Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a great contributor to this legislation.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a distinguished member of the committee and a member of our leadership.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honor to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished member of our leadership, the deputy whip.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate on this issue only. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2563, at last. It provides 2 hours of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairmen and the ranking minority members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the Committee on Ways and Means, the three committees of jurisdiction. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and makes in order only the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. It further provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debateable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. In fact, it is pretty standard and fair in terms of rules on this type of matter. What is unique is the long, long preparation, the participation of so many Members to bring this legislation to the floor. We believe on the Committee on Rules that we have crafted a good rule to have full debate for the balance of the day and probably into the early evening. We have three major amendments with time specified of 40 minutes for one, 40 minutes for another and 60 minutes for another. Members having done their homework will know what those are and we will get into them as we go along. I think this should be comprehensive and give every Member the opportunity to have their say. Mr. Speaker, this truly is a red letter day, not just for the Congress but for the American people, because today, after 10 years of debate and compromise, we are finally having the opportunity to put forth patient protection legislation that will really change the way our health care system operates for the better. A true patients' bill of rights must make our health care system more accessible. Health care insurance is no good if someone cannot get it. So accessibility of health care and health care insurance is critical. Obviously, it has to be affordable, more affordable. Affordable is an area we have focused on. And most importantly, more accountable, accountable to the Americans that health care serves. This fair rule and the underlying legislation represents a reasoned, commonsense approach that allows people that disagree with health care providers an opportunity for just and impartial appeal. This is what Americans have been asking for. I have worked on health care legislation with so many colleagues ever since coming to Congress, and I can tell my colleagues that this is something that matters a lot back in my district and every other place I go in the country when I talk about it. When I am back in my district, not one town hall meeting goes by without constituents registering concerns about their health care and questioning how things will be fixed, how much it will cost, can I afford it, will I be able to get it, and so forth. It has always been a very delicate balance to come up with something that will be supported by the House, of course our colleagues in the other body, and the administration; and I commend the hard work of so many, but especially the diligent efforts now on a timely basis of people like the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and President Bush, who understood compromise is still better for the American people than nothing at all. Laws are better than unresolved issues. Frankly, one of the reasons we can be here today is because of the respect our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, has in this body. In the words of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and I quote him, ``If Dr. Norwood, who I think knows the issue better than anyone else does, feels that some of these proposals are acceptable, I would certainly entertain them.'' Well, we are entertaining them today in an amendment that every Member has had a chance to read, and we will have 60 minutes set aside for debate on that. What is important is that when our constituents ask, will I have access to affordable health care, we can say forthrightly, look them right in the eye, and say yes. When they ask, can I sue my HMO if there is cause, the answer will again be yes. With these positive reforms comes great responsibility, of course; and I commend my colleagues for entertaining the compromise that will not overburden the courts with frivolous lawsuits but will still allow justice under the law. We must be sure that the courts are the last resort and not the first. This bill provides for an independent review process that is immediately responsive to patients' needs. My constituents in southwest Florida are tired of standing in lines, as I suspect Americans are elsewhere. The lines at the doctor's office is bad enough, to say nothing of waiting times. They certainly should not be waiting in additional queues at the courthouse. Instead of driving people to court, a true patients' protection plan will enable Americans to get the care they need and ensure the accountability of medical providers. And I think that is what this legislation does. Certainly the rule is designed to bring out the debate on these points. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue the careful manner in which this legislation was drafted, and I urge them to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, who has also been a major player in this legislation.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a major player in this legislation.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time on July 25, 2001, or any day thereafter to consider in the House the joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 55, disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam; that the joint resolution be considered as read for amendment; that all points of order against the joint resolution and against its consideration be waived; that the joint resolution be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means (in opposition to the joint resolution) and a Member in support of the joint resolution; that pursuant to sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion; and that the provisions of sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act of 1974 shall not otherwise apply to any joint resolution disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam for the remainder the first session of the 107th Congress.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank very much the chairman for leading this and for all he does on this subject. I honestly believe that the world has changed in a great many ways. It is not just the technology, it is not just the evolution, it is not just the alignment of countries and the sovereignty questions and borders. It is all those things and more we are confronted with. And we are confronted with them in an extraordinary way of great privilege and honor but great responsibility and duty as members of the United States Congress when we talk to parliamentarians elsewhere, because people do look to the United States of America for help and guidance in so many ways. The point I would make is that I honestly believe that this window is open on enlargement. We have enthusiastic, spirit-filled activity going on in these countries. This is real commitment that we are seeing. And the good-news part of it, beyond all the good news that is inherent in that message, is that if these countries are able to qualify and come in in a steady way under the NATO defense umbrella, it seems to me that that removes uncertainty; and removing uncertainty removes playing fields for mischief makers. I think that is the nature of the security threat we have today, is too many mischief makers taking advantage of areas of uncertainty. So I think that stability factor we talk about is very important, and I think this is a critical time for leadership. I congratulate the gentleman for his leadership, and I hope we can get other leadership to list as well. I know the Speaker of the House is very interested in this and has been a great ally, and I am sure he will continue to be.

