Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), my colleague.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), my friend, who is indeed my close friend. I did not get it exactly right in describing our bill as the debate will show, but that is why we have the debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner). (Mr. BOEHNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), who is also a member of the task force as well as a member of leadership.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 509 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning). (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, regrettably, the last speaker has been victimized by misinformation in the paper, in the Washington Post this morning, as have other Members. When we get to the debate we will explain that much of what was presented was incorrect. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), a member of the special task force.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would note to the gentleman who just spoke that we have tried very hard to accommodate all the schedules. It is a busy time of year. But surely our plan is more sensitive for the debate of this important issue than the discharge petition that they have provided for. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the leader of the Speaker's task force on health care.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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, this is a structured rule that allows timely consideration of this very, very important legislation on health care. In yesterday's Rules meeting, which actually went on for quite a while, the minority requested that the Dingell substitute be made in order and we indeed have obliged them in this rule. It provides for 1 hour of debate on the Patient Protection Act to be equally divided between the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and an opponent, and 1 hour of debate on the Dingell substitute. These are two very different approaches to providing better health care for more Americans and I am sure that we will have quite a vigorous debate on the merits of each today. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. In effect, giving the minority two bites at the apple. I certainly feel this is a fair rule. Mr. Speaker, today we will move to restore true patient power. The Patient Protection Act is the only bill that restores commonsense patient protections to Americans while also extending affordable coverage to the 41 million Americans who currently lack it and cannot get health care coverage. One clear difference between the two approaches is the fact that the Kennedy-Dingell Patients' Bill of Rights makes no effort to secure affordable health insurance for the 40-plus million Americans who have none currently. In fact, when asked what the Kennedy-Dingell bill does for uninsured Americans, the minority leader in the other body reportedly summed it up in two words, and I quote, ``Not much.'' Instead of turning our backs on the uninsured, our bill attacks their problem head-on. We know that over 75 percent of uninsured Americans are in a family where the primary caregiver works for a small business. This is especially true in southwest Florida, which I represent, where mom and pop shops cannot afford to provide their employees with health insurance. The Patient Protection Act allows small businesses to pool their resources and the achieve economies of scale needed to offer quality, affordable health insurance to their employees. If it is good enough for the Microsofts and the IBMs and the GMs of the world, should it not be good enough for the little guys, too? We take care of that. As with any major proposal, there comes a certain level of misinformation and this effort is no exception. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have confused a patient's bill of rights with a trial lawyer's right to bill. Under our bill, patients would still have the right to sue their HMO for malpractice and that includes punitive damages. I wonder how many times I am going to be saying that in the next few months. Under our bill, patients would still have the right to sue their HMO for malpractice, and that includes punitive damages. I think we are going to be hearing some debate on that subject today. If the HMO runs the wrong tests on you or they happen to cut off the wrong foot, you will have recourse through the courts, of course. That is essential and that is protected. But as we studied the problem and talked to people, the folks who were being denied care in what we call coverage disputes, we thought we could do better than settling for, or encouraging even more litigation. I do not know many people who have gotten much good medical attention in a courtroom. We came to the conclusion that we have an innovative solution that assures patients get the care they need, up front, when they need it, at a place they need it, from a doctor, from a real medical person. Our expedited internal and external appeals process means that if your HMO denies your experimental treatment, or your treatment, you will be able to have a doctor, independent of the HMO, review that decision. Of course if you are unsatisfied at the end of that process, you can take the offending HMO to court. However, unlike the current law, the judge will have the flexibility to serve a fine up to $250,000 against the HMO plan. This is not available under current law and it is a healthy and reasonable constraint on HMO abuse. I know it has already got their attention. We have provided commonsense patient protections in this package. Women will have direct access to their OB-GYN. Kids will get to see a pediatrician without any red tape or having to get permission from a government official. And, most importantly, doctors will have no restrictions on the recommendations they give their patients. No gag rule. These are positive steps to improve the doctor-patient relationship, not a retreat into more nonsensical and, I would say, very expensive bureaucracy that other approaches take. Mr. Speaker, as a member of Chairman Hastert's working group, I can assure you that we have worked hard and I think we have come up with a pretty good package that provides real protections without returning us to the days of double-digit inflation. I encourage my friends on both sides of the aisle to ignore the demagogues and focus on the pro- patient, pro-small business, pro-family provisions in our health care bill. I believe they will find it is worth reading. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask for an accounting of the times again?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am going to depart from normal custom and yield the first minute of this to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) for a matter of colleague comity. (Mr. LAZIO of New York asked and was given permission to speak out of order.) Honoring the Honorable Rob Portman

