Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I commend my good friend, the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, for his very diligent work in seeking cooperation and receiving it from the minority in crafting this rule. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely fair rule, providing the minority with a substitute, as was requested, along with a traditional motion to recommit, in effect giving those opposed to this measure two opportunities to propose changes. I think anybody would agree that is exceedingly fair. Mr. Speaker, welfare reform is one of the most challenging and overdue matters pending before this Congress and this country. The welfare state, for all the social engineering and the trillions, in excess of $5 trillion of taxpayers' dollars over the past 40 years, has failed to bring people out of poverty or to break the cycle of dependency that we all see and are upset about. On the contrary, the policies of Big Brother government have indisputably contributed to the very problems they were originally built to solve. Even our President recognizes the need to fix this failure of big government. He made it a celebrated campaign issue 4 years ago. But unfortunately, his campaign rhetoric has yet to translate into concrete action at the White House, even though Congress has twice passed real welfare reform. I say again, President Clinton, the man who, while in search of the White House 4 years ago, promised to end welfare as we know it, has rebuffed workable welfare reform that we have passed. Now States such as my home State of Florida are anxiously left hanging, awaiting reform at the national level. The wages program in Florida that passed through both the Florida House and Senate without a single ``no'' vote is predicated on action by President Clinton, action that was promised and action that has never happened. Florida's approach was designed to fit the unanimously passed National Governors' Association plan, which closely resembles our H.R. 4, which is the true reform plan that President Clinton vetoed. The bill before us today focuses on the State of Wisconsin's Wisconsin Works Program, which has taken tremendous steps toward restoring the work ethic and emphasizing the American values of responsibility and opportunity. What the people of Wisconsin have done by an overwhelming vote, and I congratulate them, is create a system that reinforces the importance of a job. A remarkable thing about the Wisconsin plan is that it will eliminate the cycle of dependency that our current system regrettably fosters. By requiring recipients to work, whether in a transitional job, a community service job, or a minimum- or low-wage job, the system will help individuals become productive members of our society. This is a bipartisan program that has the endorsement of the President of the United States by his own publicly spoken words. Yet, despite this extraordinary accomplishment, Wisconsin finds itself stymied by the old entrenched Federal regulation and redtape that have bound so much in Washington, and that is why we are here today. This bill will cut away the Federal shackles and let Wisconsin Works work. Wisconsin's experience and Florida's experience and those of many other States raise the question of why this process is necessary in the first place. My Republican colleagues and I favor ending the centralized, Washington-knows-best system that requires States to get Federal blessing when they attempt to solve the real problems in their State or to end the status quo that is killing them. That is what our comprehensive welfare reform proposals are all about, sending decisionmaking power back home to the States, closer to home, closer to the people. In the next few weeks, we will be sending President Clinton another welfare reform bill. This time America will be watching ever more closely to see if he honors his campaign promises and actually signs the bill. In the meantime, I urge support for this rule and this bill because at least it allows one of our great 50 States to get on with the job of reform.

