Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Of course, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time from the distinguished gentleman, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, who I am delighted to see this morning again, I will assure the gentleman, to the best of my knowledge, this will proceed in the normal way of the Committee on Rules business and should be discovered on your desk at the Committee on Rules meeting time as we normally do at the daylight hour. We will hopefully proceed through a hearing process and hopefully proceed through the rulemaking process in a timely fashion with the cooperation of the gentleman's minority party.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I can assure the gentleman that is my understanding. We are fortunate to have the chairman of the Committee on Rules here who can give the gentleman further assurance. I shall yield to him.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, just to be sure both sides understand, could we have a statement of the times again, please?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask again where we stand on the time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 446 ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 issue only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 446 is a structured rule, which is fairly typical for bringing forward the annual congressional budget resolution. For a number of years, we have gotten into the very good habit of managing debate on the budget by asking that all amendments be drafted in the form of substitutes so that Members could consider the whole picture as we debate and weigh our spending priorities. This rule continues that tradition and wisely so. We have gone to great lengths with this rule to juggle the competing needs of having a full debate on a range of issues and perspectives without allowing the process to become so unwieldy that it breaks down of its own weight. In that regard, I think the rule is fair in making in order five substitute amendments reflecting an array of points of view. Specifically, the rule provides for 3 hours of general debate, with 1 hour specifically designated for discussion of economic goals and policies as described by the Humphrey-Hawkins provisions of the current law. Two hours of the debate time shall be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 hour shall be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark). The rule waives clause 4(a) of rule XIII, requiring a 3-day layover of the Committee report, against consideration of the resolution. The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in Part A of the Committee on Rules report as an original concurrent resolution for the purpose of amendment. This new base text makes a number of technical and substantive changes to the underlying resolution, changes that were discussed and negotiated throughout the day yesterday. This text is available to Members in the Committee on Rules report, which was filed last night. The rule waives all points of order against this amendment. The rule further makes in order only those amendments printed in Part B of the Committee on Rules report. I would note that, of those five substitutes I mentioned, four are sponsored by Members of the minority. Those amendments may be offered only in the order specified in the report, only by a Member designated in the report, and they shall be considered as read, they shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and they shall not be subject to amendment. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments except that, if an amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted, it is not in order to consider further substitutes. The rule provides for a final period of general debate not to exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget to occur upon conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment. The rule permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to offer amendments in the House necessary to achieve mathematical consistency. Finally, the rule suspends the application of House Rule XXIII relating to the establishment of the statutory limit on the public debt with respect to the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001. Mr. Speaker, thanks to the effort of our congressional majority, we have emerged from decades of deficits; and we are now operating in a brave new world of surplus. But that does not mean we can or should now abandon our commitment to fiscal discipline. In fact, it is when the sky looks most blue that we should be thinking about how best to shovel out from the mountain of debt we have incurred and prepare for the next rainy day, which inevitably we know will come. So I am delighted to be bringing forward to the House, House Concurrent Resolution 290, the fiscal year 2001 fiscal budget blueprint. This document, although not binding as a law, sets forth the guideposts that will dictate the path we take for the rest of this session of Congress as we complete our budgeting work. The budget reflects conservative principles and lays the groundwork for continued success in our mission of paying down the debt, protecting Social Security, shoring up Medicare, strengthening the national defense and education, and offering meaningful tax relief to our seniors, our families, and our small businesses. This budget outlines $1 trillion in deficit reduction while taking the Social Security trust fund completely off the table and while opening the door for Congress to provide realistic prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. At the same time, we have gone further than the President in the area of defense, something that is so critical in this changing world and at a time when we are asking so much of our men and women in uniform and those in our intelligence activities. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and his committee for the work they have done. I particularly share their interest from a process standpoint in seeking ways to enforce the fiscal discipline this budget document outlines. I am delighted that we have been able to work out an arrangement that meets the concerns of some Members about setting aside surplus moneys up front for further debt reduction even while we make sure that we have provided the resources necessary so the appropriators can bring forward legislation that brings to life our commitments in key areas. This rule brings that negotiation to fruition, and we have now put in place a process so that the issue of debt reduction will continue to be addressed as we move through this year's spending process. That is good news all around for all Americans. This is a fair rule. I urge Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I would urge Members to pay very close attention to debate on the five substitutes we have made in order, four of them being from the other side of the aisle. Members need to know that under the process of this rule as I stated, once a substitution passes, we are not going to continue any others. In the vernacular, that means there are no free votes. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time available on both sides.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) from the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. I rise, obviously, in support of this very good rule and the underlying bill. Remembering the subject of the bill, I think that we have a good rule. It does not cover every possible problem we have with energy. But for the subject on the floor, it is an appropriate rule for the aspect of energy we are here to discuss. Frankly, we should not be here on this issue today. But we are here as a result of an ineffectual Clinton-Gore energy policy which has been very heavy on photo-ops, very heavy on grandstanding and very, very light in substance and has resulted in increased prices of gas at the service station for virtually every American. As the Energy Secretary's own point man freely admits, since March of 1998, in testimony before one of our committees here when they were expressing concern about this, OPEC has instituted three tiers of production cuts, three. Three times this has happened. None of these cuts were met with any resistance from the Clinton-Gore team at that time. And only now is Secretary Richardson, who has publicly stated that he was asleep at the switch on this, only now is he trying to play catch-up with our friends in the Middle East and elsewhere. I wonder if Secretary Richardson knows how to leverage our awesome bargaining power with the Saudis, the Mexicans, the Venezuelans, and our other friendly oil producers in the world. After all, what have we done for the Saudis or the Mexicans lately? Mr. Speaker, it does not make much sense to the folks that I talk to in the town meetings and at the gas stations and out about in my district back home that it is our friends that are responsible for the historic increases at the pumps, that is the oil-producing nations. People in my district get even more agitated when I tell them that we are not going to be able to expect a tough executive branch response. We have not seen one for 2 years. While this has been happening, the Clinton-Gore administration has not been taking effective action. Managing our energy portfolio is appropriately an executive branch function. There is no congressional function that says we are in charge of the energy branch portfolio. I know President Clinton is busy in India today doing business for the United States of America, and I know Vice President Gore is focused on other matters. But I also know that Americans are at the gas station looking for lower gas prices, and they deserve them. The legislation of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) today is simply an attempt to prod the Clinton-Gore team into action on a matter of concern to most Americans. While that should not be necessary, I am hopeful that this effort will send a strong message to OPEC that when it comes to protecting Americans from arbitrary and unfair price hikes, not all branches of this Government are asleep at the wheel. In other words, this is a wake-up call.

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. It is a balanced rule that provides an opportunity for the House to debate the main controversies surrounding H.R. 2372. However, I do have some concerns about the bill itself. First, I want to applaud my colleague from Florida, along with Chairman Hyde and the other members of the Judiciary Committee for attempting to address the property rights issue. I have been involved in this subject for a very long time, going back to my service as a city councilman, mayor and county commissioner. This is a tough issue. It involves the need to balance protection of constitutionally guaranteed private property rights with other constitutional guarantees of public health, safety and welfare as traditional, legitimate functions of government. I will be the first to say that it is an imperfect system, there is no question about that. While our system of layering government and dividing authority isn't perfect, I believe it works well reasonably and ensures a balanced role for all three levels of government. We ought to trust the local officials to work through the zoning issues. They're the ones on the front lines--they deal with these questions every day and are in the best position to be directly responsive to the needs and concerns of the community. Of course, there are poster child examples of the extreme and cases of egregious takings without compensation. If there are questions of State law that need to be resolved, we need State courts to decide those issues. If a legitimate takings claim exists, it is critical we ensure landowners their day in court in a timely manner. We need to maintain for local officials a meaningful opportunity to work with the landowners to craft a compromise. In my view, it is not appropriate to have the Federal Government deciding local land use questions. In addition, some critics of this bill have argued that the Federal judiciary would be flooded with claims and simply could not handle the caseload that would result if this bill were enacted. For example, the Federal District Court for Southwest Florida, which I represent, is already short-handed and has a backlog of cases that is measured in years, not just months. Any changes to the current system must take these concerns into account. In the end, balancing the right of a landowner to develop his property within the bounds set by the health, safety and welfare interests of the community is a difficult question--I, for one, do not believe there's any particular magic a Federal court has that can solve these problems and make them go away. So, I will reluctantly oppose H.R. 2372. I do however, want to make mention of the fact that there are several provisions of the bill dealing with Federal takings that I do support. This is why I intend to support the amendment offered by Representative Boehlert, which would remove the provisions dealing with local governments but retain the sections dealing with Federal takings. Once again, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. It is a fair rule and we should pass it so the House can have an open debate about H.R. 2374.