Mr. GOSS. May I ask the gentleman to yield for just one moment.

Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his consideration in yielding to me, Madam Speaker, and I congratulate him for his leadership of the NATO parliamentarian group. I am not sure that all Members understand, and certainly most people in America do not understand, the extraordinary efforts we go to to reach out to parliamentarians in other countries in order to ensure that our form of democracy is well understood, and to make sure that we understand, as perhaps the only world's leading superpower now, some of the problems other countries are facing and how their legislative branches are dealing with those. That is particularly true with our allies in NATO, the member nations, because we are dealing with a very critical subject here, and that is the national security, and in the case of NATO, the collective security of those who have signed on to NATO. It is no secret, of course, that now that we have a number of countries that aspire to membership in NATO because of concerns about their national security that we have decisions facing us which are somewhat timely, in fact, as soon as a year from now, and in a few months in Prague next November, where decisions are going to have to be made about the enlargement, and many nations are following specific plans to try and make sure that they are eligible and in fact will be included in NATO membership and the responsibilities that that implies; in fact, not only implies but demands, because there are considerable demands in order to meet the standards of NATO. For example, a percentage of the gross domestic product of each country has to be used for defense, collective defense. There has to be some type of interoperability. That means speaking a common language. Those types of things are very important. I believe that it is fair to say that we have a window of opportunity right now that is not going to stay there forever. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the chairman, has just led a delegation to Vilnius, Lithuania, and to Bulgaria. These are two of the nine states that are aspirant applicants for the next round of enlargement. We saw there a tremendous commitment among the people, among the leadership, because of the desirability to look west and join the freedom-loving democracies in that form of government, and they are willing to make sacrifices in those countries to meet the standards of operability and the standards necessary for membership to accept all responsibilities. Some have said that the enlargement issue is a bad issue because, oh, there are cost problems, or it will upset the Russians, or a whole bunch of other arguments that we heard when the previous three countries were brought into NATO, Hungary and the Czech Republic and Poland, all of whom have been very supportive, valued additions to the NATO arrangement since their membership and coming in. I believe that we are going to see the same thing with the other countries that are ready for enlargement. If we miss the opportunity to capture the enthusiasm that they have for the sacrifices they are willing to make to join NATO now, I am not sure where they go or how it will come out. So I think the enlargement question is a critical question that needs to be boosted forth, brought to the attention of our colleagues, and made clear that it should be a critical point of the foreign policy matters of the Bush administration. I hope that is going to happen. It is, I suppose, not coincidental that President Bush is at this very time in Europe discussing some of the other issues that are involved. Obviously, we have the missile defense questions that are of interest to our allies, and the whole question of the European security defense, what that is going to look like, because that could color our presence in the Balkans, and many other issues that are of great interest to us. But when it comes down to the fabric, the atmosphere, the willingness, the commitment, the spirit of NATO, I think the enlargement question is the most important. I must congratulate the gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman Bereuter) for constantly through the years being a champion of this, leading the way, taking delegation after delegation over to meet with our colleagues in various places, and receiving those colleagues, those parliamentarians who have come back from those places to get more information from Washington. It has been a real labor of love. It has shown great results. I think the gentleman's wisdom and vision has preceded him with the three who have already been enrolled as the enlarged members, and with the other nine aspirants out there. I believe we have now visited virtually all of them. It seems to me we are at the threshold of opportunity, and if we fail to take it, I think it is a ``shame on us'' situation. I thank the gentleman for the time to say that.