[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 117 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H9877-H9886]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A CERTAIN MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 508 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 508

       Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the 
     calendar day of Friday, August 2, 1996, for the Speaker to 
     entertain a motion offered by the majority leader or his 
     designee that the House suspend the rules and pass a bill or 
     joint resolution relating to the subject of combating 
     terrorism.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is 
recognized for 1 hour.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would just inquire as to the legislation 
that is being addressed in the rule. Can the Chair inform us as to the 
bill which is being addressed by the rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not fully aware. Under the 
pending rule it would be up to the majority leader to decide what bill 
will be called up, and the measure before the House now is House 
Resolution 508. The gentleman has been recognized for 1 hour for a 
debate on the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, is this the same matter that was discussed 
before the Committee on Rules last night or is this a new bill that was 
just dropped in 5 minutes ago?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] may be 
explaining that during his debate.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman from Florida inform me?
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California 
[Mr. Moakley], pending which time I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material in the Record.)
  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.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the bill 
that will follow.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], for yielding. He deserves our 
commendation for all the work he has put into the effort to combat 
terrorism. His background working in the intelligence community and 
then serving on the Intelligence Committee makes him particularly well 
qualified in this area.
  Terrorism is an on-going problem. It is not just the recent bomb 
incident in Atlanta, or the possibility that the crash of the TWA 
flight leaving New York was caused by a bomb.
  We have had American citizens killed in the Oklahoma City bombing, 
the World Trade Center bombing, and the barracks blast in Saudi Arabia, 
among other places.
  It is a problem which is not going to go away. This Congress, 
representing the need of the American people for security, is going to 
have to take additional action.
  According to the testimony presented to the Rules Committee in the 
wee hours of this morning, there was an effort in the last few days to 
put together a package of antiterrorism measures which included 
representatives of the FBI, the Justice Department, the White House, 
the Senate and the House of Representatives--both Democrats and 
Republicans.
  Those negotiations bogged down. And so last night the decision was 
made to proceed with a package of antiterrorism proposals which the 
great majority of the Members of this House can support.
  This rule provides for the consideration of that package under 
suspension of the rules, which means that it will require a two-thirds 
vote to pass.
  If this package is criticized, it will probably be because it does 
not include some particular provision that some of our colleagues 
desire. But many of those more controversial proposals would cause the 
discussion to drag on for months.
  This package is something that is doable now. It is not going to 
solve the problem of terrorism for all time. But it is a step in the 
right direction, and it implements changes most of us agree need to be 
made.
  For example, according to the testimony in the Rules Committee last 
night, it includes a series of aviation security measures, which 
include things like increased baggage and passenger screening, and 
explosive detection improvements.
  It includes increased measures against international terrorists, such 
as reporting on cooperation in fighting international terrorists, and 
action plans to sanction terrorist states.
  At the same time is includes privacy act amendments to strengthen 
protections and to prevent and punish abuses of individual privacy 
rights.
  Mr. Speaker, there are other proposals for action which have been 
suggested. But some of them involve possible infringements to 
individual liberties which generate opposition on both sides of the 
aisle. Those controversial provisions have purposely been left out of 
the package to be brought before the House today.

[[Page H9878]]

  It should also be noted that this Congress has been attacking 
terrorism on other fronts as well.
  Yesterday, in the Defense Department authorization conference report 
there were provisions allocating to communities the resources to deal 
with chemical, biological, or nuclear threats. That conference report 
improves the preparedness of firemen, policemen, and local emergency 
personnel regarding weapons of mass destruction. Border protection is 
also increased by authorizing money for equipment to detect and stop 
the movement of weapons of mass destruction into the United States.
  Earlier in this Congress, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 
Penalty Act was adopted, and there are provisions in the bill to be 
considered today which will aid in the full implementation of that act.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this Congress is attacking terrorism from a number 
of different directions.
  We should join together to pass this rule and then to pass the bill 
to combat terrorists who may be planning to attack innocent Americans.
  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 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. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are about to come to the end of what has been, in 
fact, a very productive week, and a very busy week, and for many, many 
of us a very difficult week, with long hours of hard work. While we 
have been working here, we have had new fears and new concerns and new 
worries that have come to the American people.
  Terrorism is an ugly thing. In a Nation like ours that has prided 
itself in its ability to, while protecting the liberties of its 
citizens, also secure their physical safety, shocking events, 
frightening events, heartbreaking events have taken place in our 
Nation's land.
  We have been engaged in serious and extensive discussions, Members of 
the House, Members of the other body, and members of the administration 
searching for some instrument that we could bring to the floor on which 
we could act that could, on one hand, reassure the American people 
that, yes, this Congress and this administration and this Government 
has a resolve; we have a resolve, Mr. and Mrs. America, to protect and 
secure the safety of you and your children.
  We have a resolve in this great land to protect our liberties. We 
will not take such action in a sense of emergency or panic that 
infringes against the liberties so precious to these American citizens 
in order to meet these threats that are so insidious in their nature.
  We have worked hard and we have worked late into the night, and, yes, 
the gentleman from Maryland is correct to say and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is correct to say the legislation is late in getting 
here, and I am sure you have concerns and they are legitimate concerns, 
and we do not want to disregard those concerns.
  So, what I would suggest that we must do here and we must do in order 
to show the people of this great Nation that this great body shares 
their anxiety, feels their concern, and will maintain and give 
surveillance to their resolve for safety and security and liberty, that 
we proceed with this debate on this rule and that as we do so, the 
Members of the body that have concern about seeing the final detail, 
the final print, have that available for them for their study. At the 
beginning of the consideration of the resolution, if we are not 
satisfied that we have not had ample time to have full and thoughtful 
awareness of the details, perhaps we can at that time contemplate a 
short recess period for people to have that opportunity.
  We do not want to rush to judgment. We do not want any Member here to 
feel that they have been left without an opportunity, but we must, I 
believe, demonstrate this resolve during this time.
  I would ask my colleagues, as you look at this, think in terms of 
this is a serious business. I do not believe this is a time for 
political statements. I think this is a time to show America that we 
are a Nation with a government that understands and cares about the 
threat and understands and cares about our citizens' liberty.

