Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 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 rule is standard for a conference report, and is a fair product given our time constraints as we conclude this session of the Congress. The rule before us waives all points of order against the conference report accompanying the bill H.R. 3259, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for intelligence and intelligence- related activities of the U.S. Government, the community management account, and the Central Intelligence Agency retirement and disability system and for other purposes. In addition the rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, I was honored to have participated in the tremendous effort that led to the completion of this bill. As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence--generally known as HPSCI--I was proud to serve under the tough and fair leadership of my chairman, Mr. Combest, in crafting this bill. It is a product I think we can all be proud of, born of bipartisan and bicameral cooperation and negotiation. Mr. Speaker, I thought my colleague from California, Mr. Beilenson, put his finger on an important point yesterday in our Rules Committee meeting, as he often does, when he said that no one pays much attention to our Nation's intelligence programs. The truth is that, given the very nature of the topic, intelligence matters do not have a natural public constituency and do not generally arise for discussion around America's dinner tables. But, as Mr. Beilenson also pointed out, perhaps that is as it should be--and I would argue that fact is a testament to the successes we have had with our intelligence operations, for the most part. Yes, there have been some high profile problems--and we have worked hard to be sure we deal with them expeditiously and effectively. But overall, the way you know that there is good news in the intelligence world is when you hear no news at all. That is how the intelligence business works--the success stories are those that never become stories at all, because good, accurate, and timely intelligence allowed us to prevent bad things from happening. Mr. Speaker, it is my view that the changing world around us makes good intelligence more necessary than ever before. There are more varied threats and more dispersed targets and the need for us to have well-tuned and properly trained eyes and ears has never been greater. The Intelligence Oversight Committees of this Congress recognize that and have conducted our oversight in a thoughtful and comprehensive manner. In addition to the efforts of our House committee, known as IC 21, which made some very important recommendations for adapting our intelligence capabilities to be ready for the next century, there was also the so-called Aspin-Brown Commission Review, which I was privileged to serve on. These efforts have laid down the groundwork and we now must move ahead in developing consensus and implementing meaningful change. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that everyone understands the intense competition that exists in our finite budget world when it comes to the expenditure of America's tax dollars. We know that that intelligence is a necessary commodity that saves lives and allows for prudent decisionmaking by our leaders, decisions that are not just involved with the military, although we all know that is a major component, but decisions also in other vital areas, such as fighting terrorism and dealing with the international drug problems. I think this bill addresses these needs, although I think we must guard against expanding international law enforcement activity at the expense of intelligence operations. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule, and it is a good bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] has yielded back the balance of his time, and I have no further speakers, but I would be remiss if I did not take a minute to thank Mr. Beilenson for his extraordinary service to this House, to his country, to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, to the Committee on Rules, and to his many other endeavors in this institution. He is a credit to himself, clearly, but not only that, he leaves this House better than he found it, and I think he leaves this country better than it was before he started in public service. I am very proud to say that, and count him among my friends. I demurred from participating last night in the colloquy for Mr. Beilenson and Mr. Moorhead, where many nice things were said, primarily because it was done by Californians. But I want Mr. Beilenson to understand that Floridians feel the same way, although we have to be a little more circumspect how we say it. I also wanted to say with the point on the rule that Mr. Beilenson brought up, the discussion that took place yesterday on the waivers, we did have some conversation on the record in the committee, and much of what Mr. Beilenson has talked about was testified to by the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Combest, and the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Dicks, and I believe has properly been attended to. It is a matter in the classified annex, but I agree with Mr. Beilenson's general philosophy on that. I can assure the gentleman that I am satisfied, having participated in some of that, that I think everything is in order, and I know the gentleman would accept the statements of Mr. Combest and Mr. Dicks. Mr. Speaker, having said all that, I have nothing further to add, except I urge support of this rule. 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. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], for yielding. I wish to commend the gentleman for his efforts on this important bill. I can say that he has been persistent and he has been instrumental in getting us to this point. I support the rule, but I do agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] that there was a mixup in the scheduling, and I think that we have understood there was nothing sinister behind it. A vote dropped off, so we got ahead of ourselves. Mr. Speaker, many months ago the House passed 2202 to reform our Nation's broken immigration system. This landmark legislation will tighten our borders, block illegal immigrants from obtaining jobs that should go to those who are in the United States legally, streamline the process for removing illegals, and make illegal immigrants ineligible for most public benefits. All along in this process, the drumbeat from the American people has been very clear--it's long past time for reform. We have come to understand that reform is not for the faint of heart--that there are tough choices to be made and that there are real human beings on all sides of the immigration process. In the end, I believe we have legislation that is tough but fair--legislation designed to keep the door open for those who want to come to America but are willing to do it via an orderly, legal process, not sneak in the back or side door. H.R. 2202 will add 5,000 new border patrol agents over the next 5 years Yes, 5,000. It will make illegal immigrants ineligible for many public benefits, while still allowing them access to emergency medical care. It also requires future sponsors to take more responsibility for their charges--a prospective change that is a win for immigrants and for American taxpayers alike, reducing the $26 billion annual tab American taxpayers currently pay. H.R. 2202 sets up a 3-year voluntary pilot program in five States so employers can use a phone system to verify Social Security numbers of prospective employees. If the pilot is successful, we may finally have a simple and effective way for employers to fulfill their legal responsibility to hire only eligible workers. There is no national identity card and no big brother database in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, as with all things that are borne of compromise, this legislation is not without disappointments. In my State of Florida, we know that undocumented immigrants cost Florida taxpayers millions of dollars every year in education costs. The Governor's office estimated the cost for 1 year to have been $180 million. Nationwide for 1 year the estimate was more than $4.2 billion. We simply cannot afford to educate all of the world's children while extending a magnet that fuels illegal entry into our country. Although I am disappointed it's not in this bill, I am pleased that this House has a chance to debate the Gallegly language as a separate measure, to end the current unfunded Federal mandate and give States an opportunity to make their own decision about how to handle this problem. Overall, Mr. Speaker, this is a solid bill. It is one more example of this Congress, under our new majority, living up to its commitments. One more time we have promises made, promises kept.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule adopted earlier today, I am announcing the following suspensions for Wednesday, September 25: H.R. 3852, Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1966; H.R. 1499, Telemarketing Fraud Punishment and Prevention Act; H.R. 3456, Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996; H.R. 4137, Rohypnol; an unnumbered House resolution on the Government Accountability Act; H.R. 2092, Private Security Officer Quality Assurance Act of 1995; S. 919, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1995; H.R. 1186, Professional Boxing Safety Act; H.R. 3391, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Amendments; H.R. 3700, Internet Election Information Act of 1996; S. 1970, National Museum of the American Indian Act Amendments of 1996; H.R. 4011, Congressional Pension Forfeiture Act of 1996; S. 868, Federal Employees Emergency Leave Transfer Act of 1995; H. Con. Res. 145, Concerning the Removal of Russian Forces from Moldova; H. Con. Res. 189, Expressing Sense of Congress Regarding the Importance of U.S. Membership in Regional South Pacific Organizations; H. Con. Res. 51, Expressing Sense of Congress Relating to the Removal of Russian Troops from Kaliningrad; H.R. 4036, Human Rights Restoration Act of 1996; H.R. 3497, Snoqualmie National Forest Boundary Adjustment Act of 1996; H.R. 3155, Designating the Wekiva River for Study and Possible Addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; H.R. 3568, Designating 51.7 miles of the Clarion River as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 1834, Reauthorizing the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program; and H.R. 3159, National Transportation Safety Board Amendments of 1996.