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I think it was extremely heartening. I cannot speak with enough admiration for the respect I have for the Baltic nations and what they endured under the past years of tyranny before they were freed, and that has been freedom that has been very precious only for a decade. Their enthusiasm is somewhat, therefore, more understandable when you are there; but the very strong ardent feeling, passion about being free and democratic and leaning West and wanting to be associated with the things we stand for and willing to shoulder the responsibility and, as I say, make the sacrifice, because there is some sacrifice, that is not one of the wealthiest Nations in the world by any means. And there is some sacrifice involved. There was very strong support for NATO, very clear friendship, very clear understanding of what they were getting into, how much they wanted to be involved in this, and how far they were willing to go. I have spent some time, and I congratulate our speaker for his outreach to parliamentarians in other countries as well, including the former Soviet Union, Russia. The Speaker has reached out to the Duma and to the leadership of the Duma and has made a recent trip there. And one of the conversations that we, of course, had with our fellow colleagues in the Duma as legislators is the concern that they have that NATO is getting too close somehow to Russia. We point out always to the parliamentarians, to the Duma, that NATO is a defense organization. It is not a defensive organization, and one of the cases we use is how well in Vilnius they have dealt with problems that were serious problems previously in the relationships with Russia. In fact, Vilnius, has, I think, responded very, very favorably in the dealings with Belarus. I do not think anybody can say they have been anything except good neighbors and gone the extra mile to work out appropriate sovereign questions with the Belarus. In terms of the Russian interest in Lithuania itself, the concern has always been the Kaliningrad Corridor, how do you get to Kaliningrad Corridor, another part of Russia, which is on the other side, as it turns out, of Lithuania on the Baltic. The problem of the responsibility of that has been worked out extremely proficiently, very well, and to the Russian satisfaction and to the Lithuanian satisfaction under Lithuanian leadership. So if there is some danger to the Russians by Lithuania somehow acting responsibly and democratically and freely and joining with counterpart organizations and NATO, I fail to see what it is. If anything, the Russians should argue that the Lithuanian neighborhood has become much more friendly to Russia since they have been aspirant to NATO because they understand the responsibilities of that. I am not sure that the Russians are ready to accept that argument yet, but I certainly congratulate the Lithuanians.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding further, because our colleague who was a wonderful addition to the group of parliamentarians in Vilnius because he is so familiar with the territory and the experience there made it more value-added than it normally is for a visit for those countries. I congratulate him for his expertise and his patience in educating the rest of us on some of the issues, and food not the least of which, the gentleman is an expert on many things. I was struck by something the gentleman said. It so happens that in Vilnius, Lithuania as in somewhat similar situations elsewhere in the Baltic nations, Latvia and Estonia, there is a KGB museum. And it was, in fact, a show place of terror and torture and inhumanity and all of the history, that painfully recent history that the gentleman has referred to and it is shown off as an example of what should not happen in a free and humanitarian civilized society. Clearly, there were barbaric acts of torture, treachery, horrible suffering, heartbreak, all of these pieces brought to the surface and even the photographs that were lining the meeting halls, which were reminders to us of the atrocities that took place in such recent history during the Cold War under the whole very cold harsh hands, unsympathetic leadership from a foreign country. The curious part of that is that, in my view, the Baltic nations have gotten over it and on their way so well and are willing to go forward and positively in the future. I think that is terrific. But I think the fact that they have that KGB museum is a reminder of why they are so anxious to be in NATO, so this can never happen again, is a perfectly rational straightforward approach. It so happens the juxtaposition of two other countries that happened to be in on this recent trip, with the chairman's leadership, and also splitting my time partly with the Speaker in Russia, is in Russia the KGB is looked on very differently. The KGB has undergone a name change and some cosmetic surgery and is now called the SVR and is becoming more fashionable. It is true that the present leader of Russia is a former KGBer. Mr. Putin is, in fact, a KGBer, and he has many of the KGB folks around him. There is sort of a rehabilitation of being a KGBer involved. So if one goes from the Baltic nations in one day and goes to Russia, one gets a very different approach if one goes to the KGB museum in Moscow. It is great that the Baltic nations have gotten over it. They remember it. They are not happy about it, but they are willing to go forward in a constructive way. It appeared to me that the juxtaposition with the Russians are, no, they are still trying to justify it, they are resurrecting it, and they are not being realistic at all about their future. To me, it is a striking problem, and it is a problem that we have to deal with with Russia. I think that we are committed to do that. But I think it is a question of understanding rather than threat. I do not believe the Baltic nations propose in any way a threat to Russia, nor I think does the United States of America seek to propose a