Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 1, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall votes 141 through 145. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on votes 141, 142, 144, and 145. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 143.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare trustees reported last year that the part A trust fund, covering all inpatient hospital care, would be bankrupt by the year 2002, essentially confirming the findings of the Kerrey Commission. However, in light of new Treasury Department estimates that the trust fund ran a $4.2 billion deficit through the first half of fiscal year 1996, experts, including the former Chief Actuary to HCFA, now conclude that the trust fund could be bankrupt in the year 2000, just 4 years from now. These facts should propel the administration to join the congressional initiatives to preserve Medicare. Instead, the April 1 deadline for this year's trustees report has come and gone with no White House action. It seems the White House is employing stalling tactics and stonewalling Medicare reform rather than saving the program. I urge the President to shelve the excuses, produce the report and join with the efforts currently underway in Congress to save Medicare now. Our Nation's seniors and others dependent on Medicare cannot tolerate the same White House failures to fix Medicare that we have endured for the last 4 years.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California, and I commend him for his efforts to terminate the national helium reserve and provide some relief for the American taxpayer. I think the American taxpayers will be very happy to receive the news. I also want to congratulate my friend from California, Mr. Cox, who has talked many years about this with me. I think that as a classmate of mine I am very proud of his efforts in this as well. This is a long overdue action that I have included in my own annual list of spending cuts for 4 years running as an unjustifiable expense at the Government's level. It demonstrates that slowly but surely we are making progress in downsizing Government in this town despite resistance. As this bill goes through the suspension process today with the support of almost all taxpayer watchdog organizations, we have got to ask a question: How did it take this long to get rid of this turkey? This is a fair question, especially given the fact that this idea was included in the Vice President's own reinventing Government plan. Well, the answer it turns out is easy. Preservation of the program was used as a bargaining chip in 1993 by the White House, the Clinton White House, to ensure passage of the Clinton tax hike. You remember the tax hike, the biggest one in history, the one that Americans are feeling at the gas pumps today? Well, under this deal, the taxpayer lost twice, with $250 billion in new taxes and through the continuation of this Federal boondoggle. Liberal Democrats got two bites, taxpayers got two hits. No more excuses, no more deals, it is time to end the Federal involvement in helium and get our fiscal house in order. This was a national security issue. It is no longer. And it cannot be justified as a jobs program either. It needs to be put to rest.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I did not want to put words in the mouth of the gentleman from Hawaii. What I heard him say, I thought, was that we need to deal with the job dislocation in this matter. I think that is a fine sentiment. We have something called private enterprise in this country and opportunity that seems to work very well. I would like to know if the gentleman wants to supplement that with some additional subsidy from the taxpayers for these workers, which is what I thought the intent of the gentleman's remarks were.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, as almost every American knows gas prices have climbed 5 cents a gallon the past 2 weeks and are at the highest level since the Persian Gulf war. President Clinton has dispatched his Energy Secretary to find the root of this problem. She should not have to fly very far or look hard--after all, this same administration increased gas taxes by almost 5 cents per gallon in 1993. Offered in the name of deficit reduction, this tax hike is now hitting millions of American motorists who are grumbling loudly at the pumps. Fiscal conservatives in Congress are currently exploring ways to repeal this regressive tax. However, it's not easy because as we found when repealing the Clinton tax on seniors' Social Security benefits, liberals hate to give up any taxes. The American people will be given a clear choice--the tax hikes and status quo spending of the Clinton administration or the billions of dollars of real spending cuts and tax relief of this Congress. Americans should think about that the next time they fill up knowing President Clinton feels their pain.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon]. Indeed, he has shown extraordinary leadership and persistence in getting us to this point. I congratulate him and, of course, all the others who have participated in what has been a very lengthy exercise. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this fair rule which allows us to consider H.R. 3019, the omnibus appropriations conference report. Mr. Speaker, this Congress was elected to change the way Washington does business: Returning fiscal responsibility to the budget process and improving accountability to the American taxpayer. This omnibus appropriations conference report reflects those principles by finalizing an appropriations cycle that cut $23 billion from last year's levels. With its passage this Congress' total savings reach $32 billion, the single largest real spending cut in Government spending since World War II. This Congress has changed the way Washington works in another very important respect--setting priorities. The Clinton administration asked for $30 billion more in indiscriminate spending but we insisted on applying the brakes. Instead of haphazardly funding every project and program, we have prioritized our limited resources and eliminated billions of dollars of low-priority spending, canceling 200 programs completely. We have recognized our responsibility to the victims of natural disasters and to our soldiers in Bosnia without breaking our contract with the American taxpayer. The concept of fiscal responsibility, which seems simple to most families in my district struggling to prioritize spending within their own budgets, marks a revolutionary change in the way this town does business. Despite some potholes that have slowed us down, we are on the road to a