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman brought these points out because this is a half billion dollar industry for Florida and there are a lot of folks who have nothing else. This is what they do. They are small farms. They have been growing for years and generations, and they are being displaced and the administration is not keeping the promises it made to help in the enforcement and the side agreements on the NAFTA compact. It is quite clear the Mexicans, indeed, are dumping. They are selling below cost. This is putting our farmers at an unfair disadvantage. And I believe if they comply with the laws of NAFTA that our farmers can beat the socks off the Mexicans, but they have both got to play by the same rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this morning in Lake Worth, FL, the Subcommittee on Risk Management and Specialty Crops held an important field hearing regarding Florida's winter fruit and vegetable industry. I commend our colleagues, the gentleman from Florida, Mark Foley, and the gentleman from Illinois, Tom Ewing, for making this effort. Although I was not able to be there myself, I want to share the feedback that my staff who were there got, because it definitely matches the information from the recent meetings we have been having in my own southwest Florida district, and that information is not good. The situation on the ground in Florida for these farmers is grave. Bankruptcy, in fact, looms for many, many of whom have been in farming families, growing winter vegetables and fruits in Florida, for literally generations. Planted acreage numbers are declining and they are declining rapidly. In some places we understand the contraction of the industry this year has been as much as 30 percent. That is a giant impact and it is a negative one. We have also heard from local bankers in my district who, despite longstanding relationships with the farming community, today just simply have to say ``no'' to new loans because the risks are too high for them. In the long term there are legislative steps this Congress can take, such as country-of-origin labeling laws, we know about and have been working on to assist our growers' in the transition to what we call a post-NAFTA trade system. In fact, the House has already taken action to relieve some farmers of unnecessary burdens by modernizing pesticide regulation, by voting for commonsense regulatory reform and doing things like that. But the farmers face more immediate problems, a situation that I think now clearly calls for decisive action by the executive branch within the existing authority that it has to provide immediate assistance for our farmers. Prior to the passage of NAFTA, I well recall the Clinton White House made a lot of promises to the Florida delegation and to the fruit and vegetable industry in our area, and today the Florida growers need the administration to take action to halt the potentially unfair Mexican trading practices we are seeing; to get full enforcement of NAFTA and its side agreements; to utilize existing mechanisms, notably section 316 of NAFTA, to consult with their Mexican counterparts; and to simply give growers a chance to compete on a level playing field. They think they can win competitively, and so do I, if they have a level playing field. So we are looking to the administration for help. We only hope the White House will honor the pledge they made to these hard-working Americans and give them a chance to prove that they can do the job in a fair field. Mr. MILLER OF Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOSS. I yield to my friend and colleague from the west coast of Florida, Dan Miller, who knows this problem as well as I do and is working just as hard to bring a satisfactory conclusion. Mr. MILLER OF Florida. Mr. Speaker, both of our districts have a very significant amount of winter tomato raised in our area. We have two crops a year in our area. We have one in November and one in May. The Florida tomato farmers are really hurting. They really are. Last season the imports of Mexican tomatoes went up 44 percent. The production of Florida tomatoes went down 23 percent. Another set of numbers is that in 1991, 5 years ago, there were 230 growers of tomatoes in Florida. Today there are only 80 growers in Florida. They are going out of business. And these are families that have been around a hundred years. Third and fourth generation. One hundred years in Florida is a long time. That may not be very long in Massachusetts, but it is in Florida. So they are really hurting, and the question is, is the administration doing everything they should be doing. When NAFTA was voted on, at the very end it was the Florida delegation who held out to make sure that agriculture was taken care of properly under NAFTA. Because Florida agriculture competes directly with Mexican agriculture. Michigan tomatoes do not compete with Mexican tomatoes. Mexican tomatoes only grow in the winter, and that is when we grow our tomatoes. And it is not always a fair trade that is going on. There is a difference between free trade and fair trade. We want to have both. To make it fair, we need a level playing field. It is not always a level playing field, and we think the administration can and should do more, and they promised to do everything they could back when we talked about NAFTA in the fall of 1993. I am really delighted that the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Ewing, was able to have the hearing down in Florida today, and so they are trying to get to the bottom of what can be done. There are certain limits to what we can do, but the gentleman is right, the administration has some ability, and I think the Department of Commerce is getting ready to come out with a ruling soon and maybe will tell us what is available for us. One of the things that make it a fair trade issue, and one of the things I have been working on, is the situation of methyl bromide. The administration should be more cooperative. The President spoke out in California about the issue and he said, yes, I will help on that issue, but then, when he gets back to Washington, he turns it over to the EPA and they say, no, we are not going to do anything. A University of Florida study showed the impact of methyl bromide to be a 43 percent reduction in production of those agriculture products where methyl bromide is eliminated. It would destroy Florida agriculture; not just tomatoes but winter vegetables in general. So it is very important to work with us on that issue. They have beat us up with the Mexican tomatoes, so why can they not allow us something to give the farmer. The minimum wage will hurt our tomato farmers, so we need to see what can be done.