Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this modified open rule, which will ensure Members an opportunity to openly and fairly debate H.R. 3907. This bill extends the current moratorium on Internet taxes for five years--as recommended by the Independent Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce. The creation of the Internet has revolutionized communication around the globe and has had a tremendous impact on our daily lives. One of the reasons the Internet has flourished is that the majority in Congress has worked hard to restrain eager regulators, bureaucrats and tax collectors from unnecessary interference in the Internet. There are areas for appropriate government action--child pornography and the like--but, by and large, the appropriate course of action is to let the Internet continue to grow without undue government regulation or intrusion. I am pleased that this bill continues to strike a commonsense balance. Given the lack of consensus on how to deal with imposing sales taxes on commercial transactions over the Internet, H.R. 3709 wisely continues the moratorium on this activity. In addition, the bill continues and strengthens the prohibition on Internet access taxes. Opposition to Internet access charges has been one of the top issues in my mail bag for some time now. Congress must continue to stand firm on this issue, protecting consumers and ensuring the continued growth of the Internet. I want to extend my appreciation to the Judiciary Committee and the leadership for moving expeditiously on this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support both this fair and open rule and H.R. 3709.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this fair and balanced rule, which will ensure full debate on this bill. There was quite a bit of Member interest in this particular piece of legislation and the Rules Committee worked hard to ensure that Members had ample opportunity to debate a wide range of issues and offer amendments. The rule strikes a fair balance and I encourage its adoption. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 701, the ``CARA'' bill, provides dedicated funding for coastal impact assistance, land acquisition needs, wildlife conservation, urban parks, historic preservation and endangered species, all without providing incentives for future offshore oil drilling. H.R. 701 is one of the most significant conservation bills to come out of Congress in decades--and it represents the continued commitment of the current majority in Congress to responsible stewardship of our natural resources. Mr. Speaker, while I look forward to the amendment process, I do want to speak very quickly about an amendment offered by my friend, Chairman Regula. This amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from going to States that have moratoria on outer continental shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing. For the last decade and a half, the Florida delegation has worked diligently and successfully to include annually in the Interior appropriations bill a moratorium on further oil and gas leases off the Florida coast. Just about everybody in Florida remains concerned about the effects of oil drilling on our sensitive marine environment. While the annual moratorium provides a stop-gap solution to this issue, it is far from ideal and actually shortchanges all parties involved. In fact, every Member of the Florida delegation has cosponsored bipartisan legislation introduced to impose a permanent policy for Florida offshore oil drilling. H.R. 33 would call for a ``time-out'' period, during which a joint State-Federal commission of scientists and other interested parties would work to craft a non-political, science-based decision as to which areas are appropriate for oil drilling under what conditions off the Florida coast. Even with the support of the entire Florida delegation, civic and business groups across Florida, and current Governor Jeb Bush and his predecessor, Governor Lawton, Chiles, we have been unable to get more than a few hearings on H.R. 33 in the Resources Committee. So, we are forced to continue advocating the stop-gap annual moratorium. Florida seeks merely to be a wise steward of its natural resoruces, ensuring that any activity off our coast does not adversely affect our unique environment. Chairman Regula's amendment would deny Florida funding under this bill because of that moratorium. I do agree with the basic premise of his argument--the moratorium which he carries for us each year on the Interior bill is not the best solution to this issue. But I do not believe that the solution is to lift the ban and move forward on oil activity off the Florida coast absent the kind of science based approach outlined in H.R. 33. Nor do I believe Florida should be punished for trying to be a good steward of its resources. That is counter initiative and counter productive. So I would encourage Mr. Regula to join us in support of H.R. 33. Indeed, I might even go so far as to suggest that my good friend could solve this issue once and for all by attaching H.R. 33 as a rider to the Interior appropriations bill--as a replacement for a moratorium he and I both find unsatisfactory. I look forward to the debate on the Regula amendment later today. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support both the rule and H.R. 701, but not the Regula amendment.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in strong opposition to the amendment of my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). Mr. Chairman, I want to speak very briefly about an amendment offered by my friend, Chairman Regula. The Regula amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from going to States that have moratoria on outer continental shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing. For the last decade and a half, the Florida delegation has worked diligently to include in the Interior appropriations bill a moratorium on further oil and gas leases off the Florida coast. Most in Florida remain concerned about the effects of oil drilling on our sensitive marine environment. While the annual moratorium provides a stop-gap solution to this issue, it is far from ideal and actually shortchanges all parties involved. In fact, every member of the Florida delegation has cosponsored legislation I introduced to impose a permanent policy for Florida offshore oil drilling. H.R. 33 would call for a ``time-out'' period, during which a joint State-Federal commission of scientists and other interested