Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GOSS. In fact, all the individual has to do is ask. They have the right to ask and they have the right to get the right answer, but remember that we are talking about investigations here. We are not talking about people who are arrested. There is not a question of rights. This is a question of special privilege and this is an investigation.

Mr. GOSS. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out a couple of things have been said that I think Members need to understand. We are not talking about due process. We are talking about way beyond due process here. Due process is guaranteed. This is not an issue of due process. This is a provision of special privilege for a narrow group of government employees that is entirely unwarranted and will in fact hamper investigation by those who are charged with the heavy responsibility of investigating wrongdoing in the Department of State. Who would want to stand behind the proposition that we want to slacken our efforts, defang our watchdogs and just basically cast a blind eye to the fact that there might be some wrongdoing in this day and age? That is not what the constituency of America is asking us to do. I am not an investigator, and my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, whose opinion I have great respect for and I have every reason to believe, has come to a conclusion that he firmly believes but based on the wrong information. Let me tell my colleagues what the people who are charged with this responsibility are saying. They are saying that passage of this amendment would seriously impede effectively and timely criminal investigations. I am not making that up. I am quoting from a letter signed by Michael Bromwich, inspector general of the Department of Justice; Frank DeGeorge, inspector general of the Department of Commerce; and Eleanor Hill, inspector general of the Department of Defense. These are people charged with the heavy responsibility who have said for the record publicly that if we do not remove the language that is in the bill and we do not pass the Goss amendment, that we are seriously impeding effectively and timely criminal investigations. I do not want my name associated with anything that is going to impede effective and timely investigations. Again, I am not an investigator, but I will take the say-so from the people who are in charge of the job. The people who are in charge of doing that job feel that this is going to hurt their ability. I would suggest to my colleague and close friend, for whom I have huge respect as he well knows, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], that if there is a problem with the inspector general's power, that we look at all of them and we do it appropriately and in a deliberate way. I certainly do not think it is a perfect system but I certainly feel that going piecemeal after one on what seems to be sort of a payback motive, these guys were overeager, so let's show them that we've got the muscle, I do not think that is the right way to make good legislation.

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida [Mr. Diaz- Balart] for the time. I rise in support of this open rule providing for consideration of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. I also strongly support the second bill brought up by the rule, the European Security Act, which will be combined with the State Department bill at the conclusion of the consideration of the two measures. These are not new items, these are things that have been much discussed in these Halls. It has been 12 long years since the last international relations authorization legislation was signed into law. Think about that. What this means is that review and reform of the mechanisms used when the Government conducts its foreign policy and spends American taxpayers' dollars overseas are long, long overdue. As many of my colleagues know from their own mail, this is something of a sore spot for many Americans who question the effectiveness of our foreign efforts and our foreign policy. This is especially apparent when they look at the general lack of progress the White House has been making even in nearby countries like Haiti--where $3 billion and 20,000 troops have made little tangible difference to most Haitians--and have perhaps moved that country backwards by increasing dependency on American handouts. Or countries like Bosnia, where the administration has apparently made a commitment it cannot seem to extract itself--or our troops--from. I understand the benefits of reasonable levels of well-managed and monitored foreign aid. These are benefits that are not measured by volumes of carefully staged photo ops. We need to streamline our foreign policy assets to reflect current priorities and the reality of our limited resources, to get more bang for the relatively few dollars we spend to protect and promote our interests abroad. This legislation will in fact do that, doing away with three agencies, folding their nonduplicative functions into State, along with some functions of a fourth agency--USAID. It also addresses shifting American priorities. I am especially pleased that it places a priority on cracking down on Fidel Castro's regime and chokes off international assistance that could be used by Castro to complete the nuclear reactors at Juragua--an issue of grave concern to my southwest Florida district. Ultimately, H.R. 1757 should go a long way toward creating a leaner, more effective foreign policy apparatus--and one that reflects our changing priorities as we move ahead into the new millennium. H.R. 1757 should also give us concrete progress toward achieving the goal of eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse. The second related bill this rule brings before us is H.R. 1758, the European Security Act, in conjunction with H.R. 1757. This legislation was introduced by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and several of my colleagues to consolidate the gains made by the United States and our European allies in freeing Europe from the grip of the cold war. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I am pleased to be able to say this act will take us beyond the first tranche of NATO expansion, bringing the security umbrella to those emerging democracies of Central and Eastern Europe that are striving to meet the requirements for membership. I think anyone who is watching this issue closely knows that the White House's most recent foray in this policy area makes it more important than ever that the Congress weighs in--this legislation is the right message and it is being sent at the right time. This is essentially an open rule. It does deserve support. H.R. 1757 should improve the way we do business overseas, and H.R. 1758 is eagerly anticipated and anxiously awaited by our friends, old and new, throughout Europe. A vote ``yes'' for this bill makes sense. A vote ``yes'' for this rule gets us to that point.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, Teddy Roosevelt named Pelican Island, FL as the first United States wildlife refuge. In that tradition, I'm proud that Florida's fourteenth Congressional district boasts four wildlife refuges, including the J.N. ``Ding'' Darling refuge on my home island of Sanibel. I want to commend Chairman Young and the Resources Committee; bringing together many diverse interests, they've crafted a bill that meets with the satisfaction of all parties. H.R. 1420, for the first time, establishes a central purpose for the National Wildlife Refuge System, namely, providing a sanctuary for wildlife. It also addresses the issues of compatible uses in a responsible way. As the session continues, the House will undoubtedly face other contentious environmental debates--I am hopeful that we can address those issues in a similarly cooperative and productive manner.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the distinguished ranking member of 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 purposes of debate only. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.)