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 3666, the fiscal year 1997 VA/HUD appropriation bill. While a number of Members will undoubtedly touch on other important provisions in the bill--including parity for mental health benefits and mandatory stays for mothers and newborns--I would like to focus my limited time on veterans health care. As we work to balance the budget, it is imperative that we maintain our sacred compact with our veterans. Again this year, we have demonstrated that you can save money and eliminate wasteful spending without cutting back on high priority items like veterans services. For fiscal year 1997, we have provided $17 billion for veterans medical care--a $449 million increase from last year's level and a raise from the President's request. We have also moved to transform our health care delivery system from a hospital based system to one that emphasizes more cost-efficient primary and outpatient care. In my own district, we have moved forward to expand services to our underserved veterans through expansion of our Fort Myers outpatient clinic. I am pleased to report that the VA has chosen a site and we are on schedule for completion. Veterans' health care continues to present other serious challenges as we enter the next century. For too many veterans in growth States like Florida, a guaranteed entitlement of medical care has become a hollow promise. We must find a way to have the dollars follow the veterans rather than being distributed in antiquated formulas. The Graham-McCain amendment, adopted in conference, is an excellent step in the right direction as we work for fairness and equity in the VA health care system. I hope and expect that the VA will follow this clear directive and expeditiously work for a better formula. I applaud Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Stokes for a job well done and I urge a yes vote for this important legislation.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we have seen a good deal of hand-wringing and posturing these past few days on this floor and in the editorial pages of our Nation's major and minor newspapers about the ethics process. I guess that is to be expected, given that we are deep into the blatant partisan election-year politicking that often overtakes us every 2 years. And I suppose I should not be surprised that editorial writers have not studied the rule book of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or of this House, and, therefore, often write pieces that misstate or confuse facts. But I do expect more from Members of this institution, all of whom are bound by the rules of this House and all of whom have an obligation to improve in its credibility, not attempt to tear it further down. The fact is, however, that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle seem not to have read and understood the rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as prescribed in this little blue book. These rules clearly state that we on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct are not permitted to do what my friends are so desperately trying to get us to do, and that is release information before our process is complete. Now, I have said before and I say again that I have long believed that the current process, as prescribed by the rules in this little blue book and our House rules, this process is in serious need of review and reform, and that is happening. But the last time we implemented major changes was in 1989, and most observers, as well as most Members, I think, believe that it is time to do more. I have been saying that for years, and I have been trying to advance constructive proposals for reform of this process through the Committee on Rules, which is the proper venue for these discussions. But I have been blocked in that effort on the Committee on Rules by some of the very people who are now so vigorously urging our committee to ignore our rules. So on the one hand they seem to be complaining about the constraints of our current rules, while on the other hand they refuse to allow us on the Committee on Rules to plan for changes in the process so we do not fall into these same problems in the next Congress. Mr. Speaker, my dear friend from Colorado, Mrs. Schroeder, inserted some remarks into Tuesday's Record, calling on me to resign my current position on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I would suggest to her, in good nature, that I would like nothing more than to relinquish my post on that committee. I could say it the other way, and do the Brer Rabbit and say, ``Oh, please, don't fire me from the committee; don't throw me into that briar patch,'' but the truth is I have served my time there and I would love to move on. As all Members know, serving there is a difficult and very thankless task. It is no fun, it is extremely hard work, but, again, I am constrained by the very rules of the committee and by my obligation to faithfully discharge my duty to this House, and I will do that. I would say to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], and to all my colleagues who have lambasted our committee in recent days, join me in my attempt to get real reform of the ethics process for the next Congress. For instance, I have proposed changes to the process that would help to address the problem we seem to be having, where Members of this House, perhaps because they have not read or do not fully understand the committee's current rules, make statements that are misleading and confusing to other Members, and to the public, and to the media. My proposal would