Mr. GOSS. I have no idea about that. I am sure we will hear it in the debate.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I take the gentleman at his word. We are trying to expedite a good idea, and I have seen 2 weeks stretch into many years at the White House. Let us hope that we can preclude that.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare trustees, including three Clinton Cabinet officials, have released their annual report. It is 3 months late and the diagnosis is not good. The part A trust fund is going to be bankrupt in 2001, a full year earlier than was reported last year. Those are the facts. Interestingly enough, this report came just days after the Senate minority leader and a top Clinton Cabinet official accused Republicans of playing politics with Medicare. It is serious, folks. We have a problem. Mr. Speaker, during my work on the Kerry commission I saw firsthand the consequences of failing to reform Medicare. I was also pleased to work in a bipartisan fashion with colleagues on both sides of the aisle trying to find a long-term solution for this problem. Responsible people did. Last year Congress sent that responsible solution of real Medicare reform to the President, and the President vetoed it. I say that it is time for the President to stop the mediscare, stop the medigoguery, encourage the people in his party on that side of the aisle to stop doing it and get to responsible solutions. We have one. We need to identify it and we need it now.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to point out before I yield back my time that the efforts of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] with regard to dealing with the problems of the world, the most egregious problems with those who are the least able to deal with themselves, the sick, the poor, the children, and particularly in the areas of starvation, the accomplishments of the gentleman and commitment to that cause are well-known and I congratulate him for that. Obviously there are a great many global problems out there. You cannot pick up a newspaper, you cannot look at a map, you cannot turn on the television without being reminded that if it is not East Timor, it is Korea or one of the former Russian states or it is Russia itself or the Turks or the Greeks or maybe it is the Cypriots, as we have just heard the problem there, or perhaps it is the Baltics or the Balkans, perhaps it is the Visegrads. Maybe it comes to our own hemisphere, to South America or Central America or perhaps the Caribbean where we have Cuba and Haiti and some other things that catch our attention. Sometimes we look at the other side of the issues where we have apparently enemies to American interests, and Iraq and Iran and Libya jump into focus, and I have not even mentioned perhaps three of the biggest problem areas that we have, the immediate threat always to peace from the Mideast, that continuing nagging question; the problems going on in India today, the teeming masses there and how they are going to be fed and what provisions there are going to be for them. I know we have not talked about the continent of Africa where every day, if we can keep up with the map and the changes that are going on, the problems seem to be simply overwhelming. The point of this is that we could have endless debate and we could commit endless resources to try and solve all the problems of the world, but obviously we do not have endless time, we do not have endless ability and we do not have endless resources. It is the people we work for, the American people, in the end, who are going to tell us how much resource we should commit to our domestic problems and then what percentage should we commit to the folks overseas who are in true need. That is what this debate is about, and that is why I think it is important that this debate come forward under an open rule. I have no doubt that there will be many Members coming forward and spending a great deal of time acquainting us and the people who are interested in this debate with aspects of our foreign assistance, our foreign interests, our foreign activities and our foreign operations that are vital not only to our national interests, our national well- being and to American interests overseas, whether it be individual, corporate, or just tourists on a summer vacation, but also to the well- being and the survival, as my friend from Ohio has so eloquently spoken, of so many countries where they have so little compared to what we enjoy in this much-blessed United States. That debate, I think, is a debate that is critical every year. I think it helps set the tone and helps set the measure and the standard of what we are about in our world leadership role. I look forward to that debate, and I am extremely pleased that we are able to come forward from the Rules Committee, both sides, in agreement that this should be an open rule so that we can have such discussion in the people's House. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 445 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], 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. