Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, in the early morning of April 9, a large group of United States-trained Haitian National Police forcefully entered and illegally searched the family home of a longtime employee of the International Republican Institute, which is an adjunct of the National Endowment for Democracy, which is of great interest to this institution. The contents of the home, which were owned by the employee's aunt, who happens to be an American citizen, were destroyed and photographs of the employee and his family were confiscated. We have received confirmation from the United States Embassy officials that the Haitian National Police have taken responsibility for the action, and they have claimed that they were thinking that there was a gang operating out of the home. It is worth noting that they failed, regardless of the merit or lack in the claim about the gang. It is worth noting that they never gained proper authorization to take such an action or stage such a raid. More troubling still is that this raid comes after an already- harrowing series of specific threats against this employee's family in the lead-up to the latest round of elections some 10 days ago, threats that many believe can be directly linked to the employee's work for the IRI. And those of us who have followed Haiti very closely will recall that this pattern mirrors that which preceded the forced departure of Haitian Chamber of Deputy member Dooley Brutus. We must ask the administration if in fact the Clinton administration has lost control of the program in Haiti to the degree that we are now supporting blatant human rights violations with United States taxpayers' dollars. In fact, tensions in Haiti have been running so high in recent weeks for IRI that it has had to close its office and move its operations to a new, safe site where security can be provided more effectively. This does not sound like a democracy to me. Mr. Speaker, an attack of this sort is inexcusable in a democracy, even a fledgling democracy. We cannot tolerate this. Not only is the victimization of an American citizen inappropriate, to put it mildly, but the attack on an individual working to further the development of democracy in Haiti is deeply troubling. The fact that the same type of raid was carried out on the same night, in the same neighborhood, in the home of a prominent business family suggests that these types of raids are not all that uncommon. Sadly, that seems to be so. Rest assured that we will be looking to the United States Embassy, the Haitian Government, and Colin Granderson's civilian mission for a thorough report on this incident. We also expect the administration to place a priority on ensuring that this assault against an American citizen and property is thoroughly investigated by the Government of Haiti. We know from our experience with the Gonzalez and Bertin cases that the investigation stage is generally where the Haitian judicial system breaks down totally. The involvement of United States-trained Haitian National Police also means that there are questions to be answered about the apparent lack of progress on the rule of law in Haiti after so great a commitment of United States personnel and tax dollars. One certainly must ask if the wanton destruction of property was included as part of the training we provided with U.S. tax dollars. I hope that is not so. How many American or Haitian citizens have to be traumatized in this way before the Clinton administration will be willing to take off the rose-colored glasses and give us an honest assessment of the situation in Haiti? It appears that it is quite a sad saga. If we have a serious problem in Haiti, a problem directly linked to United States tax dollars, let us acknowledge it and get on with the process of fixing it. That is called accountability and the American people expect nothing less, even though we have been getting less for some time from the Clinton administration when we seek candor on the subject of Haiti.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the House of February 12, 1997, be extended through April 23, 1997.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 3 p.m. on Monday next.

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, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Colorado for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and I rise in strong support of this wide- open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 400. This open rule will allow for full debate on this very complex and controversial measure. Mr. Speaker, the objective of this legislation is to promote greater efficiency in our patent system, and of course put us on an even footing overseas, at the same time balance this with fair protection for the independent inventor, and this is obviously a very delicate process. My district is home to the Edison Inventors Association. We are very proud of that. They have directly and personally conveyed to me their very real concerns with the legislation as it is written, and I am sure the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] is going to speak to several of those issues as the day goes along. I have also spoken with proponents of H.R. 400, and they have made a compelling case for certain items in H.R. 400. So it seems we are getting most of the good issues out. Among the inventors, there is a real concern that the 18-month publication period provision in this bill will pose a risk to the little guy, the independent inventor. We certainly do not want to inadvertently create a situation, unintended negative consequences, where these entrepreneurs are squeezed out in the courtroom by large corporations. This is a real concern, and I know it will be addressed today. On the other hand, I think we all agree that the proposed diversion of fees paid to the Patent and Trademark Office in the Clinton budget is a very bad idea. There was unanimity on this issue yesterday, I believe, in the Committee on Rules, and I am gratified that H.R. 400 hits this right on. Our inventors need to know that these fees are not being diverted to fund other initiatives, but are helping to speed the patent process along. Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that the promised benefits in H.R. 400 are not outweighed by the potential setbacks. I am waiting to be convinced by the debate. Whenever we consider sweeping reform we would be wise, in my view, to follow the model of the medical profession. First, do no harm. While I remain uncertain that H.R. 400 is truly a step forward, I am glad that we are going to be able to have vigorous debate on this floor where both sides can make their case, and I certainly appreciate the hard work and long efforts of the committee on this process. What we have here today is deliberative democracy at work in the people's House. I urge support for this good rule for that reason, and I commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] for bringing this rule forward.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, April 21, 1997, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, April 23.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce] for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this fair, modified closed rule, which provides for consideration of House Joint Resolution 62, the tax limitation amendment. As most of us are aware, the House traditionally considers constitutional amendments under a restrictive rule. I think it appropriate that we once again are following that precedent, but I note, especially today, we are providing the minority two opportunities to offer differing versions. So this is a fair rule. Tonight, millions of Americans will spend a few last hours putting their tax returns together and then rushing them to the post office by midnight, they hope. While we all devote a good deal of time to filling out the tedious and confusing forms generated by the IRS, an even more discouraging fact is that this year the average American will spend about 3 hours of every 8-hour work day just to make enough money to pay taxes to the Government to get that money in the mail tonight. Something is wrong when we pay more in total taxes than we do in food, clothing, and housing combined. That is a fact. Something is wrong, and today we are trying to fix it. We have already considered two bills dealing with the Tax Code: H.R. 1226, which would make it a crime for IRS employees to snoop through citizens' tax records, we had debate earlier on that. With the passage of H.R. 109, we will have stated our commitment to providing real tax relief for American families. The vote comes later on that. The measure we are about to consider, the tax limitation amendment, would require a two-thirds majority vote for the passage of any legislation resulting in a tax increase. Most people understand that. H.R. 1215 shifts the focus away from taxing and spending and toward responsible management of our resources. With the tax burdens most Americans face these days, we need to be sure that any future tax increase that Congress is tempted to pass faces added scrutiny. Mr. Speaker, this is an important measure, and, of course, I intend to support it. I also look forward to considering real tax cuts on this floor as soon as possible. Instead of the illusory cuts offered in the Presidential campaigns that seem to disappear after the election, we should work for meaningful, permanent tax relief, and we should do it now. We should cut the capital gains tax, we should cut the estate tax, we should repeal the insidious Clinton tax hike on Social Security, on the benefits of Social Security, that are being now taxed and are hitting so many of the constituents in my district and other districts where there are seniors so hard. We should examine ways to end the so-called marriage penalty that imposes a roadblock for young couples trying to start their lives together. April 15 could be an annual reminder of the responsibility we have as Americans to relinquish readily some of our hard-earned resources to preserve freedom and the opportunities of this land. But instead, April 15 is becoming a day of infamy as we unfairly and recklessly overburden productive Americans by taking an ever larger bite of their paycheck through an incomprehensible process to feed an ever larger, ever more wasteful, insatiable big brother Government right here in Washington. I think it is time to stop that, and I am anxious to get to work to provide relief from those oppressive taxes so that next year, when we stand here, next year's tax bite will not be quite so painful for so many. I urge support for this rule, and I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, a wise man once said: Four things come not back: The spoken word, the sped arrow, time passed, and the neglected opportunity. As I reviewed the observer reports from this weekend's elections in Haiti, this aphorism came to mind. We all congratulate the Haitians who worked so hard on election day, and those who came out to vote, despite the many factors that might have kept them away from the polls. But when 20,000 American troops invaded Haiti, as opposed as some of us here were to this action, we all hoped somehow the end result would bear fruit for our troubled neighbors in Hispaniola. Sadly, that opportunity has not been fully realized. This weekend's elections, the last in a cycle to create the institutions set forth in the 1987 Haitian Constitution, offer testimony to the disappointing reality in that country. Haitians, expressing disillusionment with democracy and certainty that the results were already determined, barely participated in their elections. Observers have placed turnout in the range of a dismal 5 percent. Why? After five rounds of voting in the past 3 years, many of the Haitian observers spoke with those who echoed sentiments like the Haitian who said: My children cannot eat this vote. They cannot eat democracy. They need food. Frustrated Haitians told observers I spoke with that ``At least when Duvalier was here, things worked. Today nothing happens. Today the machinery sits and rusts, and the people get nothing. The money comes to Haiti but we do not know where it goes.'' People will recall Duvalier was a brutal dictator. If it is worse than that now, things are not well in Haiti. Still others told observers that ``Everyone here knows already the winner of these elections. These are simply reflections of the situation.'' Three years after the triumphant return of President Aristide, progress on stability and jobs and good governance is as elusive as ever in Haiti. In fact, those of us who have traveled to Haiti over the years are beginning to see disturbing trends. Not only are things not getting better, in many respects they seem to actually be getting worse, despite the $3 billion