Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee last week found itself in an unusual situation: A request for modified closed rule on a bill reported from the Resources Committee--although the Ways and Means Committee also had jurisdiction over a portion. As you know, bills reported from the Resources Committee are traditionally considered under open rules. So what's different about H.R. 2823, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act? Most importantly, this bill would essentially codify an international agreement between 12 nations known as the Declaration of Panama. Any significant changes to the language of H.R. 2823 and that agreement is lost. It is worth mentioning that the negotiations that produced this agreement could serve as a model for environmental policymaking because just about every viewpoint in the tuna/dolphin debate was represented at the table. These negotiations not only involved the governments of 12 nations, but they also included representatives from the environmental community and the fishing industry. The result is a package that enjoys unusually broad support: From the administration and Vice President Al Gore to the Resources Committee Chairman Don Young. From Greenpeace to the tuna fishermen. In recognition of the fragile nature of this agreement, the Rules Committee has reported a modified closed rule that allows for a vote on the bill, preceded by an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] or his designee, and one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. It had originally been the intention of the Rules Committee to allow a vote on a full substitute, but the minority specifically requested that the Miller amendment be made in order instead. The rule was agreed to in committee with voice vote without dissent. Mr. Speaker, if you cherish the dolphin populations of the eastern Pacific, as I do, then you will agree it is vital that we move forward with this legislation. During the coming debate, you will hear differing viewpoints on how this legislation may impact dolphins--the administration's experts, the Resources Committee, and the Center for Marine Conservation all happen to believe that this bill will save dolphins' lives, and do so more effectively than current law--I think that's pretty good credentials. H.R. 2823 backs up that claim by mandating that every tuna boat operating in the eastern Pacific carry an observer to certify that not a single dolphin was killed when the tuna nets were hauled up. Even one dolphin death would prevent the entire catch from being sold in the United States as Dolphin safe. Under today's standards American consumers do not have this kind of guarantee. However, this proposal is not just about saving dolphins; it's about preserving endangered marine species like the sea turtles, as well as billfish and juvenile tunas. In Florida, we certainly treasure our dolphins--but we also take special care to protect other marine populations, and I am pleased that H.R. 2823 will address the eastern Pacific ecosystem as a whole, not just one aspect of it. You will hear the argument that one of the techniques allowed under this agreement, encirclement--with divers that release any dolphins before they are caught in the net, is harmful. But those who put forth this argument might not mention the enormous damage done by so-called safe fishing methods such as log sets and school sets. As the Resources Committee's report says: The bycatch of other marine species associated with these two fishing techniques is significantly higher than the bycatch associated with the encirclement technique. School sets generate approximately 10 times the amount of bycatch and log sets generate approximately 100 times the bycatch of juvenile tunas and other marine species. So the message should be clear: If you want to protect dolphins, turtles, and other marine life, you should support this rule and vote for the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from greater San Dimas, CA [Mr. Dreier], the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 489 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to point out that this has been an almost full hour debate on the rule. I think we have come to the conclusion that this is a very good rule and it is going to lead to some very fine debate, when we get to the debate on this subject, which we are all looking forward to. I am personally pleased that we have made such great progress in dolphin protection. Six years ago, when there was a merchant marine and fisheries committee, there was some disagreement that led to a better solution. Further disagreements have led to better solutions. This shows that democracy works, this Congress works, and I am proud to be part of it. 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 have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], who is an author of this bill in its original version and was also, interestingly enough, the most fierce representative for his tuna fishermen of anyone I have ever met. Out of that has come this good legislation, and I congratulate him for that.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I have two remaining speakers, which I will call on. I have admonished them that this is the rule and they are going to focus on the rule and the merits of the rule and how it might affect the substance. Once we get through that, I hope we can get to a quick oral vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the author of this bill.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and this bill because we all know that the era of big government is indeed over. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me this time. The wisdom of Solomon has been in great demand these last few days, and once again he has delivered a fair and workable rule to this body. Our Rules Committee labored diligently yesterday evening and this morning to accommodate both the strong desire of the majority of Americans that we end welfare as we know it--and the legitimate efforts that have been underway among Members of Congress and the administration to negotiate a final product. For that reason, we brought two rules, in order to give the conferees as much time as possible to complete their work while getting welfare reform to the President this week. This rule allows the House to consider a milestone bill--one that lays to rest 30 years of big- government policies that have cost $5.5 trillion but failed to win the war on poverty. I must say I am disturbed by the hand-wringing and demagoguery that is emanating from some members of the minority. Their assurances that they do want to reform welfare, but they just don't want to do it in this way, ring quite hollow. Remember that they had the opportunity when they controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House for 2 years--an opportunity they refused to capitalize on. So now, with a President who has pledged to end welfare as we know it, and a congressional majority committed to dismantling the Big Brother, Washington-knows-best bureaucracy that has made welfare a dependency trap--we are finally going to make welfare reform happen. I am sorry that the ultraliberal wing of the Democrat Party in this House is having trouble with that result--but it's one the American people are demanding. If those in the minority succeed in their carefully orchestrated attempt to delay enactment of this bill, I suspect they will have to answer to their constituents for denying poor Americans a fighting chance to break out of poverty and become productive members of this society. Mr. Speaker, this legislation unleashes the creativity of our States to solve problems or poverty at home. It unshackles them from the burdens of costly and micromanaging Federal regulation--while providing significant resources for children and job programs. It allows those precious Federal dollars that are so desperately needed by our Nation's poor to bypass the grossly inefficient Federal bureaucracy. And it emphasizes work for those who can, along with compassion for those who can't. This is a balanced bill--and it's time for the defenders of the status quo to get with the program and heed the words of the President. Support this rule and the bill.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, coming from the beautiful coastal area of southwest Florida, I know that the protection and proper stewardship of our coastal resources is vital. The Water Resources Development Act authorizes funding for the Army Corps of Engineers. The corps is doing good work in Florida--from its high-profile role in the restoration of our unique Everglades, to assisting local governments like Captiva Island with shoreline protection. I would note that the Clinton administration has tried to end the involvement of the corps in joint shoreline projects. I am pleased this bill includes legislation introduced by my Florida colleague Clay Shaw that will overturn the President's policy and ensure the continued involvement of the corps in worthwhile beach restoration projects. Overall, this is a responsible authorization bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I will not use the 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I took the well last evening because we had received a surprise from Haiti. We were getting ground reports that the 82d Airborne had arrived in that country, at least in company strength, and was very visible on Humvee vehicles with machine guns and battle gear going around the capital city and elsewhere in the country. The people were puzzled about what was going on, so we asked for an explanation from the administration. Today is another day and today is another day we have had more silence from the administration on exactly what are our increased American troops doing in Haiti and what, in fact, is going on in Haiti. Many people who do not follow what goes on in that friendly neighboring country just to the south of Florida, which is my district, are not aware that they have just had the equivalent of their O.J. Simpson trial there over the death of a respected man named Guy Mallory who was assassinated a few years ago, among many assassinations that have regrettably taken place in that country. That trial came out that they acquitted two suspects that they felt they had pretty good evidence. And now the President of the country has come along and said there was something, quote, suspicious about the verdict. The judicial system does not work very well in Haiti. It is a country where passions tend to run very quickly and very intensely. We have now got people in the streets saying that this jury contained people who were enemies of the people. ``Enemies of the people'' in Haiti is code word and it usually precurses trouble. We have got now a situation where we have got obviously a bad situation in the country and a lot of agitation and feeling going on. And apparently we have now sent the 82d Airborne, at least part of it. We do not know exactly what they are doing. We do not send the 82d Airborne just anywhere. They are a crack American outfit. We reserve them for our most difficult problems and hot spots. I would suggest that Bujumbura, Burundi, today is a place where the human rights violations and the black-on-black genocide is so atrocious that if there were a need to put our troops some place to make peace and stability and protect human rights, it might rise to a larger order of things to be looking at Bujumbura than Haiti. But some have suggested that the reason that we have sent the 