Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order on October 7, 1998, or any day thereafter, to consider the conference report to accompany 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; that all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration be waived; and that the conference report be considered as read when called up.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 426 to 479 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on roll call votes: 427, 428, 429, 430, 432, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 440, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 449, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 460, 461, 462, 464, 465, 466, 467, 469, 470, 471, 472, 474, 475, 476, and 477; and no on roll call votes: 426, 431, 433, 439, 441, 447, 448, 450, 451, 459, 463, 468, 473, 478, and 479.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and the distinguished chairman, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as we see from the remarks today, nobody is particularly happy to find themselves here under these circumstances, but we are taking our job seriously and doing our constitutional duty. Today, we are not going to make a judgment on the merits of the independent counsel's report. Everybody needs to understand that. We all do here. Instead, we are charged with providing a procedure for release of that report that is workable, that is fair, and most importantly, that fulfills our obligation to the people we work for, the people of the United States of America, our constituents. This resolution contains the requisite flexibility to achieve these goals, I think, while also providing the American people with the same information, and at the same time, as Members of Congress and the President. This is truly equal treatment. No one is above the law. I do want to stress that this comes after much thoughtful deliberation, with no rush to judgment here. My friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), who sits on the other side of the aisle from me, and many other Members on both sides of the aisle, would have liked us to make everything available and requested to make it available immediately, including the sensitive grand jury material. Well, we did not do that on the Committee on Rules. Still, other Members wanted nothing released. Well, we did not do that, either. I believe it is important that we err on the side of providing the American people with more rather than less, empowering them to reach their own conclusions as this goes along. In doing so, we truly reflect the best strengths of our representative democracy, I think, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Government in the sunshine does work, as those of us who hold elective office in the State of Florida know, where we do have the ``sunshine law.'' Americans across the Nation are, in fact, calling for information about this matter, and this resolution will provide that information, I think, in an appropriate way. Some comment has been made about the process in the Ethics Committee. As a former member and as a chairman of the task force of that committee, I would point out that the rules of the Ethics Committee do not necessarily fit the situation at hand. It says, in fact, that if there is going to be a report issued on a Member, the respondent has admitted to the charges and waives rights for trial proceedings, you have a very different circumstance than the type of report material we find we have from the independent counsel today. We also point out that a respondent has a right to see a draft 10 days before a subcommittee is to vote, but not 10 days before being made public. Those are very important differences, and I think they have been somewhat misunderstood in the presentations. As for the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), I agree totally with him. Leaks do frustrate the process, as the gentleman from Washington very well knows, and I seriously hope that there are no leaks; and I seriously hope, if there are any leaks, that this time the Ethics Committee can do its job fairly to deal with such leaks.

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on either side?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time a I may consume. I will not use all of my remaining time. There are a couple of points that I would like to make. First of all, I would like to start out and say this is actually a debate about the rule. We have not heard much about this rule, which I think is good, because I think it is a fair and appropriate rule for the matter at hand. As sometimes happens when you have a reasonably good rule or a good rule, in the debate on the rule, the time allotted, the debate spills over into the merit of the issue; and that has clearly happened in this place. So I take it we have got a pretty good rule, and I will not talk anymore about that, and I hope everyone will support it. But before I yield back all of my time and move the previous question, I would like to point out that I do not think there is anything in this bill, in fact I have been assured by the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that there is nothing in here, that this is an English-only bill. I don't know where that came from. The gentleman from California mentioned it as part of some kind of anti-immigrant plot. Not so. There is none of that in here. What is in here is a good-faith effort to try and improve the fluency of people who do not speak English and allow them to transition into an English-speaking society, which we are in the United States of America; and I think it is a genuine and good effort. We may disagree whether we have got the right way or the wrong way, but we have certainly provided ample time for debate to deal with that. I note that several of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle are a little scared of the 3 years that this program enrollment period goes for, and it is 3 years, not 2. They are worried about meeting some kind of a standard or a merit or having any kind of a measure of performance applied. I can tell my colleagues that I have youngsters in my district who have been in these programs for 4 or 5 years, and they are not learning English. They are stuck in their own community, not taking advantage of becoming English speakers, even though their parents wish them to be fluent and proficient in English because they understand how important that is for the future. Yet, these programs are not working. I think it is fair to say that we do not have a complete success story or anything like it in the status quo. We are trying to find a way to move forward from the status quo. I notice my colleagues on the other side have suggested that the status quo is better than what we are presenting, in their view; and in some cases, they have offered some gutting amendments or will offer some gutting amendments, I am told. But I have not heard about any great new programs or any great new ideas. We have now carved out 3 hours of amendment time. This is a good time to bring forth some brave new ideas, if you have not been able to do it yet. I challenge my colleagues to do that. I would suggest that my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), who is the author of much of this, have done a pretty good job of bringing forth some new ideas. I think it is extremely important that we debate these ideas in a fair way, and that is why we have so much time scheduled for the amendments and any thoughts that anybody has. In fact, as we have seen, we have used a good part of our rule discussion dealing with trying to understand what the issue is here right now. We have heard all kinds of statements made several times, and it seems like it is getting to be a mantra that somehow or another we are taking away local control. On the contrary, this bill provides for more local control. Everybody knows that that is one of the planks of the GOP policy is to go to local control for our education people back in the community. This is very consistent with that; otherwise, I do not think this legislation would have gotten this far. So I think to try and mischaracterize this as any way taking away local control is not straightforward. The idea that perhaps we are trampling on some children's rights by trying to help them learn language and become proficient in the language of our country, which is primarily English, seems to me to be a little bizarre. I think trying to help out our youngsters is a very important thing. I do note that one of the speakers on the other side mentioned that children are not a political issue. I quite agree that children should not become a partisan political issue. But I do believe children are very much part of our process, and I believe it is very important to legislate and look out for your youngsters. That is why most of the people who have reached my age in life get out of bed in the morning and go to work, to make sure that what our kids have is a little better than what we started with if there is a way to do that. So I think that we are trying to do something honorable and something useful and something beneficial for our Nation's children. I think we are trying to do it in a very, very reasonable way. I say that because I hate to see these debates hijacked and scare tactics. I remember very well some years ago I went home to town meetings and was informed by people there that we were not going to have any longer a school lunch program, and mean-spirited people were going to take away children's school lunch program. That was bologna. That was hogwash. It was not true. It never was true. But it was a great story. It was partisan politics at election time. This bill deserves better than that. This is a good bill, and it should be discussed for what it says, not what some people keep characterizing that it might say. So I would urge my colleagues very much to pay attention to this debate, that we go forward now with this rule, that we get into this debate. I hope people will agree that this is a very honorable effort to improve the process of bringing those who do not speak English into the society that does speak English and in this place we call the United States of America. 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, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded is for the purposes of debate on this issue only. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and appropriate modified open rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule also provides a 3-hour time period for amendments, after which amendments preprinted in the Congressional Record may also be offered and debated for a period not to exceed 10 minutes. The rule provides for consideration of a manager's amendment if offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), the chairman of the subcommittee. Finally, the rule provides for a motion to recommit with or without instructions. This rule provides ample opportunity for debate and amendment on this very important issue. There were no minority amendments, I am told, offered during committee consideration. The ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), testified to our Rules Committee that he had no intention of offering any amendments to the bill. In fact, the Rules Committee received only two amendments, both offered by the chairman of the subcommittee, the aforementioned gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs). Despite these clear considerations that interest in amending this bill is limited, the rule provides for 3 hours for amendments and even allows amendments preprinted in the Congressional Record to be offered after that time period of 3 hours has expired. Given the very real time constraints we encounter in this body as we approach sine die adjournment, I think this is a very reasonable, appropriate and fair rule, and those who wish to take advantage of this subject certainly have ample opportunity. Mr. Speaker, in some situations, bilingual education in our public schools has served its purpose very well. However, many of the current bilingual programs have not worked as well as we had hoped, both in teaching students our common language and in providing quality academic instructions, and this is a fact. H.R. 3892, the English Language Fluency Act, block grants funds to States with the assurance that all local districts needing bilingual education programs will receive adequate funding. This is an extremely important breakthrough. It then gives districts the flexibility to choose programs that work. As the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), correctly noted in his Rules testimony, and I quote, flexibility is the name of the game. H.R. 3892 requires that parents consent to their children being placed in a bilingual program and allows parents to choose the type of instructional method their child will use, if more than one method is in fact available. A weakness of the current system is that too often parents are simply ignored during this process. H.R. 3892 addresses that problem head on by putting parents in the driver's seat once again. I think it is something that will be welcome news to parents. Another very real problem in my district and throughout the Nation is that bilingual programs are becoming a way of life rather than a swift and certain transition process. Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that students are making a quick transition into society, including the mastery of the English language, H.R. 3892 would require that federally funded bilingual programs aim to achieve English fluency within 2 years and would end Federal funding after 3. Finally, H.R. 3892 recognizes that the money should follow the children. Under a new funding formula, States like Florida and California with a disproportionate number of children with bilingual needs would receive a larger share of the pie. That is where the problem is; that is where the money should go. Mr. Speaker, the answers to our education problems do not reside in Washington, D.C. Instead of further empowering the D.C. education bureaucracy, we ought to be giving localities and parents the ability to choose successful bilingual programs. Our goal should be a smoother transition into American society for all children, and I think this legislation makes great strides in that direction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 516 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the distinguished chairman.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter ) that since my last statement on this fact we have had a speaker come forward and ask to speak for a minute. I wanted, in the interest of fair play, to advise her. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs).