of taxpayers' investment. The disappointment goes well beyond the lack of economic growth and new investment. Anxiety about business and personal security remains a part of everyday Haitian life. Since the beginning of this year there has been a series of assassinations, brutal assassinations, aimed at the Haitian national police. As has been the case in the past 3 years, still more political figures have either gone into hiding or have just simply left the country, fearing for their lives because of the rising tide of harassment and violence they encounter. The large population center of Cite Soleil is the site of regular random shooting sprees by armed gangs, and cities like Cap Haitien are subject to regular eruptions from populist organizations. Beyond this, if one looks at the health of democracy in general, certainly the disenfranchisement of the opposition parties from the electoral process, and likely consolidation of one sector's hold on Haitian institutions, from the local through the national level, adds to the sense that things are not going well in Haiti, and in fact, it is not a true democracy. Maybe that is why the Pentagon announced yesterday that 200 more paratroopers from the 82d Airborne are being sent from Fort Bragg to Haiti. Frankly, today the Haitian peoples are not the only ones with questions about what is happening in the small Caribbean nations. These realities have some Americans such as myself wondering when to expect the next refugee flow, the next political killing, the next setback in the process of economic reform. What this means is that those of us who have oversight on the questions of how the United States Government spends America's money have a responsibility to ask some tough and serious questions about what has and what has not been accomplished with the opportunity for progress that our $3 billion and 20,000 troops have provided to Haiti. The Clinton administration owes us some answers. From there, we are obligated to ask the big question: Why should the American taxpayers continue to send more of their dollars to Haiti? Why? Because while the administration may choose to measure progress in Haiti by whether or not the elections are held, full, free, fair, democratic, and transparent or not, and they were not, Americans know that there is more to the substance of democracy than just the act of holding elections, especially elections that were impacted by armed thugs and blatant intimidation, as was reported this very morning in the Miami Herald. We need some explanations from the White House. We need them now. We need not to spend any more good money where bad has been invested.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the requirement of clause 2(a) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I submit herewith the rules of the Committee on National Security for the 105th Congress and ask that they be printed in the Record at this point. Rules of Procedure for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence u.s. house of representatives--revised march 1997 1. convening of meetings The regular meeting day of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the transaction of committee business shall be on the first Wednesday of each month, unless otherwise directed by the chairman. In the case of any meeting of the committee, other than a regularly scheduled meeting, the clerk of the committee shall notify every member of the committee of the time and place of the meeting and shall give reasonable notice which, except in extraordinary circumstances, shall be at least 24 hours in advance of any meeting held in Washington, D.C., and at least 48 hours in the case of any meeting held outside Washington,

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 95 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a straightforward rule that allows us to bring a resolution with strong bipartisan backing to the floor for timely consideration, as the Speaker has just indicated. The rule allows 2 hours of debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations. It makes in order as the base text House Joint Resolution 58 as amended by the Committee on International Relations and reported by a strong 27 to 5 bipartisan vote. In addition, it provides for the consideration of an amendment by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided between the proponent and an opponent. All points of order against the committee amendment and the Hastert amendment are waived. Finally, the rule allows for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I think it is with a certain degree of reluctance that the House takes up this resolution. I believe collectively this body has been a strong supporter of the democratization and stabilization process in Mexico, but it is simply impossible to overlook the evidence we are confronting today on the matter of full cooperation in the war on drugs. That is the test under the certification process. Mexico has been identified as the source or transfer point for a full 70 percent or thereabouts of the elicit drugs that flow into the United States every year. That is an extraordinary amount. As we seek closer cooperation with Mexico on trade and other areas, we do our closest Latin American neighbors and ourselves no favor if we close our eyes to the endemic corruption that is confounding our efforts in Mexico. Frankly, many of us were perplexed to see Mexico receive full certification by President Clinton, when countries like Colombia, where the National Police have fought a courageous battle against its drug cartels, were fully decertified. There seems to be a bit of a double standard there. I think it is true, as we have seen in the certification process this year, that the process is imperfect, some might even say counterproductive. But for today it is the law we have to work with. And if we don't like the certification process, I would refer your attention to provisions in the Hastert amendment to reconsider that process and provide for a high-level counternarcotics commission. But what are we looking for in Mexico? We are looking for reliable drug enforcement officials to work with us, willingly, effectively and cooperatively. Many applauded when Mexico mobilized its military in the war on drugs, including myself, making the recent revelations unfortunately about General Gutierrez all the more troubling to us. It seems we were sharing