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), my friend and the distinguished chairman, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise, obviously, in strong support of H.R. 5. As just one of many on this side of the aisle who has worked hard to eliminate the archaic and punitive Social Security earnings test since coming to Congress 12 years ago, I am delighted that today we are finally going to right this wrong. I represent many seniors in southwest Florida who have eagerly awaited this moment and I know are going to be very happy. Last year, over 800,000 seniors across America were penalized simply because they chose or needed, needed, to remain productive members of our workforce. In an ever-expanding economy where employers increasingly lack capable and experienced employees, the Federal Government contrarily sends a message that our seniors need not apply. I know it is true, because I hear it firsthand from working seniors in southwest Florida who choose to stay active and supplement their retirement, perhaps as a cashier at the local grocery store or perhaps as a substitute teacher at the middle school. Proud Americans who survived the Depression and defeated Hitler's Germany are punished for displaying the same self-reliance, perseverance, and individual responsibility that defines them as our greatest generation and, frankly, has made our Nation as great as it is today. It is a national embarrassment that we will end today. Today, finally, and I say finally, the White House and congressional Democrats will apparently join with us in ending the unfair earnings tax. But it was not always so. Just 2 years ago, only 19 Democrats voted to end the earnings limit. But in the best spirit of our representative democracy, we have made our case and we have persuaded them, or at least most of them, to join us. This has been a long and trying fight. And besides the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), my Florida colleague, and the gentleman from Texas (Sam Johnson), courageous souls like Jay Rhodes no longer here, Jim Bunning in the other body, who should be here to celebrate with us today I hope are taking joy in this. Above all, we should cheer our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) who led the fight for incremental reform before it was fashionable and who appropriately will preside over this Congress today as we end this tax on working seniors once and for all. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, each year approximately 300 students in my congressional district participate in the Model United Nations program. Acting as delegates from one of the United Nations member countries, these young people are afforded the opportunity to learn about that country, its culture and issues important to the nation; hone their research, debating and parliamentary skills; and interact with their peers on topics of international significance. This opens a new world to many of the students; in fact, some of them are inspired to pursue a course of study in international relations as a direct result of their work in the Model UN. Among the teams from Southwest Florida is one from Port Charlotte High School which has competed at various forums, including Harvard University, and have amassed many awards, both as a team and individually. Following them to Harvard this week for a collegiate Model UN is a team representing Edison Community College. This is the third year that they have been invited to participate with baccalaureate schools. We wish them luck and salute all of the young people who are devoting time to learning more about international issues.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Columbus, Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this very fair rule as well as the underlying bill. It turns out we have got about 49,000 married, tax-paying couples in my district in southwest Florida; and they understand and appreciate very well why we are here today. Also, I think we have 230 of my House colleagues, presumably tax paying, Republican and Democrat, who understand it very well, too. We know that one of the most pernicious aspects of our current Tax Code is the way in which it financially punishes men and women who choose to get married. Today we will take a direct, firm, and appropriate step to right a wrong. I am puzzled to hear friends from the other side of the aisle disparage this fine work product. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) says it is not enough relief. But we just had the Joint Committee on Taxation say that the substitute that his team has come up with provides zero relief, no dollar relief. I invite the gentleman from Massachusetts to join us because we have more relief than zero. Maybe we do not have enough. If the gentleman wishes to lead us further into more tax cuts, I will be right there by his side. But it seems that, around here at least, that bipartisanship may be in the eye of the beholder. Just last week, I recall the House entertained a motion to instruct on patient protection legislation, which we are all interested in, billed by its champions as a great bipartisan achievement when we all voted for that. It was. Yet today, our Democratic friends spin themselves into a tight circle trying to justify why they cannot support this modest but necessary and fair bipartisan tax step towards tax