82d to Haiti is to perhaps try to keep the lid on things there because we know that the Clinton administration has claimed Haiti as a foreign policy success story, and I know that they are anxious to try and keep proving that right up to the election, at least in this country. I think that the time has come for the Clinton administration to try and reduce the candor gap with the American people on so many issues. But when it comes to foreign policy and when it comes to committing our troops who are actually in harm's way in a situation as explosive as the one in Port-au-Prince and Haiti today, it seems that they ought to be discussing it with Members of Congress who have legitimate oversight and legitimate concerns about how our taxpayers' dollars are spent, and legitimate concerns about how our foreign policy is executed and when it is executed. So I am still hopeful that the administration will take advantage of this and the White House will share with the American people and the news networks what exactly is going on in Haiti and why we have more soldiers there.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I will leave the debate on the merits of the bill, as it should be, to the debate on the subject, not a debate on the rule.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from new York, [Mr. Solomon] who is the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the time. I must commend him on his handling of this extraordinarily difficult piece of legislation. His leadership and open-mindedness on this matter I think have been exemplary. This rule has truly required the wisdom of Solomon. Most agree that the current system is not working, and we all understand that Americans have become disillusioned with the political process. But the proposed solutions that we have got really run the gamut, and generating a consensus is extremely difficult, not quite impossible but extremely difficult. Our Committee on Rules action on this matter represents a microcosm of the divergence of views, as we have heard from the two previous speakers. Even our majority Members in the committee were torn about what is the best way to go, which explains why this rule did originally come forward without our expressed endorsement. It is also why we have an amendment to the rule to incorporate additional changes in the base bill, as we have heard. Although I believe the amendment to the rule makes improvements in the base bill, most notably by sending a stronger signal that we want to control the flow of money into campaigns, it is still my view that this bill needs lots more time, lots more work. It is not comprehensive campaign reform, and I make no pretense that it is. But it is an important, if small, step toward full reform for the first time in this Congress in decades. Mr. Speaker, it is true the 104th Congress has made some remarkable changes in how we do business. We adopted a stringent gift ban. We implemented real lobby disclosure reform. We put in place changes to promote accountability. We brought sunshine in. We restored some public confidence. Yet, even with these landmark reforms, Congress continues to suffer from a serious credibility problem, based in part on the skepticism with which people view political campaigns. I must say, I agree. The Federal election laws are outdated. They are overdue for reform. H.R. 3820, as improved by this rule, has some very good features. It requires that 50 percent of all contributions come from a candidates's home district. It bans soft money. It eliminates leadership PAC's. While the original bill recognized that individuals and PAC's should be treated equally when it comes to contribution limits, albeit at a higher limit than exists today, the amendment to the rule would maintain a discrepancy between levels of contributions by individuals and PAC's. This provision, to me, represents sort of a mixed bag. It is preferential to the original language in the bill since it maintains the current $1,000 threshold for individual donations. it keeps them low, but I believe it loses almost as much ground as it gains in giving up on the idea of equalizing PAC's with individuals, since a lot of us think it is very important to treat PAC's and individuals the same. My proposal and my practice is to keep the individual limit at $1,000 and lower the PAC limit to that same $1,000 amount, and it works well for me. Not only does my bill, which is not in order today, equalize contribution limits at the $1,000 level, it also requires that 50 percent of contributions come from a candidate's district and that 90 percent come from within a candidate's State. Other Members have similar thoughts. I think it is vital that we restore the direct link of accountability between elected officials and the people they represent and work for. That is what this is about, accountability. The bill before us makes progress in that regard, and obviously it needs to go further. I must say I do not believe the Democratic substitute we will consider today is a worthwhile alternative, in that it advocates retaining higher spending by PAC's, even more money from PAC's, and provides roundabout incentives for overall spending limits which tilt the field toward incumbents, and that we hear a lot about. We do not want to give the incumbents the advantage. In addition, the Democratic substitute makes no attempt to protect union members from misuse of their dues, and that is an issue this year, some 35 million dollars' worth of issue, something that H.R. 3820 does address in a very meaningful way. In closing, I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and him committee for trying to bring a consensus measure forward, a measure I will support on the understanding that more will be done toward full reform. Meanwhile, Members have another option, and it is one I am going to take. That is the choice to voluntarily self-impose more stringent standards in one's own campaign, including things like tighter limits on PAC's, perhaps fewer dollars spent on franked election pieces, which are thinly disguised as newsletters sometimes. Those options are out there for each Member. Meanwhile, I urge support of this rule in order to begin the debate on reform that I predict will last for years before consensus is found, but at least we are beginning the debate.