balanced budget. I would like to highlight one example from my district of how the Federal Government can do more for less. H.R. 3019 contains language authorizing a lease for expansion of a veterans outpatient clinic in Fort Myers. Built to accommodate 40,000 visits a year, the clinic served more than 51,000 last year, with many more on the waiting list. We have come up with a way to meet the need with just over a million dollars--far less than it would have cost to build an entire new facility. The issue comes down to fairness and providing the services where the veterans are. While many hospitals in the North remain half empty most of the year, the 150,000 veterans in southwest Florida currently must contend with one limited facility and denial of services altogether for non-service-connected injuries and illnesses. This lease, building on the innovations of the private sector, will allow more veterans to be served in a cost-effective manner. In past years, we have received authorization but have been denied the appropriation. Today's bill ties everything together. There will be no more excuses or loopholes--we will move forward and provide for the veterans. This should be the final chapter in a long and frustrating saga, as today we finally achieve our goal and keep our contract with southwest Florida veterans. I applaud the efforts of Chairmen Livingston, Lewis, and Stump for their hard work to get this done. The issue comes down to fairness in providing the services where the veterans are. While many hospitals in the North remain half empty most of the year, the 150,000 veterans in southwest Florida who have moved from the North to southwest Florida currently must content with one limited facility and denial of services altogether for non-service- connected injuries and illnesses, and that is just plain not fair, and it is not smart, and it is not good management. So this lease building on the innovations of the private sector will allow more veterans to be served in a cost-effective manner. That is the kind of change that we have brought about and, I think, the kind of change America is looking for, and I applaud the efforts of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] for their hard work in that area. Change for the better is not easy. It cannot be done in a moment. Those who unfairly or unnecessarily gain from the status quo resist change; we know that. But today the time has come to move forward. This is fiscal responsibility. There will never be a better opportunity to do what we should than right now.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has reported an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 1675, the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act. This is a very straightforward rule, allowing any and all germane amendments to the bill--and providing priority in recognition to those Members who have caused their amendments to be printed in the Congressional Record. Finally, the rule makes in order a substitute amendment that was filed and printed in the Record on April 16 by Chairman Young. The Rules Committee sent out a notice last week explaining that amendments to the bill should be drafted to this substitute. Mr. Speaker, I have a great interest in this legislation--after all, Florida is the home of the first National Wildlife Refuge, created by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 and located on Pelican Island. The 14th Congressional District boasts four refuges, including the J.N. ``Ding'' Darling Refuge on Sanibel Island, which enjoys an international reputation for its abundant population of waterfowl and other wildlife. The legacy of ``Ding'' Darling--the nationally syndicated editorial cartoonist and avid sportsman--provides a good starting point for one of the debates that will take place with regard to H.R. 1675--specifically over the role of hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation in the refuge system. As a life-long hunter and fisherman, ``Ding'' Darling argued for setting aside areas to protect and nurture wildlife species--such as the ducks he loved to hunt. The primary mission of these areas is to promote conservation, but he recognized that the goals of sportsmen and environmentalists were intertwined--and that indeed conservation and these sporting activities could peacefully coexist. Some have criticized this bill for going too far in establishing hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation as purposes of the refuge system--later on today my colleague Mr. Boehlert and I hope to offer an amendment to clarify that this bill isn't expanding hunting on wildlife refuges--but simply recognizing that when compatible with the overall mission of conservation, hunting, fishing, and observation can and should continue to take place. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Resources Committee said in his testimony yesterday--right now there are no stated purposes for the National Wildlife Refuge System. It's a complex system to manage, and I believe that this bill is a legitimate effort to address this problem. I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and stay tuned to the debate. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information:

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say in response to my esteemed colleague and friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], that many of the concerns he has raised on the subject, in fact, will be dealt with in the amendment process, and I, too, am hopeful that we can make some further improvements in this bill through the amendment process and am prepared to do that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I, too, 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 410 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, 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 the purpose of debate only. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, in an effort to finetune the bill before us, we are offering our amendment to address three specific concerns raised about H.R. 1675. Frankly, these are concerns raised by some who may oppose the bill altogether. However, it has been our approach to sit down with the interested parties, roll up our sleeves and attempt to solve the problems with the legislation in a reasonable and workable manner. Many Members and their staff have spent hours working out the details of this amendment, and we are grateful for the cooperation shown by Chairman Young and Saxton in getting to this point. Mr. Chairman, the heart of our amendment addresses three issues: First, what is the role of the hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation in the refuge system? Second, how much freedom should the Fish and Wildlife Service have in establishing--and expanding--refuges without congressional approval? And third, what safeguards exist to ensure that the management standards of existing refuges are maintained if the management authority is put in the hands of an individual State? In my remarks during the rule, I mentioned the legacy of J.N. ``Ding'' Darling--a hunter who was a steadfast conservationist. He understood that given the proper balance, hunting and conservation were compatible. The clarifications in the Boehlert-Goss amendment aim to achieve that balance, and indeed, clarify that hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation are legitimate options in some of our refuges, as long as they are compatible with the overall higher mission of conservation and preservation of wildlife. The second issue involves the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Service to use the land and water conservation fund to establish new refuges. It is the case that unlike all other uses of the LWCF, Fish and Wildlife is not required to seek any specific authorization to establish a new refuge. I agree that Congress has the responsibility to exercise better oversight over these funds, but the broad nature of the bill language in this area has caused some concern. Our amendment would still give Fish and Wildlife the flexibility to purchase areas of 500 acres or less, while ensuring that major expenditures of taxpayer dollars are subjected to the normal, established budget process. Finally, the last concern takes care of a consistency issue, and would ensure that land set aside for wildlife purposes today--under the wildlife refuge system--continues to be managed in a responsible manner should authority for that refuge be given to a State agency. Again, these are not dramatic changes, but they are significant clarifications--and I would hope that my colleagues would support them. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the cooperation on this bill I think proves once again that the environment does not know partisanship and the environment should not know extremism. There are sensible, well-balanced answers to these matters, and we are offering them in this amendment. I thank the gentleman who have taken the opportunity to get us this far. I admire them for their persistence and patience.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, during the 104th Congress, we have made some very positive changes in how we do business around here. We have legislated more stringent lobbyist registration requirements, disclosure requirements of their activities. We have passed a new House rule that prohibits Members and staffs from accepting any gifts, including meals or event tickets, from lobbyists or any other individuals other than family and close friends. This is a good start, but it has not changed the persistent perception across our country that special interest groups have an edge over individual contributors when it comes to election time. Our next step is to change how we run our campaigns. I have introduced H.R. 3274 to do just that. My bill does limit PAC contributions, and it requires that contributions come from within the candidate's State and that 50 percent of contributions come from within the candidate's district. If we are here to represent the people from our district, then they are the ones that should help us get here. They are the Americans we work for and are accountable to. It is time for meaningful campaign reform. We can pass some. We should do it. It makes sense.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole under the 5-minute rule: Committee on Agriculture; Committee on Banking and Financial Services; Committee on Commerce; Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on International Relations; Committee on the Judiciary; committee on National Security; Committee on Resources; Committee on Science; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just simply want to say, we were talking about fig leaf awards as well. We were talking about seaweed awards. We had a number of gimmicks we were thinking about. I think it might be a question of approach.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this bill because it is a solid, responsible piece of bipartisan environmental legislation, and by the by, a great bill for Florida. I want to commend the tremendous work done by my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], who has put this thing together and moved it to the floor in a timely fashion. This should be held up as model environmental legislation. It is a rare example where we finally got the Federal Government doing a program that is both effective and voluntary. I think its success can well be measured by the fact that since its creation in 1972, 34 out of 35 of the eligible States in this Nation have become involved in the program. Twenty-nine have approved programs, and five more are working towards that goal. The CZMA is a cooperative effort that recognizes States as full partners, sharing the costs and the responsibilities for setting standards geared towards protecting local coastal environments. The good thing about it is the flexibility. Michigan can do what is best for the Great Lakes, Florida can do what is right for the situation along the Gulf and the Atlantic coast in Florida. Specifically I would like to single out two other aspects of the CZMA because of their importance to my State of Florida. One is the question of consistency, and the other is the question of the National Estuarine Reserve System. Consistency simply says that the Federal Government cannot come along and do something that the State of Florida does not think is good for the State of Florida. We have seen this work and help us in our protection of our Outer Continental Shelf and in the oil and gas exploration issues we have faced in the State of Florida throughout the years. Without these consistency provisions, we would not have been able to succeed, and we are in fact relying on them today. Mr. Speaker, it is important to us. Florida has lots of tourists, many visitors. Many in this body go there at this time of year and enjoy themselves. We want to keep it that way, at a place where you will continue to go back. This act will help us do that. With regard to the reserve areas, the estuarine research reserve areas here are areas where we are protecting pristine estuaries, while at the same time we are opening up the area for public study and education. This has had an extraordinary residual benefit for the people of this country. This is a good bill, and it deserves Members' support.

