[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 80 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4739-H4748]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    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 strongly 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.

                          ____________________