Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we are all public servants here today representing our constituents and doing our duty. My beginning in public service outside the bounds of my immediate hometown began when I was appointed to a vacant county commission seat. The seat was vacant because a good commissioner committed a single act of perjury, lying to a grand jury about a sexual escapade, to protect a recently married friend. He lost his job, his reputation, his paycheck, his pension, his rights, and his freedom. He went to jail. The judge noted that those in public service have a higher standard of behavior and that telling the truth is fundamental to public service in our free land. The sentence was considered just in my district. I will support the articles of impeachment. Mr. Speaker, sadly, some of our colleagues on the other side are, in the interest of avoiding the issues at hand, seeking to deflect this debate. Let me be clear: the work of this house in fulfilling our constitutional obligation regarding the impeachment inquiry in no way detracts from or diminshes our absolute support for the men and women of our Armed Forces doing their jobs in the Persian Gulf. Those of us whose responsibilities in Congress involve oversight in the national security arena continue to keep our eyes carefully on the ball of the mission in Iraq. The truth is that every one of us here today would rather not be debating articles of impeachment against this President. The American people would rather not be faced with this scenario. It is an exceedingly unpleasant set of events. I am most grateful for the significant, extremely thoughtful input I have received from hundreds of southwest Floridians who come down on both sides of this debate. The fact that so many people have taken the time to call and write demonstrates the seriousness with which the country approaches this debate and vote. Short of declaring war, there is not more solemn duty of this House than to fairly and thoughtfully consider a judgment on impeachment when the President stands accused of violations of law and his oath of office. We must remember that it was this President's own actions that have brought us to this point today. We must vote on whether or not President Clinton committed impeachable offenses in his conduct. After careful review of the Judiciary Committee's work, I am convinced the President's conduct warrant's impeachment by this House. Lying, perjury and obstruction of justice are serious business and this House has a duty to say so. I refuse to submit to a ``dumbing down'' of our principles and the standards of conduct for a President of the United States, just because the specifics of this care are embarrassing and distasteful. Perjury and obstruction of justice in a legal proceeding are always wrong-- there's no room for situational ethics when it comes to respect for the rule of law by the Nation's Commander in Chief. We squirm about this entire matter because it began with a case of sexual misconduct. But what began there has grown into much more, a case involving very serious breaches of law. I take this position having lived through a case many years ago--a case in which a county commissioner went to jail for a single count of perjury in conjunction with a sex scandal--a scandal that did not even involve him, but about which he lied in order to protect a friend. Such lies were wrong then and they are wrong in this case today. The conundrum that many people see in this matter comes from wishing to rebuke the President for his behavior but being hesitant about using the ultimate sanction of impeachment to do so. But censure is not an option for this House--and even if it were, in my view it would not be enough of a sanction. History shows that censure can be fleeting since it can be reversed by a succeeding Congress--after all, Andrew Jackson was censured and then had his record expunged and now his face adorns each and every American $20 bill in tribute to his memory. Clearly, censure was not a permanent statement of rebuke in that case. The message this House sends today must be unmistakable and enduring. The President has stepped over the line and we must uphold our responsibility to call him on it.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for yielding me this time. There is certainly no question that every Member whether Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, moderate, independent, whatever, however we describe ourselves, every Member of this House today stands in unequivocal support of our troops in the Persian Gulf at this time of danger and risk for them. We wish them Godspeed, we wish them good luck, we wish them safe return, we wish them swift return. We express our gratitude to them and to their families for their sacrifice in support of a peaceful world we all want and the security of our Nation that all Americans deserve and demand and expect, especially when these heavy duties come during the holiday season. Mr. Speaker, the President has outlined a policy of containment with respect to this military action. Degrading Saddam Hussein's program of deadly weapons and fear is a good interim step but it is not the end game. I implore the administration not to be satisfied with an interim result of containment but rather to work toward dismantling Saddam Hussein's destructive regime. Otherwise, we will be doing this again. We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq. We all know that. They have suffered too long at the hands of a war criminal leader who is ruthless and uses chemistry for genocide in his own country. We want the Iraqis to have a peaceful chance to live in this world community and that cannot happen as long as Saddam Hussein is the ruler of Iraq. We must stand firm. Saddam Hussein must go. He is a war criminal. We should bring him to justice. If we are going to risk the lives of American troops, that is the purpose that the risk should take place. God bless all of them who are doing this heavy, dangerous work now. Amen.