fairness. Well, we are going to hear a lot about process; we always do. We are going to hear a lot about class warfare rhetoric today; we already have, and we will hear more. But we will not hear a compelling argument about this modest and sensible bill because there just is not one. The facts, more than 21 million couples are forced to shell out, on average, $1,400 more than if they had chosen to remain single and not get married. That is a penalty, a financial penalty. Working women are particularly hit hard in this process, as one can figure. Although President Clinton has consistently fought our efforts to provide Americans with significant tax relief, even he has finally woken up to the need for a little fairness for married couples, at least he said so in his State of the Union address. Obviously, it remains to be seen whether he will live up to his word and sign this bill. While I am discouraged by the negative partisan attacks on H.R. 6 by some, I remain hopeful that, in the end, they will put aside election- year politics and join with the vast majority of Americans who support reforming the marriage penalty. This is substantive legislation. It corrects an obvious wrong. It is fair play, and fair play is something that all Americans want and ask us for no matter what their party affiliation. I wish everybody a happy Valentine's Day. I urge a vote ``yes'' on the rule and on the bill.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this appropriately crafted and, I believe, noncontroversial rule. This is obviously an extremely important and serious matter, and I believe a structured rule was necessary to ensure that the various views are aired in a productive way out here today. Mr. Speaker, I come to this debate primarily focused on national security, obviously as chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, with very high hopes but also with some deep underlying concerns. I have high hopes that the United States can and will step up to the challenge of engaging the Asia-Pacific region while protecting U.S. interests and the interests of our friends and allies in that area and elsewhere. I do remain concerned that we lack sufficient and sustained leadership on this issue from the Clinton-Gore administration, while at the same time we do have a wide range of vigorously conflicted, highly visible viewpoints on how we should proceed even within this Congress. As a result, we run the risk of sending mixed signals that could weaken rather than reinforce the message of resolve that we need to send to the Chinese leadership about our priorities. That is what we are here about, resolve. Mr. Speaker I have just returned from leading the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on a trip to the South Pacific. I want to report that, without fail, what we heard over and over is that the area of greatest focus for U.S. officials and their counterparts in the region is the need for careful management of the explosive flash-point that exists in the Taiwan Strait. The Chinese hierarchy knows this and has demonstrated its willingness to capitalize on it by engineering provocations in order to promote its own agenda, including, apparently, gaining unfettered entry into world markets and trade organizations. Let me state that I am certainly supportive of the substance of this legislation, inasmuch as it emphasizes and clarifies our defense posture when it comes to assisting the people of Taiwan and protecting their security. But I am also mindful of the larger picture, and I recognize that, as contorted as U.S. policy toward Taiwan and, by inference, China, has become, it is a policy that of necessity must find balance on an extremely narrow tightrope. Our discussions here must not be misinterpreted to be our pushing the envelope on behalf of Taiwan. The issue is the defense and security of Taiwan. Proponents of today's legislation point out that the existing statutory foundation for our relationship with Taiwan is in need of greater elucidation. They seek to send a message to Beijing. But we must make sure that in the process of adding detail, specificity, and clarity to our current policy, we do not also generate the unintended consequences of provocation and perhaps dangerous escalation in our complicated and delicate diplomatic relations with China. This matter is of vital significance to regional security and to global security, and it affects U.S. interests directly. Without doubt the Chinese leadership, as well as the people of Taiwan and our friends and enemies around the world, will be watching this debate and gauging our willingness to approach these tough issues with thoughtful, farsighted leadership, and unity of purpose. As my colleagues know, one of the areas of jurisdiction of the Committee on Intelligence is to monitor and prepare capabilities for potential security crises around the world, and that certainly includes a careful eye toward China and Taiwan. I think I can say that the danger of miscalculation in the Taiwan Straits is at the top of the list of the gravest threat to today's world peace. Our challenge in this debate is to ensure that it promotes solutions rather than contributing to a deadly miscalculation. I urge support for the rule.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, before we begin on the rule, I am going to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) for a matter of interest to all Members of the House. (Mr. THUNE asked and was given permission to speak out of order.) Tribute to Reading Clerk Bob Berry

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the observation that this has been a debate about the continuing resolution rule, and I think it has been properly described. I think it is a worthy rule. We all know we have to have the continuing resolution. We have provided for contingencies as this, as has been explained by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) and myself. No matter how the Members feel about individual pieces of the appropriations process, I do urge their consideration and in a favorable way for this continuing resolution, which is necessary for us to get on with our business and the rest of the day's work. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.