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who could be misidentified as Santa Claus.

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 155 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. 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 to say that I am a little puzzled. We just went from a hard-fought battle on adjournment, at the gentleman's request over there, which we beat back.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would again remind our colleagues that this is a rule to keep our options open. It does nothing except change the two-thirds vote requirement, and any further measure that would have to come forward would have to be covered by another rule which, of course, the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, would have significant input in the shaping in order that we could get the best possible job done. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, who can expand further on this rule we are discussing today.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this rule is very straightforward and simple. As has actually just been discussed in the extended 1-minute we just had, it waves clause 4(b) of rule XI, which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported. That is all it does. In this case the exemption is very narrow, as it applies to two specific measures, the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution conference report and the emergency supplemental bill, as we just heard in the colloquy between the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from New York. In an effort to avoid postponement of the Memorial Day work period restriction, when many Members obviously have important things to do back in their districts, this rule will allow for expedited consideration of these two important items. That is the purpose of the rule, and nothing more sinister than that. Negotiations over several extraneous items in the emergency bill have, unfortunately, delayed timely release of these funds, and I remain hopeful, if not optimistic, that we will be able to get this bill to the President's desk before the weekend. I think we all share that. I understand that the budget agreement had been strained in the other body by the proposed addition of a brand new Federal entitlement program paid for in tax increases. I hope that the irony of our balanced budget agreement being held hostage by unlimited spending and higher taxes will not be lost on most American people. But that is where we are, as we just hear in the extended 1-minute colloquy. In order to be able to move these critical items in a timely fashion, the House needs the targeted authority covered in this resolution, again, the targeted limited authority. We frankly need to be prepared to go forward as expeditiously as possible when that is possible. It is an ounce of prevention we are taking at this point. I think it is the responsible thing to do under the important and somewhat extraordinary circumstances we find ourselves in on the threshold of Memorial Day. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings] for yielding me this time, and I am pleased that the House is again turning its attention to the issue of dolphin safe tuna. That actually is the subject today, the question of dolphin safe tuna and better protection of dolphins. That is on the schedule, and that is what we are going to debate because the rules of the House say that when we are going to debate a subject, we are supposed to stick to that subject. So while there are many other subjects we could talk about today, this is the moment that we have set forth in the Committee on Rules, in I think, a very fair and appropriate rule, to talk about ways to improve protection for dolphins who are senselessly slaughtered as part of a fishing process that caused international outrage a few years ago. This debate is a very important one for the environmental community and the business community and for me especially as a Representative from southwest Florida, which is a true paradise for people and for dolphins as well. In 1992, I was a member of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries that we had in those days, and I helped push for the successful passage of the Dolphin Conservation Program Act. That was in response to the outrage of the senseless killing of dolphins as by- catch in the fishing process. We came up with a good solution. Over the last 5 years we have made real progress in lowering dolphin mortality. Something like 25,000 we knew of were being killed a year. We are now down, I am told, to 5,000. That is still a high number, but it is a huge improvement. But there are still a few lingering problems with the current law that we passed, and the bill under consideration today provides the United States the opportunity to address some of those problems while implementing stronger protections for dolphins and other endangered species, and that is what we are doing here; we are making sure we are doing the right job in terms of protecting endangered species. First let me commend the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] and the others for their work on this bill. They have been out there doing the hard work while others have been doing the complaining and the talking to the press, and they have come up with a pretty good solution. We have got some environmental legislation here that is difficult to craft, but we have got a bill that is actually strongly supported both by environmental organizations and by business, in this case the tuna industry, and it is supported by the Vice President, Vice President Gore, and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and those represent fairly diverse views on how we deal with the environment. Under current law to receive the dolphin safe stamp of approval requires only that the tuna was caught using fishing practices generally considered safe for dolphins. That does not mean they were safe; it is just that somebody got away