Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] about the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson]. I thought that was an excellent statement, and particularly compelling coming from the gentleman from California, given his experience and deep knowledge of this subject, and I would also say his commitment to it over the years. Mr. Speaker, the only area I might take a little bit of exception, I think of Mark Twain when I think of the Soviet Union these days: The demise of the death being greatly exaggerated. After the elections last Sunday, I am not so sure that we are where we think we are, sometimes. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], chairman of the committee.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] for yielding me this time. I do not claim to have been in leadership here, but I did serve in the Army, and I was proud to do it, and I am very concerned about the veterans. Mr. Speaker, Americans need to understand that the reason many Federal agencies--including the administrative services of the Veterans' Administration--are closed today is because our President, President Clinton, vetoed three major appropriations bills that were sent to him last week, before the shutdown began. It appears that he vetoed those bills to score political points. We can only assume that he did so in order to evade serious discussions about balancing the budget in 7 years. Regardless of all the propaganda coming out of the White House, there is no escaping the facts: If the President had done his job and signed those spending bills on time, we would not be facing yet another day of Federal shutdown of this magnitude, and our Nation's Veterans would not be worried about receiving their benefit checks on time this month. However, because our President vetoed those bills and because President Clinton still refuses to come to the table with a balanced budget proposal using real numbers and meeting the 7-year commitment that he agreed to, we now are taking steps to provide limited spending authority on behalf of our Nation's veterans. House Joint Resolution 134 will provide the funds necessary to keeping veterans' services up and running throughout this negotiations process. We know the shutdown has been difficult for many Americans besides veterans and we are willing to keep working at the discussions to bring this stalemate to an end. All we need is for the President to stop the posturing and come to the table in good faith--and remain true to his word. If the President spent more time at the negotiating conference and less time at the press conference, I believe we would get the job done. Mr. Frost. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett]. Mr. Doggett. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think if we needed any example of why it is we have the mess in Washington that we have tonight, it has been provided by some of the speakers among our Republican colleagues, people that come here wanting to even old political scores instead of trying to even up the budget and get the Government back to work. It is wrong. America wants to put an end to the politics and to have a little good sense and maybe even a tad of goodwill at this time of the year. It has been said that we would not have this problem if the President had not vetoed a particular piece of legislation. Thank heavens he had the courage to do that, because that is a piece of legislation that a majority of this House, including a number of Members from the Republican side, voted to recommit with instructions that over $200 million added in medical benefits and health care benefits for our veterans. After a lot of arm-twisting, some of our Republican colleagues backed off of the bill and brought it back without those resources in it. This is a bill our veterans can understand that the President vetoed. It is a bill that provided for unilateral disarmament. It required a tremendous cut in the law enforcement powers to enforce our clean air and our clean water. Thank heavens the President had the courage to veto that bill and then to say, as with some of these other measures, let us keep the Government going. Let us protect our veterans and our clean air and our clean water by operating the Government instead of having a high-jack or a blackmail with reference to that. Yet, I read, as did the thousands of veterans in Austin, TX in today's paper, that unless this Congress acted by tomorrow, they would not get the benefits that they worked for and deserve. Mr. Speaker, they are not the only people. In Texas, because of the inaction of this Republican majority, Texas will not get $24 million for child support enforcement. I think our veterans are important, but I think it is important to take care of child support; an the same thing is true of ``workfare'' and child care as well. We need to get this Government going again, not just to take care of one problem, but take care of all of them.

