Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the contributions of Jack Downing, CIA's Deputy Director of Operations, or DDO, to the security and well-being of this Nation. Just this once, on the occasion of Jack's retirement on 31 July, I want to bring this remarkable man, our Nation's ``head spy,'' out of the shadows and into the spotlight of this forum. Barely 2 years ago, Jack was pulled out of an earlier retirement from CIA to take over its directorate of operations, or DO, at a time when the morale, sense of mission, and strength of the DO had been sapped by careerism, corridor politics, and lack of leadership. At that time, I knew only two things about Jack: first, he couldn't be a careerist because he had already retired once. Second, he couldn't be a ``corridor cowboy'' back in Washington because he had spend almost all of his legendary career in the field where case officers belong. Jack, in fact, was our chief of station on the very front lines of the cold war. What I did not know at the time, and what now causes me to offer this tribute, is the leadership that Jack would bring to the DO and to its officers. In two short years, Jack has refocused the DO on its core capability: the clandestine collection of intelligence. Under Jack, DO officers have found ways to penetrate terrorist cells, to get inside the cabinet rooms of rogue states, and to detect and disrupt the movement of narcotics. Under Jack, the DO has been put in a position to collect intelligence on whatever threats and challenges come our way in the next century. Jack's leadership, however, is more than these accomplishments. In the unique, often peculiar, business of espionage, the DDO is more than someone who directs the operations of the DO; for young officers, particularly, the DDO is a role model in the clandestine service. And the DO, in my opinion, has never had a better role model than Jack Downing. As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I visit stations overseas and talk with the young officers who hop fences, slip down alleys, and take real risks to collect the intelligence we need back here in Washington. Over the past 2 years, the change I have seen in these young officers overseas has been extraordinary. Where there used to be malaise is now a sense of mission. Where there used to be risk aversion is now a feeling of confidence. Perhaps the most telling change under Jack Downing, and most central to the character of this former marine, is that his troops at risk in the field know that he will stand behind them when things go wrong. I can offer no higher tribute than what Jack's own troops think of him. I commend this man for what he is and what he has done. Our country is and will be a better place because of him. Godspeed, to Jack Downing, you are ``the right stuff'' and have served us well.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Approximately 6 p.m.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how I found myself in the position other than the fact that I am standing at this microphone. But I do have a strong message that we are going to have a brief recess and then plan to reassemble. I would say check in about early evening.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, the Hastings amendment is well meaning in restating the obvious that it is the sense of Congress to support Democratic elections scheduled for November 1999 in Haiti. Continued encouragement is appropriate considering the fact that the Clinton-Gore administration has already committed millions of dollars in election assistance, as have other countries. So I would characterize the Hastings amendment as a benign placebo--the problem is Haiti needs strong medicine--in large doses. Since January, 1999, there has been plenty of bad news from Haiti, only one small piece of it good. Now even that has been spoiled by Haiti's own home-style power mongers. An independent election commission has tentatively announced a transparent reasonable resolution of the fraudulent 1997 elections, which were the trigger event of today's Government crisis in Haiti. But a spokesman for former President Aristide described this development this way: ``You are declaring war on Aristide. This is a second coup d'etat against Aristide . . . The CEP (electoral council) must correct it immediately if it wants elections to really take place . . . '' Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to former President Aristide, these are not the words of a democrat or someone committed to the rule of law. They are the threatening words of a dictator intent on maintaining his control over the country at any price. And now Aristide's handpicked successor, President Rene Preval, did not sign the election law as drafted but he gutted it first. Mr. Chairman the United States has given Haiti every possible opportunity to embrace democracy. It is an absolute tragedy that some of the Haitian leaders care more about power than they do democracy and the needs of the Haitian people. I wish my friends on the other side of the Aisle and the political advisors in the Clinton administration would end the pretense and admit that poor Haiti is sick--really sick. My good friend and colleague from Florida's placebo isn't going to cure what's wrong. And neither are the current expensive and misguided policies of the Clinton-Gore administration, which seems to focus more on happy face diagnoses, over-optimistic prognoses and expensive treatments that cure nothing. Democracy in Haiti is dying fast. It is being deliberately smothered by emerging dictatorship. What's worse is that the Clinton- Gore administration is tolerating it--if not helping people hold the pillows. This is equivalent of Dr. Kevorkian foreign policy and it needs to stop.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in unambiguous and unequivocal opposition to this amendment.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, part of my applause for the chairman's efforts is his understanding of all the intricate issues and complexities that are involved. I think he has handled them well. I congratulate him on that, and I know that under his leadership we are going to keep this on course. I urge support of the rule, and I urge support of the bill.