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is planning to meet this Wednesday, July 31, to grant a rule which may limit the amendments which may be offered to H.R. 123, English as the Official Language of Government. Subject to the approval of the Rules Committee, this rule may include a provision limiting amendments to those specified in the rule. Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment by 12 noon on Tuesday, July 30, to the Rules Committee, at room H-312 in the Capitol. Members should also have the amendment printed in the Congressional Record by Tuesday, July 30. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the Goodling substitute, which will be printed in the Congressional Record of July 25, as an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 123. The rule is likely to self-execute in the Goodling amendment as a new base text for H.R. 123. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to associate with the extraordinary outpouring of tributes to Ham Fish by so many of our colleagues. They bring back many happy memories of a wonderful man, and I join in the sympathies sent to Mary Ann and the family. Mr. Speaker, yesterday when we began hearing from some of our acquaintances down in Haiti regarding a sudden and apparently secret surprise increase in American troop presence, we were not sure what was going on. Despite the high level of interest in Haiti, of many offices on the Hill here, no one in the administration appears to have taken the time to notify anybody of this new deployment. Frankly, this kind of uncertainty falls far short of adequate when we are talking about committing more American troops anywhere, especially in Haiti, especially today. Because we took the time to ask around, we now think we have confirmation that indeed a force from the 82d Airborne has arrived in Haiti. Billed as an extension of Operation Fairwinds, which is an operation there, 200 members strong, civil engineering mission that has been in Haiti. Apparently company size or so, about that many troops have been sent on a mission of reconnaissance and threat assessment. Mr. Speaker, this brings up a number of questions, questions that certainly are going to be of interest to the taxpayers of this country who have already seen the Clinton administration spend something like $3 billion in Haiti. One of the first questions that has got to be answered is, how much is this latest operation going to cost and is this just the beginning of something that is going to go on and be something larger? Then I have got to ask, why does a good will operation like Operation Fairwinds, which is supposed to be an engineering operation, require reconnaissance and threat assessment with company size strength and additional soldiers of the 82d Airborne who are there in humvees, and machine guns and battle dress, I am told. These are the crack troops that we send to deal with hot spots. I am curious why we are sending these troops to this place that the Clinton administration keeps telling us is a success story in their foreign policy annals. What prompted this deployment? Is it a tacit admission on the part of the administration that things are not going as well as we are told in Haiti? Does this new deployment arise from concerns brought on by a Haitian court's decision on the Guy Malary murder trial earlier this week? Should we infer that there are credible threats against Americans and American interests in Haiti which regrettably we have had reported? Or perhaps this is an extraction force set up to implement an evacuation plan. What does reconnaissance or threat assessment mean in this sense by the 82d Airborne? I think it is very important that we have answers to this. I know there are some that have already suggested that this force is being sent to determine what kind of firepower it is going to take to keep law and order in Haiti at least through November. I do not know. That is certainly cynical, but I do not know whether that is a question that needs to be asked. Will there be a follow-on mission? That is something we all would like to know. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the distinguished chairman for being part of this. It is this kind of thing that makes it very hard to work cooperatively with the administration because we have had so many assurances they are going to keep us apprised of events. This is a significant event. You do not send the 82d Airborne someplace quietly and not expect to have somebody ask some questions. Are we putting troops back in harm's way? So rather than have the spin doctors down at the White House spin yet another story, I want to know what is going on, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the administration is listening, is going to take the trouble to brief the Hill.