clinton. So if there is a criticism of the consequences
    of that policy, then the blame should be laid at the feet of both
    parties in a bipartisan way.
      Mr. Speaker, indeed, again this year the Speaker could not move
    quickly enough to support the President's request for a special waiver
    to grant Most Favored Nation status to the People's Republic of China.
    He sent a letter of support to the President almost before the request
    for the special waiver reached Capitol Hill.
      I see this Select Committee as an attempt by the Speaker to seek
    cover for his affiliation with the President on the China policy. Do
    they think we have no memory? Do they think we do not know what we say
    on the floor year in and year out by the proliferation and the Chinese
    mobilization and their interest in acquiring U.S. technology and then
    all of a sudden the obvious, predictable consequences of that policy,
    obvious and predictable to many of us, is all of a sudden being
    investigated by a Speaker who, day in day out, time and time again, and
    at every opportunity has supported ignoring those concerns?
      And so, I see this as an attempt to set up this committee as venue
    hopping. There have been investigations. I can show my colleagues a
    stack of reports on committees investigating this issue.
      As I say, I believe, and I do not deny Congress's right to oversight,
    to investigate, and to be relentless in doing that in terms of the
    consequences of policy.
      Establishing this Select Committee to me, after all the sweat and
    strain and work that we have put in trying to educate Congress to the
    dangers of the policy that the Republican leadership has supported year
    in and year out, looks to me like a cynical and hypocritical act which
    does a disservice to the debate about U.S.-China policy, cost the
    taxpayers money, and wastes Congress' time.
      For that reason, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question
    so that the proposal of Mr. Condit can be considered to fairly fund and
    fairly consider how we should go forward with this.
      Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
    to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for the flattery
    and to return that flattery twofold, because we have great admiration
    and respect for her, as well, especially on the issue of human rights
    around this world.
      I would just point out to the gentlewoman, though, that I, for one,
    have been a critic of previous administrations as well as this
    administration, even back in 1988, when Congressman Solomon,
    Congressman Kemp, Congressman Bob Walker, Congressman Lewis wrote to
    then President Reagan pointing out the serious problems that might
    occur from military technology transfer and know-how.
      On June 13, 1989, that happened to be, I think, 9 days after
    Tiananmen Square, which the gentlewoman has certainly done everything
    in her power to try to focus attention on, I introduced legislation
    that would prohibit the export of satellites intended for launch
    vehicles from China.
      This House adopted that language in the form of an amendment. It went
    to the Senate. The Senate washed it down; and, consequently, it never
    became law in its present form. And today the result is that we have 13
    intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at the United States of
    America, and that is so serious.

                                  {time}  1315

      Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
      Mr. SOLOMON. I yield briefly to the gentlewoman from California
    because I am running out of time.
      Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and,
    heeding his admonition about the time, I want to say, I said in my
    remarks that he has standing to speak on this issue. I am very glad
    that he put on the record the fact that Republican Presidents supported
    this policy, which he opposed consistently under Republican and
    Democratic Presidents. It is with admiration for him, the gentleman
    from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks)
    who will represent the Democrats very well on that committee, indeed
    the American people on that committee. It is not about personalities.
    It is about the policy.
      Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me just further say if she had been in
    the Committee on Rules when we had the former CIA Director under
    President Clinton, Mr. Woolsey, and the former National Security
    Adviser under President Reagan; they both pointed out that under
    Presidents Reagan and Bush that the Secretary of Defense did not raise
    warnings at that time, the Secretary of State did not, the National
    Security Adviser did not, because of the situation at the time.
      Today the times have changed and we all know that the Secretary of
    Defense, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisers both
    have raised warnings, and yet President Clinton did not heed those
    warnings, for whatever reason, and that is what we really want to look
    into.
      Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida
    (Mr. Mica).
      Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
    time.
      Mr. Speaker, let me just clear up a couple of points. First we have
    heard that this is a question about granting waivers and others have
    granted waivers. That may be the case. But never before in the history
    of the Republic have we had the question of the influence of foreign
    money into the process. That is one of the key issues here. Never
    before have our intelligence, our Department of Defense and our defense
    process and our national security been so threatened or questioned by
    allegations that have been made about intrusions into the system.
      Let me also say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) who
    spoke about 25 percent of the staff being given by the majority to the
    minority. When I came here in the first Congress, from 1993 to 1995,
    they gave us five investigative staffers for their 55 staffers. That is
    the record. That is the fact. As a matter of fact, the Burton committee
    has operated efficiently and at lower cost, assuming the
    responsibilities of two additional committees and done all their
    investigations in an administration that has been plagued with more
    scandals than any in the history of, again, the Republic.
      It is somewhat like it is the Republicans' fault that we have had
    Filegate, Travelgate, campaign contributions and now this very serious
    matter. They make it look like it is our fault. It is not, and the
    American people need to know the facts.
      Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
      Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman who just spoke, does the name
    Warren Harding mean anything to him? Does the name Grant mean anything
    to him? Does the name Nixon mean anything to him? He made the blanket
    statement that this is the most scandal-ridden administration in the
    history of the Republic. I think the gentleman needs to consult some
    history books.
      Mr. Speaker, this vote on ordering the previous question is not
    merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question
    is a vote against the Republican majority and a vote to allow the
    opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It
    is a vote about what the House should be debating.
      The vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive
    policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those
    who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative
    plan.

    [[Page H4746]]

      Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the amendment by the gentleman
    from California (Mr. Condit).
      The text of the amendment is as follows:

           Page 2, line 3, strike ``resolution shall be considered as
         adopted.'' And insert ``resolution, modified by the amendment
         specified in section 2 of this resolution, shall be
         considered as adopted.''
           At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
           ``Sec. 2. The modification described in the first section
         of this resolution is as follows:
           Page 17, line 3, after ``paid'' insert the following: ``,
         first, out of amounts provided to the Committee on Government
         Reform and Oversight from the reserve fund for unanticipated
         expenses of committees under clause 5(a) of rule XI of the
         Rules of the House of Representatives pursuant to an
         allocation approved by the Committee on House Oversight on
         March 25, 1998, which remain unobligated and unexpended as of
         the date of the adoption of this resolution, and, second,
         after exhaustion of such funds,''.
           Page 17, after line 6, add the following new paragraph:
           (3) Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Committee on
         Government Reform and Oversight may not obligate any amounts
         provided to such committee from the reserve fund for
         unanticipated expenses of committees under clause 5(a) of
         rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives pursuant
         to an allocation approved by the Committee on House Oversight
         on March 25, 1998.

      Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question on
    H. Res. 476 and allow the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) to
    offer his amendment to consolidate funding on these parallel
    investigations.
      Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:

            The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

           This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
         question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
         A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
         against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
         the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
         alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
         debating.
           Mr. Clarence Cannon's ``Precedents of the House of
         Representatives'', (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
         previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
         control the consideration of the subject before the House
         being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
         question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
         subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
         of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
         House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
         the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
         offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
         majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
         the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
         a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
         recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
         ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
         from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
         yield to him for a amendment is entitled to the first
         recognition.''
           Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
         majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
         simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
         adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
         legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
         not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
         Leadership ``Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
         States House of Representatives,'' (6th edition, page 135).
         Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
         vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
         possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
         controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
         offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
         voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
         motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
         time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
         the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
         the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
         the purpose of amendment.''
           Deschler's ``Procedure in the U.S. House of
         Representatives'', the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
         Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
         such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
         Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
         debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2). Section 21.3 continues:
         ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
         resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
         shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
         question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
         controls the time for debate thereon.''
           The vote on the previous question on a rule does have
         substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
         available took for those who oppose the Republican majority's
         agenda to offer an alternative plan.

      Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
      Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
    gentleman from Sanibel, FL (Mr. Goss), a very valuable member of the
    Committee on Rules. He is also the chairman of the Permanent Select
    Committee on Intelligence and probably one of the most informed Members
    of this body.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Florida is
    recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
      (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
    remarks.)
      Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Glens
    Falls, NY, the honorable chairman of the Committee on Rules, for
    bringing forward what I think is a very worthwhile resolution. I urge
    Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of moving the previous
    question, I urge a ``yes'' on the rule and I urge a ``yes'' on the
    underlying resolution. So it is yes, yes, yes, is what we have got in
    front of us here.
      Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are talking about fault. I have been
    hearing from the other side of the aisle fault in the way we went about
    our business; that we could have done it better if we had done this or
    that. There has been a lot of fault-finding going on. I can assure the
    minority that a very strong effort has been made to provide a workable,
    efficient, bipartisan approach to the task at hand.
      Is there a task at hand? You bet there is. There is a task at hand
    because every day you can pick up the paper and read some new saga
    unfolding in this area. And if the media is ahead of Congress doing its
    job of oversight, we have got a problem. I am willing to say that the
    media is ahead just on the basis of the Jeff Gerth story today in the
    New York Times alone. So we have got to do something about this.
      Now, we have heard some noise about the cost. This is going to cost
    too much money because we have not limited it the right way or done it
    exactly the right way. I remember the October Surprise. We went out, we
    did the job, it cost about a million and a half, something like that.
    Democrats were very eager to try and prove something. They were unable
    to do it. We had a good October Surprise event, we closed it down when
    there was nothing there, and it cost $1.3 million. I am not saying it
    was money well spent because I never thought there was anything there,
    but at least we satisfied ourselves. So I think we are very definitely
    in the ballpark when we look back at October Surprise in how we are
    approaching money.
      Mr. Speaker, the problem with the money is it is virtually impossible
    to tell how much we are going to spend until we find out how much
    cooperation we are going to get from the dozens and dozens of witnesses
    who are not in the United States. That is going to require some expense
    to get those people who are material to what we are finding out, trying
    to find out about the truth. Of course, we are going to hope for more
    forthright cooperation from the administration than we have had to
    date, because in truth, factually, the administration has not been
    fully forthcoming to date. So the cost could go up a bit if we fail to
    have the cooperation of the witnesses and the administration.
      We have been challenged about whether or not a select committee is
    the way to go. We are actually cutting across the jurisdiction of eight
    standing committees. I do not see any other choice except a select
    committee. Some say the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
    could do it. Yes, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence could
    do it if we enhanced our staff and we got into what is likely to be the
    partisan question of campaign finance. Frankly, as chairman of the
    committee, I do not want to take the nonpartisan Permanent Select
    Committee on Intelligence into an area that is so sharply partisan and
    likely to cause partisan question.
      With regard to the policy of President Reagan, let me point out, the
    issue before us is not the policy of President Reagan. It is the change
    from the policy of President Reagan and President Bush. What caused
    President Clinton to change the procedure? We have a ``why'' to ask and
    an answer to find. The minority report before us, as this is reported
    today, talks about this is a resolution of routine occurrence and that
    is a bad thing.

    [[Page H4747]]

      Mr. Speaker, there is nothing routine about the restarting of the
    nuclear arms race that is going on, which I believe is a result, in
    part, of the policies that have failed in China. That is certainly the
    testimony of the Indian Government. We have clearly got exploiters in
    North Korea who are taking advantage of this proliferation opportunity.
    We read it in the New York Times. I have not had the chance to talk to
    North Koreans about this. I would like to. They are exploiting us. So
    we have something here that is hardly routine facing the United States
    Congress and our responsibility to the citizens of this country in
    exercising appropriate oversight about policy and other activities that
    are happening that are indeed troublesome by admission on both sides of
    the aisle.
      I therefore think we are going in the right direction and doing the
    right thing.
      Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
      Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington, my ranking
    member.
      Mr. DICKS. Does the gentleman think once we set up the Select
    Committee that we ought to let the Select Committee conduct this
    investigation in the House and that the eight other committees that he
    mentioned should let us have the field and do the job?
      Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I s
    rongly believe that
    the scope of the resolution takes care of that problem. I am not going
    to forgo my responsibilities as chairman of the Permanent Select
    Committee on Intelligence, and I am sure the gentleman is not as the
    ranking member to discharge the things that we have responsibility for.
    I would hope for very close working cooperation between the Select
    Committee and the other committees. And I would hope we could avoid any
    possible redundancy that way.
      Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think he has a good
    answer.
      Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' on the previous question
    vote, a ``yes'' on the rule, and a ``yes'' on the resolution.
      Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record about
    the previous question vote:

