Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), my friend and colleague from the east coast, who also has been very instrumental in pulling all the parties together in an amicable way to reach this solution.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out, I see my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), who did not speak on this. I have been privileged to have worked with him for a number of years on this, back and forth. The gentleman from Florida has the front door, I have the back door. Most people prefer to go in the front door, but the back door is equally good. We have gotten along very, very well over the years. I think of the number of days I have actually been in the Everglades with Bob Graham. I remember an occasion where I stood on the banks of the then straight Kissimmee Channel, and he said, we are going to put some wrinkles back in this. He got a truck, and we started pouring dirt back into the channel. I thought, this has got to be against the law. We are all going to end up in deep trouble. All of these programs that have taken so many people so much vision to work out the formula to get all of the interested parties going in the same direction have been referred to in this discussion. It is an extraordinary story, and I hope some day somebody will write the book. It will be a wonderful book about what Americans can do in this country when they work together. I am very pleased to express my strong support for this good piece of bipartisan legislation, and I urge support for the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until Monday November 13, 2000, the Speaker, majority leader and minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, November 15, 2000.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with today.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, during morning business, I made some comments about missed opportunities of our foreign policy and how, as we look back over these past 8 years and judge whether we are better off or worse off here in the United States of America, it is good to take a look at the foreign policy situation, because, in fact, the world is a more dangerous place, and we are, in fact, more vulnerable and more threatened as a result of 8 years of a Clinton-Gore administration. When we look into why that is the case, what caused this to happen, we find a foreign policy that has really been characterized by photo opportunities on the one hand and lack of consistent attention on the other hand, and it has not served us as well as it might, and we have missed important opportunities at a time when the world is waiting for the world's dominant power to show clear vision and signs of leadership for the next century ahead. As we look at some of the hallmarks, trying to go back over these past 8 years of the Clinton-Gore administration, we have found that betting on people rather than on institutions in an evolutionary process was a big problem. Putting our money on guys like Milosevic is a bad bet; and Milosevic was, in fact, the guy we put our money on in Dayton for a short-term gain in the Balkans. Unfortunately, it led to long-term trouble; and we are still not out of it there. And Milosevic, while he has now been finally removed by the people of his country in a more evolutionary way, he nevertheless still is a factor, but more important, he is still a war criminal. We have dealt with Milosevic not as a war criminal in the Clinton-Gore administration, but as somebody who we can trust in negotiations. That was a very poor choice. Aristide in Haiti, another poor choice; a man who is an authoritarian, no friend of the United States, and has receded Haiti from the democratic promise it showed in the early 1990s. By betting on Aristide, I think we have done that country no favor at all. Foday Sankoh in Sierra-Leone. Probably, CNN has shown the most gruesome shots of butchery, of children going out and maiming children, drugged children going out and maiming children, being used as instruments of war. This is a person the Clinton-Gore administration chose to try and do business with. When CNN pulled the cord on that and they showed Foday Sankoh for the brutal dictator and terrorist that he is, the Clinton-Gore administration retreated from that, and so far we have nothing to replace it. So when I talk about a hallmark of betting on the wrong guy, that has been one of the problems. Another has been appeasement. We have seen continuously wishful thinking that said, if we could just get these people to go along with us, we will be all right, and we will offer them carrots. Well, we have to remember that the wall came down in Berlin because we were dealing from strength. They had no place to go in the Soviet Union and the United States of America was on the side of right and we were on the side of strength and eventually we prevailed because of those things. Now we are going to North Korea and we are seeing extraordinary, extraordinary and, I would say, amazing scenes of our Secretary of State basically recognizing a dictatorship that is has enslaved most of its people, including its children. This is not just enslaving them physically, this is mind control as well, because the indoctrination in North Korea is total. I have been there, and I have seen it. Here, for whatever reason, we are suddenly finding our new best friend, the smiling Kim Jong Il. He is still the same old Kim Jong Il, he is not our best friend, he is a dangerous dictator, and it is a thoroughly Communist country. I do not understand why we are trying to do him a favor. As we go through and look beyond the appeasements that we could talk about in Russia and China, let me skip to some bad judgment, bad judgment such as we have seen in the Middle East by trying to do a good job, and I give the President credit for that, but by forcing the agenda so fast for whatever motivation that it broke the framework. That was not good judgment; and we are seeing tragically tonight, every night on television, scenes of what happens when one forces a situation beyond its evolutionary capability to deal with it. We have seen in Iraq apparent, Desert Fox. We bombed the heck out of them, and what happens? We end up winning a very short-term gain and losing our window into Iraq. We do not truly understand what is going on there now. We have lost our eyes and ears, Iraq is evermore dangerous and is now reasserting itself as a leader in the Arab world, as an evermore dangerous enemy of the United States with greater capabilities. We did not do what we needed to do there. Mr. Speaker, this is a subject that will continue on, because this is a subject that matters to America; and I will be talking more about this in sessions to come.