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, like last year, we bring to the floor an open rule for the consideration of the foreign operations appropriations bill. Under this rule any Member may offer an amendment that is in order under the standing Rules of the House. It does not get any more straightforward or fair than that. The bill includes a few specific waivers for points of order against unauthorized appropriations, reappropriation, 3-day layover of published hearings and a technical trade provision. The first two are needed because there has not been a foreign operations authorization bill that has made it into law since 1985. It is worth noting that the administration succeeded in blocking our efforts to enact even partial authorizing legislation by vetoing the American Overseas Interests Act earlier this year. The technical trade waiver is needed to grant the president authority to impose penalties on products from countries that have not conformed to international economic sanctions on Iraq, Serbia, and Montenegro, authority that has been included in this bill for the last 5 years. Finally, we have waived the requirement that the subcommittee's published hearings be available 3 days prior to floor consideration. It is my understanding that these are available now. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has consistently asserted the importance of reaching a balanced budget, and I am pleased that under H.R. 3540, total foreign operations spending next year will be $11.95 billion, $450 million less than last year's level. This is a very small fraction of the total $1.6 trillion Federal budget, but it is important that we have made the effort to identify and fund those programs that are thru priorities, while reducing spending overall. I am also pleased to note that this legislation contains an updated version of last year's Dole language on Haiti. As my colleagues may remember, this language was drafted to encourage the Clinton White House to honor its commitments to consult with Congress on aid to Haiti, particularly with regard to investigations into political violence and extrajudicial killings. My colleagues may also recall that the White House was unable to certify that the Government of Haiti was being cooperative last year and ultimately waived these provisions. Beyond these murders, there are other matters that deserve further scrutiny. In recent weeks Haiti has seen a spate of troubling events, including: A series of murders of off-duty Haitian Police Officers, the murder of the mayor of Chansolme, and the subsequent mob raid on police station in Port-au-Prince that ended in the deaths of seven individual who had come in for questioning; suggesting that all is not as well as the Clinton administration would have us to believe. As we run up to the June 30 deadline for the long-waited departure of the United Nations troops. Evidence that the Haitian national police are unable to maintain order is particularly troubling. In addition, there are still questions to be answered regarding where all of the Money American taxpayers have sent to Haiti has gone. We are talking here about more than $2 billion in taxpayers investment under the Clinton administration. Reports, of large expenditures by President Aristide's recently created foundation in an antiprivatization campaign, in particular, are drawing attention in some circles and obviously run contrary to U.S. announced policy. Finally, I would note that, on the general question of aid to Latin America and the Caribbean, I am pleased to see that the committee has included language to encourage a more equitable distribution of aid dollars in this region than we have seen from the administration in the past 3 years. I urge my colleagues to support this fair and open rule. Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], a member of the committee. (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glens Falls, the distinguished Chairman of the Rules Committee Mr. Solomon, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. It's a carefully structured rule that will fulfill promises made to have a debate on several issues, including: measures to promote small business jobs, to clarify the rules regarding employees commuting in employer-owned vehicles, and to address the minimum wage. The latter has received the most attention, and I would like to take a moment to discuss it from the perspective of southwest Florida. Those seeking an increase in the minimum wage have yet to recognize the unintentional damage it will do to many Americans working at the low-end of the pay scale. Despite the rhetoric, raising the minimum wage as proposed will not create a living wage. Not even close. What it will do is force many Americans out of work and put up new barriers for those people seeking employment. Specifically a major concern is that seniors would be hit especially hard by an increase in the minimum wage. In southwest Florida, many retirees work part time at or near the minimum wage to supplement their retirement income. We have been notified many of these jobs would be eliminated should minimum wage be increased, leaving these seniors without the income that they need to make ends meet. Additionally, the inflationary pressures that this increase causes will erode the financial stability of the millions of seniors living on fixed incomes. Further, another concern is that in Florida, like most of the Nation, small businesses create the vast majority of new jobs. And despite our good efforts to help small businesses in this Congress, an increase in the minimum wage will financially strap the very employers that are the engine for new jobs. Finally, I am concerned that some of this debate is rooted in politics rather than substance. To those in the minority, I would point out that this issue never came to the floor when they ran this House. There was not one hearing in committee nor one vote on the floor. Indeed, the same President who is now demanding a minimum wage hike was arguing against one when he took office in 1993. The only hike he fought for then was a tax hike, the largest in History. Our real goal on the majority side has been to figure out the best way to help at- risk workers in our economy. Rather than shrinking the job market, we need to fix our tax structure so that people who are working can keep more of their own money. Efforts to reform the earned income tax credit and the payroll tax would more effectively benefit the families we are trying to help. We know taxes consume an ever-increasing proportion of Americans' incomes--a significant factor in the decline in purchasing power of hard working Americans. So today I urge my colleagues to reject the big government big union solution. Let's not hold back Americans trying to enter the work force; vote against hiking the minimum wage, and vote for job creation and support for small business. And support the rule that will allow us to make those choices.