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to the gentlewoman that I hope she will be relieved to find when she reads our bill that we have, in fact, removed the gag order. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this debate has been on the rule. Very clearly, we have not heard much concern about the rule, with some question about sensitivity by one speaker. But I do believe we have got a better process here than a discharge petition. And I think we will have a fair, longer, more extensive, complete, and deliberative debate at a result of this rule. And I do urge that everybody support it. I honestly do not think it is controversial in any way. What we are doing today is responding to the call of all American people for improvements in our health care system but particularly for those who have no health care insurance. We are not responding to the interests of any special groups or any special parties. And there are plenty of those who are asking for special attention. I think we have responded to America, to the people of America, who need health care. We are doing this in the same spirit that we resolved the job lock and portability problems, the preexisting condition problems. We are doing this in same way that made the trust fund whole in Medicare. We are addressing the problems in our country in health care and we are doing it responsibly. There has been a lot said and there will be a lot more said, and there clearly is much misinformation. I even read some misinformation in the Washington Post this morning, which has obviously misled some of the speakers who have addressed this during this rule. It is very clear that we have made a good bill, and it is very clear that not everybody understands it yet. It is also very clear that the Patient Protection Act does not have any big brother in it. There is no big brother in our bill. In fact, we put a halt to the big brother ID system that has been recently discussed and that so many Americans find extremely distasteful and an invasion of their privacy. I think that many portions of the legislation that we have, as virtually everybody knows that is tuned into this, have already been through appropriate committees and they have been I think well put together and much debated. I think the critical point probably is that what we have done in this bill is cut into the 42 million Americans, that big pool of people who do not have health care insurance, and given them the opportunity to get it. The bill on the other side, the Dingell-Kennedy bill, adds, according to CBO, to the pool of Americans who will not have health care insurance. That is simply unacceptable. Accessibility to health care insurance is critical. I want to close on a note that many will recognize. My wife and I experienced something this year that every parent dreads, a seriously sick youngster coming in and asking for health care and the plan that that child was under could not perform. I personally got involved with why and what went wrong. So when I speak to my colleagues to say that I think we have a fix in the patient protection care, I speak to them as a parent, not as a legislator. I assure my colleagues, I would not be supporting this legislation if I did not think my sick youngster would be better off under this plan. I urge support of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. It is also a rule that keeps our word to those who desired an up or down vote on the controversial subject of the NEA. I know that the NEA supporters are upset that the burden has shifted. I have been a supporter of the NEA in the past. I know it is well- championed. But I happen to believe under this rule we are going to end up in the right place, if we do it even a different way, and I think we are going to have a good debate. I am also pleased that the rule self-executes an amendment to fully fund the wild land fire suppression operation, which is of course a critical issue for the folks in my home State of Florida, given the horrible experience we have just had there. As usual, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has done an extraordinarily good job of balancing very difficult issues, and I want to publicly thank him. This year's bill provides much needed funding increases for the national parks, the national forest system, and the national wildlife refuges. I am especially appreciative of the committee's attention to a number of initiatives important to my home State of Florida, not only the fires, but the Everglades, the OCS Moratorium, and the Coastal Barrier Resources system. These are all things that are vital to our quality of life, and they are all truly national assets. While we have an opportunity to discuss the Coastal Barrier Resources issue in more detail later on if my colleague the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) offers an amendment, I hope that people will reject the Gilchrest amendment if it is offered. I generally support the efforts of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) to promote our barrier islands. He is a true champion in that respect. But the particular amendment that he is proposing today, or may propose today, strips out a provision in the bill that ensures that a law that has already been signed by the President, 2 years ago in fact, making technical corrections to the Coastal Barrier system maps goes forward. It seems to me that we have already fixed that problem and we do not need to go back. I agree with what the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) is saying prospectively, but I hope that his amendment today will not pass because it unties the fixes that we have made to settle the maps correctly and get them done properly in a fair interest between private-property rights' interests and the public's interest. I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle, we do need to ensure that patients in managed care plans are afforded basic rights and remedies, and the Republican plan does just that. But, unlike the Kennedy bill, the Dingell bill or any of the other alternatives out there, our plan also does something about the 41 million Americans who do not have health insurance today. By providing small businesses with the ability to pool their resources to achieve economies of scale, we can help to insure millions of Americans who simply cannot afford it now, and we do it without resorting to government-run health care. While the other plans are good news for bureaucrats, and probably for trial lawyers, too, there is only one plan that reaches out across the United States of America to the mom and pop store employees throughout our land, and that is our plan. I urge my colleagues to support the pro-small business, pro-patient Republican health plan. It is worth taking a good close look at.