parties would work to craft a non-political, science based decision as to which areas--under what conditions--are appropriate for oil drilling off the Florida coast. Even with the support of the entire Florida delegation, civic and business groups across Florida, and current Governor Jeb Bush and his predecessor, Governor Lawton Chiles, we have been unable to get more than a few hearings on H.R. 33 in the resources committee. So, we are forced to continue advocating the stop- gap annual moratorium. Florida seeks merely to be a wise steward of its natural resources, ensuring that any activity off our coast does not adversely affect our unique environment. Chairman Regula wants to deny Florida funding under this bill because of that moratorium. I agree with the basic premise of his argument. The moratorium which he carries each year on the Interior bill is not the best solution to this issue. But I do not believe that the solution is to lift the ban and move forward on oil activity off the Florida coast absent the kind of science based approach outlined in H.R. 33. Nor do I believe Florida should be punished for trying to be a good steward of its resources. So I would encourage Mr. Regula to join us in support of H.R. 33. Indeed, I might even go so far as to suggest that my good friend could solve this issue once and for all by attaching H.R. 33 as a rider to the Interior appropriations bill--as a replacement for a moratorium he and I both find unsatisfactory. Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 701 and oppose the Regula amendment.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 2000, the Director of Central Intelligence will present Agency Medallions to five members of the Free Thai Movement at the George Bush Center for Intelligence. In addition Agency Medallions will be awarded to thirty-eight Free Thai members or their survivors. In December, 1941, following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Tokyo turned its attention to Southeast Asia. After a token resistance, Thailand's leader, Field Marshal Phibun Songkhram, signed an alliance with Japan which sanctioned a Japanese military presence throughout the country. In January, 1942, under pressure from Japan, Bangkok sent a diplomatic note to the Thai minister in Washington, M.R. Seni Pramoj, directing him formally to declare war on the United States. Instead, Seni pocketed Bangkok's diplomatic instructions and launched a bold plan to aid the Allies in the liberation of Thailand. Under his guiding hand, and the leadership of General William Donovan's fledgling intelligence and clandestine warfare organization (the Organization of Strategic Services--OSS) the Free Thai movement was born. Seni brought young Thai student volunteeres from universities across the United States together into a ``Free Thai'' command which was to serve under Donovan's OSS. The Free Thai were among Thailand's best and brightest. They risked their lives in abandoning scholars' robes at Cornell, Caltech and MIT in favor of jungle fatigues and rifles. Trained by the OSS, they were dispatched into Thailand by submarine, seaplane and airdrop. Some walked overland from China to make contact with a nascent resistance and prepare the way for Thailand's liberation. The first volunteers dispatched were captured or killed, but on October 5, 1944, the OSS Detachment in Szemao, China, received a radio message from Free Thai agents who had successfully made contact with the resistance. For the remainder of the war, intelligence flowed out of Bangkok. The Free Thai volunteers, working hand-in-hand with the OSS, provided accurate information on Japanese military deployments, rescued captured Allied soldiers, and prepared the ground for the eventual Japanese surrender. We would like to recognize and commemorate their bravery.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), my friend and colleague, 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, this is a very fair, simple rule, as we have just heard described to us. It provides for adequate and appropriate consideration of H.R. 1106, the Alternative Water Sources Act. It is a wide open rule that will accommodate any Member's interest in the amendment process who wishes to come forward on it. H.R. 1102 would provide Federal grants to State and local governments so that they can move forward on developing alternative water sources. This is a critically important issue for my home State of Florida and for States across the country. We have always had water wars in America, but with an ever-increasing population and the accompanying heightened demand for water that we see in our communities, we are sure, I am afraid, we are going to see more of these disputes. So H.R. 1102 aims to spur the development of alternate water sources which will help meet the increased demand. It is proactive. It is forward thinking. I thank my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) of the committee for their work to bring this forward at this time. I certainly encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule. I yield back the balance of the time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 485 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) who has the adjoining district and shares the same interest I do in South Florida.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for his kind words and for his action on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I remember very well back in the old days when we had a merchant marine and fisheries committee and Dante Fascell came forward with this. And in the tradition of Mr. Fascell and the delegation working together, it has come to fruition. I congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) and all the rest of the delegation and, of course, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and his committee for bringing us forward to this date. This is a continuum of efforts to protect one of the most unique, captivating, spectacular resources we have in the United States of America, the Florida Keys. This is complementary to the efforts that this body has taken with regard to the Everglades and protection of Florida Bay. This is an investment. That is well worthwhile. If my colleagues have not visited the Florida Keys, they should. If they have visited the Florida Keys, they will understand why this is necessary legislation. I urge support of this rule and support of the legislation.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 474 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, my friend and colleague.