Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 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. Mr. Speaker, today the Republican majority makes good on its promise of a full and fair debate on health care reform. We have acceded to the requests of both sponsors, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), by separating the two major issues in the managed care debate. This rule ensures that both parts of the debate, the affordable access part and the patient protection part, receive the attention they deserve separately. Under the rule, we will first debate the access bill, H.R. 2990, introduced by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg). Because of the tax provisions within H.R. 2990, we have offered the minority a substitute, which I understand they have declined to offer, as well as the traditional motion to recommit. The rule provides for an ample 2 hours of general debate on this access bill, to be equally divided between the three committees of jurisdiction. After consideration of the access bill, H.R. 2990, we will proceed to separately debate H.R. 2723, the so-called Norwood-Dingell bill. We provide for 3 hours of general debate, again to be equally divided among the three committees, the Committee on Commerce, the Committee on Education and Work Force, and the Committee on Ways and Means. Because of the comprehensive nature of this legislation, the rule makes in order only full substitutes to Norwood-Dingell, the underlying bill. There are three such substitutes. Each of the three substitutes will receive an hour of debate time. We have made in order every substitute offered to the Committee on Rules, and a great many of the more than 50 or so perfecting amendments we heard in the Committee on Rules are addressed in one way or another in all of these substitutes. We believe this will ensure timely and full consideration of all points of view on this very important issue. After considering these substitutes and voting on the underlying bill, the rule provides that the two bills, the access bill and the patient's rights bill, will be enrolled and sent to the Senate together. Since this was precisely the process that the base bill sponsors had requested, we were surprised when the minority objected last night at the last minute to this fair process and even threatened to bring down the rule over it. It should be clear to any objective Member that we have kept our word and prevented so-called ``poison pill'' amendments from even being offered. I am concerned that by last minute moving of the goalposts and by their statements in opposition to this approach, that the minority now has a desire to have a partisan political debate, rather than to solve a real and growing problem that Americans are asking us to deal with. Access and affordability are as important as improving patient protection, and we fairly provide for both under this rule, as we have pledged we would do. At the Committee on Rules on Tuesday I was struck by something the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) said on this topic, and I quote him: ``A right without enforcement is no right at all.'' While he was referring to the patient protection side of this debate, I believe those words are even more appropriate in the context of the debate over the uninsured. This week the Census Bureau reported that the number of uninsured grew by 1 million last year. It is now one in six Americans that do not have health care insurance. This should be devastating news to all Americans, particularly those in the small business community. None of the important patient protections we will debate later today or tomorrow mean anything to those 44 million Americans living without insurance. In this case, to paraphrase my friend from Michigan, a right without insurance is no right at all. That is why I am pleased that our first order of business today is a well-crafted bill to increase the number of insured, not through more bureaucracy, not ``big brother'' mandates, but through market reform and long overdue tax equity. For the mom and pop and other small business employees in my district in Florida, that means that they can afford quality health care insurance, they can stop using the emergency room as their only source of health care, and they can finally enjoy the same health care advantages that the employees of the IBMs of the world currently have. I will speak in greater length about the patient protection piece during the amendment process. I intend to offer a substitute, along with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) to the Norwood-Dingell bill. Put simply, our approach seeks to find the responsible middle ground between limited liability for health plans and a trial lawyer bonanza. Our message is simple: If you are harmed, you deserve to be made whole. But we should encourage patients to get the care they need up front from quality medical providers, with a lawsuit as a last resort, not the first choice. I am encouraged by the amount of support we have received, and I look forward to a vigorous debate when the time comes. Mr. Speaker, I want to finish by reminding all Members what this rule does and does not do. This rule does provide for separate votes on access and patient protection, as requested by the sponsors. This rule does not make in order any poison pill amendments intended to sink the underlying bill. This is a fair process, and I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to keep their word, vote for the rule, and help us improve the quality and affordability of health care for all working Americans. 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 California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in yielding 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), a member of the subcommittee and a very strong player in this matter.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), who will be managing the access bill.