                              {time}  1345

  I think this is a time for a serious discussion, certainly, that we 
may have differences or questions about some of the details, but we 
must move forward.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. For clarification, I have, Mr. Leader, and I appreciate 
the statement that the leader just made, a bill, H.R. 3953, printed 
August 2, 1996, at 1:51 p.m. Is that the legislation that will be 
offered under the rule?
  The reason I ask that, Mr. Leader, as you know, the rule provides 
that the leader, yourself, can offer any bill that you so choose.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his inquiry. That 
is the bill. I do understand and I have, incidentally, designated on my 
behalf to take up the bill, when we come to the point, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cox]. I do understand that he has taken the bill 
up and made a few modest changes, and he is here on the floor during 
this discussion and available to discuss it.
  There is nothing here that we seek to keep from anybody's eyes or 
understanding. We will be here and make all answers to all questions 
available. And if further time is needed at the conclusion of the 
debate on this rule, we will accommodate that. This business is too 
serious for anybody to do anything trifling regarding it. That will not 
happen.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
again, I want to thank him for his serious treatment of this and his 
concern that, as far as I know, nobody on this side of the aisle has 
seen the completed bill at this point in time.
  I understand Mr. Cox, according to what the gentleman says, has made 
some modifications of this printed bill. If that is the case, we 
clearly would like to have, Mr. Leader, as soon as possible, the 
substance so that we will know what we are considering.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I will stay on the floor 
and be available to be helpful in any way I can.
  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

[[Page H9879]]

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. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], 
for yielding me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, some events took place in this very building last night 
regarding terrorism, and they are not over yet.
  A lot of Members probably do not realize it but at midnight last 
night, under cover of darkness, there were some terrorist-related 
activities going on in the House of Representatives.
  But it was not what you think, Mr. Speaker, it was down in Speaker 
Gingrich's office at which a plan was hatched finally to bring up the 
antiterrorism bill without allowing any Democratic participation 
whatsoever.
  Now there were a few of us who suspected that this type of activity 
might be going on at the hour when most Members were sleeping. I asked 
my good friend the chairman of the Rules Committee three times if the 
antiterrorism bill was going to come up. Twice he assured me the answer 
was ``no'' and the last time he said ``maybe.''
  Now, I am not blaming my chairman because he was not the motivating 
force on this bill.
  And, Mr. Speaker, at midnight, only a handful of Members were still 
here. Most people had gone home after the last vote at 10:32 p.m. last 
night--before anyone had an inkling that the terrorism bill would be 
unleashed.
  And this is not a small, unimportant bill.
  Every single Member of this House has a sincere interest in finding a 
solution to the horrible terrorism that is infecting our country and in 
putting a stop to it once and for all.
  So I would say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that dropping the bill 
on the Rules Committee in the wee hours of the morning is no way to 
conduct business as important as this.
  Today this bill is going to come up and very few Democratic Members 
have had the chance to see it.
  It is not as if Democrats have not taken the lead on this issue 
already.
  Over a year ago President Clinton started the whole process by coming 
up with an antiterrorism proposal and beginning discussions with 
Republicans. When negotiations broke down, House Republicans wrote this 
bill on their own, under cover of night, and they left out one of the 
most important parts of President Clinton's bill--the provisions 
granting wiretapping authority.
  Because Mr. Speaker, rather than just punishing terrorists, we need 
to prevent terrorism. And the one thing law enforcement officers have 
asked for time and again, is wiretapping authority.
  But my Republican colleagues refuse to give it to them.
  Instead, Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have decided to make 
even the issue of terrorism political.
  I would at least expect my Republican colleagues to allow us to offer 
amendments to this bill, but apparently they will not.
  Mr. Speaker, as today's Washington Post reports, this important 
antiterrorism legislation has been slowed down because of conservative 
Republicans' refusal to allow law enforcement officers the wiretapping 
capability they ask for and President Clinton and the Democrats are 
trying to give them.
  As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to combating 
terrorism, we should give law enforcement officers any and every 
reasonable tool they need, including wiretapping authority.
  And, Mr. Speaker, the process only gets worse.
  My Republican colleagues have decided on this rule; in addition to 
hiding the bill from Democrats until this morning; in addition to 
keeping Democrats from making amendments to the bill; that they will 
take away the last right of the minority, a right the chairman of the 
Rules Committee claims he always protects, the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule makes the Chinese Government look permissive.
  As far as I am concerned, too many Americans are worried about 
terrorism to rush an issue this important through in the middle of the 
night without the full participation of Members of the Congress and not 
allow any changes including wiretapping authority.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this horrible rule, the issue of 
terrorism should never ever be used as a political football and our law 
enforcement officers need every prevention tool we can give them.
  Mr. Speaker, we just found out that even the meeting we had in the 
Committee on Rules last night, the things that were talked about are 
superseded by a bill that was just filed about 1 hour ago in this 
Chamber, 1 hour ago.
  I would like, because of the lateness of the filing, I would like to 
address some questions to my dear friend, the honorable Congressman 
Cox, about what changes have been made between the bill that was heard 
in the Committee on Rules last night and the bill we have today.
  How does this treat the provisions dealing with digital communication 
technology?
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, when we 
discussed this in the Committee on Rules last night I indicated that 
that would not be in the bill. It is, in fact, not in the bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Is there any specific reason for dropping that 
technology?
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, yes, we are taking care of it through the appropriations 
process. Congressman Rogers has informed the Congress that that is 
already taken care of in his bill. It will be a separate vehicle that 
we will take up through the normal process. It has already passed the 
House so we should be in conference with the Senate in 2 weeks.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. How did you treat the death penalty provision?
  Mr. COX of California. There is no death penalty provision. There are 
obviously death penalty provisions on the books for terrorism but that 
is not a subject in this bill. As you know, when we were discussing 
this before the Committee on Rules, we indicated there would not be 
anything about the death penalty in the bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Was there a death penalty provision in the bill that was 
before the Committee on Rules last night?
  Mr. COX of California. No.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I see that there is a blue ribbon commission 
established.