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 yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 498 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of inconsistent comment this evening relative to just three legislative days ago, as our friends across the aisle said, actually it was a little more than that, because it was on the calendar a couple of weeks ago when we tried to come up with a rule to protect the Lowey amendment, do the things they asked, and lo and behold, 135 Democrats took a hike on us and did not support the bill. We listened to them before, we tried to work it out in a deliberative and I think nonpartisan way, and we did not get their support. So now we are trying to do our job faithfully, and we have come back for what is one of the important appropriations bills, and we have tried to craft a way to let the deliberative body work its will. There has been some mischaracterization, if not misrepresentation, of the fact that the sky is going to fall automatically if we pass this rule. That is not the case. If somebody, some Member, wishes to get up and strike on a point of order, that is a privilege. That happens to be a House rule. If somebody says that is unfair, what they are really saying is the House rules are unfair. If Members are saying that the rules that have served this House so well for so long are unfair, then come on up to the Committee on Rules and let us talk about changing them, and why Members think they are unfair. But that is not something that is done lightly. So I think there has been a series of mischaracterizations going on, as I have listened to the concern about the people who have failed to get the authorizations of measures that they want enacted. We all know that we are not supposed to do a lot of authorization on appropriations bills. The failure of the authorizations process to get the work done now has been picked up by the appropriators, trying to pick up what pieces they could to do a good faith job, and the Committee on Rules tried to do a good faith job to bring a rule forward that would get enough votes to pass so we could have a debate. That went down by a big number. That went down 291 to 125 three legislative days ago, so I remind Members of that. Now we are coming back with a different one and saying okay, let the body work its will in a different way. We will have what is basically an open rule. Now, open rules used to be something we spoke of around here with a certain degree of reverence, that that is something we all strive to achieve is the open rule. I know the number of times that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), when he was Chairman Moakley of the Committee on Rules, we brought him to task because he did not have enough open rules. I know his colleagues on the other side regularly tried to do that to Chairman Solomon and the rest of us in the majority. We understand that. But we do strive for open rules and we do it in a good-natured way. The only thing that is different is that we did protect the issue of the pay raise, so if Members are trying to shoot this rule down, they are basically saying, let us get the pay raise back on the floor. At least some will characterize it that way. I think there is much more at stake than the pay raise issue obviously. We had the contraception question. We have had the question of Y2K. On the contraception question, again, we had our chance, 135 Members on the other side voted against the Lowey provision apparently because it was protected in that rule. We had the Y2K. It surprises me a little bit that we are talking about Y2K as an emergency. It is not an emergency to those of us who understand the consequences of Y2K. We have been for some time trying to encourage the Clinton administration to get a grip on the fact that the calendar is real, that the year 2000 is coming and that we do have a problem. Most people in the world know that the year 2000 is on the calendar, and they have a fairly approximate idea of when it is coming. Even if one does not know much about the computer problem, one can at least understand the calendar. We have not done well with the Clinton administration. Some agencies are ahead of others. Again, I will join with my colleague who congratulated the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for the work he has done trying to bring attention to that and trying to stimulate some interest in the administration to get that job done. The debate about whether or not is it an emergency payment or not an emergency payment, therefore, if it is an emergency, we all know we do not have to figure out a way to pay for it. If it is not an emergency, then we have to figure out a way to pay for it. It is a little extra harder because we have to actually designate the money from some revenue source. So I would say that that is a secondary debate to the debate that Y2K is very serious. We all agree on that. We are not going to put off the solution because we cannot decide whether to pay for it from here and designate what the source of payment is going to be. I think that is a bit of a red herring before us. I think what is, frankly, out here is this, that the authorizers did not get that their job done. The appropriators tried to pick it up. The Committee on Rules has tried to work with everybody. Apparently it has not happened. The next step is, we can go the other route and say, fine. We can bring a rule out here with