make all Members eligible to serve on the ethics panel, similar to a jury approach, where anyone could be called as needed at any time perhaps. Perhaps, then, Members would pay more attention to the rules. This type of reform would, I think, ensure that Members become more familiar with the rules and procedures of that committee, which are important, and since they too could be called upon to serve duty there in the future. In that case, then, perhaps they would be a little less likely to excoriate their colleagues who are currently doing the heavy lifting on that committee. I have other ideas, all of which are included in House Resolution 346, and I invite my colleagues to look at the proposal and add others to it, and to bring forward ideas of their own, so that we can have the best possible reform of the ethics process. We have an opportunity to turn all the partisan rancor into a positive force for change, and I hope we do not let that opportunity pass us by. The purpose of the ethics committee is to build a credibility of the institution. When we abuse the rules, we detract from the credibility of the institution and that does no Member or the institution any good.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. The rule before us makes in order four amendments: a manager's amendment, one that has bipartisan support and two offered from the minority, including a full substitute. I think most people will agree that given the limited time remaining in this Congress we have managed to report a fair and responsible rule for the consideration of this very important legislation. Mr. Speaker, this bill raises the important question of whether or not U.S. troops will be put under foreign command or forced to wear uniforms other than those of the U.S. Armed Forces. Many Americans find these notions abhorrent and I am unalterably opposed to placing our troops under anyone not directly accountable to the American people and Congress. There has been some misunderstanding about what H.R. 3308, the U.S. Armed Forces Protection Act seeks to accomplish. So let us be clear: would this bill make it more difficult for U.S. Forces to become entangled in international peacekeeping missions? Yes. Would it absolutely prohibit our involvement in these efforts? No. Since the end of the cold war, the number of United Nations peacekeeping missions has soared. Even so, there are no clear guidelines for U.S. participation in these adventures. Our experiences in Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti have taught us a number of important and costly lessons. The bill before us works to make the President more accountable when deploying our troops as part of international efforts. It would prohibit the use of taxpayer's money to pay for U.S. participation in U.N. efforts unless: the President certifies that the mission is in the national interest, sets forth clear command and control arrangements, outlines the anticipated costs and most importantly provides an exit strategy for U.S. troops. These are all sensible and necessary steps. I strongly urge my colleagues to support passage of these important safeguards--we owe it to the American people and we owe it to the dedicated men and women who serve our country in the Armed Forces.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it has been a hectic August recess this year, Mr. Speaker, so as we return I want to take a moment to make my colleagues aware of some of the recent disturbing developments in Haiti. It would be very easy indeed to miss these things because no one-- neither the media nor the White House--seems interested in making a concerted effort to analyze what is going on in that small Caribbean nation. Although, behind the scenes we understand that Haiti is hosting a high level cast of characters from the administration--National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, Joe Sullivan from the Haiti Working Group, Janet Reno our Attorney General, General Sheehan of the Atlantic Command and even Strobe Talbot himself. With them, we understand, goes an additional $10 million for the beleaguered Haitian National Police Force--we are certainly all anxious to know which account it came from. Then there is another gift for the national police in the form of a contingent of Marines who went last week for yet another training mission--this time protecting the U.S. Embassy in Haiti. We can almost certainly expect to see more of these training exercises--muscle- flexing, if you will--for the next few months. What specifically are my colleagues and I so concerned about? The few reports we have seen in recent weeks tell a tale of assassination plots, political killings, threats against the Haitian media community, and general civil unrest. On August 19, 20 men, suspected to be members of Haiti's disbanded military, attacked the National Palace and police headquarters in Port-au-Prince. One report in the Washington Times said that the attackers ``nearly overran police headquarters.'' There are strong suggestions that the right may be once again formalizing its structure and that the left may be involved in payback killings against those who ran Haiti during the Cedras era. In fact, Evans Paul, once mayor of Port-au-Prince and respected head of the FNCD Party in Haiti, publicly issued an accusation on August 22 that the government of Rene Preval is responsible for the assassinations of right-leaning Minister Antoine Leroy and Paul Florival in Port-au-Prince August 20. He made the bold--and dangerous statement--that in practice ``There are no differences between the Lavalas group and the `Macoutes' '' Because both use the same methods. We only hope that Mr. Paul won't pay for exercising his freedom to speak with his life. Finally, in recent days, we have seen allegations that members of the National Palace Security Force have been involved in criminal activities. Mr. Speaker, clearly something is seriously wrong in Haiti. When, can we ask, will the White House come clean, stop glossing over the rough spots, stop calling this a success, and put some meat on the bones of this anemic effort. After spending $3 billion in taxpayers' money, the American people and the American Congress expect and demand better.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is a little discussion----