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. 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 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. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker House Resolution 437 is a modified open rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 3259, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. The rule waives sections 302(f), 308(a) and 401(a) of the budget act against consideration of the bill. These waivers pertain to: An excess above a committee's allocation of new entitlement authority; the necessary cost-estimate paperwork on this new entitlement authority; and contract authority not previously subject to appropriation. The waivers are needed because of provisions in two sections of H.R. 3259. Section 402 of the bill repeals the surcharge associated with CIA employees who receive a voluntary separation incentive payment in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, correcting a situation in which CIA was forced to make double-payments. Section 401 of the bill makes clear legislative authority for the CIA to enter into multiyear leases of not more than 15 years. These provisions are not considered controversial nor do they cause serious budget problems, according to CBO. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate and makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as the base text for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered by title and shall be considered as read. The rule waives section 302(f) and section 401(a) of the budget act against the committee substitute, for the reasons I have already described. The rule also waives clause 7 of rule XVI, the so-called germaneness rule, and clause 5(b) of rule XXI, which prohibits consideration of legislation containing revenue provisions if not considered by the Ways and Means Committee. The germaneness waiver is necessary because the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is broader in scope than the original bill, including provisions to improve our intelligence systems in light of lessons learned from the Aldrich Ames case and to ensure proper congressional oversight over the expenditure of funds for personnel reforms. These are important additions to the annual intelligence authorization process that deserve Members' careful review and support. The ways and means waiver is necessary because of a technical 1-year extension in the bill of the application of sanctions laws to intelligence activities. Mr. Speaker: this rule is basically an open rule, meaning that all germane amendments that pass muster under the standing rules of the House may be offered. We have included a pre-printing requirement, however, at the request of the Intelligence Committee because of the sensitive nature of this legislation and a very real concern about protecting classified information. I'd like to respond briefly to a discussion we had in the Rules Committee with the distinguished ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Dicks, about the timing of floor consideration of this bill. I share Mr. Dicks interest in ensuring that Members who wish to have the opportunity to review the classified annex to this bill, and we have done what we can to provide that opportunity. Mr. Dicks should be pleased to note that there was a pro-forma schedule in the House yesterday and Members may file amendments in today's Congressional Record as well. We have attempted to accommodate all Members in this process, while adhering to a very tight legislative schedule we must keep if we are to conclude all of our business before our target adjournment in early October. Finally, the rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce to 5 minutes a vote on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. It also provides for the traditional motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am proud to bring this bill to the House and I would like to commend Chairman Combest for his leadership and his thorough efforts to provide us with detailed commentary about the bill. Developing a blueprint for our Nation's intelligence capabilities is an extraordinarily difficult task. Having assisted in two separate, extensive reviews of this subject matter in the past 2 years, and having spent a chunk of my life working within the intelligence community, I am keenly aware of the complexity and the breadth of issues that confront us as we look to the next century and evaluate our intelligence capabilities and needs. H.R. 3259 provides a responsible balance of adequate resources and careful congressional oversight to ensure that our national decisionmakers have accurate, timely and objective information with which to assess threats and opportunities in this ever-changing world. An inherent problem with the intelligence field is that public information which could serve to build a constituency for its missions is generally skewed. Americans hear most about things that go wrong in the intelligence world. In fact, one of the characteristics of successes in this arena is that you generally don't hear about