[[Page H9880]]

What are we going to study on the blue ribbon commission?
  Mr. COX of California. The purpose of the commission is to review 
across the board all aspects of U.S. terrorism policy, but in 
particular to deal with those things that we cannot deal with in 
legislation of this type on short notice. As the gentleman correctly 
points out, and I agree wholeheartedly with him, when we are working in 
this fashion, under suspension of the rules with the requirement for a 
two-thirds vote, it is very, very important that we have in this bill 
only those things that Members can digest on short notice, that we have 
all studied in advance, that we all agree upon.
  Therefore, the critical aspects of fighting the war against global 
terrorism, international terrorism are directed to this commission and 
this study which will come back to us so that we can legislate in a 
more thoughtful fashion. I could not agree more with the Washington 
Post editorial that you cited.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Can the gentleman tell me why this bill was not the 
vehicle that was brought before the Committee on Rules last night?
  Mr. COX of California. In fact it is. I will explain. If the 
gentleman would permit me, I will explain the reason that we dropped it 
later in the day than would otherwise have been our desire.
  After I left the Committee on Rules at midnight or whenever it was 
last night, I proceeded immediately to legislative counsel where we put 
into draft form in the legislative language precisely what it was that 
we discussed. In consultation this morning, in normal working hours, 
with the ranking member on the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, we learned that the minority side had changes that they 
wished to make to the aviation security portion of this which, as you 
know, is the centerpiece of what we are doing.
  In order to accommodate the ranking member, who was very supportive 
of this legislation, as you know, and in order to accommodate both 
sides, majority and minority, we made those changes.
  I am very, very intent on doing so. I told the ranking member that I 
do not wish to have included in this bill anything that both the 
majority and minority do not support. Therefore, I think most of the 
objections that Members will have upon reading this will be about 
things that they wish were included that are not in it, not what is in 
that is not acceptable to them.
  I apologize for that and I apologize to the gentleman from Minnesota, 
but I thought that it was worthwhile to try and accommodate those 
concerns.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Can the gentleman inform me if there are any other major 
changes between the resolve of last night and what was dropped in an 
hour ago?
  Mr. COX of California. I think that you have covered them.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this antiterrorism legislation. It 
contains many important provisions to step up the fight against 
terrorism including aviation security, criminal penalties for terrorist 
activities, and measures to combat international state terrorism.
  This bill, important as it is, is only the first part of a four-part 
initiative we are undertaking today in the fight against terrorism. 
This is a comprehensive initiative to provide necessary laws, funding, 
and action to do what is necessary to mobilize as a country against the 
lawless criminals--foreign and domestic--who seek to wreak havoc on the 
innocent men, women, and children of this country.
  Here is what the four-part initiative consists of. First, passage of 
this all-important piece of legislation, put together in less than a 
week to mount a frontal assault to the tragic events of the last few 
weeks of TWA Flight 800 and Atlanta's Centennial Park. Second, 
demanding today that this administration put aside its inaction and 
immediately spend the money Congress has already provided to 
exponentially increase its efforts to fight terrorism. Third, we 
provide the funding in the 1997 appropriations bill which the House 
passed last week to further expand funding for the FBI and for the 
Justice Department to increase their resources. Fourth, as chairman of 
the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary of 
the Committee on Appropriations, I am announcing this minute that I am 
approving reprogrammings in the Department of Justice directing the 
administration to use $54 million in surplus funds to add to existing 
antiterrorism efforts.
  This Congress has been extraordinarily responsive in providing tools 
to this administration for the war against terrorists--tools the 
administration has failed to utilize.
  In response to Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center bombings, the 
Congress provided $359 million to the Department of Justice in fiscal 
1995 and 1996 for counterterrorism, $239 million for the FBI alone. As 
of July 27, 5 days ago, the FBI had spent 24 percent of that, $58 
million out of $239 million.
  As a result, the FBI Counter-terrorism Center, designed to anticipate 
and prevent terrorist incidents that the President so proudly requested 
and we approved on July 17, 1995, does not exist. It is not functional. 
The money is laying there.
  Critical upgrades to the FBI Command Center for terrorism, meant to 
coordinate responses during multiple events--which would have been 
useful for Atlanta and TWA Flight 800--have not been made.
  About 400 technicians, engineers, and analysts, desperately needed to 
support agents and tactical operations and surveillance activities for 
counterterrorism, have not been hired. The money is there, has been for 
2 years.
  That is the posture that we have come to expect of this 
administration: All talk, no action. Calling on the Congress in 1995 to 
provide resources against terrorism--which we did--and then sitting on 
the money, not following through, and claiming every bureaucratic 
reason in the book to explain why the moneys have not been spent.
  I hope to God that no terrorism event that has occurred or will occur 
could have been prevented had this money that we gave been effectively 
used. We have asked the administration to come up and explain to us why 
these moneys have not been put to use, and we put the administration on 
notice that the failure to use existing resources is inexcusable.
  And so today, as a third part of our initiative, we are going to go 
one step further. Today, as chairman of our subcommittee, by letter I 
am directing the FBI to move forward on 54 million dollars' worth of 
counterterrorism initiatives. To combat international terrorism, $3.5 
million to open four new FBI overseas offices; $4 million to combat 
Middle Eastern terrorism; to provide the capability to intercept 
digital communications; $6 million to establish the FBI 
telecommunications industry liaison unit; and $0 million as the initial 
funding of the new digital telecommunications fund which we approved as 
a part of our bill last week.
  These steps are in addition to the funding we have already voted out 
of this House for antiterrorism funding in fiscal 1997.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Radanovich). The gentleman will state 
his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I thought we were discussing the rule on 
the bill on antiterrorism.
  Mr. ROGERS. We are.
  Mr. VOLKMER. The gentleman is discussing appropriations, an 
appropriation process, and what has been appropriated and not been 
appropriated has nothing to do with this rule, has nothing whatsoever 
to do with this rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is a little discussion----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will rule that debate on the rule 
may go to the issue of the need to consider a bill to combat terrorism.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Has nothing to do with the bill.
  Mr. ROGERS. These steps are in addition to the funding we already 
voted