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the Hostettler amendment is simple--it seeks to eliminate all funding for the Economic Development Administration [EDA]. The EDA, an agency within the Department of Commerce, has long been a source of contention. In fact, the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Administrations all attempted to abolish EDA on the grounds that the agency was limited in scope and its initiatives should be funded by State and local governments. EDA's programs, while well-intentioned, are at best duplicative and at worst downright wasteful. Four separate Departments--along with the ARC, TVA, and SBA--fund similar development programs. And there is no evidence to show that EDA's programs on the whole are a good investment. An April 1996 GAO report was unable to find any study that established a strong causal linkage between a positive economic effect in a community and Federal economic development assistance. In other words, GAO was unable to find any study to justify the core mission of EDA. What we do know and what has been documented in the Inspector General's semiannual reports to Congress is the high volume of wasteful and misused funds in EDA projects. Some lowlights: A 1993 audit of a New York grant revealed over $12 million in questionable costs. In this case, $10.2 million was used to build a hockey rink for the U.S. Olympic hockey team that the team never used and city officials admitted created no new jobs. The audit is also replete with accounts of sweetheart deals and corrupt public officials. A 1993 audit of an Oklahoma grant questioned the entire $2.4 million of Federal reimbursement. These funds were supposed to be used to provide water and sewer facilities so that a local company could construct a de-boning plant. I quote from the report. ``The EDA public improvements increasing water and sewer capacity had no impact in the creation of plant jobs * * * and all of the 300 jobs could have been created without the EDA-funded improvements.'' Like most Government spending programs, EDA has its committed advocates in Congress. They will tell you that the Federal Government is better equipped to create jobs than the private sector. They will acknowledge the waste and abuse in EDA's programs, yet they will insist that EDA has been reformed. They will argue that EDA is needed to correct economic displacement caused by base closures even though less than a tenth of all EDA money goes to defense adjustment assistance, and a good deal of that money is wasted as well. What the EDA proponents will not answer is this: As we struggle to balance the budget in a responsible manner, how can we continue to spend taxpayer money on an agency that has such a dubious track record? I encourage my colleagues to ignore the red herrings and stand up for the American taxpayer. Support the Hostettler amendment and fold the tent at the EDA.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts 30 percent from the Economic Development Administration assistance programs. This would provide the American taxpayer with $98.5 million dollars in discretionary savings. Citizens Against Government Waste has endorsed this amendment. As we work to balance the budget, I think it is imperative that we prioritize our limited resources. When considering further funding for any program or agency, we must ask ourselves some very basic questions. Is this a Federal responsibility? Does it work? Can we afford it? As noted during debate on the Hostettler amendment, I contend the EDA failed on all three counts. The EDA's programs do not provide a good return on investment. An April 1996 GAO report could not find a single study that showed a causal relationship between Federal economic development assistance and a community's economic growth, not a single instance in a GAO April 1996 report. The EDA's programs are too costly and too slow to do much good. An analysis of the Emergency Jobs Act of 1983 revealed that only 84 previously unemployed people received jobs under the program at a cost of $307,000 per job, which is frankly about 7 times the cost of a job created in the private sector, and indefensible. Inspector General reports demonstrate the volume of EDA grants and programs. Through an EDA grant in New York, the Federal Government helped to construct an Olympic hockey rink that the team never used, created no new jobs and was so replete with sweetheart deals and corruption that the county executive was convicted in Federal court on three felony counts. All of this for a cost of $10.2 million of the taxpayers dollars. While EDA's impact has been dubious at best, funding in this bill has been maintained at last year's level. My amendment is simple. I seek a responsible cut for EDA to ensure that we target our resources on what are truly vital and effective programs while phasing out the low- priority ones. EDA boosters have claimed money is needed to offset job losses caused by base closures. Under my amendment, more than enough money would remain for this purpose. I understand that less than one-tenth of their money has gone for that purpose. There have been claims that money is needed for natural disasters. Again, more than enough money would remain for this function under my amendment. The House voted last year to eliminate EDA as part of our congressional budget resolution. The agency has gone without authorization since 1982. Let me repeat that. This has not been authorized since 1982. Over 100 Members have cosponsored legislation to eliminate the Commerce Department and EDA as well, of course. Given these facts, I certainly think a 30-percent cut is appropriate and reasonable toward an eventual phaseout. This is a responsible cut consistent with our efforts to balance the budget and streamline wasteful agencies and programs. The EDA needs to be scaled back. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman form Colorado [Mr. Hefley].