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida will be very happy to, but I would prefer that we do this in an orderly way and get on with the customary beginning of the rule debate.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 508 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] who has been the chairman of the task force who has presented us with this legislation.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and friend, the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What I propose to do, if it meets with approval of the other side, is to make my opening rule statement, then I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], and then I would introduce a series on or side that intend to spell out what this is about for those who have not had a chance or have any uncertainty about what exactly we are talking about here. Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in an unusual situation. We have been challenged to reexamine our approach to combating terrorism at home and abroad. Working together in a mostly bipartisan spirit of cooperation, we put together a package for short-term measures to reduce the risk of terror attacks without infringing on the rights of our citizens. All members are familiar with the basic procedure we are using to bring this bill to the floor today, known as suspension of the rules-- in which a bill is considered without amendment, by the full House The suspension process expedites the passage of bills and requires a super majority of two-thirds. since the House Calendar only allows the House to consider bills under suspension on Mondays and Tuesdays, this rule is needed so we can consider the bipartisan antiterrorism package under suspension today. Mr. Speaker, this effort comes in the wake of three horrible tragedies: The bombing of a military installation in Saudi Arabia, the loss of TWA flight 800 out of New York's JFK Airport, and the recent pipe bomb explosion in Atlanta at the Olympics. While we haven't had time to thoroughly assess these tragedies and the effectiveness of the antiterrorism law Congress passed earlier this year, these attacks tell us that our society remains vulnerable to terrorism. Unfortunately, terrorism is a fact of life. In response to recent events, a series of proposals were offered to solve the problem--some with merit, and some that could cause more problems than they might solve by cutting deeply--and unnecessarily--into the constitutional freedoms of American citizens. I include in that category certain proposals for expanded wiretapping authority for Federal law enforcement. This is a dangerous proposition--and one that would be ceding victory to terrorists, whose goal is to disrupt our society, create anxiety and constrain our freedoms. That's the way terrorism attacks a free open society. Let me be clear, this bill does not--I repeat, does not--expand wiretapping authority. In fact, it goes the other direction, strengthening penalties for misuse of Government's existing authority. That's good news for all Americans--especially the many southwest Floridians who urged us not to succumb to the pressure to diminish our liberties. For this we owe our thanks to our able policy committee chairman, Chris Cox. Mr. Speaker, we have a vital need for solid, widespread foreign human intelligence capability as our first and best line of defense against attacks on Americans at home and abroad and including soldiers, civilians, tourists, businessmen, and students. I have been alarmed by recent initiatives to constrain our capabilities in this area--we are literally shutting our own eyes and closing our ears. Certain Clinton administration policies actually have the effect of tying our hands and preventing us from cultivating and maintaining useful human intelligence sources that could give us the insight we need to prevent terrorist acts. These policies are ill-advised and there is strong language in this bill charging a new blue ribbon commission with revisiting them. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so we can get on with this debate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], our majority leader. (Mr. ARMEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am going to take the final 30 seconds to say it is not just a question of moving barricades on Pennsylvania Avenue. That is not all there is to terrorism. We need to fight the shadows of terrorism overseas, and we need to do it with good human intelligence. Regrettably we have been cutting back on our resources and assets overseas, and we have been putting out policies of restraint on our abilities to operate overseas under the Clinton administration. I think the Speaker has brought attention to that, properly. I cannot imagine what would happen if we had not brought up a bill today on this. It would have been unthinkable. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the bill, 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, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder]. (Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) [Mr. LINDER addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)