[[Page H9881]]

out of the House for antiterrorism in fiscal 1997. We voted for an 
additional $210 million as a part of our bill just last week including 
$171 million more for the FBI alone. This House has been consistent and 
single minded. We have been consistent and single minded since Oklahoma 
City, since the World Trade Center, and since the most recent tragic 
events in taking steps necessary to move the war against terrorism 
forward.
  Today this bill, a part of a four-part initiative, is moving forward 
to ensure that the resources and authorities to fight terrorism are in 
place. We expect that they will be used by the administration 
effectively for the first time in a long time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Manton].
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, terrorists are killing our citizens and holding America 
hostage. We are at war with terrorism, and we must respond accordingly. 
We must take bold, courageous, and extraordinary measures to shut these 
terrorists down.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, you have gotten tough--tough on the rules of the 
House that is. Except for the chosen few of the majority leadership, 
this rule will prevent every Democratic member and virtually every 
Republican member from having any input into this legislation 
whatsoever. That is indeed extraordinary.
  But this rule is where your courage ends. Because in the wake of 
opposition from a powerful special interest group, you meekly crumble 
and surrender.
  We have known for 20 years that taggants are a safe and effective 
means of tracing explosives. For the last 11 years, they have been in 
use in Switzerland where police have tracked down the source of more 
than 500 bombings or individuals illegally in the possession of 
explosives. U.S. law enforcement officials desperately want taggants to 
be used in black powder.
  Yet the NRA opposes taggants. According to the Wall Street Journal, 
the gun lobby views taggants as an invasion of privacy. Ask the victims 
of terrorism or the families who have lost loved ones in terrorist 
attacks how their privacy has been violated.
  The NRA also says taggants are unsafe. Yet a physicist who worked on 
an Air Force funded taggants research project called that claim pure 
bunk.
  At least our bold leadership has agreed to include a study if it is 
still in the bill, and I hope it is to include a study of taggants in 
this legislation. I just hope we do not have to suffer another 20 years 
and an untold number of deaths before we can put this technology to 
use.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I 
just inform the gentleman that taggants are in the bill.
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I understand that a study of taggants is in 
the bill, but I would suggest that we defeat this rule so I may offer 
as an amendment legislation that I introduced shortly after the World 
Trade bombing in my city to require the immediate use of taggants in 
explosive materials.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and 
let me outline from an aviation security point of view what we can 
accomplish here with the legislation if indeed we pass this rule.
  First, we direct the FAA to deploy the best available bomb detection 
equipment while the agency attempts to develop a system that can fully 
certify it. Second, it subjects the security screeners at the airports 
to the same background checks as other airport employees. Third, it 
requires the FAA to establish performance standards for security 
personnel at airports. Next, it directs the Government to work with the 
airlines to develop a better package of profiling programs to spot 
potential terrorists. Also, it allows the airports to tap into the 
airport improvement program and the passage of facility charge funds to 
pay for better security programs, activities, personnel facilities, and 
equipment.
  I might say as an aside it is one more reason why we need to take the 
transportation trust funds off budget so that money can be made 
available for these very important aviation security programs.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. When I am completed, I will be happy to.
  It directs the FAA to review security arrangements governing air 
cargo and mailing to decide whether more needs to be done. It directs 
the FAA to work with the FBI to periodically assist the vulnerability 
of high-risk airports. It requires bomb-sniffing dogs to be used to 
supplement security at the 50 largest airports and allows grants from 
the aviation trust fund to pay for their training. It directs the FAA 
to upgrade security requirements for small aircraft. It establishes a 
commission to look at additional ways to improve aviation security.
  I would note that in addition to this bill, I have introduced 
legislation this week that would address the needs of the families who 
lost loved ones in airline disasters, legislation which has strong 
bipartisan support from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  So these are the various matters that are accomplished in this 
legislation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota, the 
distinguished ranking member of our committee.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a clarification for 
the record about the process that was followed.
  While certainly our side was not in on the takeoff, we certainly have 
been in on the flight and on the landing on the development of the 
aviation security portion of this legislation. We have had splendid 
cooperation from the Republican side; our chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], in fact sort of delegated me to participate 
in all of these discussions.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has been marvelously 
cooperative where I raise questions from my background in work that I 
have done in aviation security over many years. They were most 
accommodating, responsive. Senator Hutchison from the other body has 
been very cooperative. we have crafted a good piece of legislation here 
on a bipartisan basis, and I just want to make that clear for the 
record.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman, and I would reemphasize that we 
have leaned very heavily on the expertise of the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking member of our full 
committee.
  I would emphasize that this is not the first time that Congress has 
addressed airport and airline security. In 12985 we passed the 
International Security and Development Cooperation Act requiring that 
the public be notified when airports do not meet security standards. In 
1989, in response to the PanAm bombing, a presidential commission was 
established on aviation security. Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Hammerschmidt, 
Senators Lautenberg and D'Amato were members of that commission.
  In addition, in 1990, in response to the recommendation of the 
Presidential commission, Congress passed the Aviation Security 
Improvement Act.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule, and as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, this whole 
process is offensive. The first bill that we saw, which was marked in 
the bottom left corner as having come out of the computer at 4:04 this 
morning, we received at about 10 o'clock this morning. This bill which 
is under consideration now is marked in the lower left corner 12:51 
p.m. today. That is less than an hour and a half ago.
  Now, one of the earlier speakers has got up and said to us and to the 
American people that this bill represents a frontal attack on 
terrorism. My friends, this bill is not a frontal attack on terrorism. 
This bill is a charade. We are already engaged in a crisis of 
confidence of the American people in our ability to deal with 
terrorism, and this process further undermines the confidence of the 
public in our ability and willingness to deal with terrorism.