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule, the last rule of the year. The last rule of this Congress. This is a fair rule, it is an appropriate rule and, under the circumstances, it is about the only rule we could come up with, and I think we all know it. This is a debate about the rule, but we are getting into process. Many people have talked about budget process tonight. I want everyone, all the Members, to understand that we have developed a bill, a bipartisan bill, with some very innovative new ideas for budget process reform. I say this not because we are all proud of the process that we have just seen and we are experiencing tonight, but that we think we can do better. More important than that, there is an opportunity for Members to take that bill and read it, and I would suggest that Members do that because there are some good ideas and we should discuss them in the next Congress. I would also like to point out the obvious. There is much in this bill. There is much I like, there is much that others like, and there is much that some of us are not so sure about at this point. That is the way it is because we have, right now, a situation of shared power in this country. That is what the voters have dealt us. We also have a separation of powers. That is what the Constitution has given us. And we have certainly something here that is a product where we should not be worried about winners or losers on a partisan basis, we should be worried about whether America wins. I suggest America is going to win in a number of ways with this piece of legislation. Certainly in education, as we have heard. Certainly in intelligence, as we have not heard. We are reinvesting in the future, so some of the tragedies that were witnessed around the globe this year hopefully will not catch us by surprise or happen again. Certainly in defense. Certainly in the war on drugs. Certainly in a number of other areas that will be of interest to all Americans in their quality of life and in their pocketbook. So I think this is a good piece of work, even though I would admit the process has been a little unusual. The final thing I want to do is to pay my public respects to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules. I have followed the gentleman, who has been a great mentor and a great leader. He lead while we were in the minority, as a ranking member, when we were badly outnumbered. He has led in the majority, as the majority leader and chairman of the Committee on Rules, when we are also badly outnumbered on many occasions. I want to thank him, share my respects, and to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) as well.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my distinguished colleague from California.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about foreign policy, a very difficult and delicate task these days. If it were an easy subject, I do not think the Nation's first President would have encouraged us to avoid foreign entanglements altogether, but it is precisely because it is difficult and because risks to Americans and our interests are so great that we have got to exercise all due care and diligence of an exercise of American foreign policy, and that particularly means using our troops and putting them in harm's way. A successful foreign policy is built on clearly articulating American interests and having the willingness to fight for those interests when and how best appropriate. In other words, knowing what we are doing, looking before we leap. A successful foreign policy is not built on photo opportunities, it is not built on eroding American capability by saying one thing and then doing another. And most certainly it is not built on appeasement. Most Americans follow international events through the media. The press tends to provide us snapshots of what is going on in the world other than of course the sensational topic du jour that we read about inside the Beltway. The snapshots that have made their way through the haze lately, from Russia to Haiti to Bosnia to Sudan to Iraq, North Korea, to the Middle East are indeed a cause for a great deal of concern. When you take a close look at those events and what the Clinton administration is doing, and in some cases not doing, they are in fact a cause for alarm. Bosnia: When President Clinton committed troops to Bosnia in 1995, he promised they would be home by Christmas of 1996. Everybody remember Christmas 1996? Well, that deadline is almost 2 years passed, and our troops remain on the ground with no strategy in place for their withdrawal. Indeed the Clinton administration has no idea has no idea when the troops can be withdrawn. After several years and about 10 billion of taxpayers' funds, it would seem to me that the administration needs to start talking about bringing an end to this mission or accomplishing something more than we are. Somewhat of an irony, just in the Speaker's Lobby outside of this Chamber we are invited to send Christmas messages and Christmas greetings to our troops in Bosnia. My message is: Hurry home. I wish it were possible to send that message. We cannot send that message in good faith because we do not have policy for that now, and I want to know why not. And interestingly enough, the administration recently considered bombing Serbia over the Kosovo Province and, in fact, is considering supporting a deployment of some 2,000 observers from the Organization of Cooperation Security in Europe. Of that not many Americans know who is in the Organization of Security and Cooperation, what it is comprised of and what its capabilities are. But I guarantee you they will not be able to do much in Kosovo. I suppose they can watch, as we can watch, but I am not sure they will be able to do much more. I do not even know what the ground rules would be for such observers nor