Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the observation that this has been a debate about the continuing resolution rule, and I think it has been properly described. I think it is a worthy rule. We all know we have to have the continuing resolution. We have provided for contingencies as this, as has been explained by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) and myself. No matter how the Members feel about individual pieces of the appropriations process, I do urge their consideration and in a favorable way for this continuing resolution, which is necessary for us to get on with our business and the rest of the day's work. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), my colleague and friend, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 385 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my friend, the distinguished ranking member; pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration for this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate on this subject only. Mr. Speaker, H.Res. 381 is a closed rule waiving all points of order against consideration of H.J.Res. 80, the continuing resolution that we have before us later today. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, Members will know that this is an appropriate and traditional rule for a consideration of a clean continuing resolution. Members who have any kind of memory at all will remember that we have done these kinds of things recently in the past. Given the complex negotiations that have been under way about the budget, and they have, indeed, been complicated by the fact that some of the principals are out of town for whatever reason, it is regrettable that, at a time that we are struggling so hard, that the President finds it necessary to be out of the country, and the minority leader finds it necessary to be out of the capital. But, nevertheless, Americans come to understand that continuing resolutions, which keep the government functioning at last year's levels, are a necessary tool to facilitate bringing closure to the budget debate which we normally have this time of year. In order to avoid a partial government shutdown, which we certainly want to do, we have proposed another straightforward extension in the deadline, and that is until tomorrow. We have made significant progress toward final agreement, but we must be certain that we do the right thing, not simply the most expedient to get out of town because the folks would like to go home. In this case, the right thing is very clearly to provide for important government programs without touching the reserves in the Social Security Trust Fund, not one dime. That has been the goal of our majority from the outset of this year's budget process; and while it has taken some time to convince some of our friends on the other side of the aisle and downtown that this fiscal discipline is, indeed, necessary, we now have everyone working from the same set of guidelines. We just have to keep reminding them of the guidelines. It has also taken some time to convince the White House that increasing taxes and using part of the surplus, as has been suggested by the White House, are not acceptable approaches to the majority on the Hill. I am hopeful that this brief extension will provide both ends of Pennsylvania with the requisite time to hammer out our final spending bills in a responsible way. In fact, I understand that the bills individually, the five that have been vetoed by the President, are virtually resolved. It is a no-nonsense CR that we are proposing here. I think it should be unanimously adopted. I am certainly urging a yes vote on the rule. I am not sure why we are having a rule instead of a unanimous consent; but for whatever reason, we are having a rule vote. I can think of no reason to vote against it. I urge a yes vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we on the Committee on Rules are on virtually perpetual standby these days, and I would like to point out that there is a little confusion among Members this morning about whether it is a 1-day CR or a 2-day CR. Apparently there were some documents put out through the various organizations on either side that indicated that one of the options was a 2-day CR. This is not that CR. This is a 1-day CR. I want Members to be aware of that. Of course Members of the Committee on Rules, as I say, are definitely aware of it and prepared for yet another evening of comrade fellowship and good times in the Committee on Rules, doing valuable things, waiting for some inspiration to come forward to us. There is very definitely some feeling about trying to wrap this up, but I want to assure Members that the Committee on Rules is working toward that end. We well recognize the longer we stay here, the more opportunity there is for new initiatives to come forward at the last minute and divert us from our main task, which is to resolve the budget crunch. We are also aware that the longer we are here, the more good ideas people have for spending money at a time when we have already reached agreement on what those levels should be. So it is our very firm hope that this 24-hour CR will be enough. But if not, I think I am authorized to say by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules, that the Committee on Rules will be prepared to meet, if necessary, again. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 381, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the creation of the ninth city in the Fourteenth District of Florida, the City of Bonita Springs. After many months of debate and discussion, the people of Bonita Springs cast their ballots in favor of incorporation as the fifth city in Lee County, FL on November 2, 1999. As a new Millennium begins, so the citizens of Bonita Springs will embark on a new challenge, the challenge of creating a new city from residents' ideas of what their community ought to be. It comes as no surprise that there are those willing to do the hard work involved with new cityhood. I'm sure they will find the rewards great and surprising, as I discovered in my experience when the City of Sanibel was born 25 years ago. Now that the incorporation debate is over, I know the people of Bonita Springs will come together, roll up their sleeves and begin the business of fashioning a city that they can be proud of. Beginnings are marvelous, because the imagination is the only limitation. Of course, not everything can be accomplished immediately, but the ideas that come forth now can certainly become part of long-range goals. Again, my congratulations to the people of Bonita Springs. I stand ready to help them make their city the best it can be.