Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. That is also the case.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 420 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Yes, it does.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, Americans will celebrate Mother's Day and pay tribute to mothers all across our Nation for the care, love, and strength that they provide for their families and children. How distressing it is that this day should fall on the same date that hard-working Americans celebrate another day, Tax Freedom Day, the day we finally quit working to pay the burden of government and start working for the benefit of our own families. National Tax Freedom Day is, in fact, May 10 this year, the latest date it has ever been. Every year, Tax Freedom Day moves later and later. Soon we are going to be celebrating Tax Freedom Day on Father's Day at the rate we are going. Most Americans want us to move Tax Freedom Day back to the tax payment day, which is April 15, as we well know. Those two dates have not coincided for over 30 years. Despite last year's tax relief provided by this Republican-led Congress, the average family still pays 38 percent of their income to taxes, and that is way too high, as we all know. So let us make last year's tax cut the first step, but not the last step, toward giving Americans control over their own incomes, and commit to stopping the Tax Freedom Day creep. Meanwhile, happy Mother's Day.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today to underscore one of the greatest unnecessary obstacles to the education of our children: drugs. We all know the word; we all know the problem. Drugs are a fact of life for America's children and we have to deal with that. Over half of all high school seniors have tried an illegal drug and nearly one in two can buy marijuana within an hour. There is not a community, a school, a family in this Nation that is immune to the destructive pervasiveness of drugs. We all know it is past time to stop paying lip service and get on with the war on drugs and start with positive and specific action. Stalemate is unacceptable. The administration's effort to curb this trend has been sadly negligent. We know that. It ranges from ``no commitment'' to ``wrong message.'' While cocaine and heroin prices have steadily declined and teen drug has skyrocketed, the administration has cut international interdiction by $1 billion and drug arrests have fallen by 12 percent. Let me tell my colleagues, as the chairman of the House Committee on Intelligence, that stopping supply is possible and it matters. We cannot continue to let drugs stand in the way of the safety and education of our children, obviously. So we are committed to attacking the drug epidemic on all fronts, from production to the school room. Working together, I think we can reduce the flow of drugs in this country by 80 percent in the next few years. And then we are going to go after the remaining 20 percent, because we do not need drugs.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for yielding. As chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I would like to advise all Members that we hope that the authorization bill which has now been marked up will be brought forward next week, subject to a rule. I would like to advise Members that there is a procedure for any Member who would like to look at the material in that legislation to contact the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staff, and arrangements can be made for Members to review classified material.

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have until midnight, May 4, 1998, to file its report on the bill, H.R. 3694.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier today, I wish to announce to all Members of the House that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ordered H.R. 3694, which is the ``Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999,'' reported favorably to the House. That report will be filed on Monday, May 4, pursuant to the unanimous consent request just granted. I would also like to announce that the classified annex and the classified schedule of authorizations accompanying H.R. 3694 will be available for review by Members at the offices of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in room H-405 of the Capitol beginning after the bill is filed on Monday. The committee office will be open during regular business hours for the convenience of any Member who wishes to review this material prior to its consideration by the House. I anticipate that H.R. 3694 will be considered on the floor next week, possibly Friday, May 8, or perhaps sooner. I would recommend that Members wishing to review the classified annex contact the committee's chief of security to arrange a time and a date for that viewing. This will assure the availability of committee staff to assist Members who desire that assistance during their review of these classified materials. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to take some time to review these classified documents before the bill is brought to the floor in order to better understand the recommendations of the committee. The classified annex to the committee's report contains the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's recommendations on the intelligence budget for fiscal year 1999 and related classified information that may not be publicly disclosed. It is important that Members keep in mind the requirements of clause 13 of rule 43 of the House adopted at beginning of the 104th Congress. That rule, as Members will recall, only permits access to the classified information by those Members of the House who have signed the oath set out in Rule 43. Obviously, the committee will assist any Member who wishes to sign such an oath, and there are other details of the procedure that Members can find out by calling the committee. I very much encourage Members to take advantage of this, because obviously there are some things we cannot discuss publicly here and I want to make sure all Members are comfortable with all aspects of what we are doing in our committee.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. As this legislation is the result of a negotiated compromise and the work of both Houses, I do believe that a closed rule is appropriate. No one can deny the children of our Capitol City are in trouble. Almost every measurable statistic proves that the D.C. school system is failing these children. One in particular, though, is staggering--85 percent of D.C. public school graduates who enter the University of District Columbia need remedial coursework before beginning their college studies! But our focus should be on children and families, not statistics. These families should not be forced to tolerate failure-- they should be empowered with choice so that their kids can succeed. Given the dismal state of the D.C. school system and the common sense approach this legislation takes, it is difficult to understand why some of my colleagues are so opposed to this bill. S. 1502 is straight forward--it adds $7 million of new money so that 2,000 kids can receive scholarships to attend the school of their choice and an equal number of students may receive tutorial assistance. That means more money per pupil, not less. This is not about taking away from public education, it is about returning accountability to public education! Mr. Speaker, school choice is working in my district because it returns accountability to parents and families, rather than education bureaucrats. Low-income D.C. residents support scholarships by a 59 to 17 margin. The demand is there, the need has been proven beyond question and today we are acting. I commend Mr. Armey, Mr. Lipinski, and others for their bipartisan leadership on this issue.