how to protect them. I imagine some would be Russians, some would be appeasers, and some would be other, and I do not know exactly what they would expect to do or how to do it. We need those details as we approach the 72-hour countdown before the ultimatum on using force in Kosovo. North Korea: Since 1994 the Clinton administration has pursued a policy of butter for guns with North Korea. The reports out of North Korea suggest that despite its receipt of a hundred million in heavy fuel oil and two hundred million food aid, the dying regime of Kim Jong-Il, there have been repeated violations of the 1994 nuclear agreement that has continued to proliferate ballistic missiles, has continued to divert food aid from the starving population from the needy to the elites of the ruling class, the ruling few. The North Korean regime is engaged in narcotics trafficking and counterfeiting of American dollars. At some point what this means is the administration is going to have to decide when North Korea has simply gone too far, what does it take? Can we not verify the deal that they are supposed to comply with? In Iraq a similar situation exists. Since the end of the Gulf War the United States has taken a lead in ensuring Iraqi compliance with the cease-fire agreements. The administration has talked tough on Iraq. We all remember those words the President made, threatening use of force and engaging in a massive show of military might earlier this year. However, the reality is that the effectiveness of the U.N. arms inspections has been badly undermined by the United States. In addition to the mountain of evidence making that clear, the words of Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine and leading arms inspector, raises serious questions about the administration's commitment to eliminating Iraq's war making capability. This is an issue with serious ramification. In addition to the threat of chemical-biological weapons, Iraq has apparently hidden away components to build three nuclear weapons. It simply needs to acquire the necessary fissionable material on the international black market in order to produce a completed nuclear weapon. And we have withdrawn. This is hardly get tough policy. We need to know more. We need to know now. We need to know it before we go home.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, there is more than one credibility gap at the White House these days. The President takes credit for balancing the budget and demands that every penny of surplus be set aside for Social Security. But at the same time, he threatens to shut the government down if Congress does not agree to spend at least $14 billion, and probably more, of that surplus on more big government programs that have nothing whatsoever to do with Social Security. Why does this sound so familiar? This document is the President's 1995 budget, the first year of the Republican-controlled Congress. This Clinton plan called for $200 billion deficits as far as the eye could see with no balanced budget in sight. See page 173, if my colleagues do not believe me. Do not be confused or misled by the President's parsing and finger wagging. The fact is that the Republican Congress balanced the budget and now President Clinton plans to shut down the government unless we spend billions more. That is the truth. Budget Aggregates

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I would also on a personal note thank everybody for a difficult time while I have been away. It just goes to show that everybody is expendable here, and I appreciate being reminded of that. It keeps me humble.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the author of the provision, but I would also point out before I do that any Members who wish to read the section in question, it is section 604, published yesterday in the Congressional Record of the House on page H9530, and I think it is very clear, and the safeguards that are necessary I think are equally clear.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), who is a decorated Air Force officer from Nevada who we are proud to have on our committee. (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I think we now understand what a loss the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) is also going to be from the committee, after those thoughtful remarks, which are consistent with all the thoughtful work he has done for our committee all these years, and we appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), who is the man who time and again seems to bail us out on the budget matters that keep confronting us.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time each side has?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentlewoman for those very kind remarks, and for the other remarks she has made. And I know that the gentlewoman will do well in her next endeavor, and I certainly suspect that we will be talking in the future. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), a distinguished member of our committee who makes a very valuable contribution and we are pleased to have him. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Barr of Georgia