them, because a success usually means we were able to prevent something bad from happening in the first place. I know Americans--who have an instinctive appreciation for openness and sunshine and I come from the Sunshine State where, indeed, we do have the sunshine law. Americans sometimes find it frustrating to hear about classified briefings and secret missions. But the world is a dangerous place, and the fact is that we rely on information and data that can't always be gathered in an overt way. It is the task of our intelligence services--and each member of Congress--to convince Americans that we are earning the trust that we ask them to place in us. Once again I commend Chairman Combest for his work in pursuing that important goal. I think H.R. 3259 deserves the support of this House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 437 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will advise the gentleman from California that I do not think we have any speakers. Before the gentleman takes the floor again, may I just thank him for his very kind remarks and return them. I think those newcomers to this institution this year perhaps may not know the gentleman's distinguished record as a member and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the extraordinary service he has rendered this country, to say nothing of his extraordinary capacity on the Committee on Rules and his contributions to the proceedings in both the majority and minority roles which he does so well. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the remarks that have been made about the debates, we are going to have some interesting debate. In fact, better than a dozen amendments have been filed under the preprinting rule. And while I agree, I am not sure I am totally enamored of the preprinting rule, it does give us that little extra measure, if there is a security problem, at least to vet it and try to get the debate in the appropriate aura. Mr. Speaker, I also need to point out that, while I agree that we have to be sure we spend our tax dollars well, I am told that, since about 1990, that in terms of real spending, intelligence is down about 14 percent. I think that we have seen some significant cuts. It is hard for me to say specifically what they are; because we all know we are not supposed to talk about the specifics, but we also know that part of the debate will be, should we talk about certain of the specifics. I think as we go along in this process we are going to have a very good debate this year. I totally agree with the gentleman that we want to focus on the real threats, because there are more than enough real threats for national security interest, and weed out the imaginary ones. I will join him in that effort, of course. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information:

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the Greater Claremont- San Dimas metropolitan corridor in California, Mr. Dreier, for yielding this time, and I rise in strong support of this rule. This is a customary rule when we do ways and means bills, a closed rule, a reasonable precaution when dealing with the Tax Code. Of course, we have preserved the right of the minority, as they well know, to offer a motion to recommit the bill with or without instructions, so I think the process is in order. This is a very important debate for every American because everyone who drives a car, takes a bus, or flies on an airplane has been hit by the President's 1993 gas tax hikes which scraped through this House by one vote. All told, this tax increase costs the people in my State of Florida almost $263 million a year. That is a quarter of a billion, according to one study we have. I think it is right. Another distressing aspect of the gas tax increase is those who are hit hardest by this are those who are least able to afford it. In my case, it is seniors on fixed incomes and people at the lower end of the wage scale. In fact, this debate highlights yet again the folly of attempting to solve our Government's financial problems through taxes and more taxes. Six years ago the Democrats in Congress passed a luxury tax on boats in order to make the rich pay their fair share. This supposedly targeted tax provision not only failed to raise the projected income but the Treasury actually lost money trying to collect it. More importantly, thousands of boat builders, skilled American workers, many in my district, lost their jobs because the boat people went out of business. It was several years before we were able to repeal that foolish tax and the damage is still being felt in Florida and elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, we are moving to repeal the gas tax. It is what the Americans want us to do, at least for the remainder of 1996. I am especially pleased that this measure is not going to hinder our progress toward balancing the budget because we have fully paid for our relief. I think it is important to say the oil companies have come out, and I quote, A decrease in the Federal gas tax will be immediately reflected in the prices that Chevron charges to motorists at our pumps at our stations through reductions. Same statement from ARCO: We will immediately reduce its total price. So forth. Texaco and so on. These have been entered into the Record. Big oil understands. This is gas tax. We are repealing it.