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the gentleman brought the Speaker's trip to Florida up. It shows the outreach that we have in this House to go to the important States in our Nation, Florida being the fourth most populace State, and a place where we will all go sooner or later, which we are very proud to represent, those of us who are there now. I believe the Speaker has returned from Florida, and has done brilliant things there.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to afford the gentleman an extra minute or so if he is aware that those Members are coming.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. May I inquire of my colleague through the Chair if he has any speakers? We have none, and we would just as soon get on with the debate, and yield the balance of the time, if that fits with the pattern from the other side.

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, if it is my time, I understand, and we have no speakers, and we are going to yield back in about a minute, and call for the question. We are not intending to call for a recorded vote. We believe that it is an open rule, and there is no need to do that. We also agree with the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that there is ample debate opportunity today because of this very fair open rule that we have crafted. We are certainly looking forward to that debate, and would not want to put any impediment to it. Unfortunately, we are not quite logistically prepared to begin the debate.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 408 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purpose of debate on this subject only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 408 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1252, the Judicial Reform Act of 1998. The rule provides the customary 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives points of order against the consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of legislation providing new budget authority, changes in revenues, or changes in the public debt for a fiscal year until the budget resolution for that year has been agreed to. The purpose of that section of the Budget Act is a sound one that we generally try to adhere to, keeping the budget process moving forward in a commonsense direction, with the budget resolution coming first and then allowing for subsequent consideration of the legislation that implements the provisions of the budget resolution. In this case, however, we are technically required to provide this waiver, but our Committee on Rules has also provided a fix for the Budget Act problem. We have done that by making in order under this rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, modified by striking section 9 of that amendment which caused the 303(a) problem and redesignating succeeding sections accordingly. Section 9 of the amendment specifically deals with the process by which cost of living adjustments for Federal judges are implemented. The effect of that section would have been to create a new mandatory spending category in the budget, something that we tried not to do outside the normal congressional budget process. Apart from the substance of that issue relating to pay for judges, the Committee on Rules has attempted in this rule to preserve the integrity of the budget process. Mr. Speaker, the rule further provides that each section of the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, and it waives points of order against that amendment for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI prohibiting nongermane amendments, or section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act, for the reasons I just explained. The rule accords priority in recognition to Members who have caused their amendments to be preprinted in the Congressional Record, assuming those amendments are in accordance with the standing rules of the House. It further provides that the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone votes during consideration of the bill and reduce the voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote; and, finally, as is the custom, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. That explains the rule. Now, Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the technical Budget Act fix, this is a very straightforward rule. It is fair, and it is wide open. It allows all Members the chance to offer germane amendments and conduct thoughtful discussion about a very important subject. I strongly support the premise behind this bill, that it is time to control judicial activism, the so-called runaway judges on the Federal bench. This statement alone is usually enough to generate controversy in many circles, and this debate is by no means a simple one, as it involves many of the most basic tenets of our democratic system and the separation of powers. I think we could all come up with anecdotal evidence that there have been problems within the Federal judiciary with judges exceeding their charter and authority. The Committee on the Judiciary has, in my view, put forth a responsible product that deals with these problems by focusing on specific practices within the Federal courts that together constitute a real threat to the rights of citizens and the prerogatives of this Congress. In my view, this legislation constitutes a measured and carefully justified response to legitimate problems. It is not simply throwing down the gauntlet. It is coming up with responsible solutions, which we will have ample opportunity to debate under an open rule. I applaud the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) for their work on this bill. Still, I know that many Members have concerns about specific provisions of the legislation. Those Members will have their opportunity to air their concerns and propose alterations during the open debate and amendment process established by this rule. I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill. I look forward to a lively and informative debate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the explanation. I understand that. My concern is that we have not yet delineated those offsets. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, I am also concerned about the bill's provision moving the Highway Trust Fund off budget. We have to be extremely careful about placing more money outside the parameters of the congressional budget process. Frankly, instead of piecemeal reforms that will provide less control over spending, I think we should work toward comprehensive budget process reform that makes sense. I am pleased to be working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), and a great many others, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), to make the question of budget reform a goal that we can accomplish this year. There are other real concerns that I am sure Members will touch on as well. I do not pretend to judge the merits of each demonstration project, but I think it is doubtful that well over 1,400 projects are deserving of Federal attention. To put this number in some kind of a perspective, the last ISTEA bill, 1991, contained only 539 demo projects, I am told. No transportation bill contained any demo projects until 1982. So we got along without them for quite a while. In fact, the committee's own rules state that it shall not be in order for any bill providing general legislation in relation to roads to contain any specific provision for any road. Mr. Speaker, I can contend it is time that we abandon demonstration projects and let the States, the local folks decide what their State transportation priorities are. That is why I intend to support the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), in his turn-back amendment later today. I think the idea makes good sense, cut the gas tax, keep just enough to maintain our interstates, and let the individual States decide and manage their own transportation priorities. The wisdom of Members of Congress goes far, but I do not think it extends to the intricate details of planning highway and bridge and interchange improvements and construction. I think those decisions should be made by the professionals at the State departments of transportation. I am disappointed I cannot support the hard work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and others. I know they have worked hard and brought forth what is a very good bill in their eyes. I am concerned about the fiscal constraints problem, the demo problem, some of the other points I have mentioned. I do urge a yes vote on this rule so we can have a debate, and I urge fiscal discipline and loyalty to the principle of fiscal discipline when we get to the final vote.

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from greater San Dimas, California, for yielding me the time. I rise in support of this fair- structured rule. It is a good process that makes in order amendments from both side of the aisle. Today we seek to balance two important goals: Maintaining, enhancing our Nation's roads and highways on the one hand, while remaining committed to last year's balanced budget agreement on the other. We all know we need more infrastructure, and we all know we need more fiscal responsibility how to deal with it. Additional concern of the folks I represent in Florida is not a new one: Providing equity to donor States through the transportation funding formula. I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for addressing the equity issue. BESTEA does represent an improvement in terms of rate of return. We are pleased to see that. Under the current formula, Florida should receive 90 cents back on the dollar as opposed to 83 cents or less currently set in law. That is progress. I think it is equity. But I have got to say I am disappointed that this long-awaited reform has to come at the expense of fiscal discipline. Instead of prioritizing our resources and making the tough choices, this bill creates a larger pie for everyone. It is one way of doing things, sort of a classic Washington response. We do not have enough money to do everything we want. We make a bigger pie, spend anyway, and hope that things work out. What is worse, I think, is that the bill provides no offsets. We have an extra 26 billion over last year's budget caps. I do not think it is fiscally responsible. It is not acceptable to those who wish to balance the budget to add 26 billion. Just yesterday, we committed to offsets for our supplemental emergency spending. It was a long, long debate and we had a lot of discussion about it. But I think the principle of setting for offsets is extremely important.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to Members in response to a procedural statement just made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that there is no need for the House to go into secret session, because the gentleman's complaint is about the offsets, not about the need for the intelligence matters. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).