Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended tonight to bring this subject forward, but the situation in Haiti has become so egregious that I think it is necessary to have a series of statements to alert the American public to what has happened. I feel very sad about the people in Haiti. It is a country that I think has great promise, and it is a country that wishes very much to join the commonwealth of democracies in this hemisphere. Unfortunately, all our hopes seem to have dissipated because of events that have taken place in that country in the past few years and an increasing trend towards self-destruction. In fact, I daresay if there were a case study of a failed foreign policy of the Clinton administration, Haiti would probably be the first example. And I am sorry to report that. I think the administration first lost sight of what went wrong in Haiti when they lost sight of the fact that the solution to democracy in any country is the people going about the business of looking after themselves, having accountability and reliance for their own activities on behalf of their community, their country, and putting forth their own social value message about what they stand for and what they want to be. When another country comes in and tries to do that job or intercedes, and did we ever intercede in Haiti, we sent something like 20,000 troops down there initially armed but, fortunately, at the last minute turned into a non-armed invasion force, as opposed to an armed one, and we spent somewhere between $2 billion and $3 billion, that would be billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, in Haiti in the past few years. All of that has come to a situation today where, sadly, we are looking at a country that has no legislature. The legislature has been suspended. It would be as if Congress were closed down in the United States of America and the Senators and the Representatives were not allowed to come to Washington and come to this building, the United States Capitol, and go about their business. I know there are some that would perhaps jokingly say, well, not a bad idea from time to time, with some of the things that happen in Congress and some of the things we do. But the fact of the matter is Congress is a treasured institution and a vital part of our constitutional make-up in this country and a vital part of our Government. It is in Haiti, too. It is meant to be in any country. They have got to have a legislative branch, a voice for the people, people's voices clearly expressed by representatives of one form or another. Now that has been closed in Haiti. Equally important in any shared power in a democracy is a judiciary system of some type. And I am sorry to report that a judiciary system which was always feeble and quite weakened and subject to some corruption because there was not much pay involved in being a member of the judiciary in Haiti is even more enfeebled than it was before. It is a system that is broken down. It is not even dysfunctional. It is nonfunctional. Sadly, a critical part of that judicial system would be the law enforcement system that people rely on in Haiti for law and order. That would now be the police force, the HNP. I am very sorry to report that the HNP recently lost its minister, who was, I gather, forced out of the country of Haiti for political reasons and because he was not kowtowing to the wishes of the behind-the-scene de facto dictator of that country. So, consequently, we have a very thin reed to lean on when we talk about law enforcement, which is the Haitian National Police. We understand that the incidence of drug use and the incidence of drug smuggling and drug trafficking has expanded very considerably and that, in fact, Haitian citizens and visitors, we have many Haitian Americans who spend time in both the United States and in Haiti, are reporting alarmingly and increasingly that there is not sufficient protection and law and order in Haiti for them to go about any reasonable business, particularly after dark. And certainly if they are involved in any political expression, that is very dangerous. I am sorry to say there has been a continuing incidence in increased levels of political assassination, intimidation, and harassment, so much so that a former senator from Haiti has come to this country and I recently visited with him and he explained to me some of the very serious problems that are ongoing there, which confirm many of the other reports we are getting from citizens, visitors, business people and so forth that the corruption has become so bad it is very hard to get a loan to do any type of business in Haiti. So even if they want to help out and provide jobs and quality of life, the opportunity is not there. This is a subject that I will visit again this week in other 5-minute special orders.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and would just simply say since this appears to be noncontroversial, I only heard one speaker across the aisle oppose the rule, and it would seem to me that that would be confounding to that speaker's goal, which is to move the process. That is what we are trying to do. So I see no justification for opposing this resolution, if we are trying to move the process forward, and I believe we all are trying to do that, because I agree we have had a great debate in the House about that; and we have come up with product, and it is now time to deal with the other body. I would point out that the product we have come up with provides for both patient protection and access for those 40-some million Americans who do not have the blessing of any kind of health insurance. And I think that that is a very strong menu for consideration at the conference. I do think we have lived up to our promise to move the process forward, in my view in a very rapid way, given the way most things move around here. 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. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), my colleague and friend on 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 on this subject only. This resolution before us, Mr. Speaker, does two things. It provides that the House disagrees with the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2990, the Quality Care for the Uninsured Act, and it provides that the House agrees to the conference requested by the Senate. While this may seem arcane or inside-the-Beltway talk to folks watching at home, the translation is that it allows us to move the process forward on health care reform. That is what we are doing, going forward on health care reform as promised. We can go to conference with the Senate to try to resolve our extensive differences and hopefully to improve the lives of our constituents if we can pass this resolution. Because H.R. 2990 was not reported by a committee of jurisdiction, no motion to go to conference could be authorized by a committee. While these motions are usually done by unanimous consent, the minority declined to agree to the traditional process, so here we are with this resolution this evening. I am concerned that the other side of the aisle seems to prefer conflict and confrontation over progress on health care reform. We did pass H.R. 2990 less than a month ago. I would point out it was certainly during the most hectic budget and appropriations season that I recall in a while, and, yet, the minority still objects and protests that we should have appointed conferees earlier. I would point out this is the same minority that was complaining not 2 hours ago on the House floor that we were moving legislation too rapidly. Hopefully we will get something right in their eyes before we end the 106th. Mr. Speaker, arbitrary time lines and partisan spin games indicate to me that the Democrat minority leadership is not presently really interested in helping more Americans get health insurance because health access is a big piece of this. While they say they are interested in joining our efforts to improve the quality of care for Americans in HMOs, they, instead, drive an agenda of gridlock, of conflict for the sake of conflict, of trying to stall to give some credibility to the minority leader's publicly repeated spin that this is a ``do-nothing'' Congress. Well, Mr. Speaker, we reject this sad and cynical approach of doing the Nation's business, especially on something as important as health care. Speaker Hastert should be commended for keeping his word, for keeping the process moving forward, which is what it is doing. This resolution is another clear signal that we are committed and serious about health care reform and that we are interested in more than just the next 30-second sound bite. I would point out that we have had recently a very fine debate in this House on the subject of health care, patient protection, and access. We have come up with a piece of legislation that is significantly different than the other body's. Obviously we need to continue to work forward to sort out those differences. That is what this resolution allows us to do. I am urging a yes vote on this noncontroversial resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this very big bill we will necessarily be focused on big issues, as we have already heard, but I wanted to take a moment out to speak more to the human side, to commend the Committee on Appropriations for not overlooking an issue of very great importance but not of major press focus these days. I am referring to a line item that partially funds the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Act found in this year's appropriations bill. I think my colleagues will remember last year Congress enacted the Ricky Ray bill, which provides compassionate assistance from the Federal Government for victims of hemophilia associated AIDS. This law responds to that awful tragedy that has impacted the lives of thousands of Americans and continues to do that. This is the first year that we have sought funding for the Ricky Ray program, and I was grateful to see the Committee on Appropriations was receptive to beginning the funding process by allocating $50 million for fiscal year 2000. I certainly understand how difficult the appropriations process has been this year, I think we all do, so I am especially pleased that we are moving forward on this critically important program. I know the hemophilia community wishes we could allocate more money this year, the actual total funding would be $750 million, but I am hopeful that as the process continues the Committee on Appropriations will continue work to see that we set aside more funds. I have a letter from the National Hemophilia Foundation expressing appreciation, which I would like to insert in the Record at the appropriate point. I know many Americans will join me in thanking our colleagues the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for finding a way to start the funding for this program. I do not believe the sky is falling. I think good things are happening. I think this proves it. I urge support for the rule and for this bill. The letter referred to is as follows: National Hemophilia Foundation, New York, NY, October 5, 1999. Hon. C.W. Young, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Young: On behalf of the hemophilia community, I wish to express our deepest gratitude for your strong leadership and commitment to providing initial funding for the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Trust Fund in the FY2000 Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill. Nearly 5,000 persons with hemophilia have died from the complications of HIV/AIDS since HIV contaminated the blood supply during the 1980s. Approximately 2,700 Individuals with hemophilia continue to live with HIV. For these individuals and for the families in the hemophilia community who lost their loved ones, the funding included in the FY2000 bill begins to fulfill the promise Congress made when it passed the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act last year. As you proceed to conference with the Senate, we ask that you continue to explore avenues to provide increased funding for the Ricky Ray Relief Act and ensure its full implementation as rapidly as possible. The time-limited nature of the Trust Fund and the pressing medical, financial, and personal costs borne by our community give urgency to this request. Again, we thank you for your outstanding efforts and look forward to working with you to fully fund the Ricky Ray Trust Fund. Sincerely, Edward Jones, President.