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement of October 6, 1998, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3694) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 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.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think Members and those watching the proceedings can see the caliber of people in the ranking member, as exemplified by what he said and the service he has provided. People need to know that the way our system works with oversight is that the most sensitive matters are shared with the ranking member, the chairman of this body and the other body, and I cannot imagine a more honorable man, a more efficient, capable professional than the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). I mean what I say. We are sorely going to miss him up there. I am sure the gentleman's shoes will be properly filled, but it is going to be a tough deal. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), who is chairman of our Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is on his way to the Chamber at this time, and I am going to read from a prepared opening statement, which I know the gentleman will have access to, so I am going to proceed with my remarks. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3694, the Intelligence Reauthorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. This has been a busy summer from an intelligence and national security vantage point. Since House passage of H.R. 3694 in early May, we have witnessed nuclear tests in Pakistan and India; terrorist attacks on 2 of our embassies in Africa, and U.S. counterstrikes against terrorist-linked targets; a worsening world financial crisis that has spread from Asia to Russia and threatens now parts of Latin America; the eviction of United Nations weapons inspectors from Iraq; a deepening crisis in Kosovo that could embroil NATO troops before the end of the year, if not the end of this speech; and numerous ballistic missile tests by hostile and potentially hostile countries. In addition, 2 major studies of our intelligence capabilities and processes were conducted this summer. The Rumsfeld Commission study brought to light the increasing pace of ballistic missile proliferation and the shrinking warning times that we can expect given our current intelligence collection posture. The Jeremiah Report, conducted in the wake of India's nuclear tests, highlighted several gaps in our analytical and reporting processes. Both reports expressed concern that foreign governments are increasingly able to hide their activities from us due, apparently, to their familiarity with our intelligence methods and our capabilities. The point of recapitulating these developments and reports is to highlight the continuing critical need for good intelligence in the post-Cold War world, in this era that we find ourselves today. This after-Cold War era is an era that has seen a significant downsizing of our armed forces. What I have not spelled out is the successes the community has had as well. All those bad things that did not happen and do not happen because we do have good intelligence capability, even though we have downsized that as well, and we need to reverse that trend. Good intelligence enables policymakers in the government to head off crises before they occur. It provides an advantage to our military planners in everything from procurement to deployment and saves the lives of citizens and soldiers, and saving the lives of citizens and soldiers is certainly something we are about. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this conference report incorporates the lessons learned from this busy summer. It provides needed investments in modernization of signals intelligence; revitalization of human intelligence, or espionage, capabilities; strengthening all- source analysis; and enhancement of covert action capabilities. It also includes a significant increase in research and development funding to ensure that we can stay one step ahead of the pack and compensate for foreign denial and deception practices, which, as I said, have gotten ever better. This conference report provides new protections for ``whistle- blowers,'' intelligence community employees who report on potential problems within their agencies, even though it may involve classified information. I believe we have struck an appropriate balance between the need to preserve employees' rights and the unique retirement within the intelligence arena to safeguard classified information and, of course, national security. We have created a front door for rank and file information-sharing with Congress. This is a good thing. I know that this legislation is the product of a bipartisan, bicameral effort. I am grateful for the hard work of all of our Members and the entire committee staff. I know that it took many long hours and a few sleepless nights to get this conference report completed. I will call particular attention to the effort of my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member of this committee, for his dedication to intelligence and national security matters. I am disappointed to say that this will be his last appearance on the House floor managing an intelligence authorization bill, I am told. The Rules of the House require the rotation of all members of our committee. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has been a hard- charging, ardent supporter of improving U.S. intelligence capabilities, especially those in the advanced technical area. Indeed, his expertise in that area is unrivaled, in my view, on Capitol Hill. While I cannot say that we have always agreed on the substance of all issues during my 2 years as chairman of the committee, I think it is very fair to say that we have always agreed to sit down and do the extra work necessary to resolve issues in a reasonable manner, and I would add in a very pleasant way. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that both the community and the Committee on Intelligence have benefited from his 8 years of service here and I know that we can continue to count on his input, wisdom and judgment on crucial matters in the years to come on which he has so much expertise. I will also pay tribute to the others members who are rotating off the committee or retiring next year. We have been extremely fortunate to have the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) as a senior member of the Committee on Intelligence. Indeed, this has been his second tenure on the committee for a total of 14 years. We have benefited from the gentleman's wisdom and his willingness to find the resources necessary for intelligence in some very lean years for overall defense spending, and I thank him, particularly for his help in the committee this past week when I could not be here and he substituted for me very ably. I know I can count on him too for his advise and assistance. The committee is further losing 2 valued democratic members to retirement: the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs). We thank them for their service and dedication and wish them luck in their new endeavors, and I personally thank them for the commitment and time that they have given on so many issues on the committee. Finally I would be remiss if I did not mention the recent departures of professional staff members Mary Engebreth and Susan Ouellete, 2 women who have worked on the committee since 1995. Susan was our expert in the areas of analysis and defense intelligence, and Mary was our resident rocket scientist. We are going to miss Mary, and we are going to miss Susan as well. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) my colleague and friend, the subcommittee Cardinal of extraordinary importance to the intelligence effort.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) my friend, former Governor of Delaware, and a member of the committee.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) who has made a valuable contribution to the particular conference report before us.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would certainly like to use some of that time also to have my best wishes to Calvin Humphrey's future. Let me tell you that even on the Intelligence Committee, we are sometimes surprised. When I heard that public statement made this morning, I would put it in the category of surprise. It does not diminish in any way my good wishes for your future success which I know are very well assured because of your capabilities. I want to thank you very much not only for getting me out of North Korea but for getting me into North Korea. That was a very valuable experience. And all the other things you have done for our committee. I also need to say thank you to every member of our committee. Every member brings something to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and is given an extraordinary trust on behalf of all Members and all people of this country. It is a remarkable committee. I hope people who have been watching this and other Members can see that we are able to do our business well, in a bipartisan and professional way, because there is good will to do it and there is an understanding of the need to do it and get it done. Mr. Speaker, I have nothing but pride for all of the Members and the way they work and the staff that so ably supports us. I have mentioned some staff; I have to mention Mike Chi and the job he does with all of what I will call not his staff but our staff because I do not make a distinction between one party or the other and the staff. John Mills, our chief of staff, has done a remarkable job, I think, of trying to pull together in a harmony all the management needs to discharge our responsibilities ably. Tim Sample has done an extraordinary job managing numbers. I never will entirely understand, but I am told they always add up, and I check the bottom line, and they seem to. These are important people that are doing important work far from the madding crowd, far out of the visibility of the ``hoo-wah'' of the Beltway and the media. The work is getting done, and it matters because we are talking about national security. I want to thank everybody involved. As for the whistle-blower provisions, I want to thank everybody for their understanding, the compromise that was worked out, and I assure the gentlewoman from California, if we find that this is not working as well as I hope it will, that we always will be able to revisit it in the future. I believe this will work. With regard to those concerned about the matter that was brought up by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) I have read the safeguards that are in the bill; I think they are adequate. Again, if something egregious comes out of this, obviously we are prepared to resolve it. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report on H.R. 3694, just agreed to.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend from California (Mr. Dreier) for his words and the well wishes, as does my wife, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here for this occasion to speak about the distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, New York. He is a very unique Floridian. He is the one who went the wrong way. He was born in Florida and went to New York. Most of New York is coming to Florida, as we know, and we welcome him and we hope to get Jerry back, and Freda and others, back to Florida. We would be proud to have you. I think of a lot of things when I think about Jerry Solomon and my years of service with him. I started out being one of four on the Committee on Rules when he was the minority leader for us. I learned an awful lot. Then he did something magic and suddenly we were nine and the majority, and I have learned even more having him as our chairman. I think of energy. I think of vitality. Every time I think of Jerry, I think of a marine. Just find me a hill to charge up. He has got nonstop energy and will take on anything. And in this town particularly, I think of forthrightness. With Jerry Solomon, I do not think it is a question of having to read the tea leaves. If you have not figured out where he stands, listen to him for a minute, he will tell you very clearly. I think of integrity, professionalism, knowledgeability. I know, from my travels with Mr. Solomon around the world, from the love of his family, the love of his friends for him here and abroad, that he will not be forgotten. The wisdom of Solomon will endure very definitely, the reputation of Solomon will endure, and we all hope that Solomon will endure, and we look forward to working with him now and forever.