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my able friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Committee on Rules, who does such a good job with yet another fair and open rule. The interior appropriations bill is an important bill, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) just said. It provides funding for the agencies involved in protecting our national resources for future generations for our children, as it were. I am pleased that even though this bill frugally spends several billion less than last year it still provides adequate funding for the national parks, national forest system and the national wildlife refuges, which is the purpose of it. The Interior bill is especially important for my home State of Florida, which is why I take this time. It is the vehicle for the crucial Everglades restoration funds to meet the Federal commitment of our ongoing effort to restore and preserve for future generations the unique River of Grass we know and love. The bill provides $114 million for the Everglades, which includes land acquisition, improved water delivery and Everglades park management. Under the leadership of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, the House has consistently led the charge on restoring the Everglades, and I am proud of that, and this year is no different. I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for his attention to this unique national treasure and his personal visits to the area to understand it, and I note the irony that almost as we are speaking today President Clinton is in Florida at a very exclusive high roller fund-raising event that is held by one of the special interest groups that has not been enthusiastic about our efforts to deal with the Everglades, as we propose to do in this legislation. So this bill comes at a very good time. Also, vital to Florida's economy and our national commitment to wise stewardship of natural resources is the annual outer continental shelf oil and gas exploration moratorium, which protects our fragile coastline. Again, Florida takes great pride in its coastline, and we are very concerned about oil slicks and pollution. Each year for the last 13 years Congress has passed this moratorium. I am very pleased that this year's bill continues that effort. And I must note the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), started this process many years ago, and it has been ably picked up by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). We believe this is a good temporary solution, but we think we can find a more precise and permanent solution to the question of oil drilling off Florida's coast. I have introduced H.R. 33 which would create a Federal State task force to review the relevant scientific and environmental data and then make a recommendation to the Secretary of Interior for permanent policy. I believe this approach offers a number of benefits, including making Florida a key player in the decision that will have great impact on our State, relying on scientific data rather than rhetoric and affording us the opportunity to institute a more precise policy than our current moratorium year to year. The House Committee on Resources is scheduled to have a hearing on this bill the first week in August, and I remain hopeful we can move forward on this critically important issue to our State. Of course, there are some issues in the Interior bill that remain controversial, and that will certainly be the subject of some debate later this afternoon. I look forward to the opportunity to resolve some of those controversies and move forward on this important legislation. I applaud the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and Members of the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work at this point.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in very strong support of this open rule, yet another open rule, from the Committee on Rules under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier). While the Military Construction Appropriations Bill is obviously one of the least controversial bills this House takes up every year in appropriations, it is critically important for our men and women in uniform and their families. Quality-of-life issues are always important for every American, but for these people in the military, these quality-of-life issues have become even more problematical in recent years because the Clinton administration has asked our troops to do much more with much less. In some cases, our troops and their families are simply not being properly provided for. This is no secret, but it is a shame, and it is time we did something about it. I was, therefore, disappointed with the Clinton/Gore administration budget request for military construction. It is yet another example of the neglect of our Armed Forces under this administration at the same time the administration misuses those forces to bail out their misguided policies. I am pleased that the bill before us corrects several shortcomings in the administration's request. For example, it provides $1.6 billion more than the administration's request for military construction and a half billion more than the administration's request for family housing. That is, the spouses and children. I want to commend the Committee on Appropriations for its work and encourage my colleagues to support this rule, another fair, open rule and a good appropriations bill.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and appropriate rule for consideration of a constitutional amendment. This is not something we do every day. The rule provides the minority with two bites at the apple by making in order a substitute as well as the motion to recommit. It should engender no opposition, and I urge all Members to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, the United States flag is a cherished symbol of the very best our Nation represents. It signifies the lasting ideals that have come to define our Nation, ideals that men and women have risked and often lost their lives for; ideals like freedom. There are some well-intentioned, honorable Americans who will assert that it is precisely this freedom that allows us to defile our flag. I politely disagree with those folks. The flag may be just a symbol, but burning it flies in the face of the respect that we have for our liberties, our Constitution, and our history as a Nation. Worst of all, it strikes a devastating blow to our national unity, and our unity is what makes us great. While we all come from different backgrounds and may worship different gods, we can all come together as Americans under our flag. We can disagree on the most challenging issues in our great democracy and have great debate, but at the end of the day we know that our flag is still flying and it represents all of us together, united. The soldier serving overseas understands it in the same way that the World War II vet saluting ``Old Glory'' on Memorial Day does. It is an unspoken pride and it comes from the heart. It is not something easily explained. It is something easily understood. Today, we have the opportunity to affirm our commitment to our uniquely American values and to uphold the will of the American people. I say that because 49 States, including my home State of Florida, have asked us to take action to protect the flag. This will require amending the Constitution, an action which is not to be taken lightly. But it is an action that our Founding Fathers deemed appropriate on issues of integral national importance, and I believe this is one of them. This, I believe, is what the American people are asking us to do, for those individuals who have fought to preserve our freedom and for those individuals who are interested in the future of our country. I urge support for this rule, and I urge thoughtful consideration on the final vote on the matter before us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a man whose experience on behalf of his Nation is well-known to those who know him. We are very proud to have him be the author and lead speaker on this.