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, who is well known as a tireless fighter for a balanced budget, for yielding me this time. I rise in very strong support of this fair rule for the budget and what it brings to this House and the United States of America. The rule as advertised makes in order the fiscal year 1997 budget proposed by our Committee on the Budget under the tremendously strong leadership of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] who is the chairman of that committee. The rule allows for three complete substitutes, as Chairman Solomon has said, all of which comply with the prerequisites of obtaining balance in the budget by the year 2002. That is wonderfully good news for Americans. We should stop and think about that for a moment. This Congress has accomplished a truly remarkable feat in changing the focus of the discussion here in Washington from if we should balance our budget to how we will balance the budget. We made a promise to the American people that we would do just that and get the Nation's fiscal house in order, and we are delivering on that pledge today. Promises made, promises kept. We have changed the terms of the debate, and now we are going to lock into place a blueprint for matching our deeds to our words. Mr. Speaker, the budget presented to this House by Mr. Kasich reflects balance both in terms of bottom line and in terms of its priorities, what it provides for. We find in this budget that we can save the important quality of life programs that so many Americans depend on while still increasing the Federal commitment to seniors, to children, and to those most in need in our society over the next 6 years. Mr. Speaker, we find that we can provide relief from the excessive taxation of the Clinton administration in order to promote investment, productivity, and job creation without jeopardizing our efforts to balance the books. This budget does all that. We find that we can reduce the size and scope of Federal intrusion into our lives, bringing decisionmaking power closer to the home for every average American, without undercutting the fundamental purposes of our national government. Mr. Speaker, what Chairman Kasich and his Committee on the Budget have shown us in this budget is a blueprint that we can make the fundamental changes in the way we run this country and we can finally begin to lighten the load, the crushing national debt that otherwise would burden our children and their children for generations to come. Americans should not be taken in by the defenders of the big government and the Washington-knows-best crowd who undoubtedly find fault with this budget plan. They are the ones who support it and in fact cheered for the largest tax increase in history, the Clinton tax hike. They are the ones that defined the very rich as anybody who is not on welfare. The truth is that we are following through on our promise to restore fiscal sanity. That is something we all should be proud of, and most of this Chamber will be. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate my commitment to seeking ways to improve our budget process. While I firmly believe that we cannot use process to avoid the tough substantive decisions we must make to achieve a balanced budget, I believe just as firmly that the process that we are using today can be greatly improved to help force us to make those tough decisions and to ensure they stick. I look forward to working with Chairman Solomon on this effort and with my friend, the Budget Committee chairman, Mr. Kasich, and all of our many colleagues who have expressed interest. Meanwhile, I suggest we stay firmly focused on this budget, get it passed today so Americans have something to cheer about, knowing that fiscal sanity has indeed returned.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glens Falls, NY, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, providing for the national defense is one of the few Federal duties outlined by our Constitution--it is our fundamental responsibility to make sure that the Armed Forces have the resources and training to protect this country from every military threat. And despite the end of the cold war, we all understand there are still many threats out there. It is a dangerous world. Just now the spreading influence of Iran--an avowed enemy of the United States--in Europe and other parts of the world is ringing alarm bells. Other obvious dangers include: nuclear proliferation, heightened regional tensions and uncertainty about the direction of powers like Russia and China. Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of many Americans about our President's on again-off again commitment to key national security issues. President Clinton seems content to lend his tacit approval to Iran's expansion into Europe, while at the same time recommending drastic reductions in defense resources. Even the liberal media is commenting on this state of affairs. While I note that in some ways this bill might be too comprehensive--in terms of the social issues that would, I think, be better debated elsewhere--I commend the National Security Committee for bringing forward a responsible bill in a bipartisan manner. During the Rules Committee hearing on this legislation, the spirit of cooperation and consensus that went into crafting this bill was very evident. Mr. Speaker, I think that we have worked in the same spirit to put together the rule before us. After sifting through well over 100 amendments, we have a fair rule that makes in order a total of 42 Republican, Democrat, and bipartisan amendments on a wide range of issues. And once again we have done so in a single rule, where past Congresses have required multiple rules for this bill. I would urge strong support for this rule.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I think the distinguished gentleman from Colorado would agree that the comments and the allegations he made about Senator Rudman go to a very narrow issue with regard to covert action findings, and do not go the broad comprehensive policy we are talking about.