sensitive information about drug cartels with a military man who was involved in fact with those cartels. We also need evidence that once captured, notorious criminals like Humberto Garcia will be charged, tried and sentenced, not simply allowed to walk out of custody. Our goal is not to take a step back from the many positive aspects of our relationship with Mexico, and they are many, and we are proud of them. I think the Committee on International Relations resolution does strike the right tone. It is tough, but it is fair, and the Hastert amendment is an additional opportunity for positive cooperation between our two countries. It is my hope that once the initial reaction has passed, the Mexican Government will respond with a concerted effort to address the specific vital issues outlined in the Hastert amendment, where the United States and Mexico can do a better job of fighting drug traffic together. Mr. Speaker, notice that I included the United States in the ``can do better'' category, because we all know the problem is not entirely one of Mexico's making. There are demand issues to deal with in the United States and some lingering questions about the commitment and efficiency of our own administration to the fight against drugs. We are working on that. Having said all of that, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and in passing House Joint Resolution 58. A little candor on the situation in Mexico will advance our cause a lot further than glossing over the rough spots. That is what friends are for. 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 Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the consideration of House Joint Resolution 58 pursuant to House Resolution 95, the amendment printed in House Report 105-20 be considered as modified by (1) striking ``the impact of such process on financial markets'' from the text designated as section 6(C); and (2) striking ``on currency markets, international financial markets and merchandise trade flow'' from the text designated as section 6(g)(1)(B) and inserting in lieu thereof ``in enhancing international counter narcotics cooperation''. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Foley]. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?

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. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], my colleague who is in fact the original proposer of the resolution.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul]. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to our colleague and friend, the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], vice chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], well known in the areas of commerce. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the war on drugs is not a partisan matter. It is going to take the full cooperation of all of us in this country and all our friends and allies around the world that are involved. And that, of course, includes Mexico. The issue today is the question of certification and the facts are very simple. As ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] said yesterday, There is just simply no possible way that you can come to a rational conclusion that we can possibly certify Mexico as being fully cooperative in the efforts that we are taking together on the war on drugs. I think that is very strong. I respect the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], I always have, and I am glad to find myself in agreement with him on this conclusion. I think that under Chairman Gilman's leadership that HIRC has brought forward a very good resolution. I think the Hastert amendment adds to it in a positive way by giving us some specific matters that we wish to set out in areas that we will measure in terms of cooperation from the Mexican Government as well as it brings into question, can we do better than the certification process that we are using now? I believe the answer is yes, we certainly can do better than the process we have now, and I think the key word here is together with Mexico we can make a huge dent in the war on drugs. That is why I strongly urge passage of this rule and passage of the resolution and the Hastert amendment as well. I would point out that the Schiff amendment is a sense of Congress and does not address the specific issues that we are talking about in the Hastert amendment nor does it get to the question of overcoming the President's certification situation that he has left us with today. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the outstanding work of Lou Hinds, who has managed the J.N. ``Ding'' Darling National Wildlife Refuge on my home Island of Sanibel for the last 7 years. It came as no surprise when I heard that Lou was recently named ``Refuge Manager of the Year'' by the National Wildlife Refuge Association. He will receive his award in Washington on Monday, March 17. Throughout his service, Lou has taken a partnership approach to managing the refuge, involving local students, residents, tourists and community leaders. The community outreach program under Lou's direction is one of the most innovative in the country and many other refuges are working to replicate it. The involvement of the community has been crucial to the success of the refuge. Realizing that the current visitor's center cannot adequately meet demand, refuge volunteers are spearheading a drive to improve the visitor's center through the use of private funds. The refuge also works extensively with local students. Most notably, the Junior Naturalist Program, an educational partnership with an elementary school adjacent to the refuge, has been a terrific success. This community-oriented approach has benefitted the refuge in terms of more space, equipment, and volunteers, but more important, it has allowed the refuge to serve as an educational resource for residents of southwest Florida and our many visitors from around the world. As a result, many have learned firsthand that by pursuing a sensible approach to safeguarding our resources, we can maintain a reasonable balance between growth and environmental protection. Lou's work has made ``Ding'' Darling one of the finest refuges in the Nation, and I know that I speak for southwest Florida in expressing gratitude for the time and energy he has given so enthusiastically over the years. I want to extend sincere congratulations for a well-deserved honor.