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, while we were at work here this past weekend trying to get out of the budget stalemate we are in, there were events going on in the world that are of very, very great importance to American interests. In Russia, as you know, there are elections there. We are now sifting through and sorting out exactly what those elections meant. Initially, though, not very much noticed at all, were other elections nearby in the small, tiny nation of Haiti, just to our south, a friendly neighboring country. It is an election that Americans had a great stake in, primarily because we have invested on a per-capita basis probably more money in that election than any other in recent history. We have a huge American taxpayer dollar investment there in the growth of democracy, and I think it is very important that we have a full assessment of the way the moneys have been spent and how that tiny nation is doing on its path to democracy. I think the important thing to say now is that the good news from Haiti is that there is no bad news; but the bad news is there is not much good news either. Haiti did not have full, fair, free elections. But they did have a step in the right direction because they were able to carry out elections on a countrywide basis for a new President without any of the violence that we have seen in previous elections in that country. The IRI [International Republic Institute] was there monitoring the progress of their elections, and they concluded in the conversations that I had in a telephone conversation with our on-the-ground team that what happened on Sunday in Haiti was important but it was not conclusive. So I think we are in a position now where we have got a pretty good assessment of the electoral process underway, the technical problems they had. What we do not have is a full assessment of what happened and where we are going now to justify the investment of taxpayer dollars and the American troops we have had there and what we should do next. I think it is clear that we had low numbers in the Haitian election both in terms of candidates who are participating and in terms of voter turnout. The estimates in voter turnout are called light. The election was called lackluster, uninspiring. There are a lot of reasons for that. It is true there are a lot of candidates who did not run, for a variety of reasons. Primarily the presidential campaign time was a very abbreviated time. It was about 4 weeks or so, and the campaign tactics themselves were nearly invisible. There was not a lot of campaigning, and there was not a lot of interest generated in the country as a result through the normal campaign tactics that you see for a presidential election. The fact that much of the loyal opposition, including several of its major parties, boycotted the elections is not a good sign for democracy. People who feel compelled to go outside the system and will not participate inside the system and do not feel welcome or feel frustrated or feel it is so tilted they cannot have a fair chance clearly are making a statement when they say, ``We are being forced outside the system.'' It is also a fact that in Haiti, I think voter fatigue is a possibility. They have had a lot of elections, and I think that an awful lot of voters are saying the same things to reporters today they were saying to me after the parliamentary elections in June, and that is, Why should we keep voting for this democracy thing? I still do not have a job. I am still hungry. My family is still hungry. I voted three times. Nothing is better. I am not sure democracy works. The only thing I know is Aristide is my hero. And unfortunately, Aristide was not on the ballot because constitutionally he cannot succeed himself, and a lot of people probably stayed home because the person they wanted to vote for they could not vote for, so they registered their objection that way. I think many others stayed home because the election was clearly, those who were organized were the one party that was ready for it and had all of the resources and the blessing apparently of the international parties, and they just steamrolled it and apparently, when the election results come in, everybody believes widely there will be one very clear winner, not anybody really in second place. I do not know if that will be true. I think that is a feeling that probably kept people from voting. In any event, when you have a countrywide presidential election that is supposed to be the most historic event in the peaceful turnover of democracy in the whole history of the country's 200 years and you only get somewhere between 20 and 30 percent turnout, clearly it is not working quite the way it should be. Security was better. Law and order was better. Of course, it would be if you have Humvees with machine guns and soldiers mounted all over the place and running around from place to place insuring nothing gets out of hand. So we have somewhat of an artificial situation there about law and order. Regrettably, as in every election, we had intimidations that kept candidates out. We had the media shut down through intimidations. We had allegations of misuse of dollars, all of those kinds of things. These things need a full accounting and full investigation. Then the President needs to come to Congress and consult and tell Congress and the American people how we spent our money, what we have got for it, and where we are going next. I urge the President, Mr. Speaker, very much this time to consult with Congress before we get into the next chapter of what our relations are going to be with Haiti. I would hate to have to debate another invasion here, because we are seeing one more time a flood of refugees coming to the United States, and the administration's reaction is to send the military. The economy does not work in Haiti. We know that. We need to have a full accounting. We need to know where we are going, and I urge the administration to check with the U.S. Congress. We are here to help.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but in strong opposition to the underlying resolution. Some may wonder why we are taking the time to debate this budget resolution, when it so clearly does not meet the simple test that the President signed into law just last month: A balanced budget in 2002. The reason is that people need to know the President is unwilling to come to the table with a real balanced budget proposal. It seems the only way to get through the spin zone at the White House is to force the issue--put his numbers up to the test and watch the plan fall of its own weight. Once a majority of this House rejects the President's cooked-book numbers then maybe the President will drop his pretenses and come to the table in good faith. We've given him four chances to meet this goal: His first two budgets, including his first so-called balanced budget would have resulted in $200 billion in deficits in 2002, according to CBO. The President's third and fourth budgets--submitted after he signed into law a commitment to achieve a balanced budget in 7 years--still come up short by some $87 billion in the final year. This is absolutely unacceptable--to the American people, and to a bipartisan majority of this House. Yesterday the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of balancing the budget in 7 years using real numbers: 351 Members, including a majority of the Democratic Party recognize the overwhelming need to balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for the President to realize that he cannot have it both ways--he must come to the table in good faith, or put at risk the future of not just our children, but--according to the bipartisan commission on entitlement and tax reform--our entire Federal safety net. I am disappointed that we have come to this expose today, but it must be done. Support the rule; vote down the President's unbalanced budget and invite him to work realistically on accomplishing balance by 2002. Let's do what we must before 1996 arrives. Mr. MOAKLEY, Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. All I would simply say is that despite the very important comments of the gentleman from Maryland, I would disagree. That the most important threat to our children and our Nation and our people on Social Security is in fact that the national debt has gotten so far out of control that the credit of our country indeed is in question. I would suggest that the right vote is to get responsible now. This is not a question of politics. This is a question of the well-being of our people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the ranking member of the Committee on Rules and the former chairman, and my good friend and distinguished Member of this body, 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 include extraneous material.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 293 provides for the consideration of H.R. 2621, a common sense measure designed to ensure that the promise made by this Government to the people who depend on Social Security and similar trust funds will be kept. We have repeatedly promised Americans that the money they pay into Government trust funds is being kept in trust for them, safe from being raided for short term fiscal and political emergencies. And the majority party in Congress intends to keep that promise even if the Clinton administration doesn't. This bill is necessary now because the Clinton administration--particularly the Treasury Secretary--has violated that trust in recent weeks by dipping into these reserve accounts in order to extend the Nation's credit and wiggle out of a commitment to put this Nation on a 7-year glide path toward a balanced budget. The new congressional majority has told the administration that we will not grant an extension of our national debt--which now stands at nearly $5 trillion--until we have in place a plan to balance the budget. It would be irresponsible and immoral of us to keep writing uncovered checks from our children's accounts without such a plan in place. But fulfilling this commitment means making sure the administration can't stretch the rules and raid the trust funds to keep the red ink flowing. And so, on November 14 of this year, the House passed H.R. 2621 under suspension of the rules. Although the bill received a majority of the votes that day--247 ayes to 179 nays--it fell short of gaining the necessary two-thirds needed to pass under suspension. That's why the Rules Committee was asked to grant this rule. As is customary for legislation stemming from the Ways and Means Committee, House Resolution 293 is a closed rule. However, since the time that the House first considered this bill, the Treasury Secretary has in fact borrowed from the trust funds. This rule therefore incorporates an amendment offered by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Archer, to restore those trust funds to their full value. This amendment will be adopted upon passage of the rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. In addition, the rule provides for one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, during our Rules Committee hearing on this bill last week, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Gibbons, suggested that passing H.R. 2621 is a waste of time since the President is surely going to veto it. I am extremely puzzled and, frankly, quite dismayed to hear that this President would veto a measure designed to ensure the solvency and integrity of the Government trust funds, including the Social Security trust fund. Is President Clinton really in favor of raiding the Social Security trust fund? If in fact the President has made this ill-advised decision, I hope he will reconsider. If he doesn't, I hope America is listening. Those trust funds are based upon the trust of the people who have paid into them in good faith. They expect us to ensure that their money is being held safely by the Federal Government. Those funds are not designed to bail out the overspending of the Clinton administration nor are they to assist this administration in its effort to avoid agreeing to a balanced budget in 7 years. I know the President has previously said that preserving Social Security is a priority for his administration. He can live up to that rhetoric by joining us in this effort to enforce the public debt ceiling while protecting the trust funds.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 293 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would love to respond to the gentleman who has just addressed us and tell him that we have a standing offer: It is $1 million if he can find those cuts. We are still waiting. The challenge has been out there. It is not working. The people in this country no longer are being deceived. The polls show that. I have been to town meetings. I find that people are angry that Democrats are trying to mislead them, that the Clinton administration is trying to mislead them. People do not like to be scared unnecessarily. I think that is a very good thing that they do not. I would suggest that the gentleman might want to talk to our new colleague, Tom Campbell, when he arrives here and find out just exactly what is going on out there in America, because people know the truth. We are providing for Medicare. We are increasing Medicare. We are going from $4,700 per capita to over $7,100 per capita in our budget. President Clinton's budget does not balance. CBO says it one more time, it does not balance. We will stand behind our challenge. Get some facts.

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 House under the 5-minute rule: Committee on Agriculture, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Committee on International Relations, Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on National Security, Committee on Resources, and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 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, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], 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 include extraneous material.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 296 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the distinguished gentleman from Ohio that I have no requests for time, and I will reserve my time. If he has no requests, I would be prepared to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for a motion--to be offered by Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Callahan or his designee--to dispose of the remaining amendment in disagreement to the conference report on H.R. 1868. This is a straightforward and fair rule, providing for an hour of debate and an up-or-down vote on the motion. As you recall, the House passed the Foreign Operations conference report on October 31. This legislation makes tremendous improvements in the way we allocate our limited tax dollars to overseas interests. H.R. 1868 significantly reduces total foreign aid spending, and it takes steps to shrink the Government bureaucracy that has funded many wasteful and duplicative foreign aid projects. The Senate has also passed the conference report for H.R. 1868--and for the past 7 weeks, the two Chambers have been trying to resolve a single disagreement over Senate amendment No. 115, concerning funding for population planning. Mr. Speaker, the House has voted four times in favor of its position on this issue. Each time the Senate has disagreed. Chairman Callahan's motion would make the population planning funds in the bill subject to authorization--or a later waiver--allowing the ultimate decision on population planning policy to be made in the foreign aid authorization bill, which is after all, the appropriate place for it. Chairman Callahan's notion is a reasonable effort to move beyond the stalemate and finally pave the way for the foreign operations bill to be sent to the President's desk. Mr. Speaker, in light of the recent visit by Israeli Prime Minister Peres, I would also note that the funding for the Middle East peace process is contained in this bill. The negotiations are at a critical phase, and despite the tragic assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, there is real hope that further progress towards a lasting peace can be made. I urge my colleagues to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 296, the resolution now under consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee from Glens Falls, Mr. Solomon, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I support the rule to allow this critical debate to come to the floor. The rule provides for ample debate time especially since this body has debated and spoken clearly twice recently, and it provides for consideration of a range of motions, fairly representing--in my opinion--the broad range of views and conflicting positions held by Members of this body. There is no question that the President has used his authority to deploy troops-- against the clear wishes of this House of Congress. Nevertheless, we must deal with the situation as it exists. It is a curious situation. Why is the President flying to Paris on December 13 when we are in budget crisis that threatens to shutdown Government Friday? Where do the President's priorities lie? But Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to begin this debate that has national and international ramifications, I want to take a minute to talk about individuals--those I represent in southwest Florida and those who will be spending a cold winter in the hills of war-ravaged Bosnia under the Dayton agreement and the President's plan. This past weekend I held two town meetings, and the topic that evoked the sharpest response from my constituents at these meetings was Bosnia. Not Medicare, not the budget, but Bosnia. And the questions were direct and heartfelt and to the point: Why are we putting our young men and women on the ground in Bosnia? These were not political people asking political questions-- these were honest folks demanding an answer. I have listened to the President and his advisors and his spokesmen, and I still cannot find a convincing answer. I have yet to be convinced that the United States has a compelling reason to put people on the ground in Bosnia. I say ``people,'' because these are individuals--sons and daughters--who will be put in harm's way. And it is not a country or an army that will suffer casualties and loss of life if things go wrong; it is those individual people. In considering where to go from here, I cannot support a complete withdrawal of funds and support for the United States troops who are already on the ground in the former Yugoslavia. These men and women are wearing the uniform of the U.S. military and obeying orders, and we cannot leave them stranded in hostile territory. I would like to see them brought home, however, and I certainly will not give the President a blanket approval to continue as he sees fit. Because too many Americans have taken the time to tell me that they strongly disagree with the President's actions so far. In addition I have serious questions about the role of NATO in this operation, and the arrangements for burden sharing that have been put together. Our forces have been trained in conventional warfare, and are the best in the world--however, the greatest threat in Bosnia comes from unconventional sources. And I am concerned that when it comes time to withdraw our troops under the President's plan, extraction will be extremely difficult. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do want to draw attention to the parallel that many inside and outside the administration are drawing between the mission in Bosnia and the mission in Haiti. I think this is a good comparison, but not, I suspect, for the same reasons as the White House. It is a useful comparison because despite a virtual media blackout and attempts by the Clinton administration to spin the situation otherwise, the conditions in Haiti are deteriorating and could very well collapse as soon as our troops leave. We are reminded that efforts at nation building are not as simple as they seem, and that internal problems of foreign countries spanning many generations cannot be solved by a year of occupation by the United States Armed Forces, especially in difficult terrain, harsh climate, and the dangerous atmosphere we know is Bosnia. And we are disarming in Haiti and rearming in Bosnia. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this morning, more than 200 high school students gathered on the Capital steps to rally in support of ``justice for all.'' They urge our passage of H.R. 1023, the Ricky Pay Hemophilia Relief Fund Act. This is a justice bill, designed to meet Government's share of the responsibility for a terrible medical tragedy that occurred in the early 1980's, when 8,000 people with hemophilia became infected with the virus that causes AIDS through the use of contaminated blood products. A review of the record shows that the Government failed to respond to the early warning signs of blood-borne AIDS and missed opportunities to protect hemophiliacs. The students have chosen to lobby on behalf of this legislation in part because most of them today are at the age that Ricky Ray--a constituent of mine-- would have been if he had lived. Tragically, Ricky Ray, and too many like him, succumbed to AIDS in December of 1992, at the age of only 15. Please join more than 160 of our colleagues and cosponsor this bill. It's the right thing to do.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate my request to speak for 5 minutes today.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], chairman of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that it is my understanding that all time has expired on the other side, and we only have one speaker left on this side. As he goes up to the well, I am sure that he will remind us that this is a debate on the rule. I have not heard [[Page H 14087]] any debate on the rule, but we have heard a lot of debate on a lot of other subjects. I am sure my distinguished colleague from greater San Dimas, CA, the vice chairman of the committee on Rules, Mr. Dreier, the honorable Mr. Dreier, will be able to use the time well. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].