Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution, House Resolution 467, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, NY, and I rise in support of this eminently good and wise, noncontroversial rule, and I am asking to revise and extend my remarks in deference to my colleagues at this late hour, and I would suggest to the gentlewoman from California that the problem is scheduling, not rulemaking. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glens Falls, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, a rule that will allow for the timely consideration of a bill to disapprove normalized trade relations with China. Or, in the archaic language of diplomacy, we are considering China's Most Favored Nation status, which the President has recently renewed. MFN for China has become a perennial issue--year after year we debate whether or not Congress should overrule the decision to renew normal trade relations--there are no special deals here--with China, the country with the largest population in the world. I welcome the debate, but I will again oppose raising additional trade barriers to one of the world's fastest growing economies. To do so would cost American jobs and ultimately diminish western democratic influence in this crucial region. I agree that China's leaders have acted in bad faith in areas of human rights, arms trades, and intellectual property. These problems must be addressed--and they will be --through the proper channels. We cannot ignore our leadership responsibilities in encouraging democratization and responsible actions in China, but this is exactly what we would be doing if we quit the field today. We must stay engaged in China in order to be a part of the--admittedly slow--process of reform, because many of the reforms in China that we have witnessed to this point have their roots in the free flow of commerce between that country and the United States. So, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and oppose House Joint Resolution 182.

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman emeritus, Mr. Quillen, for yielding me the time. I rise in support of this open rule. I'd like to commend Chairman Lewis and ranking member Stokes for demonstrating that, even in this charged partisan environment, Republicans and Democrats can work together for the good of our citizens. The bipartisan cooperation that is evident in this VA-HUD appropriations bill is certainly a welcome breath of fresh air in Washington. I am pleased to point out that this legislation provides funding for some of this Nation's highest priority commitments--those that we have made to our veterans. For too many years we have seen precious veterans' dollars parceled out to support projects in areas of the country where veterans' populations are declining, while those regions with growing populations of veterans made do on shoestring budgets. I am pleased to note that we have reversed that trend, and this legislation continues the effort to send the dollars where the veterans are. Veterans in southwest Florida know that we spent years seeking the modest funding needed to expand our dreadfully overworked and under- resourced Fort Myers Outpatient Veterans Clinic. This year, as part of the omnibus spending bill we passed a few months ago, we finally got the funding secured and the leasing effort is currently underway--so that in short order we will be able to provide more services to more people in our area. I wish to once again thank Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Stokes, as well as Chairman Stump and Chairman Livingston for their assistance in making that a promise kept--at long last--to our more than 150,000 southwest Florida veterans. Mr. Speaker, there is a ``Dear Colleague'' going around that talks about some turf fight going on with regard to this matter. I would suggest that the rule we have is a good, open rule and will get the job done, and I urge support for this rule from all colleagues.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Columbus, OH, the distinguished Judge Pryce, for yielding me this time, and, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this open rule, yet another open rule from the Committee on Rules. Members will recall that last year a simple open rule proved to be not enough for the Interior bill, so I am especially pleased that we seem to have achieved broad bipartisan agreement on how we will consider this legislation before us today. There were some tough choices this year, including how to treat the legislative language in the bill dealing with issues like the strategic petroleum reserve and the sale of commercial goods on Indian reservation lands. I think we made the right choices upstairs in deferring to the authorizing committees on this issue, and I hope that those panels will, and I encourage those panels to, look into these issues in the very near future because there is a lot of Member interest in them. Mr. Speaker, the Interior appropriations bill is an important bill for the country and it is particularly important for the State of Florida, which I am privileged to represent part of. It is the vehicle for crucial Everglades restoration funds to meet the Federal commitment in our ongoing effort to restore and preserve for future generations the unique ``River of Grass,'' as we call the Everglades. It is a national treasure. It is a global treasure. Although we will have some discussion later in this debate about the need to boost and guarantee that commitment in this bill, I wish to commend the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Regula, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Yates, for their attention to this unique national treasure and for their commitment to helping us have the Federal Government meet its commitment to the State of Florida; and the polluters, who have agreed to help pay and clean up the Everglades; and the taxpayers of Florida who are involved, and there are a great number of them. It is an important Federal commitment and there is no reason at this point to relinquish it because the job is not done yet. Also vital to Florida's economy and our national commitment to wise stewardship of the natural resources is the annual outer continental shelf oil and gas exploration moratorium, which protects our fragile coastline in Florida from oil slicks and pollution. We are grateful for the attention we have received. Of course, this year's Interior bill is not without some controversy. Several programs have been scaled back to achieve budget targets so we stay on our glidepath. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, for instance, which is used to fund land acquisition in our national parks, wildlife refuges, and elsewhere, has been reduced again this year. I personally believe that is a false saving, but while I may not agree entirely with all the choices made in the bill, I certainly applaud Chairman Regula and the members of the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work in getting to this point. I ask my colleagues to support this rule and support the bill when it comes to the floor. I believe we have some amendments that will make it even better than it is now.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, based on the assurance of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and the dialog and the colloquy we have had, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim the time. I accept the pledge, and it will be my intent to ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for this amendment. However, Mr. Chairman, others wish to speak on it, so I would like to allow them to strike the last word to speak on it briefly, and I believe the appropriate procedure then is for me to yield back the balance of my time and hope to get recognition for my request as soon as they are finished.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman I am querying on the amendment. I would like him to accept the amendment, but short of that, if the gentleman from Ohio can, I would like to know if he can give us some assurances on this bill.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to increase the funds available to the National Park Service for necessary land acquisition, reducing the Forest Service construction account by the same amount. The amount is $15 million. The reason that I am seeking this shifting of funds is to help provide money for Everglades restoration land acquisition that the Federal Government has promised. A $15-million increase in the Park Service's land and water conservation fund would pay for the top priority for Everglades land acquisition. It is necessary to limit further degradation of the park and Florida Bay and to restore natural water flow which is critical to the long- term survival of the entire system. This is a plan that has been agreed upon by many participating parties and that the Federal Government has committed to. Members should know that the State of Florida, its industry and its individual taxpayers, have made a solid financial commitment to Everglades restoration across the board. Over the estimated life restoration effort, which is a 15- to 20-year program, the State expects to spend $1.1 billion or 60 percent of the total cost, primarily from Florida taxpayers. The Federal Government is committed to $737 million, which is less than 40 percent over the same period, and the sugar industry will pay about $245 million in that period. I think this demonstrates that Florida is the senior partner here and is really stepping up to pay more than its share. It is clearly living up to its end of the bargain. The proposed source of funds we have chosen for this amendment is the Forest Service construction account, which saw an increase over last year's funding levels and includes the controversial road construction program. In fact, because it often costs more to build these roads then the Forest Service recovers in subsequent timber sales, many refer to the program as a subsidy. In my view they are right. The committee recommends that $62 million be spent on new timber roads next year. That is $15 million that we are talking about, represents 24 percent of that amount. But I ask Members to keep in mind that these construction programs are slated to have their funding levels increased over last year's amounts under the bill. By comparison, land and water conservation funding has declined steeply over the past 2 years, and the Park Service's share is down $19.1 million since last year. An additional $15 million, in fact, will not even restore it to last year's levels, but it will help the Everglades and other areas seeking help with land acquisition. I think most Members agree that the Everglades is a national priority, and we do not want to end up taking a step backward from our level of commitment to restore them. I am grateful for the excellent work done by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] in this committee this tough year. The bill before us does an excellent job of providing scientific and management resources necessary for the restoration effort we are talking about. It adds $13.8 million over last year's levels. I know Members remember that Congress made a strong investment in Everglades restoration in the farm bill passed this year. The truth is that there is already, quote, a short list for those moneys for the farm bill that far exceeds the available dollars we have got. This short list does not include lands that were scheduled to be purchased through the normal process of this appropriations bill because language in the farm bill specifically discouraged that. The money, in fact, is not fungible, and it is already declared for other areas. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield for a brief colloquy to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about some good news today. Over the last 20 years, we in this country have made measurable good progress in protecting our natural resources. Our air and our water are cleaner than they were in the 1970's, and we have reversed the decline of several of the endangered species. This is a good record. It is an admirable record. We all know there are still many areas where Federal attention is required today, but we also know that you cannot write thousands and thousands of pages of Federal regulations without some problems developing along the way. It is just common sense to take a look at current regulations and decide what works and what does not and look for ways to make a cleaner, safer, healthier environment for everyone and at the same time, of course, excise those unworkable and unfair regulations we have come to identify. This 104th Congress has been perceived by some as being antiregulation. Perhaps the truth is that the 104th has opposed overregulation. I think to his very great credit, the Speaker has taken the lead and formed a task force on the environment. I am pleased with the Speaker's determination to pass responsible environmental legislation. I am, frankly, personally happy to be part of his effort. Although it is often lost in the rhetoric surrounding today's environmental debates, the Republican Party has a long tradition of conservation from Teddy Roosevelt, who created the first national wildlife refuge, to Richard Nixon, who created the Environmental Protection Agency. Many people have forgotten that. Unfortunately, what often passes for debate on environmental issues in Congress and around the country is little more than a shouting match full of symbolism but actually lacking any real substance; sort of litmus test wars, as it were. If we are to make any real progress in resolving some of the difficulties associated with environmental protection, we need to set politics aside and have a reasoned discussion on the real issues. The Speaker's environmental task force has successfully identified several principles for such a debate in my view, principles that I think make good sense, we will all agree. The first of these is that environmental decisions should be consensus based, made in consultation with the people whose homes, businesses, communities are directly affected. Bringing the opposing interests to the table early in the process provides us the opportunity to find a solution before the two sides become deadlocked in a meaningless fight. Environmental disputes routinely focus on health, public safety, and environmental protection against the question of jobs, economy, and private property rights. Obviously all of those things are important. If we get the parties talking to each other early, I believe we can make substantial progress in removing some of the conflict we see today. Mr. Speaker, the second principle is greater. It is greater in a way that it involves State and local, our sister branches of government in the lower tiers. Having served as a mayor and a county commissioner before coming to Congress a few years ago, I know that the lower tiers mean the front lines where the people are, where what matters in our daily lives goes on. I know the importance of giving States and localities a real role in setting and enforcing environmental standards in their communities. The perspectives of local and State officials who are the people who make everyday land use decision, who deal with problems every day are invaluable in crafting environmental policies that actually work on the ground. The time has come to end sort of the one-size-fits-all directives from Washington that really fail to recognize the obvious often overlooked fact that different communities have different needs. Alaska is different than Florida. The last principle I will mention is providing positive incentives to encourage responsible stewardship of our natural resources. Whether we provide rewards such as tax credits, grant flexibility, and complying with regulations or offer marketing incentives, we should move away from the idea that environmental legislation always creates winners and losers. The simple fact is that we can achieve a balance that allows all sides to come away with something positive. All America and all Americans benefit when we do that. I will end on what I hope is a high note and that is this. These principles are not just talk but are geared toward providing results, results that will help Florida, for instance, restore our Everglades, restore our beaches. Under the Interior appropriations bill, which just happens to be coming to the floor this week, Congress in fact is going to be taking responsible steps in both of these critical areas. I believe in the end all parties to the environmental debate agree on the importance of safeguarding our natural resources. Hopefully we will see reasonable people from all sides embrace the principles we have laid out and help us in a bipartisan way achieve our goals.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I thank my distinguished colleague from greater metropolitan San Dimas, Claremont County, CA, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I guess after listening to the commentary and the steady string and the balance of time, I am beginning to understand those polls that are coming out in the newspapers these days that show Americans trust Republicans a lot more to handle the budget and economic matters than they do others. I am not sure what the Boston Globe is showing but then again, they do not always get the word up there as I understand there is a lot of snow. I think it is important to say, yes, we could have done a lot more, and we will. Yes, we could have gone a lot further in this budget resolution. But I am extremely proud of this budget resolution because it goes a very, very long way toward the goals that we have said we espouse. It shows that we will stick to our convictions and that we will stay on a glide path towards balancing the budget by 2002, even in the face of election-year politicking which is creeping into this conversation, and despite the very manifest intransigence from the White House and, some might say, from the President's party in the people's House. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the members of this committee have demonstrated unending persistence, in my view, in presenting this budget. His hard work ensures that this Congress will keep faith with the American people, continuing on course for a balanced budget, something we started last year under the Contract With America and are moving forward in an orderly way. Of course, we still hope the President will join us in this effort-- it is not too late--taking the concrete action necessary to match his words of resolve that we hear so often and we fail to see the actions, as my good friend from California has pointed out. Although President Clinton vetoed major components of our budget last year, we did make significant progress toward our goal of balance by our sheer staying power on this, enough so that this year we can still fulfill our promise that by 2002 we will no longer be adding annual deficits to the huge national debt we have and leave to our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren and their children. This budget assumes the termination or privatization of 130 low- priority or unnecessary Federal programs, while outlining responsible reforms to preserve and strengthen Medicare. And, yes, I care about that because I am going to need it. I am getting close. And, yes, the people I represent are very interested in Medicare in my part of the world. This is a crucial component needed to save that program from certain fiscal disaster, which is what will befall it if we stick with the status quo. In addition, this budget provides for revamping Medicaid and welfare to give greater flexibility and control to the States, shrinking the size and scope of the Federal bureaucracy so that people closer to home can implement programs to meet their unique needs. And this budget paves the way for tax relief for American families so that Americans can keep more of what they earn, a good idea. Mr. Speaker, the rule providing for consideration of this budget is the standard one for budget resolution conference reports and it deserves everybody's support. But while we are making progress--and we are making progress, I want to point out--just listen to our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. After 40 years of Democratic House rule and multi-trillions of tax dollars later, supporting even bigger bloated government, Republicans can report a major achievement to the American people. We now have the biggest spenders in the House publicly asking for lower deficits, and that is an achievement. We are proud that they have come around to that point of view. Now if we can just get them to ask for lower taxes, we will have indeed accomplished our mission. I urge support of the rule.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this summary of the U.S. AID's Inspector General's report be included in the Record. This summary deals exclusively with the Public Law 480 program and details some of the title III failures as well as title II successes. U.S. Agency for International Development, Office of the Inspector General, June 11, 1996, to Darren Willcox, From Paul Armstrong, Acting

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to title III of Public Law 480. We have taken a close look at Public Law 480. There are some pluses and minuses to it. The pluses that we have talked about in the past are the business for American flag shipping, the compassion and humanitarian relief that so many are concerned about and the champion, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], spoke so eloquently about it yesterday in the Rules Committee and an area which I have a great deal of sympathy. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was to go to title III which is basically the loans proposition in Public Law 40. It does not touch the humanitarian programs in title II or some of the other programs that I think serve a very good purpose in title I that basically come under the grants programs. The question here is not an awful lot of money but the question here is a program that is not working very well that does have negative consequences and the money could be better spent elsewhere. I have conferred with Chairman Livingston if in fact this $29 million would not do better in title I or title II than title III and I think Chairman Livingston is going to speak on that in a moment. So my view is to zero out title III and to leave to the wisdom of others, who I think, as I say, are going to speak on this, that $29.5 million to get it more on target. What are my reasonings on this? We have now got some reports that we have been taking an increasing look at that are talking about the problems of waste, fraud, and abuse in Public Law 480. This does not get to all of those. But what it does get to is that those countries where we are distorting the market by creating a surplus of food coming from us where the people who should be in the position of creating, a lifting up by their own bootstraps to feed themselves are being unfairly competed with by local UST foods under title III. Consequently we get a negative effect. We are not helping people create their own development in their own country. We are creating a counterincentive for them to have their hand out and become dependents on welfare of the American taxpayers. That is not what we want to do. We want to encourage development in these programs; we want the United States to be compassionate; we want people to be fed who are in true need and in true hunger and we can do that through titles I and II. This simple amendment takes the $29.5 million out of title III and makes it available for reallocation. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I guess I would finish this by saying that humanitarian an emergency feeding programs, which are the type the gentleman are talking about, that come under title III, are going to remain not only fully funded, but probably enhanced under this amendment. We are going to get more money where the need is doing it this way than we are by just maintaining the status quo of a program that has already been cut, because, frankly, it is not doing the job it should be doing, and, frankly, it has got some problems. The people, properly the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and his people, have seen there is trouble there. Consequently, they have cut some money. I merely suggested we got a good first step, why not take the rest of the stem and get rid of title III, and do it right through titles I and II and get the job done well. I think the consequence is we end up taking care of more serious needs than not. My motive is none other than that. What struck the chord yesterday was the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] trying in the Committee on Rules to find a way to get the Committee on Rules to grant an exception for a waiver that would basically get more money into title II. We could not do it on the Committee on Rules, so I thought this would be a fair way to try and accommodate the desires of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall].