no protection at all on it and let it go to the floor. I would urge all those listening to understand that this is a good faith effort to try and bring forth some kind of a workable rule to get this legislative appropriations bill on the floor. It is a legislative appropriations bill, because it is about 80 percent legislation. We know that. It is way overburdened. That is wrong, but that is what we are presented with. We are presented with a schedule. We are presented with a calendar of our own. We are presented with a budget we have to deal with. So if the question is, shall we go forward and deal with the business of getting these agencies funded, the answer is yes. Vote for the rule. Yes, vote for the previous question. Voting no on the previous question, throwing this thing into a controversy which is sure to destine it to another defeat, another round of this, is not going to get this appropriations bill passed. Some of those Members who live in the area and represent workers in the area have a great concern, naturally, doing good jobs of representing their districts, and the people in their districts are going to be very, very concerned, if this thing goes down a couple of more times because we cannot get it together. I can guarantee Members that the provision that has been suggested with regard to the motion on the previous question on Members pay and the Lowey amendment and Y2K will appeal to some Members but it will not appeal to enough because we did that. We already did that a couple of days ago, three legislative days ago. We did some other things as well. But you will not be allowed to bring a rule forth that will get necessary majority support with just those provisions. It is not going to happen. The final point I would make on this is, there is not going to be a better offer right now than voting yes on the previous question and voting yes on the rule to get this piece of legislation on the floor. If we do not pass it, it goes home. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following: House Rules Committee The Previous Question Vote: What it means The previous question is a motion made in order under House Rule XVII and is the only parliamentary device in the House used for closing debate and preventing amendment. The effect of adopting the previous question is to bring the resolution to an immediate, final vote. The motion is most often made at the conclusion of debate on a rule or any motion or piece of legislation considered in the House prior to final passage. A Member might think about ordering the previous question in terms of answering the question: Is the House ready to vote on the bill or amendment before it? In order to amend a rule (other than by using those procedures previously mentioned), the House must vote against ordering the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, the House is in effect, turning control of the Floor over to the Minority party. If the previous question is defeated, the Speaker then recognizes the Member who led the opposition to the previous question (usually a Member of the Minority party) to control an additional hour of debate during which a germane amendment may be offered to the rule. The Member controlling the Floor then moves the previous question on the amendment and the rule. If the previous question is ordered, the next vote occurs on the amendment followed by a vote on the rule as amended.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I will 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. 498 is a second attempt by our Committee on Rules to bring forward H.R. 4104, the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government appropriation bills for fiscal year 1999. As Members may recall, on June 25, before the break, this House rather resoundingly defeated the first rule we brought forward, a rule that attempted to balance all the competing demands of the many Members with interest in this bill. We worked long hours at that time and jumped through a series of complicated hoops, making every effort to iron out the problems while remaining as faithful as possible to our commitment to fiscal and legislative discipline. Given the wide margin of defeat for that rule, however, we went back to the drawing board and decided to let the chips fall where they may on the host of controversial issues in this bill, finding our guide in the normal standing rules and procedures of the House for consideration of annual spending bills. So this evening, Mr. Speaker, we bring H.Res. 498, a rule which, with one exception, presents this appropriation bill for House consideration under the normal process by which appropriation bills may come to the floor. Members who have been around here for a while may remember our esteemed former colleague, in fact legend, the late Bill Natcher, a wonderful gentleman and appropriations cardinal who prided himself on bringing forward his annual spending bills without a rule. He willingly subjected himself and his legislative product to the standing procedures of House rules, letting the chips fall where they may and making his case directly to the Members through open debate. Not only was he respected, he was successful. What we are doing here today, Mr. Speaker, comes very close to that type of effort. H.Res. 498 is an open rule providing for the traditional 1 hour debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations with one exception. The rule is