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) bringing that forward. I was going to make the observation that this is really a debate about the rule, and I think we agree it is a brilliant rule and deserves everybody's support; and we are trying to get to the debate when the distinguished chairman can make the kinds of points that are so relevant to the debate and the final vote on the budget. But today I also want to recognize and publicly thank an outstanding Hill staffer who has set an admirable standard for the past 12 years and who is now heading for new challenges. Today's rule is the last piece of legislation that Wendy Selig will handle before she heads off to a leadership position of the American Cancer Society. Wendy personifies skill and professional competence in her work, whether it is as a press secretary, an administrative assistant, the majority counsel on the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process that I chair, or as a special assistant on the House Committee on Intelligence. All of these jobs she has done at one time or another or sometimes simultaneously. Wendy brings a special brightness to whatever she touches, as all those who have worked with her knows. We wish her all success in her new endeavor. We will miss her a lot. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished 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 only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 474 is a straightforward typical rule providing for the consideration of the annual budget resolution conference report. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report be considered as read. The rule further provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. The two Chambers have come to a speedy agreement on the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, sorting out differences between the Houses in a responsible manner. I am pleased to note that the conference report to be considered today adheres to the six major principles that we outlined when this process began, including continuing our historic achievement of paying down the national debt, protecting 100 percent of the Social Security trust fund, boosting our national defense, providing for prescription drug coverage and Medicare reform, offering tax relief, and supporting our localities in the all-important arena of education of our youth. In each of these areas, the budget package we have before us today keeps the faith with our pledge to the American people. We are delivering on our promise to make the government work better for taxpayers, while managing this extraordinarily blue sky fiscal period in a very responsible manner. In this budget we are reaffirming our commitment to maintaining fiscal discipline, something that can prove even harder to do when times are good than when times are bad. Yet, in this budget we have provided for $1 trillion, $1 trillion, in payment on the national debt. That is something that we are doing that will benefit every American today and, of course, all of our children and grandchildren for years to come. $1 trillion in debt reduction. That is a concept that was totally unimaginable for most of us just a few short years ago when deficits were soaring and the debt was mounting at a terrifying pace. What a long way we have come. Mr. Speaker, this budget document outlines an important set of priorities that highlight preservation of the programs Americans count on most; reinforcement of our ability to defend the national security in today's ever more dangerous world and the necessity of enhancing tax fairness for families and businesses. I would like to emphasize the importance of the defense and security component of this budget which would, of course, include intelligence. Last night in the Committee on Rules, we discussed the significance of the investment this budget makes in our defense, not for fancy or high- priced or untested projects, but rather for the core capabilities that have been so underfunded and so severely tested in recent years. I applaud those who fought for and won the increase in funding, and I stand ready to work to make sure we put those resources where they will matter the most in our personnel, in our readiness, in our basic equipment, in our eyes and ears, that is our intelligence, and in our training to make sure our military folks are the best trained in the world and can take the best possible care of themselves. Unlike the budget presented to us by the President, we have here today a budget that realistically meets the needs and the challenges of the coming year, without returning to the bad old days of spending for today without any eye to the future at all. I am proud of our Committee on the Budget Members and the leadership for their efforts in this budget blueprint. Specifically I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), our courageous Committee on the Budget chairman, for all his work, not just this year, but throughout his distinguished tenure in the House. I know there will be many accolades to come for the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich), as this is the final act of his official House budget career, all of them well deserved. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this budget, and, in the meantime supporting this fair and appropriate rule, so we can get to the debate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I 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, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, whenever anybody leaves an institution, an institution is obviously diminished, a little poorer, especially when it is a good person. Obviously people get replaced through the election process and through the hiring process here, but there is still always a sense of loss when we lose one of our spectacular people. Much has been said about the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich), and I want to be associated with those remarks, the extraordinary job he has done through the years here today. We acknowledge that. I know in the general debate, he is going to have the great opportunity to display his brilliance, and we are going to have the opportunity to further thank him.

Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), a member of the committee.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to all Members, as they all know, that an open rule is an open rule under the Rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall).