Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. My time is finished. I am not sure the gentleman's interpretation is correct. But the gentleman is entitled to his interpretation.

Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to be on the floor for the full discussion of the line-item veto. The chairman of the committee and I had a bit of a dialog about it this morning during the rule, and we came down to the conclusion that we were not sure whether we were clear on whether or not the legislation before us would or would not be subject to the line-item veto. In the interest of clarity, we wanted to make absolutely certain that this legislation was subject to the line-item veto as passed by the Congress, as signed by the President into law, and that, I believe, is the purpose of the chairman's amendment. I certainly support what the chairman is trying to accomplish, if it is as I believe, to clarify that this legislation will be subject to the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which is the way I read the one-line amendment that he has proposed.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to speak for the Line Item Veto Act. The Line Item Veto Act speaks for itself. As the gentleman knows, we did discretionary authority, new entitlements and targeted tax benefits in line-item veto. So to the extent what we are talking about falls into those areas under the act as written, the answer would be yes.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman emeritus, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] for yielding time to me. I rise in support of this good open rule. But I must say to my colleagues that I am perplexed that we are bringing this pleasure to the floor. I, of course, do have enormous respect for Chairman Shuster and his colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure who believe they are doing the right thing for the transportation infrastructure of our Nation with this bill. But I and others cannot agree with their conclusion because of our commitment to the higher goal of controlling Government spending. Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago Americans were reminded in an extremely personal way of the extent to which Government feeds upon our families' budgets. Americans are working several hours each day just to fulfill their overall tax burdens now, and yet the Federal Government still cannot make ends meet. Despite concerted efforts to shrink Government spending, we remain nearly $5.5 trillion in debt. That is trillion. Given the fact that we spend over $200 billion every year just in interest to service that debt, it is obviously incumbent upon us to handle with care the process by which we consider and make all our spending decisions, and that is why I cannot support the bill before us today. Not 2 days after tax filing and not 2 weeks after the President signed into law the historic line-item veto to increase control over our Federal budget, this House is now considering a measure to weaken our hold on spending and make it likely that Government will spend more, not less, in the future. This bill, although very well intentioned and pleasantly titled, has the effect of shielding one type of Federal spending from all budget controls that would currently apply, and I would say that includes the line-item veto we worked so hard to get. Although the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure went to great lengths in its committee report to ensure Members that taking the four transportation trust funds off budget would not in and of itself lead to greater spending, the report went on to make the increase for greater transportation spending in the future. We can be fairly confident that moving these funds beyond the reach of budgetary controls will lead to more spending and more obligation by the American taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, many Members feel, as I do, that our budget process is in need of comprehensive reform, precisely because we do not have effective spending controls and incentives to save rather than spend. In my view, H.R. 842 takes us in the wrong direction and weakens spending controls and boosts the incentive to spend. I have long championed users' fees, enterprise funds and other creative ways to fairly and reasonably raise revenues for necessary Government expenditures, but putting transportation in a special privileged budget category, I believe, is the wrong way to go.

Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, my understanding from the Parliamentarian, the need for this amendment follows this reason. The main reason the trust fund bill is now exempt from the Line Item Veto Act is that the President can only exercise the line-item veto if he certifies that cancellation of the item will reduce the deficit. Since the trust fund bill would remove disbursements for purposes of calculating the deficit, the President would be prevented from exercising a veto authority absent compliance with the deficit reduction standard. I am happy to yield further to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would not.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the chairman's assurance on that. Our reading of the bill did not include that assurance. I am pleased to have that assurance that the line-item veto will apply, and I think it will necessarily preclude an amendment that otherwise would have been made. So that is good news.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I am not sure that it is. Again, I think that I should refer the gentleman to the act the way it is written. I believe it refers to contract authority, and I believe that the proper way to respond to the question is to refer the gentleman to the act. There may be some parliamentary interpretation.

Mr. GOSS. Since the time is mine, I would be very happy to yield to the gentleman if he wishes me to. But I will tell the gentleman that what he is asking is contract authority and direct spending questions are covered already in the act.

Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, contract authority is not discretionary. It is direct spending, and direct spending is covered but it is not discretionary. I am sorry, that is the way it is. I yield further to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that that was the clarification that we were all seeking with regard to the line item veto, and I think that to go any further than that, to try and somehow now amend the line item veto, would of course not only be inappropriate but nongermane and beyond the scope and so forth.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, 8 days ago I stood in the Oval Office as the President signed into law the historic line-item veto. But how serious is the Washington establishment when it comes to enforcing real change? Today we read the first of what is likely to be many advertisements for Washington insiders pitching a seminar on how to circumvent the line-item veto. For a mere $245, people whose business it is to secure Federal money can learn, among other things: What can be done to insulate an appropriation, entitlement or tax provision from a line-item veto. The law hasn't even gone into effect, and already people are seeking ways around it. And, later today, we consider a bill to take an entire category of Federal spending off budget, beyond the reach of the line- item veto. Mr. Speaker, we crafted a tough and workable line-item veto to control runaway Government spending. How serious are we? I guess Americans will have to watch and see. Mr. Speaker, I provide for the Record the advertisement referred to: [From the Congress Daily, Apr. 17, 1996] (Price Waterhouse LLP--Presents) The Line-Item Veto: How It Will Affect Appropriations, Entitlements, and Taxes The Executive Seminar You Need To Attend! Bedget and political analysts are calling the line item veto the most significant revision in the legislative process since Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. Many are predicting that it will require substantial changes in the way people in Washington conduct business. Price Waterhouse LLP's highly respected budget and tax professionals will provide you with what you need to know about the line item veto when you need to know it--NOW! During this solid, no fluff, half-briefing you will learn how the line item veto will work, including answers to these key questions: Which appropriations or parts of appropriations will be subject to a line item veto? Who will determine which tax provisions are vulnerable? What does the law mean when it said that only ``new'' entitlements will be subject to a line item veto? How can Congress disallow or override a line item veto? What can be done to insulate an appropriation, entitlement, or tax provision from a line item veto? What role will OMB, CBO, and the Joint Committee on Taxation play in the line item veto process? All of this and much more in just a half day . . . you'll be back in your office in time for lunch. And at only $245 per person (with a substantial discount for more than 4 people from the same organization), this special executive briefing is the easiest and least expensive way for you to learn what you need to know about the new challenges and opportunities the line item veto will create for you and your association or company. Price Waterhouse LLP's Line Item-Veto Executive Seminar Wednesday, May 8, 1996--8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast Starting at 7:30 a.m. Hyatt Regency Hotel On Capitol Hill, Washington D.C. To Register, Or For a Copy Of The Full Agenda Call (202) 414- 1757