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

Mr. GOSS. We have.

Mr. GOSS. We have.

Mr. GOSS. For the Coastal Zone Management Act, we thought seaweed might be appropriate. You can drape it around yourself in certain ways and get the same result as with a fig leaf. It is really heavy, though. The reason we thought it was appropriate, I recall the gentleman actually caused us a great deal of problem with our Outer Continental Shelf protections back in 1992. The gentleman is well known as a champion of the environment. It is just we had a different agreement on how to protect our Outer Continental Shelf. I am glad we have done a better job of doing that, and I am glad to see the gentleman's support for this bill.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to address the subject of the environment today, but I happen to be a Republican. I believe that the environment knows no partisanship and it should know no extremism. I think the environment is something we are all concerned about. I am proud as a Republican that under Republican leadership we have finally gotten some kind of relief for the Florida Everglades in my home State under Republican leadership, something we have been trying long to do. So there are indeed many sides of the story about who is doing what to help out the environment. Mr. Speaker, I return to the floor to talk about Haiti today because I want to be certain that all of my colleagues are aware of the staff delegation report on Haiti that was issued last week. Although I hoped for good news for both the American taxpayers who footed the $2 billion plus bill for United States operations in Haiti and for the Haitian people, there doesn't seem to be much. In fact, more than anything, this report reinforces the idea that the White House has been glossing over the rough spots in Haiti--hailing it as a success--and hoping that no one would dig deep enough to know the difference. The staff delegation concluded that little progress, if any, is being made on compliance with the Dole amendment regarding political murders in Haiti. In fact, they see little chance of those conditions being met in the foreseeable future. These investigations may in fact be irreparably tainted because the Haitian special investigative unit has been colonized by three American lawyers working for the Government of Haiti. Whether or not these individuals will be more interested in protecting their meal ticket or in getting to the bottom of the killing remains open for question, but it is a question that should be asked. Beyond these specific investigations, the report also notes that the United States embassy in Haiti continues to have a passive policy on human rights violations. One might ask why the White House does not seem to understand the actions they decried during the coup are no less unacceptable in post-Cedras Haiti. The report also finds that there are probably more rough spots than smooth ones with regard to law and order. The Haitian National Police are not always readily accepted by the Haitian people, but nothing can excuse the heavyhanded responses we have seen from them in places like Cite Soleil. In addition, the staff delegation reports that there are at least four other armed governmental security units with unclear chains of command, but about whom there are credible reports of serious human rights abuses. On the economic front, the news is little better. More than 60 percent of the Haitian national budget is still sustained by foreign dollars and Haitians still rely heavily on food aid and remittances from abroad. The lack of tangible progress on privatization and other reforms, added to the pervasive breakdown in law and order, continues to act as a damper on investment. Ultimately, the staff delegation concluded that private investment in Haiti is unlikely to even reach the low baseline level of 1985 before this century ends. In terms of United States development projects in Haiti, the delegation found that the majority of the projects they reviewed failed to meet the one test that matters: Sustainability. In other words, we are feeding Haitians fish today but we are not teaching them to catch their own for tomorrow. There are many more issues raised in the report, but I want to draw attention to the section entitled ``Clinton Administration Politicization of Haiti Policy.'' The Congress has long been frustrated by the lack of good information from the administration regarding United States operations in Haiti, but that is only half of the story. The staff delegation found that the administration is going beyond mere stonewalling to scapegoating and what they called a sustained and coordinated interagency effort designed to blame the legislative branch for the shortcomings of its own policies in Haiti. This finding is based on numerous instances when incomplete, inaccurate, and intentionally misleading information about the role that this Congress has played in Haiti was provided by the White House to staff, the AID mission, officials of the Government of Haiti, and to the Haitian business community. This just adds to the evidence to suggest that of all of the items on the list of things the Clinton administration's policy in Haiti has lacked over the past 3 years, the most important item is candor. Whether we are fibbing to ourselves about what is happening in Haiti or to the Haitians about what is happening in Washington isn't the issue. Either way, the net effect has been to undercut genuine efforts to bring peace, prosperity, and democracy to that small Caribbean nation. That, Mr. Speaker, is the real tragedy here and we should begin hearings based on the staff report.