                              {time}  1415

  It allows no amendments; it allows no input, and it is a charade. The

[[Page H9882]]

American people ought to ask themselves, and use as a standard for 
evaluating this bill, is there anything in this bill that would have 
dealt with, had the bill been in place, would have dealt with the 
Flight 800 in New York, or the bombing that occurred in Atlanta?
  There is not a thing here in this bill that would have addressed 
either one of those. In fact, the thing that would have dealt with the 
bombing in Atlanta at the Olympics, the tagging of explosives, has been 
completely removed, except to study the issue, as if we have never 
studied the issue before.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an abomination. It is a charade. We ought to 
reject this rule and we ought to strongly consider voting against the 
bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, that is plenty of time. I am not worried 
about 30 seconds. Answer the question: How much does this bill cost? On 
the Subcommittee on Transportation on the Committee on Appropriations, 
we have to answer that question.
  I did not think you knew. I knew that 30 seconds was probably too 
much time. I thank the gentleman for yielding. There is nobody that has 
any idea what this costs. It is a fake and it is a fraud to tell the 
American people you have an antiterrorism bill. All this stuff is all a 
sham.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill, and 
on behalf of a constituent whose daughter was lost in TWA flight 800, 
because this bill is an outrage and a disgrace to that family, and an 
outrage and a disgrace to this body.
  This bill should include both taggants and enhanced wiretapping 
provisions. Instead, it has neither. Law enforcement has repeatedly 
asked for these critical tools to combat terrorism. Yet this Congress 
has repeatedly denied them.
  When, Mr. Speaker, when are we going to say enough is enough? How 
many bombs have to go off? How many daughters do we have to lose? How 
many Americans have to die before the GOP leadership will give us a 
tough antiterrorism bill?
  Once again we had an opportunity today to protect Americans from 
terrorism, and once again the Republican leadership took its marching 
orders from the National Rifle Association and gutted the bill. The NRA 
opposes taggants because it says they will be placed in the types of 
gunpowder that hunters and marksmen use. Taggants will also be placed 
in the gunpowder that terrorists use in bombs like the ones that killed 
and injured more than 100 in Atlanta last weekend.
  The taggants in these bombs will lead us to the terrorists who 
planted them. Today, this Congress has hoisted the white flag of 
surrender in the fight against terrorism. It is a repeat of the last 
time we considered terrorism legislation, when the Republican 
leadership talked tough and acted weak. Those responsible for weakening 
this bill yet again should be ashamed of themselves, because they have 
put Americans at risk.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rarely take the floor on issues of this 
kind, but I wanted to just say something today about the concerns that 
the Speaker has made today about this administration and its dealing 
with the question of terrorism.
  First of all, I have served on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence for years, been on the defense subcommittee for many 
years. There has always been a bipartisan effort to support the 
Directorate of Operations.
  I am very disappointed that the Speaker today refused to meet with 
John Deutch, after having summoned him to the Capitol. He was able to 
meet with the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Gephardt, and with Mr.. 
Daschle, and he gave us a very wide-ranging description of what we are 
doing around the world on the issue of antiterrorism.
  Then the Speaker puts out a statement, a statement which I think is 
utterly false:

       We are going to ask this administration to report to us 
     when we get back in September on how they are going to work 
     with us to rebuild the human intelligence capabilities of the 
     Central Intelligence Agency, which they have undermined and 
     they have crippled, for we lack precisely the people we need 
     to penetrate terrorist organizations and understand what is 
     going on, and we going to insist on rebuilding this country's 
     intelligence capabilities around the world, despite the 
     Clinton administration.

  The last thing we need, Mr. Speaker, is to politicize this issue. The 
best politics on national security matters and matters of importance 
like this is no politics. I am very disappointed that there is an 
effort here on the last day of this session, before our recess, to try 
and politicize this terrorism bill. We need to work together on a 
bipartisan basis to make certain we have a strong Directorate of 
Operations.
  For the Speaker to say this, when it is utterly false, in my 
judgment, is an undercut. It undercuts the entire Central Intelligence 
Agency, undercuts the FBI, and is the wrong way to proceed.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with aspects of the fight 
against terrorism that many of us have been working on for a long time. 
Unfortunately, in a rush to do something, anything, in the heat of the 
moment, in their unbending partisanship and their slavish devotion to 
extremist special interest groups like the NRA, the Republican 
leadership has brought us a bill that will not do the job.
  Should we vote for it? It makes a start. Should we have had the 
opportunity to make it tougher and more comprehensive? Absolutely. But 
the Republican leadership has sacrificed thoroughness to partisanship.
  I have introduced two bills that would help our law enforcement 
authorities deal effectively with the terrorist threat. If we were 
having an open debate, I would have offered these two bills as 
amendments. Unfortunately, the majority will not let that happen. The 
bill before us gives us yet another study of bomb detection equipment 
and explosion-containing cargo containers, and asks the FAA to make 
recommendations.
  Have we not had enough studies? Have we not wasted enough time 
studying the problem? We know what the technology is. It is 
commercially available. It is in use in Europe. Let us quit fiddling 
while innocent Americans get blown out of the sky. My bill would 
require the immediate installation, would require the immediate 
installation, of state-of-the-art bomb detection equipment at all 
airports, and the immediate use of explosion-containing cargo 
containers, and it provides the funding to take these steps now.
  Mr. Speaker, another aspect of the terrorist threat not addressed by 
this bill at all is the danger posed by armed militias. Groups like the 
Freemen and the group of people who apparently blew up the Federal 
Building in Oklahoma City have been arming and training to attack law 
enforcement officials and private citizens. Many of these groups are 
neo-Nazi and Klan-affiliated, yet the Republican leadership does not 
want to talk about the problem, much less do anything about it.
  Mr. Speaker, my legislation would give law enforcement the ability to 
go after these groups before a tragedy occurs. The bill would violate 
no one's civil rights. It simply says you do not have the right to form 
your own private army and make war on the United States and its 
citizens.
  It is unfortunate that the rule is so restrictive that we cannot 
consider these measures that would save more lives. We should be 
working together to fight terrorism. This bill begins the job. For 
that, I will support it. But we have a duty to finish the job. We must 
come back in September and do it right, and we should do it without 
this ridiculous partisanship that says that half the House has no right 
to make its own suggestions.
  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.

