Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, and I appreciate the consideration. We see the spirit of bipartisan comity at work in the House, and we are very thankful for that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. GOSS. I have no strong preference. We are prepared to proceed if the gentleman would like us to.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) would like to continue on his side since we are going to close, and then we will have a speaker ready to go.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, actually, at this time we do have a speaker. If I could inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. GOSS. I think I am detecting a suggestion that we proceed. In that case, I am most delighted to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), as part of a bipartisan spirit of unity.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, they are nearby.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield, in the spirit of comity and bipartisanship, which is customary in this Chamber, the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my friend; 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 on this matter only. Mr. Speaker, this is an appropriate structured rule that ensures a rigorous debate on how best to provide our Nation's seniors with prescription drug coverage, a matter of great concern to them. The rule provides 2 hours of general debate divided equally between the minority and the majority of two committees of jurisdictions, the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Commerce. The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the one printed in the Committee on Rules report, shall be considered as adopted. The rule also provides that, at any time on or before this Friday, it shall be in order for the House to entertain motions to suspend the rules with respect to two bills only. Mr. Speaker, I will repeat, it shall be in order for the House to entertain motions to suspend the rules with respect to two bills only, H.R. 3240 and H. Res. 535. Finally, the rule provides a motion to recommit with or without instructions. This is a minority right that has become standard in every bill under the Republican majority. Today is another historic day for our Nation's seniors. Three years ago, the Medicare program was speeding toward bankruptcy, many will recall. While the partisans and the naysayers said it could not be done to fix it, a Republican-led Congress appropriately stepped in and saved Medicare through sound structural reform of that program. Had we not acted responsibly, then our seniors would not even have access to hospitals or doctors let alone the services necessary to modernize the program. We met that challenge head on. We met it successfully. Today we take the logical next step to provide every senior with the opportunity of a safe and secure prescription drug benefit. This is very good news. As in 1995 and in 1997, we will hear a lot of partisan vitriol and rhetoric today, probably see even a little more theater of the type we have already seen this morning, what The Washington Post has labeled as ``Mediscare.'' We will hear poll-tested attack words like ``vouchers'' and ``privatize'' and maybe even words like ``risky scheme.'' To be sure, this is an election year and nothing plays better than some good old-fashioned scare tactics aimed at the most vulnerable among us, our Nation's seniors, who we are here to serve, not walk out on. While we should expect such attacks, we cannot let them go unanswered. The bipartisan plan crafted by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) will provide a sound drug benefit while also recognizes the weakness of the current Medicare bureaucracy. It is a new universal benefit for all seniors that reflects the advances of our modern health care delivery system, not the outdated top-down bureaucracy of the old system. Unlike the President's plan, the bipartisan program we bring forward today promotes individual choice, choice so that our seniors can tailor the benefit to meet their own needs. Members of Congress currently enjoy a menu of choices when they choose their health care. We think it only appropriate that we extend that same privilege to our seniors. We also think it is important to recognize that two-thirds of our seniors already have drug coverage, and we do not want to force any of them to abandon what they already have. We let them keep their coverage if they like it and focus most of our attention on the one-third who currently lack coverage. Every senior has a right to complain about the rising cost of prescription drugs, this one included. Under the bipartisan plan, drug costs for the average senior will be cut by 25 percent, more than double the savings envisioned under the Clinton plan. This according to the independent Congressional Budget Office. We do not ignore those Americans with the highest drug costs. The bipartisan plan delivers a strong stop-loss program in 2003 that will cap the cost of drugs for every senior. The Democrat plan does not offer this protection until the year 2006, 3 years later, conveniently escaping the 5-year budget window, and calling into question the sincerity of their commitment to this goal and their fiscal rationales. Most importantly, the bipartisan plan provides unprecedented protections for our most needy seniors. We pay the full premium for any senior up to 135 percent of poverty with partial subsidies for those up to 150 percent. Poor seniors will no longer have to choose between paying their rent and getting needed prescription drugs. While H.R. 4780 is not a perfect plan, it does provide a workable benefit and a meaningful and lasting reform to our Medicare program. It does so without busting the budget and without endangering the safety of the security of the overall medical program, Medicare, which we care about and need to preserve and make strong. I am hopeful that Members will study the details, ignore the demagoguery, the dilatory tactics which we have already seen an abundance of, and support this historic reform to improve the quality of life of seniors across America. This rule will ensure a vigorous debate. That is the purpose of the rule. I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), my friend and colleague.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, who will speak to the question of doing the Nation's business on behalf of affordable prescription drugs for our seniors. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. I regret I am unable to yield the additional 4 minutes.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Dreier

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to inform the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) that we actually have several speakers who are on their way. We have been trying to let the time balance out.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has raised the possibility that H.R. 4680 may contain an unfunded mandate. There is a provision for that. The provision is to proceed forward with the question will the committee now consider the amendment. I would like to get to that point so we can get on with the important business of the day, which is this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time, and I want to be sure I have the right to close.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida continues to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 539 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment. My home state of Florida has 1.7 million veterans and serves as home to thousands more during the busy winter season. Given the age and special needs to this population, many of these men and women require extensive medical attention. The lack of timely, quality health care for our veterans has reached a crisis point across the country, but the problem is particularly acute in southwest Florida. Every year more and more veterans flock to Florida to enjoy their golden years; and every year the veteran clinics and hospitals in my state are hard pressed to meet the demand. Sadly, the need far exceeds our resources in southwest Florida. Veterans routinely wait months--and sometimes over a year--just to get an appointment for something as simple as vision and hearing care. This is an unacceptable way to treat those who served our country honorably. VERA begins to address this injustice by allocating funds according to the number of veterans having the highest priority for health care. VERA is a fair and just system: it puts the money where the vets are. This is straightforward, commonsense policy. I urge my colleagues to reject the Hinchey amendment and support a fair and equitable policy of providing for our veterans.