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, at the end of last week we learned of a breakthrough in a long stalemate between approximately 8,000 American hemophiliacs infected with HIV and the manufacturers of blood-clotting products that led to the hemophiliacs' infection. News reports indicate a settlement offer of $600 million if certain conditions are met. This is certainly a welcome development after years of fingerpointing and frustrated court proceedings. As I have said many times, it is time the victims of this tragedy in the United States achieved some closure in this case. It is my strong hope that this settlement proposal will lead to a concrete result for the victims and their families. These folks have suffered since the early 1980's with the knowledge that a product they relied on to improve their quality of life actually carried the virus that causes deadly AIDS. For many years, people in the hemophilia community have charged that more could have been done to make those products safe. While recognizing that hindsight is always crystal clear, many experts have concluded that efforts to develop and market safer products sooner were not given a high priority in the face of powerful incentives to preserve the status quo. Mr. Speaker, as Members know, I have sponsored legislation to provide compassionate assistance to these victims from the Government. It is my conclusion--and one reached by a distinguished panel of objective experts from the Institute of Medicine [IOM] at the National Academy of Sciences--that Government shares responsibility for this tragedy. The IOM panel outlined the failure of the regulatory system to recognize and respond to the early warning signs of blood-borne AIDS. According to the IOM report, the system ``Did not deal well with contemporaneous blood safety issues such as hepatitis and was not prepared to deal with the far greater challenge of AIDS.'' Citing the extent to which Government officials lacked independent analysis of scientific information or a strong interest in encouraging development of techniques to make blood products safer, the IOM report found ``a failure of leadership and inadequate institutional decision-making processes,'' which led Federal officials to ``consistently [choose] the least aggressive option that was justifiable.'' The IOM found that the Government ``did not adequately use its regulatory authority and therefore missed opportunities to protect the public health.'' As part of its concluding recommendations for changes in the system to prevent this type of crisis from recurring, the IOM panel suggested a compensation program involving the government--one similar to that which exists for vaccines. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is what I and 224 of my bipartisan colleagues in this House--and Senator DeWine and four of his colleagues in the other body--have sought to do with the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act. This legislation is based on the premise that Government has a unique responsibility for regulating the safety of blood products and that Government failed to live up to that responsibility during the 1980s. We have not changed our view on that point, even in light of last week's welcome news about a potential settlement between the product manufacturers and the victims. It was never our intention to substitute public money for private settlement-- but rather to stand up to a share of the obligation we believe rests with the Government. As Members know, in Japan recently a settlement was announced that involves both the industry and the Government. The Japanese proposal offers a significantly larger financial settlement than is being discussed in this country, with the Government shouldering 44 percent of the burden. In addition, apologies were extended to the victims and their families and the responsibility of the Japanese Government and the blood products companies was clearly acknowledged. While I commend the blood products companies for their offer to the American victims, I still think it is important that all parties involved stand up to their obligations and that means we must explore Government sharing in the compensation. Only in that way will real justice be reached in the United States.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have with me a group of outstanding high school students from southwest Florida. They are participating in a unique congressional classroom program designed to examine the role of Government. Today--Earth Day--we are heading to Roosevelt Island, a living monument to a President who defined the proper role of Government in conservation. In 1907, Teddy Roosevelt said: To waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed. These stirring words ring just as true today. I hope all Americans will join in honoring the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt, reflecting upon the importance of careful stewardship of our planet. Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan matter, this is not a matter of extremism. This is a matter of good sense and good will that all Americans will share in.