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 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 Disability System, 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 all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2538, the bill just passed.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend Chairman Castle and Representative Gillmor for their leadership--we simply would not be here today without them. As we all know, Thomas Edison's inventions have revolutionized our every day lives. Today we have the opportunity to recognize one of the most important of these inventions, the light bulb, with a commemorative coin. The 500,000 coins that would be minted under this legislation would bear Edison's likeness and could be used as legal tender, serving to remind all American citizens of the valuable contributions that Edison made to modern society. Further, the proceeds from the sale of these coins would provide much needed financial support to a number of historical institutions that preserve the history of Thomas Edison. My home district of southwest Florida is the site of the Thomas Edison winter home and museum. This remarkable exhibit includes tropical gardens and thousands of fascinating items from his long and illustrious career. However, this national treasure is in dire need of some long overdue repairs. The proceeds from this coin could help defray the costs of restoring the Edison home and other important Edison landmarks throughout our nation. This bill is an opportunity to help preserve a valuable piece of American history at no cost to the American taxpayers. I urge its adoption.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hutchinson amendment, the substitute, and, as it is known, the freshman substitute. Of all the choices out there, I think it deserves support. Mr. Chairman, if this were a perfect world lifting present restrictions on campaign financing and substituting only one requirement of immediate and full disclosure--with transparency--would be a perfect solution. This would allow a candidate to run his or her campaign in their own way in a free country while giving the voters immediate access to who is funding the candidates campaign. An informed electorate could then fully participate freely knowledgeably casting their ballots. But it's not a perfect world and we need to look at other choices. I have heard from many individuals, special interest groups, newspaper editorial boards regarding which bill is the correct and only solution to the problem. There's no such choice, and if we are honest with ourselves--we all know it. I happen to favor the Hutchinson substitute for a few very good reasons. Unlike the Shays/Meehan proposal, the freshman bill does not limit issue advocacy. Instead, it requires organizations to disclose any advertisement expenditures over a certain limit. The freshman bill bans national parties from raising soft money, and also prohibits Federal office holders and candidates from raising soft money for State parties. But, unlike the Shays/Meehan bill, the Hutchinson substitute does not impose Washington's views and regulations on the State parties. As someone who believes strongly in States' rights, I believe this is an important distinction. It's important to remember that the GOP majority in Congress has brought forward this open and extensive debate. The Democratic Party after 40 years in power in Congress never did do campaign reform and left us in the mess we are today. I commend Mr. Hutchinson for his leadership on this issue and I urge adoption of the freshman substitute. All rhetoric aside, it's the most workable choice and though I'm not a freshman I think their bill deserves strong support.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3821) to designate the Headquarters Compound of the Central Intelligence Agency located in Langley, Virginia, as the George H.W. Bush Center for Central Intelligence.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3821.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to bring this legislation before the House today. H.R. 3821 will designate the Central Intelligence Agency's headquarters complex in Langley, Virginia as the George H.W. Bush Center for Central Intelligence. This is a fitting tribute to our 41st President and former Director of Central Intelligence, the only person in our Nation's history to have occupied both offices. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has taken no formal action on this bill. However, I would note that all 16 of our members are cosponsors, among the 150-plus cosponsors we have for this legislation. There is strong bipartisan support for H.R. 3821 in the House as a whole, and the other body has passed a similar measure as part of its fiscal year 1999 Intelligence Authorization Act. George Bush has dedicated much of his life to public service. I think we all know that. Beginning back in World War II where he flew for the Navy in the Pacific theater. We have heard many of those stories. In 1967, Bush was elected to the House of Representatives, and he would later serve as Ambassador to the United Nations and as chief of the U.S. Liaison Office to the People's Republic of China. In January of 1976, Bush was appointed Director of Central Intelligence by President Ford, a position he held through the end of the Ford Administration. His tenure as DCI was relatively short, but it came at a time when the U.S. intelligence community was undergoing increasing public scrutiny and some criticism. It was during this year that the first permanent congressional committee on house oversight devoted to intelligence matters was formed. Took place in the other body. Of course, the House followed suit. Bush demonstrated leadership and trustworthiness at a time when both were desperately needed to help restore confidence in the Central Intelligence Agency and the other intelligence agencies that make up our intelligence community. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support to this bill. I congratulate its author and lead sponsor, my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Missouri, who participates in an extraordinarily helpful and valuable way on matters of national security, many of the things we cannot talk about. If people knew the contributions he made, they would indeed be gratified. I think that to have his support for this bill is a very meaningful statement, and we appreciate it very, very much. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), author of the bill, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control the balance of the time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with the chairman. Southwest Florida is one of the fastest growing areas in the Nation. Consequently, the airport serving this area, Southwest Florida International Airport, has been operating above capacity for some time. Anybody who has been there knows that. In fact, Southwest Florida International Airport has experienced an average annual growth of 9.2 percent during the past 10 years. Because of this growth, the airport has begun an expansion project called Project Millennium which would include construction of a new terminal and runway. Project Millennium is the State of Florida's number one funded airport project, and it has also received discretionary funds from the FAA. Southwest Florida International Airport has requested a letter of intent from the FAA to ensure long-term commitment to Project Millennium. In light of our commitment to fiscal responsibility, I am pleased to report that the airport has reduced the Federal share of the project to 24 percent of the total cost. I would ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) to consider including language in the transportation appropriations conference report expressing congressional support for Southwest Florida International Airport's request for a letter of intent. I understand that Senator Mack and Senator Shelby of the other body have reached a similar agreement regarding the inclusion of this provision in the conference report.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Virginia for his commitment and support of Southwest Florida International Airport and invite him to participate in its use at any time during the year. It is a marvelous place.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of southwest Florida, I would like to offer not only our deepest sympathy to the families of Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson, but also our greatest admiration for the total professionalism and full sacrifice these men gave to protect the People's House and its visitors. Officer Chestnut and Officer Gibson truly understood exactly what the U.S. Capitol Building represents to the people of this country and to people everywhere. With honor and courage they stood their ground for the world to see. Early one morning a while ago, as I neared the Capitol, I watched some visiting foreign tourists with tears of joy kiss the Capitol steps; to them this great building meant freedom and democracy. Now our friends, Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson, join so many other Americans paying unhesitatingly with their lives to defend us and our freedom. And without question in this needless tragedy, they did save the lives of citizens, visitors, staff, and Members. I also would like to thank and praise their fellow Capitol Police officers who dedicate their lives to defending our freedom. Their bravery and professionalism does not go unnoticed nor unappreciated. Their conduct in containing this tragedy and coping with its aftermath has been exemplary. It really is ``family'' up here on Capitol Hill. We all have our own memories and associations of Officer J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson. J.J. pulled weekend guard duty on occasion for the House Intelligence Committee and served those of us on that committee well and faithfully. John was true family to Joe Moakley, our distinguished former chairman and current ranking member on the Rules Committee. He was also a regular feature in the workings of our whip chores as deputy whips under Tom Delay. Other Members had other contacts with these officers but we are all of one mind in knowing J.J. and John will be missed--that we are deepful grateful for their lives and fiercely proud of their work and that, above all, all our sympathy and love go out to their families in a way that seeks to share the burden of their losses.