Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Moakley], pending which time I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material in the Record.)

Mr. GOSS

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, it is my intent to yield all of the remaining time on our side to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] to close. It is often said that it takes a lot to make something happen around here. This is a gentleman who has given a lot to make something happen around here, and I am proud to yield him the closing time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood], a member of both the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon], my friend and colleague on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentle judge from Ohio, Ms. Pryce, a distinguished member of our Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson], who was just referred to by his colleague. (Mr. HOBSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce and an author of this, from which much of the foundation came from the Rowland-Bilirakis bill, and we owe him a great deal of thanks. (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], my colleague and friend, and a member of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that we do not want perfect to get in the way of good, but we also would like to achieve perfect health care on this side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer- Employee Relations of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am obliged for the gentleman's support of the rule, and I share his optimism that we are getting on with health care. To share in that optimism, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 502 is a standard rule providing for consideration of a conference report. It waives all points of order and allows for 1 hour of general debate and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. But that is where the standard nature of this discussion ends-- because what we are about to do is anything but standard. This is truly a red letter day, not just for this Congress, but for the American people. With this conference report we have proven that meaningful health care reform is achievable, even in such a politically charged climate as this. This agreement represents a reasoned, commonsense approach to the problems affecting millions of working Americans. It offers a stark contrast to the extreme efforts of the past Congress-- which were largely highly bureaucratic and big government solutions in search of a problem. In this bill we take responsible steps to make health coverage more affordable and accessible for working Americans. While this legislation has been labeled ``incremental'', its impact on real Americans is profound. No longer will an ambitious worker be stuck in a dead-end job because of concerns about retaining health coverage for a sick child or spouse. The self-employed entrepreneur, who could not afford the high cost of health insurance before, will be able to deduct 80 percent of health care costs. These are real people that will directly benefit from this legislation. Of course, given the fact that it was born of an excruciatingly painful negotiation and required compromises from all sides, this package will not be described as perfect by anyone. For instance, I am disappointed that medical savings accounts will only be available to a small number of working Americans. This innovative alternative to traditional insurance--which has substantial bipartisan support--was unfairly demonized and demagogued by a handful of opponents. Those who deride MSA's do so because they directly conflict with the liberal wing goal of a government-run and government-managed health care system. While MSA's critics seem to believe in an even more expansive Federal bureaucracy than we already have making health care decisions for individuals, MSA supporters believe in the ability of Americans to make prudent health care choices for themselves. Finally, this legislation attacks fraud and abuse by increasing the penalties on those who knowingly cheat the system. If there is one criticism my constituents have, it is that administration has not adequately addressed the billions of dollars in waste and abuse in our health care system. This Congress has listened and we have acted. Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop the delay. This legislation has already been held up too long by political shenanigans--enough is enough. This is the commonsense legislation that Americans have been asking for--let's give it to them--today. I urge support for this rule and the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 502 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no 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, House Resolution 500 is a straightforward expedited procedures rule--agreed to by the minority members of our Rules Committee--designed to allow for prompt consideration later today of the conference report on H.R. 3103, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. This rule waives the requirement of clause 4(b) of Rule XI regarding same-day consideration of a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules. That requirement, which provides that two-thirds of the House must agree to such a resolution, is generally observed to provide Members time to digest the legislation under consideration. I share the interest of our minority in ensuring that we do not waive that requirement often--or lightly. However, in this case, we are under serious time constraints to complete our work on an extremely important measure, which has had significant debate and public airing over the many months it has been under consideration in both Houses of Congress and the conference committee. In fact, every major portion of this bill, every painstaking step in the negotiation has, I believe, been thoroughly reported by the media, given the enormous public interest in this subject. I think Members should agree that, since there is finally bipartisan agreement about the provisions of this bill, we should not delay in approving it and getting it onto the President's desk for his signature. Mr. Speaker, last night a milestone was achieved on behalf of the American people. An agreement was reached on legislation to improve the availability and portability of health care insurance. This legislation resolves problems of job-lock, denial of coverage, lack of choice, fraud and abuse--addressing the fundamental concerns of millions of Americans. We struggled for many, many months with this bill--and at times it seemed like some were willing to risk never getting it done in order to make political points. That would have been a tragedy for all of us. But in the end, the deafening call from the people we represent to tackle the most obvious problems with health insurance availability and accountability was heeded. Mr. Speaker, during the upcoming debate members will discuss the details of the agreement and explain how it will expand health coverage, broaden choice, and reduce anxiety for countless Americans. This rule allows that critical discussion to proceed. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. For purposes of debate only, Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 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 revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 500 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 388, I was detained by other official business elsewhere in the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding and I rise in support of this rule. This is a subject that generates much emotion from all sides--and I applaud this rule for allowing those with opposing views a fair opportunity to be heard. In my opinion, the uniqueness of America stems from the fact that, although we are a Nation of immigrants hailing from all parts of the world, we have guiding principles enshrined in our Constitution that focus on what we have in common, not what divides us. Throughout the history of this great melting pot, we have demonstrated to the world that it is possible to preserve individual liberties, to uphold the traditions of a vast array of cultural heritages and to still weave a fabric of society that is uniquely American. But Mr. Speaker, things have changed in recent years. Our society seems less committed to the idea of a melting pot, less able to focus on the common threads within the fabric of our American society. And that is why we are considering this legislation--because we want to reinforce the English language as one of those threads. English is, and has always been, the official voice of America. H.R. 123 reaffirms this principle by setting out that the Federal Government will conduct its official business in English--with reasonable exceptions to protect the public health and safety, promote trade and commerce, uphold national security, conduct language education and preserve the integrity of our criminal justice system. I would like to emphasize that this legislation does not preempt any State or local laws. This legislation eliminates the burdensome unfunded mandate of required bilingual ballots, which was originally established by the Voting Rights Act, and which I have long opposed. While the premise of increasing access to the electoral system was well-intentioned, the implementation has become an expensive burden. It has also created unanticipated consequences, including discrimination against English- deficient voters who do not happen to live in heavily concentrated minority areas. I have always believed that the Federal Government should neither require nor prohibit the use, by local communities, of local funds to communicate with their citizens in languages other than English. Repealing the bilingual ballot requirement is an important step in that regard. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 123 underscores that English is our national language without unduly interfering with the ability of States and localities to deal with their own unique language needs. Reaffirmation of our common language is something a substantial majority of Americans have asked us to do--and I urge my colleagues to support this rule and this bill.

Mr. GOSS

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