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, as we begin this week, we obviously have many important domestic issues before this body, and that is entirely very appropriate. The question is being asked, are we better off in terms of where we are today than we were 8 years ago, and I want to focus on a very important part of that question that has been ignored in the debate that is going across our land, and it is the question, are we better off in terms of national security than we were when the wall came down about 12 years ago? I think it is very arguable that the world is a much more dangerous place than it was at that time, and I think it is arguable that we are much more vulnerable, and, tragically, Americans have been lost at home and abroad recently, as we know with the Cole, to underscore that situation. I know that some of the candidates have talked about their foreign policy experience, and I know that Vice President Gore, who has been on watch for the past 8 years with President Clinton, claims that our foreign policy has accomplished some good things. I would take strong issue with that. I do not think our foreign policy has been much of a success at all. It has been characterized by unevenness, but, most importantly, by missed opportunity. Most of our friends think that the United States of America as the world's most important power, most free country, most successful economy, is adrift. They are puzzled by what we are doing and what we are not doing. Our enemies are certainly taking opportunity to score points where we are missing our opportunities. I think that when you take a look at the problems with our national security policy, you can fit them very neatly into some categories. First of all, just starting with our concern about security at home. The Clinton-Gore policy record on protecting our national secrets and dealing with national security has been nothing short of abysmal, whether it is the State Department missing laptops, whether it is the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency knowing he should not take home, but taking home classified information, and making it vulnerable for being picked up by hackers. Things like that are just inexcusable. But we have not vetted all of the people who need security clearances, by any means, and we have put them into sensitive jobs. We have a long waiting list, and we are falling down on that type of thing, whether it the White House or the Defense Department or the State Department. Certainly we have underscored the problem dramatically with the loss of the weapons secrets from the Los Alamos labs. We have in the Clinton-Gore administration seen a cultural disdain for security, an arrogance, that we know better somehow, so we do not have to play by the rules. Combat readiness is another area where we want to take a look at our national security. Vice President Gore has made a great deal about reinventing government and saving 330,000 jobs. If 300,000 of those jobs have come out of our defense forces, what does that say about our readiness? We understand we have ships going to sea undermanned. We are cannibalizing equipment in order to get spare parts. We are bypassing rotations so our troops are not getting the necessary R&R, an opportunity to see their loved ones. We are cutting corners. We are cutting corners on training, and sooner or later, it catches up with us, and, tragically, it has. Right now I do not believe that there is much vision about readiness, and I think that has been underlined in the types of readiness that we need to have. It is no longer navies against navies, dreadnoughts against dreadnoughts at Midway, or carriers and carriers fleets against carrier. It is now dealing with things like terrorists and narcotics cartels, things that affect our American citizens in deadly and dreadful ways. We have also had some extraordinarily bad judgment in our policies, whether you start with the tragedy of Somalia, whether you go on to Haiti, where we have now seen a grotesque tragic and expensive failed foreign policy result. The Balkans are still very much at unrest. We have much work to do there, and many troops committed there, and we have not resolved the underlying problems. Saddam, if you wonder why the price of heating oil and price of gasoline at the pumps is being debated in this chamber and elsewhere, it is largely because we have messed up in the Mideast so badly and been asleep at the switch so long under the Clinton-Gore administration that our policies on energy have gone adrift and we have been victimized by others as a result. Africa, a whole continent that we have pulled back our capabilities on by direct order of the Clinton-Gore administration, is a continent that is torn by all kinds of carnage and brutality, unsettled conditions, a breakdown of law and order, misery and suffering across the board, and tragically, again, loss of American life because we were unprepared with the blowing up of those embassies. These are the kinds of things that I think we need to think about when we talk about what we need for the vision of the future; the right kind of readiness, the right kind of preparedness. I think that is an important part of this debate, and I know we are going to be talking more about it in this week as we are here.