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, a majority of the House now agrees that we should provide compassionate assistance to the 8,000 victims of hemophilia-associated aids. The Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act-- which establishes a compensation program for the victims of this tragedy--now carries 219 bi-partisan cosponsors. I introduced the Ricky Ray Bill--which is named for a constituent who was 15 when he died of hemophilia-associated Aids in 1992. We started with two dozen sponsors. But each week for the past year the support for this measure has grown thanks to the awesome grassroots participation of the victims of hemophilia- associated Aids, their families and their friends. These folks have put aside their differences, rallied together and learned to use the legislative process to further their goals. I am extremely proud of their work and pledge to redouble my efforts to make sure this bill gets heard during this Congress. Hemophilia is an inherited blood-clotting disorder causing serious internal bleeding episodes that, if left untreated, can lead to disfigurement and even death. To help control and prevent such bleeding, hemophiliacs rely on blood-products, which are manufactured and sold by pharmaceutical companies. Because these products are made from the pooled blood of thousands of people, the potential for infection with blood-borne disease among those who use them is very high, something that has been well-known for decades. In fact, since the 1970's, the hemophilia community has grappled with the serious consequences of hepatitis, a debilitating chronic illness. But in the early 1980's, a much more deadly villain struck, as nearly one-half of all people with hemophilia in the United States became infected with the virus that causes aids. Today they are dying at a rate of about one each day. Mr. Speaker, we have long argued that the Federal Government shares responsibility for this devastating situation, because it failed to respond to the early warning signs that Aids was transmissible by blood and blood products. During the early years of Aids, repeated opportunities to reduce the likelihood of contaminated blood entering the supply of blood products were missed. This conclusion was supported by a 2-year study, conducted by a distinguished panel at the institute of medicine. In a report entitled ``HIV and the blood supply,'' the IOM panel concluded that the Federal agencies missed opportunities to protect the public health because they consistently chose the least aggressive response to the early warning signs. The report concluded that the system--which was charged with protecting the blood supply, ensuring the safety of manufactured blood products, and informing the public of risks--failed to deal with the relatively well-known problem of hepatitis and was therefore unprepared to confront the crisis of Aids. Mr. Speaker, the premise behind the Ricky Ray bill is that the Government has a unique responsibility for regulating the safety of blood products, based on a Federal blood policy and several major statutes that establish the regulatory framework for blood. Members should also understand that the legal system classifies blood products in a unique way. Even though they are commercially marketed and sold, blood products enjoy special status under the so-called ``blood shield'' laws of every State, which protect against product liability lawsuits. Given these facts, we have concluded that Government has a unique obligation to assist the victims and so the Ricky Ray bill authorizes the creation of a trust fund, administered by the Attorney General, to provide $125,000 in assistance to each victim who meets strict eligibility criteria. The trust fund would sunset after 5 years, would be capped at $1 billion and would be subject to funding through annual appropriations. Mr. Speaker, the United States has yet to set up an assistance program, even though more than 20 other nations have done so. Just last month the Government of Japan and five drug companies--including several American firms--agreed to provide the equivalent of $430,000 to each of the estimated 1,800 victims in Japan, with the government paying 44 percent and the companies paying 56 percent. It is time the United States took its share of responsibility for what happened to 8,000 American hemophiliacs during the 1980's. Please join the majority of bipartisan support of the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] for yielding this time to me. I rise in strong support of what the gentleman from Florida is trying to do primarily because of the casualties. We are suffering unnecessary casualties. There are things we can do to repair that damage, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] has the right answer. Mr. Speaker, Florida winter fruit and vegetable growers are being drowned in a flood of cheap Mexican produce. While current U.S. laws allow other industries in this position to seek relief under a GATT and NAFTA legal escape clause, this option is not really open to our growers because of the seasonal nature of their industry. In January, the Florida delegation made a bipartisan push to attach language to the continuing resolution to correct this technical, definitional problem in section 202 of the 1974 Trade Act. While these efforts hit a snag in the House, Florida's Senators were able to join forces to pass a stand- alone measure in the Senate. Today, S. 1463 is being blue-slipped on procedural grounds because it is the prerogative of the House to originate revenue measures. The members of the Florida delegation respect the need to proceed under the regular rules of the House, but believe that this measure must be moved forward. For this reason, we are pleased to see that the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade will be holding hearings on Representative Shaw's section 202 fix next week. From there, we hope to see the measure return quickly to this floor for full consideration. We hope that when this measure emerges from committee for a vote, you will join us in giving fair treatment to American farmers. Florida growers perform a unique function for this country by competing head-to-head--not with other American producers, but with foreign producers--to provide winter fruits and vegetables for Americans. They deserve our support.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the purpose for it. Mr. Speaker, as the American people endure yet another April 15, it is appropriate to note the direct relationship between higher taxes and higher government spending. While incomes have stagnated for many Americans over the last 20 years, the actual take-home pay for Government rose 58 percent and Government spending increased even faster. In fact, the Federal Government spent 80 percent more in inflation adjusted terms in 1995 than in 1973. The rationale for the last two major tax hikes was deficit reduction. The deal was this--give us more of your money and, trust us, we will get serious about cutting spending. However, while the American taxpayer kept his end of the bargain, prior to this Congress the Federal Government maintained its reckless spending habits. Spending did not slow down, it accelerated. Adjusting for inflation, nondefense discretionary spending was 23 percent higher in 1995 than 1990. The American people are not selfish and they certainly do not mind paying their fair share, but they are not stupid either--they recognize when their Government has sold them a bill of goods. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the same disheartening facts. Every year, the average American works until May 5 just to pay his or her taxes. Put another way, this means that 3 hours out of every work day are dedicated solely to sustain Government spending. This Congress has worked to reduce this oppressive tax burden. We have sent President Clinton a variety of tax relief measures, from middle-class tax relief to increasing the Social Security earnings limit, making it clear that we intend to keep our word with the American taxpayer. We have also begun examining long-term alternatives to our current tax system, that would increase fairness and simplicity. I commend Representatives Barton and Shadegg for their hard work to provide long-term protection for American taxpayers through the bill before us today.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 159.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston]. (Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say that we have considered many amendments in this process and it is quite clear there are many good ideas. This does not pretend to be comprehensive health care reform. This is very special, and it is meant to be doable and accomplished now, to take a subject we think we can do to make improvement for access and affordability for a great many Americans, to take the bill the Senate has worked on and to make it better here and to send it to the American people. We think that is doable. We have given the other side two bites at this. We have given them their own substitute and the right to recommit, of course. Some have said, ``Oh, my gosh; what we need to do here is get back on the health care track.'' Let me remind you, the health care track of the last 40 years was derailed in a monumental train wreck under the Clinton administration. They cannot even find the engineer for that. We now have something that is doable today, and all we need to do is get this rule on the floor, have the debate, vote this health care reform, and we come out with more health care opportunities for more Americans than we have today. It is worth doing. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, for those who are distressed about the opportunity they might have or might not have a chance to get at the bill known as the Kassebaum-Kennedy-Roukema, I believe it is the substitute that is going to be made in order, and they should take it up with the leadership on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].