[[Page H9883]]

  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule. I think the underlying bill 
it produces is an excellent product. I think all of us have to realize 
that we share the same common concern with the American people about 
the rising threat of terrorism to Americans and American interests, 
both here and abroad.
  In April, we passed a very fine antiterrorism bill. It did not 
contain everything this Member supported and wanted. Some of those 
provisions were taken out because they were in dispute. There was a lot 
of controversy about them.
  The President has come back on the eve of the TWA tragedy and the 
tragedy of our Saudi Arabian bombing and what happened in Atlanta last 
week and asked us to put all of those provisions in the law. We have 
put into the bill that has come today after a task force meeting I 
served on for several days, almost every one of those, with the 
exception of wiretap authority, is in this bill today.
  It is a good bill. It is not controversial in the sense that 
everybody supports everything in here. We had RICO-predicate crimes for 
terrorism that will make penalties tougher. We have provisions in here 
which are going to mean that the President is really going to have to 
name the terrorist organizations they failed to name so far so we can 
exclude people who are members of those foreign organizations who might 
come in here, so they will not be able to raise money in the United 
States. We give them a drop-dead date of October 1, because they have 
not done that yet, and many other things.
  There are questions about the taggant issue, but the responsible 
thing to do is to march through this with a study. What we did in the 
April bill is say we know the plastic explosive taggants are safe. In 
those, we are going to go ahead and order them to be done. But we are 
going to study other explosives, like nitrogylycerines and so forth, 
and once the study is completed in a year, then the taggants can be put 
in if it says it is OK.
  But the black powder question was more of a question, because back in 
1980 the last Government study that was done said taggants in black 
powder can be a big problem. There have been some private studies since 
then, but there have been no public ones. We said, all right, in this 
bill we are willing to have a study done by the Government, by the 
National Institute of Justice, but come back to Congress after that, 
because we think that is really sensitive. If, indeed, we should put 
taggants in, in the timetable as the others, we will do it.

  On the question with respect to the issue of the wiretaps, I support 
them. I do not think they are well understood, what we are trying to 
do. The Committee on the Judiciary is going to hold hearings in 
September on this. We may well be able to bring out a wiretap provision 
at that time.
  The simple fact of the matter, so everybody understands it, is today 
the FBI can wiretap for organized crime or terrorism or whatever if 
they name a specific phone to a judge and say, I want to go tap in that 
building, in that house, with that phone. But if somebody goes and uses 
a cellular phone or moves around a wee bit, they have to show that 
person is intentionally trying to avoid the wiretap in order to get the 
court order to follow the person.
  That is not right. What we need to do is change that and simply make 
it so that if the person is effectively evading the wiretap, whether we 
prove intent or not, we can get the court order to go follow the bad 
guy wherever he is going.
  A lot of people have made a lot more out of it than that. I think it 
is misunderstood. We do need to have time for the Members to better 
educate themselves about this particular issue. That is what we are 
going to do in this September hearing. Let us vote for this bill and 
let us vote for this rule. It is a good product and it is a very good 
furtherance of what we did in April.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from 
Massachusetts yielding me the 3 minutes.
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Members that I 
have had an opportunity since we first started on this to look at this 
33-page bill. As I look through this bill, I find page 1 through 13 has 
to do with airport and aviation safety. Those are basically good 
provisions. They are for the future. There is nothing going to happen 
today, nothing going to happen tomorrow, nothing going to happen next 
week. That is for the future.
  On pages 13 to 16, we have the RICO provisions, predicated to bring 
these other things under RICO. Big deal.
  On pages 17 and 18, there is the big diplomatic efforts that were 
alluded to by the Speaker, and I think basically make this bill a 
partisan bill, because they are trying to say that this administration 
has done nothing as far as terrorism is concerned. And if Members would 
listen to these people over here, especially the gentleman from 
Kentucky who spoke in the well earlier, he would lead us to believe 
that the President of the United States is responsible for what 
happened in New York and what happened in Atlanta. That is crazy.

                              {time}  1430

  Nothing could be further from the truth. The President of the United 
States is not responsible. This administration is not responsible. Why 
do you try to say so right in this bill?
  Yes. When you add what your Speaker has said today to what is in this 
bill, there is no question about it. Pure politics.
  Now, further on, Diplomatic Efforts on 17 and 18, and then on pages 
21 through 33, you have the Commission on Terrorism. That is all for 
the future.
  How much in this bill out of 33 pages is actually on terrorism? About 
3 pages out of 33. They do not do much. There is very little in here. 
There is a study on black powder. I have questions in regard to that, I 
tell the gentleman from California. I do not like it. I do not believe 
in taggants in black powder. I think this study brings us to where you 
do have taggants in black powder. That is where it leads us, right down 
that road. That is another reason to vote against this thing.
  Why does the Republican majority try to make this effort a political 
effort and blame it all on the President and this administration? 
Politics. We have got a Presidential election coming, folks. Their 
candidate is so far down in the polls you cannot even find him. Now 
they are trying to blame this administration, with everything else they 
have tried to blame on this administration, for the acts of terrorism. 
It is a lot of hogwash.
  Why do you not have a good terrorism bill? Let us go after the 
terrorists. You do not go after one terrorist in this bill. Not one. 
This bill will not stop one terrorist. While you are home all during 
August and having your fun, there will not be one act of terrorism 
stopped by this bill.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about 
whether this institution is concerned with terrorism, because we have a 
track record in that area. Our problem has been with the 
administration. In this year's defense bill there was a requirement 
that the administration give us a report on enhancing domestic 
terrorism, response due by July 1. We still have not received that 
document. The bill that we passed 2 days ago requires it by the end of 
this year.
  But what did we do? We took the request the President had for 
antiterrorism and we increased it by how much? By $220 million. We 
voted on this. We passed it 2 days ago.
  What did it include for my colleagues, who perhaps cannot read or who 
did not read? It includes $65 million for domestic emergency response 
programs and training; $30 million improved border security; $10 
million counter-proliferation; $4 million counterterrorism explosives 
research;