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it would probably be worth noting at this point in the discussion that we had a whole bunch of amendments. If we made room for one, we would have had to make room for a whole bunch more as well. We made, I think, a very wise decision to have a full fair debate. I am sorry that the folks who are upset about this, paying for what they want to do at the last minute did not think of it a lot sooner. We congratulate them for finally thinking about paying for it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), who has been an instrumental player in this. (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 am happy to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Surely the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Speaker, is not implying that we are doing anything dishonest on this side of the aisle. We have the press gallery watching. We have the whole world watching. There is nothing going on here except a clear, transparent debate on what I believe is a very good rule, which provides for full and fair debate, which is what we have promised. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we did not deny it. In fact, what we did is respond to the petition, the discharge petition which, in fact, would have precluded it.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I find it a little puzzling that the gentleman who just spoke and the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) both signed a discharge petition that would have precluded the opportunity to discuss this, and now they seem to be very upset with what they signed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I prove 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 299 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Rochester, NY (Ms. Slaughter) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and appropriate rule for this particular legislation. In fact, had it not been for the amount of money H.R. 2506 authorizes, doubling the current authorization level to $900 million, the bill would have been considered under the suspension process. The bill was voted out of the Committee on Commerce by a voice vote and the Committee on Rules reported a modified open rule to ensure that no extraneous amendments to the Public Health Service Act would be considered. The rule allows any Member who has preprinted an amendment in the Congressional Record to offer that amendment. This will ensure a full and open, yet targeted debate on the merits of this particular agency covered by this legislation. When the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, AHCPR as it is known in its acronym, was created in 1989, the health care universe looked far different than it does today. Traditional fee for service plans still dominated the market and managed care was still very much in its infancy period. Utilization review, peer review, these were largely unknown concepts, at least fully tried or tested. H.R. 2506 modernizes the agency to reflect these and other changes and provides resources to enable more effective collection of data. Many Americans sitting at home watching may be wondering why we need yet another Federal agency involved in health care quality. Well, health care quality is a critical issue these days. As someone who has always believed that Congress too often stands in the way of true health care quality, I share concern with the people at home who are worried about this. To the extent that this ``reformed'' agency can promote better research and encourage successful partnerships between the public and private sectors with limited Federal red tape, it can be a worthy investment. And, of course, that is the goal. But we must retain vigorous oversight and maintain high expectations to ensure that these precious taxpayer dollars are indeed put to good use. Again, we think that is the reason for this legislation and we congratulate its authors for this effort. As I stated before, this is an eminently fair rule that should engender no controversy as far as I know. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me time and congratulate him for his many years of leadership in this particular area. It is not only strandings of mammals, it is other protections as well that he has been a champion over the years, and I congratulate his colleague on the other side of the aisle and the bipartisan effort here. I rise in strong support of this. People wonder sometimes with this type of legislation, what is the constituency? Well, I will tell you the constituency for stranded mammals is anybody who has ever seen a stranded mammal. There is some response, some chord that is hit in us, and it seems that people will rush to the water and jump in cold water and get their clothes all wet and do things that they normally would not do in order to try and provide some relief for stranded mammals. I have seen it many times in my own district, and I have seen extraordinary efforts and great sacrifice made to try and take care of these creatures who sometimes run afoul with problems. I think this is a good testimony, that we do care very much, and that we do need legislation, because all the good intentions sometimes do not provide the professional way of dealing with stranded animals. I will tell you that in my district, I am very proud to have Mote Marine Laboratory, which also has a stranding program which I believe is second to none. It has done all kinds of rescue work over the years. It has been very busy. It is very professional and very accomplished. I know they have provided testimony for this legislation, and I congratulate them on their efforts as well. I think with the people involved and committed for the purposes that are at stake in this resolution, that we will have success, and I think this is an entirely appropriate type of support for government and government involvement in something which is indeed a national treasure, and that is our marine mammals. I congratulate all those involved.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for his generosity with the time. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House is taking up this resolution this afternoon of my colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). As my colleagues know, Haiti has scheduled parliamentary elections as a way to resolve a crisis that has brought democracy, governance and economic development in Haiti to almost a full halt. In the 5 years since 20,000 U.S. troops forcibly restored Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power, the lights of democracy for Haiti have dimmed significantly and, in fact, they are in danger of going out entirely. Today in Haiti, it is actually worse for many people than it was before our intervention. The current U.S. ambassador to Haiti, Mr. Carney, who has been referred to put it this way and I quote him: ``Haiti is a long way from getting democracy. It lacks nearly all of the elements that make up a democracy.'' This is after several years of intense attention and billions of taxpayers' dollars. For the first time in years, I think we are beginning to see at least some of the folks in the Clinton administration make an honest assessment of the situation on the ground in Haiti. I think the excursion, the trip, the fact-finding analysis that the gentleman from Florida has referred to is proof of the fact that there is an interest to assist the situation accurately and realize just how badly off the people in Haiti are these days. I hope that the rose-colored glasses that we have seen so often in the Clinton administration have finally come off. The United States has a significant investment in Haiti, significant in terms of our military involvement and our financial commitment as well. We are literally talking about billions--that is billions with a ``B''--of taxpayers' dollars we have spent in Haiti in the past few years. To many observers, it seems apparent that this investment has, in fact, been squandered. While the Clinton administration has a lot to account for in terms of explaining this failure to the American people, I think the question before Congress today is more important: Where do we go from here? The first step is to provide encouragement for the elections to go forward. We must also acknowledge that those elections face very serious challenges, including politically motivated violence that we have already seen manifest, and the active hostility of some of Haiti's leading politicians to the actions, well-meant actions and the necessary actions, of the Provisional Electoral Council. In addition to helpful technical assistance that we might provide, the United States also must send a clear signal to Haiti's leaders, especially the President-in-waiting Aristide, that efforts to subvert or improperly influence the electoral process will not be tolerated. These parliamentary elections are often referred to as a, quote, roadmap for resolving the crisis in Haiti. We have heard that language before. Actually, we hear it before almost every election in Haiti. The last vestiges of Haiti's pretense of democracy will fade entirely if full, fair, free, and transparent elections do not happen on schedule. I will not go so far as to hope for peaceful, but I will put in the other qualifiers. I have been in Haiti for elections and there is a lot of enthusiasm. I do not think ``peaceful'' is a realistic expectation. But I think ``controlled'' is. Haitian leaders should be on notice by this resolution--and I hope they are--and so should U.S. taxpayers who have footed the bill for the Clinton administration's failures in the past. They should take notice, lest we squander more good money after wasting so much already. Good money after bad is a poor idea no matter how well-intentioned we may be. For that reason, I will support the resolution, of course, but I will ask for close oversight of how the funds are to be spent and I will ask for no rose-colored glasses in assessing what is really going on so that if we run into roadblocks, we understand what is before us and we are in a position to report faithfully to the American people what has happened rather than what we hoped had happened.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1555) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina for her leadership on this and my gratitude for yielding me the time. I am pleased to support this very appropriate rule for consideration of S. 1059, the fiscal year 2000 DOD authorization conference report, a major piece of legislation for this Congress. I particularly want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their diligent, bipartisan, very thorough work to make sure that we significantly improve the support given to our men and women in uniform. They are the ones doing the hard work. They are the ones in harm's way. They are the ones taking the risk. That deserves to be supported to the fullest extent possible. I am grateful for the continued close working relationship that these gentlemen have had with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in ensuring that our fighting forces have access to the best, the most timely, and the most accurate intelligence that we can get. Eyes, ears, brains are actually very crucial to our national security. This legislation reflects our commitment to those capabilities. Force protection, force enhancement, force projection: these are the results, these are the needs, and these are what we are getting. Americans most recently have watched our troops in action in Kosovo. You might have the impression from what I would call photo-op TV that Kosovo is some kind of a big win. Unfortunately, the view emerging from the ground in Kosovo is not quite so rosy. Further, the administration is pursuing policies that could ultimately endanger the chances for a long-term peace and stability in that region in my view and the view of others. Official U.S. policy toward Kosovo is in fact built upon three very uncertain principles: one, Kosovo should remain an ethnically diverse province; two, Kosovo should not become independent; and, three, the Kosovo Liberation Army, the KLA, should give up its arms and disband. These principles face serious challenges in the field, on the ground. U.S. policy refuses to recognize even the possibility that the Kosovars will eventually vote to declare independence from Yugoslavia. That is a possibility that should not be discounted. Similarly, the administration is naively assuming that the KLA will simply roll over and disband. In my view, the U.S. has no end game strategy. For the sake of the Americans and our allies on the ground in Kosovo, I urge the administration to rethink our situation there and base decisions on fact, not on wishful thinking. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Cox Committee, I am satisfied with the provision in this legislation establishing a semiautonomous agency to run the weapons program at the Department of Energy under the Secretary's leadership. Critics have suggested that this change could cause the sky to fall with respect to public health, safety, and environmental matters. To the contrary, I say. The Cox Report demonstrates that the sky has already fallen and our national security has been placed at great risk as a result. Given the deeply troubling circumstances surrounding reports of espionage at our national labs, I believe it is very proper for Congress to move expeditiously in enacting new safeguards. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the conference report also includes a provision based on an amendment I offered with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) requiring an end to the permanent presence of U.S. troops in Haiti. As our defense leaders have made clear, the Clinton administration's insistence on maintaining a permanent troop presence in Haiti has strained an already overburdened military, has unnecessarily put our troops at risk there, and has focused on humanitarian projects more appropriately undertaken by nongovernmental organizations who are ready, willing and able to do the job. In the face of our efforts to force a withdrawal by year's end, the Clinton administration has finally announced an end to the permanent presence of U.S. troops in Haiti, to be replaced with periodic deployments as needed, as is customary everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere. This action does not, I repeat, does not signal an end to U.S. military involvement or to U.S. support for the democratic process in Haiti but, rather, it is a more realistic policy to provide the help Haiti so desperately needs as our neighbor in the Caribbean. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, Members should note that this legislation contains a significant increase in counterdrug funding for DOD. Once again, Congress has taken the lead to win the war on drugs, filling the vacuum left by a just-say-maybe message from the Clinton administration. And we are getting results, if you read the papers. This is a good bill. I urge its passage. I commend those involved.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution because the seriousness of terrorism is a challenge to our national security, and I urge its strong support. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding and I rise in support of this resolution. As most Americans were, I was deeply disturbed to learn that President Clinton would consider granting clemency to 16 members of the FALN terrorism group who were tried and convicted of participating in acts of terror. In an effort to make sense of an otherwise inexplicable decision by the President to offer freedom to these criminals, some have claimed that the President was somehow influenced by political considerations affecting the election aspirations of Mrs. Clinton. But even she has spoken out against the clemency offer. Combating terrorism is one of the highest priorities in protecting our Nation's security--and that means standing firm in our absolute intolerance of acts of terror. We must not send mixed signals to those who wish to wage war by wreaking havoc, triggering chaos and generating terror. Our message--from the President on down--is supposed to be clear and unmistakable: Promote or participate in terrorism and we will find you, punish you and make sure that no leniency is offered to you. With this act of irresponsibility, President Clinton has created a dangerous crack in our wall of resolve--he has broadcast to would-be miscreants and their political promoters that for every rule we can find an exception. We can expect from this a domino effect--as every activist group with an agenda will rachet up the political pressure in hopes of finding favor with this seemingly easily- influenced President. What will be next? Is the President planning to grant clemency to Johnathan Pollard, the convicted spy accused of betraying some of this Nation's most important secrets and causing tangible damage to our Nation's security? Those who are lobbying for that outcome have no doubt been cheered by the President's action in the FALN case. There is nothing wrong with political agitation for a cause--this is a free country after all. But when the President of the United States signals that it may be open season for special interests to get their way--even against the best judgments of the senior presidential advisors with expertise on the subject--then there is trouble ahead. The Congress has to speak out with one voice that we reject this type of ad-hoc policy, informed by political or other considerations in violation of our national security interests.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 272 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have no requests for time, and I do not anticipate any. Again, the purpose of this hour of debate is to discuss the rule, which is an open and fair rule. I would prefer that we not engage in the debate on the substance of the bill until we get to the time carefully set aside. I have not encouraged any speakers to come forward. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous questions 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 gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 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 purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. It provides for adequate and appropriate consideration of H.R. 2031, the Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act. It is a modified open rule that will accommodate Member interests in the amendment process while keeping us on track to meet our Friday deadline for August recess, a deadline that many Members, including the minority leader, have urged the Speaker, in writing, to keep. While the lack of time may argue for a more closed structure, the Committee on Rules has erred on the side of openness and provided an open rule with a 2-hour limit on amendments. Of course, the rule also provides for a motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), H.R. 2031 was reported favorably by the Committee on the Judiciary on July 20 by voice vote. I understand that while hearings were not held in this Congress, the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property did convene hearings in the 105th Congress on nearly an identical bill. I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) for his continued efforts on behalf of American children, particularly when it comes to the tricky business of alcohol access. It is clearly a difficult question to resolve. However, it is encouraging to see the major players, the beer and wine distributors, as well as the vintners, the growers, fully engaged in the deliberative process. Mr. Speaker, while the underlying legislation may engender some debate, this rule should receive unanimous support. It is certainly an open and fair rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.