silent on the many controversial provisions within this bill that constitute legislating on an appropriation bill or that provide funding for programs and activities that are not authorized. I am told by the subcommittee chairman that, in fact, there is something like 80 percent of the bill that would fall in that category. As Members know, Mr. Speaker, both of those things are violations of rule XXI of House rules. We do not legislate on appropriation bills normally, and without protection from the House Committee on Rules any provision of the bill that falls into those categories is vulnerable to being stricken by a point of order raised on this floor, should Members wish to do that. The only provision within this bill that this Committee on Rules has felt compelled to protect from that fate of being stricken is the one which precludes Members of Congress from receiving an automatic cost of living increase, the congressional COLA. We all know that, without action by the Congress, a COLA for Members would automatically take effect. This year, as in the past, the Committee on Appropriations erected a barrier to that COLA in this bill so that there would be no such automatic increase for Members' pay. By waiving the point of order under House rule XXI that otherwise would lie against Section 628 of H.R. 4104, that is, the provision relating to the COLA, the Committee on Rules has insured that a procedural maneuver cannot be used to bring back to life the Members' COLA salary adjustment. As one who continues to believe that the voters have not determined that we in this Congress deserve a raise, I support this action. Mr. Speaker, this rule also waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with Section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act regarding the prohibition on consideration of legislation within the Committee on the Budget's jurisdiction unless reported by that committee. This is necessary because the appropriators included within this bill funding for the year 2000 problem, affectionately known as Y2K, under an emergency designation, which is something traditionally in the province of the Committee on the Budget. This whole Y2K issue and whether to call it an emergency or to find offsets for the additional funding has been the subject of much debate in this body, as Members will recall. This rule ensures that this debate can continue allowing the matter to come to the floor while allowing Members an opportunity to strike the emergency designation, should they wish. Mr. Speaker, the rule does several additional standard things: Providing priority and recognition to those amendments that are preprinted in the Congressional Record and providing that the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone recorded votes on any amendment. It also allows the chairman to reduce voting time on postponed questions to 5 minutes provided that the voting time on the first in a series of questions is not less than 15 minutes. Lastly, the rule provides for 1 motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, there may be some Members who wish this rule had come out differently, and some of those Members probably did not like our first rule much either. But I would say to my colleagues that with this rule we have come very close to approximating the standing rules of the House in bringing forth a spending bill that actually meets the requirements we have set out for ourselves in our normal government procedures. In my view, that is a bit of a breath of fresh air, and I urge Members to support the rule so we can get on with the business of funding the agencies covered by H.R. 4104, Postal Treasury. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from North Carolina and I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. While it is a closed rule, I think that it is an appropriate one, given the very narrow, significant scope of this bill. The family is the building block of every community in this Nation. Not only is this a recognized principle in our culture, but something we have actively encouraged by enacting laws promoting more family involvement in education decisions, stronger child support enforcement, and special tax benefits for families. We recognize the rights of parental notification and consent when a child gets a tattoo, or a body piercing, or even takes an aspirin at school. How can we tell moms and dads across the country they have no right to know if a perfect stranger takes their daughter miles away from home, to another State, to have a life altering medical procedure without their knowledge. Today, we seek to ensure that basic right is not emasculated. Opponents of the Child Custody Protection Act want to turn this into a debate about abortion. This is not about abortion. It's about family, parental support and parental responsibility and about children growing up in a society of confusing mixed messages. States have the right to pass consent or notification laws for minors, yet these laws become meaningless when a young girl is assisted taking a trip to another State to avoid the difficult task of counseling with her parents about an unplanned pregnancy. I urge all of my colleagues to think about the natural role of a parent, the importance of States' rights and, most importantly, the well-being of the children--at risk in these situations. I think these justify a closed rule and I urge support for the rule and H.R. 3682.