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just simply wanted to make a couple of comments before I yield back. I think that the flag is obviously very much part of our life every day here. We start out with the pledge, many of our institutions. When we sing the national anthem, whatever occasion, before sports events, we speak of what so proudly we hailed before the twilight's last gleaming. When we have the tragedy of death in our military, we have the presentation of the flag at the ceremonial part of that process, and I think quite often the flag is so much part of our life that when somebody desecrates it in any way most Americans are outrageously offended. I suppose for many overseas who still see the American flag as the last best hope for freedom and opportunity it must be puzzling if that flag is devalued in its homeland, in the United States of America. What would that mean if one sees Americans burning the American flag? It is a curious message to send. I believe that there are limitations on the first amendment. I think they have been recognized, I think they are appropriate for public safety and public well-being. They are well understood. I believe this is an area where a case can be made clearly for the well-being of the United States of America and its people. We should accept the responsibility of protecting the one symbol that unites us, our flag. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 217 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is expected to meet later this week to grant a rule which may restrict amendments for consideration of H.R. 1802, the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999. Any Member contemplating an amendment to H.R. 1802 should submit 55 copies of the amendment and a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules no later than noon on Thursday, June 24. The Committee on Rules office is in H-312 of the Capitol. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on June 14. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House. All of this with reference to the H.R. 1802, the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, Members are so notified.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment parallels an amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the efforts of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). It is short. It is to the point. It provides for four new district judges for the middle district of Florida, three for Arizona, and two for Nevada. This exact language is already contained in the Senate juvenile justice bill and similar legislation overwhelmingly passed this House last year. In these communities, the need for judges has hit the emergency level. In the middle district of Florida, for example, we have experienced a 62- percent caseload increase since 1990, the last time we added a new judgeship. In fact, the active caseloads for judgeships exceeds the national average by as much as 100 percent. These statistics are important, but they do not begin to describe the human impact. In Ft. Myers, my hometown, a brand new Federal courthouse has an empty judge's chambers, absolutely empty. While there are more than 800 active cases pending, there is no Article III judge to hear them. While we may disagree on the merits of further gun restrictions or increased penalties for juveniles, one thing is absolutely certain, that all of us suffer when justice cannot be delivered. Even the best laws are neutered if the judicial branch fails to adjudicate in a timely fashion. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there are as much areas of this country with compelling arguments for more judges. These three States, however, are among the top six court districts having the highest weighted caseloads. In fact, the independent judicial conference recommended a total of 19 new judgeships for these States. This amendment contains nine paralleling the Senate language. This is a responsible, necessary step to restore swift and certain justice in some of the highest growing areas in the land. It is a bipartisan amendment in both Houses. I urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I have to point out that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) have taken the lead efforts in this matter and we are grateful. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from California. making in order conyers amendment to h.r. 1501, consequences for juvenile offenders act of 1999

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this comprehensive, complex, but very fair rule. It makes in order over 50 amendments from both sides of the aisle, including one very important bipartisan amendment that I will offer later today. The Goss amendment mirrors language in the Senate bill to create 4 new Federal judgeships in the Middle District of Florida, 3 in Arizona, and 2 in Nevada. These States have hit critical caseload level, and I encourage colleagues to support these emergency amendments. However, today we have the opportunity to take a balanced approach to curbing juvenile crime and closing the loopholes in our gun laws. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for not taking the politically expedient route, but, instead, crafting a thoughtful, deliberative approach to vexing social problems. It is an approach that recognizes that the symptoms of teenage violence, involving firearms or not, speak to a larger and more difficult issue of far greater import, the coarsening, permissiveness the self-indulgence of our culture. Several years ago, I supported the Brady Act in hopes of keeping guns out of the hands of violent convicted felons. There is evidence the implementation of an instant background check has been successful, but it did inadvertently leave a loophole that has been exploited. It is time to close that loophole by requiring instant background checks at gun shows. The majority of the folks who attend gun shows are law abiding citizens who do not need to be overburdened with regulation. However, we cannot allow gun shows to become a magnet for criminals who know that they can easily obtain weapons. More importantly, though, we must ensure that the gun laws on the books right now are being enforced. It is simply not fair to ask millions of legitimate American gun owners to submit to further restrictions without vigorously enforcing existing law. Too often, gun laws are ignored, like the incident in Littleton, Colorado, a tragic incident, where more than 22 Federal and State laws were broken. We must get serious about punishing criminals and realize that stump speeches and partisan vitriol are very poor substitutes for responsible law enforcement. Society must demand strict and swift justice when our laws are broken. But society has become too complacent. It is tragic that it takes an unspeakable crime, like the one at Columbine before the public feels a sense of outrage. This is not just about law enforcement or public officials, this is about each one of us, like Pogo, taking responsibility every day for making sure that the laws we have on the books are, in fact, upheld. Then we can look for ways to make our laws more effective. It makes sense to implement tough sanctions for juvenile offenders. This legislation will provide States with greater resources to come down hard, fair but hard, on youth that break the law, especially repeat offenders. Our kids need to know and see that bad choices and bad actions have bad consequences. But, of course, this problem is more complex than that. Just look at Littleton again. There it was clear that the two young people involved, tragically, were prepared to accept the consequences of their actions: Violent death. Society has become so bent that some kids just will not respond to the threat of punishment. The folks in my district know that the problem of teen violence will never ultimately be solved in Washington, D.C. What we can do is provide our communities with the resources to do their job better and empower the people that can best respond to this problem. We have to take a hard look at ourselves, our leadership, our celebrity role models, and our way of life to determine why it is that some of our young people choose the wrong course with such tragic results. This is a big challenge. I believe this rule provides for that debate. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this very reasonable and appropriate rule. I honestly believe that it should lead to full opportunity for debate on many relevant issues that we heard on this subject yesterday before the Committee on Rules, matters that were brought to our attention by Members of the appropriate committee. I commend the bipartisan work of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) in bringing the House this comprehensive authorization bill for our Nation's airports and critical aviation needs. We have all been reading about the horror stories when things go wrong in aviation, and I am not just talking about the tragic accidents, I am talking about the passenger inconvenience from overcrowding and management problems. Every single Member in this House wants to ensure that our airports are ready to move into the next century before it gets here, and it is hard upon us. My district encompasses one of the fastest growing parts of the Nation, an area that also happens to be one of the country's most desired vacation spots, and I cordially invite anybody to visit southwest Florida. As a result, southwest Floridians certainly understand the importance of continuing to invest wisely in our aviation system. That need is even more acute now that we have gone global in southwest Florida and other parts of our country with free trade zone designation that is promoting world-class business and economic development throughout our entire region, and obviously of great importance, our economic well- being of our Nation. All of this good news, though, is contingent upon an airport system that works, and it has got to work well and better than it is working now. At our peak in March, our area airports handled more than 800,000 passengers. The biggest of our airports in southwest Florida, Southwest Florida International, is a model for the entire Nation on how to stay ahead of growth and meet demand without jeopardizing safety or efficiency. And I want to publicly congratulate the individuals involved in the management of that airport and the policies of that airport. The next big project they have for that airport is the construction of a new midfield terminal, the result of yet another successful Federal-local partnership. And I am grateful to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and people like that who have recognized needs and given attention to needy situations. Suffice it to say in my part of Florida we are positive witnesses on the importance of passenger air travel and, of course, air cargo. However, Mr. Speaker, we also know there is no free lunch. When it comes to using taxpayer money we have to find out where it is coming from. We have to balance our priorities and understand the trade-offs, and that means we cannot over- promise. I am concerned that this bill, for all of its merits in supporting vital infrastructure, may be raising expectations just a trifle too high. Specifically, the bill makes a technical change to the Federal budget process that has far-reaching consequences. The argument here is not about whether we are going to provide proper funding for our airports and aviation safety. That is a given. Rather it is about how we make that happen and whether we unnecessarily tie our own hands for future spending decisions. This bill seeks to wall off the Aviation Trust Fund from the rest of the budget, a precedent that could lead us down the road of even less fiscal control than we have today and, obviously, would be of concern. One of the primary reasons that we have been able to achieve this remarkable era of budget surplus is that we have examined the Federal budget as a whole and made tough decisions about living within our means. I oppose creating separate budget entities for airport expenditures, or just about anything else, because they are not subject to the same overall control. Our colleagues will have the chance later in this debate to consider an amendment to strip H.R. 1000 of that technical language and restore the proper balance between deciding on national priorities and allocating the money to foot the bill. I hope Members will support that amendment. In the meantime, I urge support for this appropriate rule so we can get to that debate and again I congratulate the managers of the bill, the chairman and ranking member of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for their hard work in bringing something forward that is timely and necessary for the well-being of our Nation.