threat to Russia. That is not what the enlargement of NATO is about. It is a defense organization. I say that because, also, we were under the leadership of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) in Bulgaria. Bulgaria has a very different arrangement with Russia, a very different type of situation as a former part of the Soviet bloc and has kept a different approach to dealing with Russia today, which is not as decisive a feeling as has existed in the past in the Baltic nations for all the understandable reasons. So we have many different views and many different points of view. But the people who are looking positively into the future for their own security, whether they be the Baltic nations or the Bulgarians or the Romanians or the Slovenians or Slovakians, are looking for the guarantee of security, the stability, the idea to participate in civilized Western society and go forward with all that opportunity and pay the price of doing that in terms of the sacrifice they have to make. That is the difference. That is our job, not only to honor the fact that we have opportunity in the open window for the aspirant nations who wish to come into NATO, but also to assure the Russians that that is not a threat to Russia. I honestly believe our friend Jerry Solomon, who used to be our leader in these endeavors, used to joke and say the day is going to come, and we are going to be able to invite Russia into NATO. I hope that day comes to pass. If we do our job right, it may very well come to pass. The only other point I would want to make, if the gentleman from Nebraska would indulge me for a minute more, is that I sometimes hear from others who do not entirely understand NATO today and the NATO concept, that NATO is engaged in other adventures like the Balkans, where we have basically a peacekeeping operation going on that is very delicate and somewhat dangerous and actually doing quite a good job under extraordinary difficult circumstances by NATO member countries, in fact other countries as well, Partnership for Peace countries and others.

Mr. GOSS. Indeed. Mr. Speaker, in fact, one can say that the Baltic, think of that, the Lithuanian-Polish Brigade helping out, two folks that were having troubles before now working together, this shows that things are possible. But when you get through, the argument always in Russia is, but you see, you go off and do different things. I think it is interesting that the Petersburg tasks are now being more and more assigned to the U.S., the new ESDI, the European pillar, whatever that is going to emerge as, and that that would be the place that those get parked, and that there will be a reaffirmation that the NATO is, in fact, a defense treaty organization. I think that we have work to do to stress that point. The point to the Russians is that, if they are concerned about the European security defense initiative, they need to talk to the European Union about that because those are the folks that are about that. That is not our main issue.

Mr. GOSS. I notice that there happen to be four of us here because of the chairman's leadership I think on this side, but this is strictly a bipartisan effort. We have colleagues on the other side of the aisle too, and they are equal players and very valuable to putting this whole message out. So I do not want anybody to think that this is a one-party initiative. This is an effort of the House, and the gentleman leads it very well.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, while for most of us it is sometimes difficult to find time to participate in service activities locally, it is nearly impossible to reach out to those who need assistance internationally. As the plight of many citizens of poorer countries often goes unrecognized, it is notable when a group reaches across our nation's borders to offer aid. It is even more impressive when those taking the initiative to do so are young people. Recently, twelve of my constituents, members of the Barron Collier High School Key Club, traveled to San Jose, Costa Rica to charter the first Key Club in that country. This was a large undertaking, supported by almost 50 businesses, Kiwanis Clubs and individuals. These young Southwest Floridians trained their counterparts at the Marian Baker High School and then set out together to provide service and health care necessities to elderly Costa Ricans. The students also demonstrated their eagerness to serve the community as they worked to improve conditions at a local park and clean the littered beaches. These students have proven that respected values exist worldwide. As these culturally dissimilar teens worked side by side, they exhibited that compassion is an attribute native to all. It is outstanding international efforts such as these that restore faith in America's youth. I congratulate the Barron Collier students and encourage them to continue upholding the mission of Kiwanis International to improve the quality of life for children and families everywhere.