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), my friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for affording me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate him; and I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for working in a bipartisan way to deal with what has actually provided some relief for some people who have need. I think this is Congress doing its thing. I think we are, in fact, rescuing the administration from some bad policy consequences that have taken place. I think it is good that the American people can look and see that here we are on a Saturday focusing on these kinds of problems and responding to them in a very, very positive way especially, I would also say, in a bipartisan way. I think that one of the things that has been addressed slightly here, and I have heard a little so far in the debate on this about the underlying problem, heating oil is not something we have just discovered and the need for it and the need for it on an affordable basis. We have debated for a long time how we go about providing affordable heating oil. Incidentally, coming from Florida, we are interested in low-cost energy as well because we have a lot of senior citizen who need to have some climate control. When it gets very hot in the summer, we have the reverse problem. And we actually do need to provide air conditioning for some of those folks, sadly enough we have death in this country during hot spells as we all know, and providing appropriate air conditioning is an equal cost. I come from New England, so I understand the LIHEAP problem. But I live in Florida and proudly represent the southwest coast of Florida, the lower part of it; and I understand the other problem as well. We have to provide an answer for the whole problem. That gets us to the energy policy. I honestly believe that we do not have a comprehensive consistent energy policy that works. I am afraid that if we had an energy policy, it would have been confounded by what is now a clearly failed foreign policy in the Middle East, I am sorry to say. I am sure we are all sorry to say that. I know that the Secretary of Energy, Secretary Richardson, who is a fine man, a former colleague of ours, has gotten up and announced that the administration was indeed caught asleep at the switch on their energy policy. I think I am using his words, maybe it was caught napping or asleep or something. But anyway, he basically said they had been inattentive. They had not done their job, and he is right. I noticed that there was some talk about the release of the surplus and the impact on the marketplace. I think from the cards and letters and talking to the people I talk to and representing the people I represent, nobody noticed that we had any relief at the gas pump. I think my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is right, if there was any relief, we sure did not see it. I do not know who else did. Apparently, it did not help the people with the LIHEAP heating cost problem in New England much either. Actually, the amount of energy involved was a day and a half use, a day and a half of consumption. So that was a gesture, that was not a solution. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is worth noting that just yesterday, Saddam Hussein manipulated the oil market price again; and that has a bigger consequence than anything that the executive branch has done so far to solve the oil crisis and the LIHEAP concerns that we are talking about here this morning. Now, most Americans when they go out in the morning, they want to turn the key in their car; and they want their car to start. I know that the candidate of choice from our friends across the aisle is suggesting that somehow when we turn our car key that our car is going to come running into life and start and take us to work on some kind of new magic technology that has not been invented yet, so that we are not going to need oil and gas and internal combustion engines. Well, that is fine, but I have to go to work today and tomorrow and the next day; and that magic technology is not here. Until it is here, thank you, we need to find affordable oil. Mr. Speaker, we have talked about what happened in places like Chicago, how the regulations of the EPA confounded the price of gasoline, how the infrastructure failure and the refineries failed to be able to provide for the marketplace demand. All of these kinds of things have come together and we are not talking about that. We are talking about, there is a problem, Government handout. I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) was on a correct path, when he suggested that if $1.4 billion is not enough, then $1.6 billion, $1.8 billion. Where does this end? This ends in providing socialized, free oil for everybody in America. Great idea. They tried it in Russia, the most corrupt systematic problem of the Soviet command marketplace was probably the gas pump and it still is. So that is not the solution. We need an energy policy; and I hope our friends across the aisle will help us encourage the next administration, whichever side it is on, of developing a good energy policy. I would point out I think those who are aware of the oil and gas industry might be able to do better with an energy policy, and I would suggest that America might be well served by having some people who know about energy making decisions about energy. Mr. Speaker, the other point that is sort of curious to me is that I have heard some talk about people being in the pocket of oil and gas. Oil and gas is what we need. That is what we are out there trying to find right now. If there is anybody that doubts it, do not go to the gas station when one runs out of gas. Wait for the next solution to one's car. Then see how far down the road one gets. So I am very happy that this has come forward. I think we need to find a realistic underlying solution to energy policy. In the meantime, it is entirely appropriate that Congress, in a bipartisan way with Republican leadership, is providing relief. I congratulate the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not as the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence but as a representative of thousands of men and women concerned about the tragedy of breast cancer. I also rise as someone who has seen family members and friends deal with this terrible disease. Congress passed a good bill a few weeks ago, one that will ensure that the poorest Americans will receive needed help in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer. Next stop, the Rose Garden to commend everyone who worked to make this a reality, Republican and Democrat alike. But now we learn there will be no Rose Garden signing ceremony, and the advocates and volunteers who fought for this bill will not get their deserved celebration and recognition in the sun. Why? Because the President has decided that it would be ``awkward'' to host and recognize at the White House the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), who happens to be running against his wife for the Senate seat in New York. I took the President at his word in February when he said that breast cancer is an issue that, quote, ``transcends political boundaries.'' It does. Like so many times before with the Clinton-Gore administration, I believed them. That was a mistake.