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we are not denying those jobs. Those are jobs that are worthwhile. They will stand on their own merit and there will be plenty of money in this program under this amendment should it pass and it should. I have been told that this is about need. Here I am looking at a community where the average per capita income is $37,500, they got a grant for $750,000 for a storm sewer system. I think they could afford it themselves. I am taking a look at a GAO report that says, ``In our review of the literature available, we were unavailable to find any study that established a strong causal linkage between a positive economic effect and an agency's economic development assistance.'' Here we have got an IG report that says with regard to base closings that ``base closures or convert defense technology to civilian applications appeared limited'' and a disproportionate share were in a few areas. What we have got is a program that does not work very well. It is time to prioritize it. It is time to understand it. It is time to start phasing it back. That is all we seek to do. We do not seek to remove any good jobs. We all are for good jobs. I urge support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to United States foreign policy, the deteriorating situation in Haiti is one of those news items that has been crowded off the front pages by bigger problems elsewhere, problems like the breakdown of the peace process in Ireland, the mending of fences with Mr. Netanyahu, and the Mujahidin's new foothold in the Balkans. But even so, just because it suits the White House for Haiti to be out of sight, it does not mean that it is out of mind for those of us who are interested in accounting for $3 billion in United States taxpayers' dollars the White House has spent there and those of us who are concerned about the safety of Americans and American interests in Haiti. Because of the very special relationship between my south Florida district and Haiti, my office follows the reports and stays in touch with our contacts on the ground in Haiti. How are things going? The short answer is that there is slippage, steep slippage; a strong sense, based on events, that things in Haiti have degenerated again very rapidly. We are finding a seemingly endless litany that suggests a serious breakdown in law and order. We find institutional inadequacy, particularly in the judicial area, and serious retreat from any economic progress at all. We find no relief from the grinding poverty that is everywhere in Haiti. Taken together this seems to prove what informed observers have said all along; that is, that throwing $3 billion and 20,000 American troops haphazardly at Haiti is not the way to bridge the deep divisions of Haitian society or to promote lasting gains on the slow path to democracy there. Divisions are deepening. Destabilization campaigns appear to be coming from all sectors across the social spectrum. The time for settling old scores and even new ones appears to have arrived and get even acts of violence and intimidation are the daily menu. The victims include former members of the military, the police, and innocent civilians. In fact, it is sad but true that the Haitian national police have participated in more than their share of altercations. Recall that this was supposed to be a hope of future law and order, that new Haitian national police, but the most damning assessments of police behavior have been coming from the Washington office on Latin America and the OAS mission in Haiti. The latest OAS report notes summary executions and allegations of ill treatment including beatings and routine use of electric shock treatment on prisoners in a Port-au-Prince police station. No place to get a parking ticket. While these incidents are protested, the OAS also reports that the Inspector General has failed to take action against the police, giving some sectors of the Haitian population the view that the police agents enjoy the same impunity as the members of the old armed forces and former regime enjoyed. This wins the police no friends, and in some areas the police have literally been run out of town by local populations. In fact, there have been some 10 assassinations of investigators of the police, most of them off duty. There are some other tough issues that we are not hearing much about but that clearly deserve some attention. One should ask the White House how the American citizens in Haiti who have borne the brunt of some of the violent acts are faring. Murders and kidnaping have apparently gone unanswered or uninvestigated. Taken together, all of this adds up to instability, growing instability. It might also go a long way toward explaining why the Clinton administration went through such machinations to badger our allies to extend the U.N. mission through the month of November, the same month as the election month in our country. Dismal as it is, law and order is only part of the stability equation. The other part of this equation is prosperity. We are long overdue for an update from the White House on the privatization process of Haiti. We understand from the media that the Parliament is having difficulty gaining a quorum to hold a vote on reform measures. Why? There are good reasons. Lack of will is one, but fear is another, brought on by threats from some of the left-leaning segments of the Haitian society and the drumbeat of opposition raised by former President Aristide. Remember former President Aristide? We spent a lot of money and time getting him back there. Now he is opposing the economic development of his country. Any way you look at it, all of this suggests that somebody in the White House owes the American people and this Congress an explanation. After all this money, time, and effort, what have we gotten? What is going on in Haiti and why? Will American taxpayers, and incidentally American voters, agree that this was $3 billion well spent? Or is this whole episode another success story that was more successful for its spin than its substance in the White House? We shall see.