[[Page H9884]]

$16 million to replace, sustain and maintain chemical and biologic 
detection equipment.
  None of that was requested by the President. All of that was added in 
by this Congress in a bipartisan manner because we held hearings last 
year, not after the TWA crash, not after the Saudi Arabia bombing, but 
all through the last 2 years, because we care about terrorism, not 
because it is on the front page but because of the importance to 
protect our citizens.
  We have been working in a bipartisan manner. The problem is the 
administration does not follow through. We allocate the dollars, and we 
all voted for it. Further, beyond that, our bill that we passed 2 days 
ago provides for a computerized inventory of all the resources to be 
made available to local emergency responders. It provides for a 
computerized data program to analyze chemical agents so that our local 
people can deal with these incidents immediately.
  All of these things are now passed. They are awaiting the President's 
signature. None of them were requested by this President. All of them 
were added by this Congress, under the leadership of this half of the 
body that has been concerned about terrorism, not in words and not in 
sound bites but in substance. Vote for the bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, in answer to the previous speaker, I do not 
think anybody cannot say that this is not a political bill. This is 
frankly a cynical attempt at the last day before we break for the 
summer recess to be able to go home and tell the American people, we 
did something about terrorism. That is what this is all about. That is 
why the Republican majority is doing this.
  I just had this bill handed to me. It is 30 pages long. I got it a 
half an hour ago. I am trying to read it and look at it. As best I can 
figure out, there are two studies in this bill. The bill tells law 
enforcement and other officials to do what they are already capable of 
doing without this legislation.
  To me this is Congress at its worst. The American people are not 
stupid. This is not antiterrorism legislation. This is a Republican 
majority phony legislation. This is just simply saying we did 
something, when in reality we have done nothing. The American people 
are not stupid. If we really want to craft a bill, a good bipartisan 
bill that does something on terrorism, we need to have the input of 
both Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Speaker, terrorist acts are not 
acts against Republicans or acts against Democrats. They are acts 
against Americans. As Americans, all of us, Democrats, Republicans, 
independents, we ought to be working together to craft bipartisan 
legislation.
  There were negotiations with the White House. If the negotiations did 
not work, we ought to come back and do it again. But not to kind of 
sneak this through in the wee hours of the morning. We all went home 
last night. We did not know that this was happening. This morning the 
radio said that antiterrorism legislation was dead. Lo and behold we 
have new legislation and not even the bill that we saw this morning, 
half an hour ago, and we are supposed to vote intelligently on this?
  This is really not bipartisanship. This is Congress at its worst. 
Some of us have amendments that we would like to offer that we think 
would really give real teeth to antiterrorism legislation. We are 
precluded from offering it under this rule. This rule ought to be 
defeated.
  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. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me address first the bulk of the comments that we 
have heard from the minority side this morning, not all of them, 
because many of the minority Members, including the ranking member on 
Transportation, as we heard, were involved in this process, drafted it, 
and like the bill. But for those people who are getting the bill to 
read just now, they are in the same position as are the Members on the 
majority side. The bill is only ready today in legislative form for 
them to review and determine whether you can support it or not.
  But that is not because this is not an effort at bipartisanship. That 
is not because this is not an effort to cooperate between Republicans 
and Democrats, in fact, between the House and the Senate, and, in fact, 
between the Congress and the administration. To the contrary.
  This week, not a month ago, not 6 months ago, not last year, but this 
week, just a few days ago, the President of the United States asked the 
Congress, not just the House, but the Senate, not just Republicans, but 
Democrats, to act before we left this weekend.
  I notice the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] here. He and I sat 
together for several days, several hours, odd hours, working with 
Representatives of the administration, including the White House chief 
of staff, Leon Panetta, working with representatives of the FBI, the 
State Department, the CIA, all with one common objective, doing what 
can be done before we go home, with the strong sense that we will keep 
it up even over the recess and when we are gone.
  What the White House, what the President asked us to do is the 
following, and this was the President's own request: He said,

       Give me a bill before you go home. Do it in a process that 
     permits it to come up by unanimous consent in the Senate. Do 
     it in a process that permits us to bring the same bill up in 
     the House, so that you can send me a bill.

  That means, since we are adjourning today, that there cannot be an 
amendment.
  This is not a process that I like and I would not have designed it. 
Neither do the Republican Members wish to have so little time to read a 
bill that the Democrats are complaining they would like to have more 
time to read. But that is how it worked.
  As to what is in the bill, everything that is in this bill has been 
agreed to by the White House, by your leadership, in the Senate on the 
Democratic and Republican sides, and by your leadership in the House of 
Representatives on the Democratic and the Republicans sides. That 
includes the provision with respect to the full implementation of the 
1996 terrorism act, which we have not yet implemented, to be sure. That 
language, too, was signed off on by the administration.
  The truth is that the administration wanted wiretapping language in 
this bill and, as the Washington Post points out in its editorial 
today, we have not included it because caution and deliberation are 
necessary on that topic. But we have included everything else that they 
wanted.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been said that this does not address Flight 800, 
but, frankly, if Flight 800 was not mechanical failure but was a bomb, 
then all of the provisions in here on airport security, all of the 
provisions giving the FBI authority to do background checks, to 
supervise airplane security, to look at the baggage that goes into the 
hold, all of these things and more that we hard the chairman of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure support and the ranking 
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure support--
and they feel the same way in the Senate--all of these things are 
directed precisely to that problem.
  It is true that we can do more, but what we can do now, we must do. 
Then we should come back. We shall do more, because the war on 
terrorism is one of the grisly realities of the 21st century. We have 
to be at it perpetually, and we shall do so.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is great to see the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox] again, because the last time I saw him, we 
adjourned the conference for him to go speak to the Speaker about how 
we could close this down, and then I find out that at 1:30 last night, 
he introduced the bill, and then the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster] introduced a newer bill that is on the floor this morning. I 
want to just welcome him back to the process. I am glad we are all 
together here.