with saying they were considered safe. We were measuring what we thought might be an expectation, and when we looked at the outcome, we decided we could do better, and hence this bill today. Whether the dolphins are actually killed during the catch is what matters, and we think we have a better way to stop that senseless death. H.R. 408 tightens the dolphin safe definition to require that no dolphins are killed, a standard that will be enforced by having an observer on each fishing boat observing every catch, and if even one dolphin death happens in a catch, that would prevent the whole catch from being sold in the United States as dolphin safe. The United States is a very lucrative market, much sought after, so that is a very important consideration. Clearly it is also a more stringent standard and one we should all be able to agree on today. Another issue of particular importance to me is by-catch. When sea turtles and other nontarget species are caught and die in fishing nets, it is called by-catch. We have made real progress towards reducing this wasteful practice in the Magnuson bill last year, and I am pleased H.R. 408 will help reduce what is a very real problem still of wasteful by- catch. Some have expressed concern about this bill in relation to trade, to NAFTA or GATT. At the outset let me say that I too have some concerns about trade issues, particularly in Florida, about questions of enforcement in NAFTA. But I am convinced that this bill has little to do with the trade issue. If my colleagues will excuse the word, it is a red herring and does not impinge upon U.S. sovereignty. H.R. 408 implements more stringent protections for dolphins and marine life in the eastern Pacific. If we want to protect dolphins, sea turtles, and other marine life, we should support this rule and vote for H.R. 408. I think it does the job very well, and that is the job we are here to do today.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I also want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for his persistence and commitment to a balanced budget. I think I can say that he is one of the true taxpayer heroes in this body, and we would not be here today if it had not been for his valiant efforts and some of his earlier authorship of some very important budget work, which I was pleased to join with. Two and a half years ago at the start of the 104th Congress, a new majority went to work to balance the budget and provide real tax relief for the American people. Our new majority pledged to save the Medicare Program, rein in out-of-control spending and, in a nutshell, bring fiscal sanity back to our Nation. The naysayers scoffed and the big government liberals said, you cannot do that. They laughed in derision, they called it a radical idea that could not be done without starving the children and slashing Social Security. Our President not only refused to endorse the balanced budget, he repudiated it through his own budget request. Despite this hostile opposition, we remained steadfast in our commitment and pushed forward to get the job done. What a difference a few years makes. This budget resolution locks in the President and the Congress to a real balanced budget in 5 years. Like most compromises, it is not perfect. As a member of the Kerrey commission, I am concerned that we rely on reductions to health care providers, rather than expanding choice and competition, and going after the cost drivers in our effort to save Medicare. I am also anxious about the lack of eliminations in the discretionary portion of the budget. We cannot be satisfied with trimming back on wasteful spending here and there. We must insist on ripping out bad programs by the roots. I intend to continue my efforts to eliminate these wasteful programs as they are identified during the appropriations process. In the past few years I have offered a list of specifics cutting hundreds of billions, and I will do so again this year. But I have always felt that we cannot afford to make the perfect the enemy of the good. And for those who would still say that we have not made significant progress, I would encourage them to leaf through this document, the fiscal year 1996 budget of the United States Government. This is the President's budget request for 1996, just 2 years ago. The President's vision then, $200 billion a year deficits as far as the eye could see into the future. That is the best they could do. Now, let us move fast forward to today's budget resolution. Not only have we agreed to a balanced budget, we have provided overdue relief for millions of American taxpayers. We have offered another vision for America, one where we pay our own bills, we live within our means and we reduce the tax burden on our producers. Now, thankfully, the President has joined us and endorsed that vision. I urge support for this fair and appropriate rule and for the balanced budget amendment. America is ready and waiting. This is good news.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding this time to me. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time, and I associate myself with his remarks. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this modified open rule. The rule provides for consideration of this legislation, which as we have heard is extremely important, in a timely manner and without restricting the right of Members to have their say in the process. That is obviously a delicate balance but I am very pleased with the final product we bring to the body to vote on, and I congratulate the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman, for his leadership on this. Mr. Speaker, this bill continues the tradition begun in the last Congress of paying for the supplementals. While commonsense by the standards of most Americans, the idea of actually paying for new emergency spending was foreign to past Congresses. Before the new majority, the old practice was charge it and send the bill to the kids. That was the wrong thing to do. This is the right thing to do, and I commend the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman, and his committee for making the very hard choices necessary to keep our word with the American people. Finally, we must acknowledge the Americans who have been dealt such a severe blow from the floods. Yesterday I met with the mayor of Grand Forks and other local officials in that area who are working overtime to put their lives back together, and the lives of the people they represent. They did not ask for any special treatment or sympathy. They just want a fair disaster hand right now to help them rebuild their communities, which are obviously devastated. They actually have a different view than our committee on how best to deliver the money, and this rule accommodates them by allowing the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] to offer his amendment, I suspect helped by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] and the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy]. As a Floridian, I know the terrible personal tragedy that comes with a flood, hurricane, or other natural disasters. We have them, too. With this bill, we have assumed our responsibility to our friends in the Midwest while not forgetting the American taxpayer. This is a good bill, it is a good rule, it is going to be fair and open, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on International Relations have until midnight, Friday, May 9, 1997, to file a report on the bill, H.R. 1486, the Foreign Policy Reform Act.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, May 12, 1997, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 13, 1997, for morning hour debates.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it has been a long day. The Chamber is thinning out. Members are on their way back to their districts. But tomorrow is coming. Tomorrow, May 9, is Tax Freedom Day, the day that working Americans can finally begin to keep the money they earn rather than paying it to the Government in taxes. The fact is the tax burden most Americans face has been increasing every year. I am pleased that Congress, through the balanced budget agreement reached with the President, is actively pursuing some relief in the areas of the family tax credit, capital gains, and estate tax relief. The budget agreement provides for a total of $135 billion in tax relief over the next 5 years. That is a big step. I hope this will be a first step on a longer road toward true tax relief, including real tax reform. Congress has to find ways to provide additional relief and give due consideration to alternatives to the current tax system, which is unfair and inefficient. Mr. Speaker, dare we look forward to a day when the average American no longer spends more in total taxes than on food, clothing, and housing combined? We are spending more on taxes than we are spending on food, clothing, and housing for our families. Something is wrong. Washington speaks of this beginning tax relief as Washington's generosity. I have a bulletin for taxpayers: It is not Washington's money, it is your money. Yes, most Americans agree we should pay some taxes; a safety net for the less fortunate, national defense, things like that we all understand. Most Americans also agree we are now taxed too much to support too much government. But I think all Americans, every American, agrees that not every hard-earned dollar sent to Washington is well spent by Washington. There is waste and fraud and abuse and redundancy and patronage and other spending foolishness, and we all know it. So spend smarter and less, and tax smaller and fairer. That would be a very good wake-up call tomorrow morning across our land on Tax Freedom Day. I wonder how many Americans, Mr. Speaker, remember back to New Year's Eve, December 31, 1996? I wonder how many Americans know that ever since then, every dollar earned by the average American worker has been taken for taxation by the Government. I wonder how many Americans are as disgusted by that fact as I am.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, [Mr. Solomon] for this time. I rise today in very strong support of this rule. It will allow fair consideration of the Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1997. We have been able to accommodate the minority, allowing votes on five Democratic amendments, including a full substitute. In addition, of course, the House will consider one Republican amendment, and of course the minority has the option to offer a motion to recommit. I have every confidence that we are going to have a full debate and the minority has many avenues to speak. This bill has had extensive review, with forums being held throughout the country in order to ensure that the measures it takes will effectively deal with what is one of the most difficult and troubling aspects in our fight against crime today, and that is the aspect of our Nation's young people. I know, talking to colleagues on the floor and in the cloakrooms and around town, that Members are coming to grips with this issue. I recently met with the Juvenile Justice Advisory Board in my own district in southwest Florida to discuss some of the problems we are having. Florida is a pretty progressive State. We do have the equivalent of gun lock laws and things like that, good safety issues, but we still have an awful lot of youth crime. In an honest discussion with both teens and adults on the Juvenile Justice Advisory Board, I heard firsthand about a system that is failing both troubled children and our society at large. Our juvenile justice system fails to respect teens by ignoring or glossing over their misdeeds, and this in turn breeds a lack of respect for laws and civil society among our teens as well. Respect is still part of our vocabulary in this country. We need to remember that. We need innovative approaches tailored to local needs. I hope this bill, by setting a strong example, will spur this kind of change. At the national level, according to the Department of