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the Interior conference report, and I wanted particularly to commend the Committee on Appropriations, particularly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), for including funding increases in areas such as the Park Service and the wildlife refuge system, particularly in this difficult year. This bill is critically important to my home State of Florida. It is not just my home State. It is the destination of many visitors as well. Since it serves as the main vehicle for Everglades restoration funding, I am pleased that this year as in past years the committee has made sure that Congress continues to lead the charge in restoring the Everglades, unquestionably a unique national treasure which gives great enjoyment to a great many people. In addition, I am grateful that the committee was able to make available land acquisition fund for the J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge which happens to be in my district and in fact comprises about 50 percent of my hometown of Sanibel, another area that is enjoyed by literally millions of visitors. Some of my colleagues have expressed some concern about certain riders in this conference report before us. I know that I generally share the opinion of my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations when I say these issues really are best handled through the authorization process, which is why we have authorizers and authorizing committees. Of course, as my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), is well aware, however, that since 1983 Florida has benefited from a legislative rider on this bill that protects our coastal areas from offshore oil and gas drilling. We have been trying to deal with the issue in the authorization committee, but so far we have been unable to get the job done so I want to express my appreciation and I think the appreciation of the full Florida delegation that the committee has once again included this stop-gap rider to protect Florida offshore waters from oil and gas drilling, which is a position our State holds very strongly and some other States do as well. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, which is fair and traditional for this type of legislation. I urge them to consider the conference report carefully and support it, because it is a compromise conference report; but I believe it is a very good one under the circumstances.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) who is the principal author of the patient protection act of this substitute.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), who I believe is not only one of the freshest new Members, but is the freshest new Member from Louisiana on the Republican side. (Mr. VITTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cooksey) who has assisted me mightily from his medical professional point of view.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to offer this substitute along with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), and a host of other Members. A few months ago the Speaker asked me to bring all of the voices and viewpoints on this issue together and craft a consensus bill that was sound public policy and not just another sound bite. It is clear that the Norwood-Dingell approach, while crafted with good intention, falls far short of sound public policy because it invites an avalanche of lawsuits and unlimited, uncontrollable damages. This is unacceptably costly, disruptive, and hardly good medicine for anyone, except maybe the trial bar. Where Norwood is excessive, our substitute firmly stands on responsible middle ground. We hold all health plans accountable. I repeat, we hold all health plans accountable. Patients who have been harmed can sue and recover damages. Instead of guaranteeing lawsuits at the front end, we encourage patients to get the health care they need first. Some have commented about special interest endorsements in this process, about the various proposals before us today. I am told that over 100 patient and provider groups have endorsed our substitute amendment, but no, repeat, no trial lawyer groups or insurance associations have. I therefore suggest we have struck the right balance, and urge Members' support accordingly.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), a principal author also.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), a principal author of this substitute. (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), who was instrumental in guiding us on some of the provisions of this substitute amendment.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), to demonstrate the broadness of the consensus group that we have.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. English), who has contributed, as well, to our effort. (Mr. ENGLISH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House. (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), a distinguished medical professional and activist. (Mrs. KELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a close colleague and friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), who obviously has been of much assistance in putting on this measure.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER 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 California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.