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from New York also endorsed the rule, at least I hope he did. I did not hear any controversy on the rule. I think this is yet another accomplishment of the do-something 106th Congress. I see nothing except a good debate ahead and a strong approval.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my friend, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules; pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 648 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 835, the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. This is a standard rule for this type of conference report. And I believe it is totally without controversy. I strongly urge my colleagues to support it. Before we get a chance to vote, Mr. Speaker, S. 835 is an excellent piece of environmental legislation and yet another addition to the fine environmental legacy of the 106th Congress. S. 835 encourages partnerships between Federal, State, and local interests for estuary habitat restoration. Of even greater importance is that the bill supports the development and implementation of comprehensive management plans for the National Estuary Program. This is of particular importance to me because of the Charlotte Harbor NEP, which is located in my district in southwest Florida. I worked hard with our local community to secure the NEP designation for Charlotte Harbor, and I am pleased this legislation will ensure a comprehensive management plan goes forward from the process. Another key issue for my home State of Florida is title VI of the bill, which authorizes a pilot program to allow States to explore alternate water supply solutions to meet critical needs. We have always had water wars in Florida, but given the increase in population and the attendant demand for water, we will surely reach a crisis point unless we take immediate action now. The alternate water source provisions in this bill will help in that effort, and I want to thank my colleague and good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), for her hard work in particular on this issue. S. 835 also includes other critical restoration efforts for areas such as Lake Pontchartrain and the Tijuana River Valley. I am extremely disappointed to note the Senate refused to accept a provision passed by the House that would have established an EPA grant program to improve water quality in the Florida Keys. I am not aware of any substantive problem on this issue, and I remain hopeful we can adopt this program perhaps through another legislative vehicle. Even so, this bill is a remarkable piece of legislation, and I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and his Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their hard work in the area and the successful result. In short, Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule, it is a good bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support both. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 648 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), who has participated in every way in this arrangement for a number of years and is, indeed, one of the leaders and champions of the Everglades.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 639 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. H. Res. 639 provides for consideration of S. 2796, better known as the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This closed rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Transportation. Further, the rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 2 shall be considered as adopted. The rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Finally, the rule provides that, should the Senate bill, as amended, pass the House, it then shall be in order to move that the House insist on its amendment to S. 2796 and request a conference with the Senate. I believe it is a very fair rule under the circumstances. Mr. Speaker, as we know, the clock on the 106th Congress is running out, and we do need to move quickly. In view of the strong bipartisan support this bill enjoys and the constraints associated with the calendar, I believe this is a very sensible way to proceed today and, as I have said, extremely fair under the circumstances. I definitely encourage my colleagues to support this rule so we can get on with this very important legislation. The WRDA bill is a critically important piece of environmental legislation. Of particular note is that this year's WRDA bill contains an initial authorization for a plan to restore the Florida Everglades, unquestionably a unique national treasure of which we are very proud. The Everglades Restoration Project represents the largest, most comprehensive environmental restoration ever attempted. Florida Governor Jeb Bush recently termed the Everglades restoration effort ``perhaps the defining environmental issue of this new century.'' Governor Bush is absolutely correct. It should be noted that the State of Florida has already set aside funds from its budget to meet its entire cost share of the restoration effort for the next 10 years, an unprecedented step and an unmistakable display of commitment. I am proud of the State of Florida for taking that step. The Everglades has always been a nonpartisan effort. Every Member of the Florida delegation has been united in support of this treasure. Our delegation has been especially well led on the Everglades issue by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Florida delegation and the extremely capable man who has kept us in an effective fighting team from Florida to bring attention to this. The Clinton administration has also done quite an excellent job here and deserves praise. I said this was a bipartisan effort. Even so, I must say now that I have been somewhat disturbed at recent efforts to drag the Everglades into presidential politics. It does not belong there. I hope Vice President Gore will reverse course and recognize what all of us do, that the Everglades is far too important to be manipulated for short-term political gain. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, after months of negotiations, the Senate crafted an initial authorization plan embodied in their version of the WRDA bill. The Senate's plan was widely supported by all stakeholders involved, quite a feat. When the House began its work on its version of the WRDA bill, we were cautioned not to tamper with the delicate balance of the Senate Everglades proposal. While in the end, the Senate Transportation Committee did make a number of changes to the Senate bill, changes everyone enthusiastically supports and acknowledges improve on the Senate product. So I am extremely grateful for the hard work and the very responsible stewardship of the Everglades authorization by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and his Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, the challenge we have always faced is to put together a restoration plan that will get it right, undoing years of neglect and misunderstanding that have brought the Florida Everglades to the brink of disaster. In my view, the Everglades provisions in the WRDA bill will do just that, putting us now on solid footing for the next 10 years. The Everglades is a national treasure, and the House action today to implement a comprehensive plan to restore it is, indeed, historic, as Governor Bush has said. I hope all of my colleagues will support the water resources bill and the restoration of the Everglades. Furthermore, I strongly urge support of this rule so we can get on with this important debate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Florida delegation; and I would simply say that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has a very long history of careful and persistent work in dealing with all parties interested in the Everglades, both as a Florida resident, at the local government level, as a businessman and interested citizen, in every way, shape, and form. For people who care about the Everglades, it would be useful for them to give thanks to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to relieve any confusion there might be. This is actually the rule on the WRDA bill. There will be an opportunity to talk about the continuing resolution later. It is the normal routine business in the House. And we will be doing 1-minutes later in the day for matters of appropriate discussion under 1-minutes as well.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me the time. She brings credit and strength to our leadership and to our Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, which provides for orderly consideration of the VA-HUD Appropriations Conference Report. It is a standard rule for an appropriations conference report, and it deserves the support of every Member of the House. In the wake of the tragic attack on the U.S.S. Cole, which we sadly all know about, Americans are painfully and necessarily reminded again of the great sacrifices our servicemen and servicewomen make to protect our interests and the interests of all Americans at home and abroad. Presently we are living in what I call ``blue sky times,'' an era of peace and prosperity. But, tragically, it is only relative peace. The recent tragedy is a sharp reminder of the sacrifices and risks our soldiers and sailors and airmen are confronted with day in and day out as they go about their business. We must remember and emphasize that veterans made a selfless promise to defend and protect our country too. Now it is time that we deliver to them on the promises made about the security and comfort of adequate health care and benefits. H.R. 4635 is a vehicle to help us accomplish that goal. This bill provides $20.3 billion to fully fund medical health care for veterans. That is a $1.36 billion increase over last year, and I am proud of that. My home State of Florida has the second largest population of veterans in the country. I can tell my colleagues from firsthand experience talking with many of them and visiting clinics that these funds are greatly needed in our clinics and hospitals. In addition, H.R. 4635 increases veterans medical and prosthetic research by $30 million, more than the President's request. For veterans wounded in the line of duty, new technology resulting from these funds may mean the difference between being wheelchair bound and being able to walk. What a wonderful thought. Finally, the conference report provides an extra $73 million to the Veterans Benefits Administration to expedite claims processing. This money would help alleviate some of the red tape associated with benefits claims. Moving vets out of the long lines and into programs for services will be provided timely. Congress has made meaningful progress this year on providing for our veterans. Most notably, of course, is this year's defense authorization bill that keeps the promise of lifetime health care to military retirees. We build on those achievements by providing veterans expanded care and benefits as well today in this legislation. I urge my colleagues to illustrate and underscore their dedication to our veterans by supporting passage of this bill and supporting this rule.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to again publicly thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) for being an extraordinary ranking member, reaching across so many times on complicated and sensitive matters and carrying a huge proportion of the load of the committee. I have a plan that would like to keep him there as ranking member. I realize that may not go entirely across the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the vice chairman and critical link to the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr)

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