                   The Previous Question Vote: What It Means

           The previous question is a motion made in order under House
         Rule XVII and is the only parliamentary device in the House
         used for closing debate and preventing amendment. The effect
         of adopting the previous question is to bring the resolution
         to an immediate, final vote. The motion is most often made at
         the conclusion of debate on a rule or any motion or piece of
         legislation considered in the House prior to final passage. A
         Member might think about ordering the previous question in
         terms of answering the question: Is the House ready to vote
         on the bill or amendment before it?
           In order to amend a rule (other than by using those
         procedures previously mentioned), the House must vote against
         ordering the previous question. If the previous question is
         defeated, the House is in effect, turning control of the
         Floor over to the Minority party.
           If the previous question is defeated, the Speaker then
         recognizes the Member who led the opposition to the previous
         question (usually a Member of the Minority party) to control
         an additional hour of debate during which a germane amendment
         may be offered to the rule. The Member controlling the Floor
         then moves the previous question on the amendment and the
         rule. If the previous question is ordered, the next vote
         occurs on the amendment followed by a vote on the rule as
         amended.

      Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
    resolution.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
    question.
      The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
    the ayes appeared to have it.
      Mr. FROST. 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.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
      The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
      Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum
    of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic
    device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the
    resolution.
      The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
    nays 197, not voting 11, as follows:

                                 [Roll No. 244]

                                   YEAS--226

         Aderholt
         Archer
         Armey
         Bachus
         Baker
         Ballenger
         Barr
         Barrett (NE)
         Bartlett
         Barton
         Bass
         Bateman
         Bereuter
         Bilbray
         Bilirakis
         Bliley
         Blunt
         Boehlert
         Boehner
         Bonilla
         Bono
         Brady (TX)
         Bryant
         Bunning
         Burr
         Burton
         Buyer
         Callahan
         Calvert
         Camp
         Campbell
         Canady
         Cannon
         Castle
         Chabot
         Chambliss
         Chenoweth
         Christensen
         Coble
         Coburn
         Collins
         Combest
         Cook
         Cox
         Crane
         Crapo
         Cubin
         Cunningham
         Davis (VA)
         Deal
         DeLay
         Diaz-Balart
         Dickey
         Doolittle
         Dreier
         Duncan
         Dunn
         Ehlers
         Ehrlich
         Emerson
         English
         Ensign
         Everett
         Ewing
         Fawell
         Foley
         Forbes
         Fossella
         Fowler
         Fox
         Franks (NJ)
         Frelinghuysen
         Gallegly
         Ganske
         Gekas
         Gibbons
         Gilchrest
         Gillmor
         Gilman
         Gingrich
         Goodlatte
         Goodling
         Goss
         Graham
         Granger
         Greenwood
         Gutknecht
         Hansen
         Hastert
         Hastings (WA)
         Hayworth
         Hefley
         Herger
         Hill
         Hilleary
         Hobson
         Hoekstra
         Horn
         Hostettler
         Houghton
         Hulshof
         Hunter
         Hutchinson
         Hyde
         Inglis
         Istook
         Jenkins
         Johnson (CT)
         Johnson, Sam
         Jones
         Kasich
         Kelly
         Kim
         King (NY)
         Kingston
         Klug
         Knollenberg
         Kolbe
         LaHood
         Largent
         Latham
         LaTourette
         Lazio
         Leach
         Lewis (CA)
         Lewis (KY)
         Linder
         Livingston
         LoBiondo
         Lucas
         Manzullo
         McCollum
         McCrery
         McDade
         McHugh
         McInnis
         McIntosh
         McKeon
         Metcalf
         Mica
         Miller (FL)
         Moran (KS)
         Morella
         Myrick
         Nethercutt
         Neumann
         Ney
         Northup
         Norwood
         Nussle
         Oxley
         Packard
         Pappas
         Parker
         Pascrell
         Paul
         Paxon
         Pease
         Peterson (PA)
         Petri
         Pickering
         Pitts
         Pombo
         Porter
         Portman
         Pryce (OH)
         Quinn
         Radanovich
         Ramstad
         Redmond
         Regula
         Riggs
         Riley
         Rogan
         Rogers
         Rohrabacher
         Ros-Lehtinen
         Roukema
         Royce
         Ryun
         Salmon
         Sanford
         Saxton
         Scarborough
         Schaefer, Dan
         Schaffer, Bob
         Sensenbrenner
         Sessions
         Shadegg
         Shaw
         Shays
         Shimkus
         Shuster
         Skeen
         Smith (MI)
         Smith (NJ)
         Smith (OR)
         Smith (TX)
         Smith, Linda
         Snowbarger
         Solomon
         Souder
         Spence
         Stearns
         Stump
         Sununu
         Talent
         Tauzin
         Taylor (NC)
         Thomas
         Thornberry
         Tiahrt
         Traficant
         Upton
         Walsh
         Wamp
         Watkins
         Watts (OK)
         Weldon (PA)
         Weller
         White
         Whitfield
         Wicker
         Wolf
         Young (AK)
         Young (FL)