Justice, 17- and 18-year-olds are the most violent of all age groups. Let me say that again. The most violent of all age groups are 17-year-olds and 18- year-olds. Younger criminals are getting increasingly violent. It is long past due that we make juvenile offenders understand there are real consequences for criminal behavior. Right now, as Chairman Solomon has said not once but twice, and I will say again, only 1 in 10 violent juvenile offenders receives any confinement. If Members do not learn or hear anything else in this debate, remember that statistic. Our youngest career criminals are getting away with the most heinous crimes over and over again, and it is not just gang warfare. Wake up. I am pleased that H.R. 3 will address this by allowing and encouraging tough penalties, rather than perpetuating the slap-on-the- wrist approach. I urge my colleagues to support this rule. It will get the debate done, and it will get it done fairly. I urge support for this bill. It will do something America will be proud of and needs desperately.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, last week four Cabinet-level members of the Clinton administration and the rest of the Medicare trustees released their annual report on the future of the Medicare Program, something of great interest to a great many Americans, and unfortunately the forecast is very bleak. The condition of the part A trust fund has gone from serious to critical, with only a few years left before flatlining altogether in this very important entitlement program. It is time for the White House to get its act together. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, for the first time in the history of the program, the trust fund paid out more in expenses than it received in revenues. That was a pretty good indicator something was wrong. Last year the program lost $25 million a day every day and $9 billion over the course of the year, another indicator something might be wrong. This year that figure will climb to at least $40 million a day lost and almost $14.5 billion for the whole year. We are on the fast track to bankruptcy, with only a small window of opportunity to avoid a serious disaster in Medicare part A which so many Americans depend on. While this projection is undisputed, the call to action from the White House has not been forthcoming. Yes, the President has moved toward us in terms of raw numbers, but he has avoided making the tough choices necessary to truly reform and improve Medicare. In fact, the President's prescription involves no heavy lifting at all. It just ambushes the American taxpayer down the road with higher taxes. Where have we heard that before? By switching the home health portion of Medicare to Part B without a corresponding increase in the premium to pay for it, this administration has signaled that its intention is not to save the program but, rather, to continue to play politics with the numbers and raise taxes. But there is good news, and that is why I am here. The good news is that we can save Medicare as this Congress has done recently. But it is not going to happen with accounting gimmicks, misguided customer providers, or vetoes from the White House. Instead we should take a hard look at what is driving the soaring costs and address them head on. We need medical malpractice reform to assure that our precious resources are not being wasted on defensive medicine. A Stanford study found that States that have passed some kind of tort reform, like my home State of Florida, have seen incredible savings in even the most complicated medical areas. The study confirms what many of us already knew, excessive litigation serves the trial lawyers primarily, not our senior citizens. We can and must increase the number of options available in the Medicare Program. Every senior should have choices to go beyond the fee for service or an HMO, options that include things like provider- sponsored networks and medical savings accounts. Individual choice should be the hallmark of any reform plan. Of course, we should always keep our eye on the fraud and abuse that still plagues our system, regrettably. In the last Congress we instituted tougher penalties for those who cheat the system, and we should pursue identified ways to do more of that. Representative Quinn's legislation to establish an inspector general for the program I think is a fine first step. I hope that we will continue to deter and punish those who drain our Medicare resources by cheating. Mr. Speaker, the campaign is over. The demagoguery, the distortions, the cynical misdirections might have served a political purpose in the last Presidential campaign, but they did not do anything to save the Medicare trust fund. The effect dramatically of it in this year's report has been to exacerbate the problem. As the trustees note, and again there are Cabinet members among them, ``it is misleading to think that any part of the program can be exempt from change.'' We have to fix it. It is time we heed the trustees' warnings. It is time for structural reform that saves Medicare not merely until the next election, but well into the next century because a great many Americans are counting on it. Mr. Speaker, I served on the Kerrey commission. We talked about the entitlement, the well-being of the entitlement programs in our country, and we discovered that we were on unsustainable trendlines, and this is just the first of others that are going to follow unless we have reform of our entitlement programs. I am proud that Congress did its job. We passed the strength of the Medicare Act bill in the last Congress. The Senate passed it. President Clinton vetoed it. Since that veto we have lost almost $20 billion in revenues in trust fund part A. This adds up to real money, but more important, it adds up to real anxiety for our senior citizens. It is time we heard from the White House on this program. The Cabinet members have spoken, the committee has spoken, Congress has spoken. Will the President speak?