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) very much for his hard work and close teamwork and the great spirit of bipartisanship and concern for our country and its national security that he brings himself and his members and, in fact, all our members to the committee. I am exceedingly proud of our committee. I am very proud of the membership. The value added of each and every Member brings to the committee a wide variety of view and opinion across the country of the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), who just spoke who represents vast areas of countryside, and others who represent more concentrated, consolidated urban areas. We have what I think is a very balanced perspective of the United States of America and its national security needs. But behind as good a membership team as that, I would say we have the finest professional staff on the Hill. I would measure them against any other professional staff. I take great pride in them. And again, I do not make distinctions about party affiliation. Mr. Millis, our chief of staff, does an excellent job, as does Mike Shehy. Both of them I treat as co-equals in running the affairs of the committee. Pat Murray, our general counsel. We have had an expression today of sympathy that is both personal and collective from all of us to our budget cruncher, Tim Sample. But for all those names I just mentioned, there are other members of the committee that have equally pulled the oars just as well in their own area of expertise and deserve to be recognized and thanked by all of America for the work they do. I think that the points that needed to come out other than the basic themes that we have made clear in this authorization process, which I point out are exactly in line with the appropriations process, and have gone through a very arduous conference process with our colleagues in the other body, we have covered the ground that we needed to cover; and I think we covered it very well. We certainly have taken into consideration what our other colleagues who are not on the committee have brought forward during this long, deliberative process this year since the authorization bill began, as we have heard in some of the testimonies from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). And there are many other Members who have brought matters forward, I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr). Several come to mind. We have tried to accommodate in every way their concerns. We may not have done it in exactly the way they asked, but they have gotten consideration and I think a reasonable result out of this. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has expressed concern about our title XIII. I would point out that our title XIII, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) just pointed out, basically is the same as what this House has passed recently on a vote of 385-26. The language is virtually the same. But in an abundance of caution and fair play and deliberation to make sure that we have got it right, we have gone forward with the idea of a panel to review the situation just to be extra sure because these are important rights we are talking about. I think it is that kind of fair play and that kind of reasonableness in dealing with legitimate concerns that this committee needs to be attentive to, and I think we have passed that test. I stand forth here today to ask every Member of this House to proudly support this piece of legislation. I believe it is worthy of their vote.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), a distinguished member of the committee, a chairman of one of our subcommittees, the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, a Member who has distinguished himself as leading in the efforts in the war on terrorism.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the vice chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and there be no daylight between us, appropriator of the committee who has done a marvelous job of making sure the authorization and the appropriations match up, and I offer my congratulations to him.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, might I make an inquiry of how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I obviously rise in strong support of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1555, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Mr. Speaker, in H.R. 1555 we begin the funding for the intelligence community of the next millennium. That, Mr. Speaker, is a most useful perspective for what we have tried to do in our conference report. How can we adapt the tools and skills of the Cold War to meet the challenges of the 21st century? These are new times. We need new ways to approach them. Underlying that question is how, and in some cases whether, we plan to meet those challenges. How we define our interests, Mr. Speaker, will depend on how we define ourselves. What kind of country will we be in the next century? In 2020, when my grandchildren are grown, what will the American flag mean to them and to people around the world? In the classified schedule of authorizations in our conference report, we frame a preliminary answer to these questions. In that report, Mr. Speaker, we bring forward the basic tools and skills of the Cold War to bear on the new threats of the next century: the international drug cartels that bring poison into our cities, the elusive conspiracies that put the pieces of nuclear weapons into the hands of rogue leaders, and the shadowy networks that want to bomb our buildings overseas and here at home. We will also need to use these tools and skills to meet new and unanticipated challenges that will arise in the coming years. Synthetic pharmaceuticals, genetic terrorists? I cannot know what threats will face my grandchildren in the year 2020 as Americans, but I can tell the Members what intelligence tools and skills will be necessary to meet those threats. That is our job. We may not know the who, In other words, but we clearly know the how. We have learned that, and now we have to provide for it. In our conference report, Mr. Speaker, we continue to focus on this, how we will meet the threats and the challenges of the future, which is indeed upon us. We will need more human intelligence or HUMINT, as we call it. Over the past year we have had to understand and to act upon crises in Belgrade, Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, East Timor, southern Colombia, and a whole host of other hard-to-pronounce places. In each case, policymakers need more HUMINT on the plans and the intentions of the rogue leaders, dissidents, terrorists, guerillas, and traffickers involved in these crises. Where will the crises of the year 2000 arise, Kabul, Kinshasa, Lagos? I do not know, but they will be out there, and wherever they do arise our policymakers will need intelligence officers on the ground to collect HUMINT on the plans and intentions of those involved. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, our conference report continues the rebuilding of our HUMINT capabilities around the world. No surprises is the right way to go. We will continue to need signals intelligence, or SIGINT, as it is called. As in the past, our ability to collect SIGINT has helped to protect our shores from cocaine and our citizens from terrorists. That ability, however, is threatened in a fundamental way by digital technologies. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, our conference report continues the recapitalization of our SIGINT capability. This is a huge undertaking and an extraordinarily significant one. We must improve the processing of imagery intelligence, or IMINT as it is called. Our ability to collect imagery has accelerated at lightning speed, but our ability to process imagery remains at a crawl. Collection and processing, however, are two halves of one whole. They must work together. At present, the combination of collection and processing and imagery is a Ferrari welded to a Ford Falcon. That combination simply will not drive our IMINT capability in 2020. And for that reason, Mr. Speaker, our conference report challenges the Intelligence Community to invest more in its ability to process imagery. It does no good to have the pictures if we do not have analysts to review them. We must rebuild our covert action capability. The rise of rogue leaders and regional conflicts has demonstrated once again that the President must have an option between the use of F-16s and doing nothing. The President must have, whenever appropriate, the ability to influence an adversary through the various forms of covert action, properly oversighted, of course. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, our conference report provides additional funding for development of the Intelligence Community's covert action capabilities. Rebuilding and refining our HUMINT, our SIGINT, our IMINT, and our covert action capabilities are central to the conference report accompanying H.R. 1555. In addition, we address legislatively a number of specific issues that have arisen with regard to the use and the oversight of these capabilities. In section 309 of our conference report, we direct the National Security Agency, the NSA, to report in detail on the legal standards that it employs for the interception of communications. I can report, notwithstanding this provision, that the committee has substantial insight into the action of the NSA and the guidance of its legal staff. I have thus far no reason to believe that the NSA is not scrupulous in following the Constitution and the laws conducting its SIGINT mission. However, our job is oversight and we take it seriously. In section 311 of our conference report, we require that the Director of Central Intelligence report to Congress on any involvement of U.S. intelligence agencies in the abuses of the Pinochet regime in Chile. In response to public and Congressional interest, I have introduced legislation with Senator Moynihan that would coordinate and expedite the gathering and dissemination of such information. The story of U.S. intelligence in Chile, whether good or bad, inspiring or embarrassing, is part of American history. Such stories should, to the extent possible, be provided to the American people. I am hopeful that Senator Moynihan and I have introduced the means to make that happen, and I believe we have. Finally, in title VIII of our conference report, we provide the President with an important new tool against the menace of foreign drug lords who poison our cities. In title VIII, called ``The Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act,'' the President and the Secretary of Treasury may publicly identify foreign drug lords and block their transactions and assets. Title VIII extends an executive order against Colombian drug lords to include all foreign drug lords. It provides the President with a new way to use intelligence in the war on drugs. It is long overdue. It is a tried and tested measure. It works and we need to use it. Mr. Speaker, only through a cooperative, bipartisan effort could our committee have addressed so wide a range of authorizations and legislative provisions in this conference report, and also, incidentally, with such a good professional staff as we have. The ideas and counsel of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), our ranking member, form a major part of this report. It draws as well on the considerable expertise of the Democratic staff of this committee. And I am pleased to say our committee in my view works on a very close, bipartisan, cooperative basis and the results of that are evident to all. Our work together on this conference report is a part of an annual demonstration that partisanship, like beepers and cell phones, actually get checked at the outer door of our committee before Members can come into our committee's spaces. In sum, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a strong bipartisan conference report that provides funding and direction for the Intelligence Community of the next millennium. It also provides legislation that addresses oversight issues and expands the use of intelligence in the war on drugs. I urge Members to support this conference. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement of earlier today, I call up the conference report on the House bill (H.R. 1555) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, the former governor of Delaware, who is going to tell us about that subcommittee.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the remaining balances of time for both sides?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the conference report. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), a decorated colleague and member of our committee from somewhere west of the Mississippi, who has been invaluable in advising me on military equipment, Air Force needs, and other needs of that ilk, and who adds a great deal of value to the committee.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1555.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to move that the House take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3194) making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment, thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order at any time, without the intervention of any point of order, to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 75) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, that the joint resolution be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, and that the previous question otherwise be considered as ordered to passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 348 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and would just simply say since this appears to be noncontroversial, I only heard one speaker across the aisle oppose the rule, and it would seem to me that that would be confounding to that speaker's goal, which is to move the process. That is what we are trying to do. So I see no justification for opposing this resolution, if we are trying to move the process forward, and I believe we all are trying to do that, because I agree we have had a great debate in the House about that; and we have come up with product, and it is now time to deal with the other body. I would point out that the product we have come up with provides for both patient protection and access for those 40-some million Americans who do not have the blessing of any kind of health insurance. And I think that that is a very strong menu for consideration at the conference. I do think we have lived up to our promise to move the process forward, in my view in a very rapid way, given the way most things move around here. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended tonight to bring this subject forward, but the situation in Haiti has become so egregious that I think it is necessary to have a series of statements to alert the American public to what has happened. I feel very sad about the people in Haiti. It is a country that I think has great promise, and it is a country that wishes very much to join the commonwealth of democracies in this hemisphere. Unfortunately, all our hopes seem to have dissipated because of events that have taken place in that country in the past few years and an increasing trend towards self-destruction. In fact, I daresay if there were a case study of a failed foreign policy of the Clinton administration, Haiti would probably be the first example. And I am sorry to report that. I think the administration first lost sight of what went wrong in Haiti when they lost sight of the fact that the solution to democracy in any country is the people going about the business of looking after themselves, having accountability and reliance for their own activities on behalf of their community, their country, and putting forth their own social value message about what they stand for and what they want to be. When another country comes in and tries to do that job or intercedes, and did we ever intercede in Haiti, we sent something like 20,000 troops down there initially armed but, fortunately, at the last minute turned into a non-armed invasion force, as opposed to an armed one, and we spent somewhere between $2 billion and $3 billion, that would be billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, in Haiti in the past few years. All of that has come to a situation today where, sadly, we are looking at a country that has no legislature. The legislature has been suspended. It would be as if Congress were closed down in the United States of America and the Senators and the Representatives were not allowed to come to Washington and come to this building, the United States Capitol, and go about their business. I know there are some that would perhaps jokingly say, well, not a bad idea from time to time, with some of the things that happen in Congress and some of the things we do. But the fact of the matter is Congress is a treasured institution and a vital part of our constitutional make-up in this country and a vital part of our Government. It is in Haiti, too. It is meant to be in any country. They have got to have a legislative branch, a voice for the people, people's voices clearly expressed by representatives of one form or another. Now that has been closed in Haiti. Equally important in any shared power in a democracy is a judiciary system of some type. And I am sorry to report that a judiciary system which was always feeble and quite weakened and subject to some corruption because there was not much pay involved in being a member of the judiciary in Haiti is even more enfeebled than it was before. It is a system that is broken down. It is not even dysfunctional. It is nonfunctional. Sadly, a critical part of that judicial system would be the law enforcement system that people rely on in Haiti for law and order. That would now be the police force, the HNP. I am very sorry to report that the HNP recently lost its minister, who was, I gather, forced out of the country of Haiti for political reasons and because he was not kowtowing to the wishes of the behind-the-scene de facto dictator of that country. So, consequently, we have a very thin reed to lean on when we talk about law enforcement, which is the Haitian National Police. We understand that the incidence of drug use and the incidence of drug smuggling and drug trafficking has expanded very considerably and that, in fact, Haitian citizens and visitors, we have many Haitian Americans who spend time in both the United States and in Haiti, are reporting alarmingly and increasingly that there is not sufficient protection and law and order in Haiti for them to go about any reasonable business, particularly after dark. And certainly if they are involved in any political expression, that is very dangerous. I am sorry to say there has been a continuing incidence in increased levels of political assassination, intimidation, and harassment, so much so that a former senator from Haiti has come to this country and I recently visited with him and he explained to me some of the very serious problems that are ongoing there, which confirm many of the other reports we are getting from citizens, visitors, business people and so forth that the corruption has become so bad it is very hard to get a loan to do any type of business in Haiti. So even if they want to help out and provide jobs and quality of life, the opportunity is not there. This is a subject that I will visit again this week in other 5-minute special orders.