                                   NAYS--197

         Abercrombie
         Ackerman
         Allen
         Andrews
         Baesler
         Baldacci
         Barcia
         Barrett (WI)
         Becerra
         Bentsen
         Berman
         Berry
         Bishop
         Blagojevich
         Blumenauer
         Bonior
         Borski
         Boswell
         Boucher
         Boyd
         Brady (PA)
         Brown (CA)
         Brown (FL)
         Brown (OH)
         Capps
         Cardin
         Carson
         Clay
         Clayton
         Clement
         Clyburn
         Condit
         Conyers
         Costello
         Coyne
         Cramer
         Cummings
         Danner
         Davis (FL)
         Davis (IL)
         DeFazio
         DeGette
         Delahunt
         DeLauro
         Deutsch
         Dicks
         Dingell
         Dixon
         Doggett
         Dooley
         Doyle
         Edwards
         Engel
         Eshoo
         Etheridge
         Evans
         Farr
         Fattah
         Fazio
         Filner
         Ford
         Frank (MA)
         Frost
         Furse
         Gejdenson
         Gephardt
         Goode
         Gordon
         Gutierrez
         Hall (OH)
         Hall (TX)
         Hamilton
         Harman
         Hefner
         Hilliard
         Hinchey
         Hinojosa
         Holden
         Hooley
         Hoyer
         Jackson (IL)
         Jackson-Lee (TX)
         Jefferson
         John
         Johnson (WI)
         Johnson, E.B.
         Kanjorski
         Kaptur
         Kennedy (MA)
         Kennedy (RI)
         Kennelly
         Kildee
         Kilpatrick
         Kind (WI)
         Kleczka
         Klink
         Kucinich
         LaFalce
         Lampson
         Lantos
         Lee
         Levin
         Lewis (GA)
         Lipinski
         Lofgren
         Lowey
         Luther
         Maloney (CT)
         Maloney (NY)
         Manton
         Markey
         Mascara
         Matsui
         McCarthy (MO)
         McCarthy (NY)
         McDermott
         McGovern
         McHale
         McIntyre
         McKinney
         Meehan
         Meek (FL)
         Meeks (NY)
         Menendez
         Millender-McDonald
         Miller (CA)
         Minge
         Mink
         Mollohan
         Murtha
         Nadler
         Neal
         Oberstar
         Obey
         Olver
         Ortiz
         Owens
         Pallone
         Pastor
         Payne
         Pelosi
         Peterson (MN)
         Pickett
         Pomeroy
         Poshard
         Price (NC)
         Rahall
         Rangel
         Reyes
         Rivers
         Rodriguez
         Roemer
         Rothman
         Roybal-Allard
         Rush
         Sabo
         Sanchez
         Sanders
         Sandlin
         Sawyer
         Schumer
         Scott
         Serrano
         Sherman
         Sisisky
         Skaggs
         Skelton
         Slaughter
         Smith, Adam
         Snyder
         Spratt
         Stabenow
         Stark
         Stenholm
         Stokes
         Strickland
         Stupak
         Tanner
         Tauscher
         Taylor (MS)
         Thompson
         Thurman
         Tierney
         Towns
         Turner
         Velazquez
         Vento
         Visclosky
         Waters
         Watt (NC)
         Waxman
         Wexler
         Weygand
         Wise
         Woolsey
         Wynn
         Yates

    [[Page H4748]]

                                 NOT VOTING--11

         Cooksey
         Gonzalez
         Green
         Hastings (FL)
         Martinez
         McNulty
         Moakley
         Moran (VA)
         Thune
         Torres
         Weldon (FL)

                                  {time}  1345

      Mr. EDWARDS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
      Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania and Mr. KASICH changed their vote from
    ``nay'' to ``yea.''
      So the previous question was ordered.
      The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the
    resolution.
      The resolution was agreed to.
      A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              ____________________