[[Page H9885]]

  But we have only got a little part of what we agreed on at the 
conference. That is the problem. It is not that these are bad items. 
They are small items. They are peanuts. What we were trying to do is 
deal with the major question of what most pipe bombs are made of by 
terrorists in their domestic weapon of choice, how we can trace them 
through taggants. That is of course not what is happening here. Therein 
lies the problem.
  When the Speaker of the House who, by the way, he and the majority 
leader were in great agreement at the beginning of the week, and the 
White House, we almost got an agreement right there, and we said, 
``Well, let's run it through our legislative committees.''
  Then we got into these 4 days and nights of conferences in which the 
gentleman was a key player. As a matter of fact, if he will recall, 
everybody agreed but him. So now he comes with this little shriveled-up 
document saying, ``Let's do this,'' the last thing before we go out for 
a month. I cannot accept it at this point and for those reasons.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is incredible, really, to listen to Members come here 
and talk about this very sensitive subject on which we need 
bipartisanship, and to have them talk about bipartisanship and 
inclusion, when what they have done through this rule is to move in the 
dead of night, after everyone was gone, to pass their version or no 
version and then to say to the American people, ``We have a monopoly on 
truth.''
  No one else can even offer an amendment. If any American in this body 
or outside of this body has an idea about how we might deal with 
terrorism today, they are not open to it, because they have their way 
or no way. It was that kind of extremism that caused this to be a 
failed Congress, that led to last year's costly $1.5 billion government 
shutdowns, waste caused by the zealotry of this Republican leadership.
  So we find ourselves today coming to the end of what has been the 
first successful week that this Congress has had in its existence. We 
do something for working Americans on their health insurance.

                              {time}  1445

  We give those at the bottom a raise. Through welfare reform we 
encourage those who are not working to work. Progress made possible 
because the zealots finally yielded, realizing they could not go home 
emptyhanded. They needed something to show for the year and a half that 
they have wasted in this Congress pursuing an extremist agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that that spirit of bipartisanship did not 
reach this issue of antiterrorism, as it should have.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Radanovich). The gentleman's time has 
expired.
  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. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just tell my colleagues of 
one good provision in the bill that I think everybody will agree with, 
and that is that there will be something at the airports that will 
deter terrorists that is not currently there.
  The machines that we are spending $1 to $2 million on to deal with 
detecting explosives that get on planes simply have not worked. They 
are not in force. They are not in place. And we have been waiting 7 
years for them.
  We use dogs at this Capitol, we use them at the Olympics, and they 
use them at many other areas, but they do not use them at airports. 
This bill provides a mechanism to get bomb inspecting dogs, bomb-
sniffing dogs at every major airport in the country. It will have a 
deterrent effect on terrorists. They will be able to sniff out bomb 
devices in luggage and it will protect the public.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a step in the right direction. It is not the 
answer to every problem, but it is a step in the right direction. Until 
we get a device that is perfect, that will detect bombs getting on 
planes, the public in this country deserves to have these dogs at every 
single major airport.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York, the honorable Mr. Schumer.
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, if we want to know why people are sick and 
fed up with Congress, look at this debate. On Sunday the President 
asked and all the law enforcement people asked for two things, the top 
two things they needed to fight terrorism. One, taggants. Identifiers 
in explosives, particularly black power and smokeless; and two, 
multipoint wiretaps. Neither are in this bill.
  Neither are in this bill because the NRA did not want it. Neither are 
in this bill because forces on the extreme dictated what the Republican 
Party was going to put forward.
  This bill is a sham. It does a few good things, but it does not give 
law enforcement what they want, plain and simple. We all know that.
  All the other provisions are an elaborate smokescreen to hide what 
everyone in this Chamber knows: that the majority party is not doing 
what the FBI, the ATF and all the other law enforcement experts have 
asked for. Mr. Kallstrom, long before this conference, the FBI man in 
the lead at TWA, said please give us multipoint wiretaps. The majority 
says no.
  Mr. Freeh, the head of the FBI, says please give us taggants so we 
can trace the kind of pipe bomb that blew up at the Olympics. The 
majority says no.
  And last night, when we had agreement from the President, the 
Republican leaders of the Senate, the Democratic leaders of the Senate 
and the Democratic side of the House, only the Republican majority in 
the House refused to go along.
  Members, this bill is what should make us ashamed of our inability to 
pull together and fight terrorism.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I 
yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding.
  What we just heard the gentleman from New York tell us is essentially 
true; that if we had included in this bill everything that is before us 
and one other thing, and that is multipoint and warrantless wiretaps, 
then there would have been agreement. And the truth is that because 
wiretaps are not in this bill, the gentleman is disappointed.
  I have to say that this gentleman is disappointed because there is 
not a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in this bill, 
something that would have helped us in the Oklahoma City prosecution. 
We passed it through this House five times. It ought to be acceptable 
to our body, but it was objected to by the Senate.
  Now, imagine our predicament if we had brought this bill with 
everything in it; the only difference was it also had warrantless 
wiretaps and multipoint wiretaps. That is a very serious issue I think 
Members deserve more time to consider. And for that reason, above all, 
it is not put in a bill that is coming to us under a suspension of the 
rules that we have not had an opportunity to read.
  I hope we revisit this issue, and I think we must do so. As I have 
said, we cannot rest against the war on terrorism. It is one of the 
grizzly realities of the 21st century. We have to be back at this. But 
just because we cannot do a subject so complicated as that before we 
leave this August does not mean that we cannot do all of the rest of 
this bill, which the gentleman from New York has agreed to, which the 
Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership have all agreed to, 
which the Senate has agreed to and which they can pass and send to the 
President because the administration has agreed to it, and it can be 
signed into law.
  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

[[Page H9886]]

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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 189, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 400]

                               YEAS--228

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--189

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bishop
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Ford
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Meehan
     Meek
     Morella
     Quillen
     Schiff
     Torkildsen
     Waxman
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1510

  The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote:

       Mrs. Morella for, with Mr. Deutsch against.

  Mr. DOGGETT and Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________