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides a measured and appropriate response to recent disturbing disclosures about secret administration policy with respect to Iranian arms shipments during the Bosnian conflict. I think most Members would agree that there remain many serious questions about this policy, the circumstances surrounding its formulation and the lack of information provided to the Congress regarding its execution. These questions are particularly important given the presence of thousands of United States troops in Bosnia and the serious national security consequences of encouraging an Iranian foothold in Europe. It is not only the clear right, but also the obligation of Congress, to conduct a careful review in search of more thorough answers to these questions, a point made eloquently at the Rules Committee by the distinguished ranking member of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton advised that he believes this is undoubtedly an issue for Congress to investigate. As stewards of the management of this House, the majority has determined that the most effective means for conducting this review is to create a special purpose, temporary, select subcommittee within the International Relations Committee, and that is precisely what House resolution 416 proposes to do. It is our judgment, and the judgment of such respected foreign policy experts in this House as Mr. Gilman and Mr. Hyde, that this matter requires the focus, expanded resources, and clearly defined authority to gather information of a special select subcommittee. Given Mr. Hamilton's reasoned words and his candid assessment of the complexity of the issues involved in this matter, I am dismayed that some of his Democratic colleagues in the House are still resisting this investigation. This resistance is even more puzzling given news reports that the minority leader in the other body has publicly expressed no opposition to it. Although other committees, including Select Intelligence, on which I serve, will be exploring certain points of jurisdictional interest, it is sensible and practical for one body to accept the primary, exclusive and comprehensive responsibility for this task. In addition, through this resolution we are clearly defining the job description of this select subcommittee, while providing a clear and decisive end-date for the investigation. Mr. Speaker, Members of this House and the American people have a right to know how it was that, at a time when the administration was publicly opposing bipartisan efforts in this Congress to lift the Bosnian arms embargo, the President and a few others working for him pursued a policy of tacit approval for Iranian arms shipments through Croatia to the Bosnian Government. Apparently we had Americans working against Americans in our Croatian country team--the White House reportedly working against itself and Congress. In addition to the troubling gap between the public exhortations of the Clinton administration about preserving the arms embargo and the apparent private decision to allow Iran to supply arms in contravention of the embargo--I am troubled at the apparently calculated lack of congressional notification about these events. This was not CIA; ironically they were the whistleblowers, according to the press. This was a small band of the President's men, it seems. And, perhaps most troubling of all, I am deeply concerned about the long-term impact of allowing an outlaw terrorist nation, Iran, to establish a presence in Bosnia. This goes beyond foolish policy to increased national security risks and it is not a matter to be taken lightly by this Congress. We need the truth from the White House, the whole truth. This resolution starts us in that direction. I support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, to a very narrow point that they were looking into, which we cannot talk about, regrettably, too much in the open, I agree that was a correct finding, but it is not the whole story.

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, today is tax freedom day, the day that working Americans can finally stop toiling for the Government and begin to keep their earnings to provide for themselves and their families. By any measure, taxes are continuing to grow at a record pace, consuming an even greater portion of taxpayer income. The average American family pays more in total taxes than it spends on food, clothing, and shelter combined. Put another way, the typical American now works nearly 3 hours out of every 8-hour workday just to pay taxes. These examples demonstrate what the American taxpayer already knows--all Americans are overtaxed. A recent Reader's Digest poll underscores this fact. According to the poll, the maximum tax load Americans believe a family of four should bear is 25 percent--that's not just Federal income taxes but all levels of taxation--a far cry from the 38 percent that the average family actually pays today. This Congress has responded by moving to repeal the fundamentals of the 1993 Clinton tax hike on working Americans--the tax hike on seniors' Social Security benefits and the increase in the gas tax that all Americans are feeling at the pump today. We have passed meaningful tax relief for families that would have erased the income tax burden entirely for 140,000 taxpayers in my State of Florida alone. While we have done our job, President Clinton has consistently opposed and obstructed our tax relief every step of the way. Tax policy comes down to a basic choice: The failed status quo of ever-increasing taxation of lower taxes that allow Americans to earn more and keep more so they can do more for themselves, their families and their communities. For me and for this Congress, the choice is clear.