Mr. GOSS. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding. Mr. Chairman, again I think we are going at cross purposes here and I realize that I have hit a chord of real compassion which has made the gentleman be, I think, very concerned but totally unnecessarily so. We have a commitment from the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations that programs that are passing muster, which are titles I and II, much better in getting right to the compassion need are the appropriate place for this money to go. What brought my attention to this particular title problem was a problem that happened in Somalia where the war lords were abusing this title, I am told, and requiring people to come into the city, for political reasons, in order to get this food. This was using this sort of as a political chip to coerce people, who are in dire straits, as we all know, which helped escalate to another serious problem that regrettably we saw another tragedy involving American servicemen on. We go to the IG's reports at USID on this matter and start looking at the fraud, waste, and abuse. I have no problem in sharing America's wonderfully blessed abundant resources with those truly in need, subject, of course, to rational and prudent constraints of our own domestic needs in this country. I am only suggesting that if we have mechanisms that are not performing well and we find ourselves being taken advantage of, we see abuse to our largesse being made, we see our compassion being misdirected, we see ourselves being taken advantage of, played the fool, made a sucker of because of our legitimate compassionate feelings, it seems to me that we ought to correct the mechanism. That is all I am trying to accomplish here. If we have got something that does not work, we need to admit it rather than just saying, ``Oh, gosh, somebody may starve.'' The answer is, oh, gosh, we may be able to save more people if we get rid of a mechanism that is faulty and put the money in something that works. That is all I am trying to say.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is not to take away food from those who are truly needy or in any way to diminish the American contribution for true compassionate service needs. My aim is to try and get more mileage out of our dollar. That is why Chairman Livingston has made the statement that he has. The parts of this program that are doing the very thing that the gentleman is speaking about, and speaking so eloquently about, are title I and title II. Title III is where the abuse has been. It is the mechanism I am after.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I have nothing further to add to this. I think it is a very straightforward explanation. I would be very happy to respond to any questions from those in opposition.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Tucker, GA, for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this fair and open rule. When it comes to the core congressional responsibility of spending, and savings, Americans' tax dollars, it is vital that all Members have the opportunity for direct input. It is through open rules that we provide this opportunity to those Members who do not sit on the Appropriations Committee, and I am pleased to note that our record for rules on appropriations bills this year is 100 percent open. Mr. Speaker, this Congress' record on restoring fiscal responsibility is also impressive. It is hard to believe that just 2 years ago our congressional budgets never sought to reach balance--now we are on a glidepath to balance the budget by 2002. It hasn't been easy to do; we've met with strong resistance from the White House and others, but we have persisted and I applaud Chairman Livingston and the Appropriations Committee for having the strength and the courage to stay the course. Of course, there will always be areas of disagreement over specific issues, and the bill before us today--the agriculture appropriations bill--has its share of controversial provisions. Under this open rule, I look forward to a full debate on all of these important spending decisions. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. GOSS

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