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, too often the great role the men and women of our Coast Guard play in up keeping our national security is overshadowed by the larger Department of Defense. Certainly, their funding is insufficient and they are operating under conditions that hold them back from doing all they can do. By supporting this rule and the underlying legislation, we have the ability to recognize and aid the importance of the Coast Guard to our Nation's security and well being. Its responsibilities are varied and numerous ranging from protection of natural resources to search and rescue to stopping the drug trade at sea and more. Since 1790, the Coast Guard has been defending the United States in times of war. With the $300 million increase in operating expenses, the Coast Guard will be able to continue to support the armed services. This additional money, among other things, provides the needed fuel and maintenance to fully employ their cutters and planes to keep seafaring Americans safe on the open waters and fulfill myriad other missions. In fully utilizing the Coast Guard's resources and improving their assets, our shoreline and our Nation at large will be safer and the war on drugs will be fought even harder. Despite aging equipment and low funding levels, the Coast Guard has demonstrated its commitment to winning the war against drugs. In fact, in the first 6 months of 2001, over 60,000 pounds of cocaine has been seized. This success indicates the Coast Guard is well on its way to matching and even surpassing last year's record-breaking confiscation. Illegal drug activity is creeping into all corners of the United States and the Coast Guard must be commended for their achievements to date in stopping illegal drugs before they hit American soil. Funding provided in H.R. 1699 is a step in that direction. A special aspect of the Coast Guard's budget for fighting the war on drugs is the ``Deepwater'' Program. This program exemplifies the Coast Guard's ability to look ahead and plan for the constant battle against the drug traffickers at sea. The goal of this program is to update the Coast Guard's fleet and allow it to keep up with illegal activities in the waters off our shore. Currently the Coast Guard's ships and planes are not fully capable of stopping the high-tech drug world. The $338 million targeted for the Deepwater project will provide needed funding to acquire certain improved assets. If we are serious about success, it is imperative that we provide funding to enable the Coast Guard to do its many missions. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I chose to speak from this desk about Joe Moakley rather than the well. How many times I stood at this desk in the past 9 or 10 years to yield time or to receive time from the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, our colleague and friend, Joe Moakley, to do the Rules Committee business. I cannot possibly cover all of the things that are on my heart or that we should say about Joe Moakley in the time allotted. So many praises are already out there as they should be, so many stories, so many personal anecdotes, all very favorable because Joe was truly just an extraordinarily remarkable guy. The President of the United States, referring to Joe as a bread-and- butter Democrat, paid him the supreme compliment, I think, by saying, and I quote, ``He made cares and concerns of everyday people his business.'' That is, after all, what the House is about. That is what we are supposed to be doing. I think that is about the best you can do. The strength and the humor, the way Joe faced life and death, I think, showed a depth of decency and character, the kind of values that we all aspire to and hope to achieve. He set a high standard. I guess I could think of a number of things in common we had: frustrations, the Boston Red Sox, his beloved Red Sox. Every year we hoped they would do better. His desires for Central America which paralleled mine. Lots of things we talked about, the stories he told, which were so well told. I am no Joe Moakley. I could never tell a story like that and I would not dare tell some of those stories to some of my senior citizens, but Joe Moakley had a way of telling those stories and it worked. Maybe somebody will fill those shoes someday. I do not know how. After Joe was diagnosed the last time I had a conversation with him following on a previous one when he had had his liver transplant and he was sitting right there in the front row. I said, ``Joe, my gosh, you have certainly earned a rest. There are good things in life, go out and enjoy them a little bit while you have still got some time.'' He said, ``You know, I love this place. I never want to leave here.'' I guess the message I have today for all of us, Mr. Speaker, and I speak this from the heart for Joe Moakley, is that Joe Moakley never will leave this place. There will always be a bit of him here. Whether I see George Crawford coming down the hall or other staff or perhaps sitting in the Rules Committee, now under the gaze of Joe Moakley's portrait staring right at us as we go about our business to remind us to do it the right way, when I pick up a sports page and see how the Red Sox are faring, when I hear a South Boston accent somewhere among our colleagues, all of these are the kind of things I think that will quickly bring back a very happy recollection of one of the true great guys we have had here. I am sorry to say I missed his memorial service in Boston. I was out of the country. Obviously I miss Joe already. But I guess the good thing is that part of Joe will always be with us.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. 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.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a distinguished colleague and a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules and a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget.