Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I accept the question, and I reclaim my time. I will answer, Mr. Speaker. The words, I think speak for themselves very well in the amendment about substantial compliance with the 1987 constitution. I do not think anybody would say that all of the X's and T's need to be crossed or I's need to be dotted. I am certainly not looking to some kind of an excuse to frustrate what is clearly forward momentum to building democracy there in any way, shape or form. The gentlewoman has properly characterized my views in trying to be supportive of democracy in Haiti in making sure that they understand that there are benefits there to complying with the constitution that they worked so hard to get in 1987. If there is some slippage in the election but they nevertheless have the election and peaceful turnover of power in what I will call the term of expectation, that those things can reasonably happen as foreseen by the constitution, then that, to me, is certainly substantial compliance. Does that mean that the date of December for the election is absolutely required and fixed? No. If there is some slippage on that, I think that is understandable. If there is a lot of slippage, I think it raises questions among prudent people; is there compliance? But I think we will know that. I think that will be in the eye of the beholder. I do not want to fix any forum. I do not want to suggest that there is any particular date. What I do want to suggest is that, if the elections are well on their way but they are not quite held in December, they are obviously in substantial compliance and trying to do the job. I look forward a peaceful turnover and a new President of Haiti and successful growth of democracy. As to the gentlewoman from California, I have been invited by President Aristide for the succession. I have accepted his invitation. He said it would be February. If it is a little later than that, that is OK. I prefer to be in Haiti during the winter season than the summer season.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

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

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the floor this rule to provide for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 1868, the foreign operations appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. This is a simple, fair rule that will allow the House to vote on the conference report, and then on a separate motion dealing with the controversial issue of the restrictions on aid money for abortion. Specifically, as provided under House rules, we will have 1 hour of debate on the conference report itself--including the traditional right of the minority to offer a motion to recommit with or without instructions. Immediately following the consideration of the conference report, the rule provides for a motion to dispose of Senate amendment 115--to be offered by the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], or his designee. This motion is debatable for a full hour, and the House will be able to cast an up or down vote following that debate. While the Callahan motion might sound complex, it can be summed up as follows: For years, under Presidents Reagan and Bush, there were sensible--in my view--restrictions on the use of foreign aid funds for abortion purposes; this policy is known as the Mexico City policy. However, during consideration of this bill, the House voted in favor of stricter standards, and the Senate voted for more lenient standards. To arrive at an acceptable solution to this dilemma, the conferees have decided to--no surprises here-- go with the Mexico City policy. We are facilitating this agreement, by allowing Chairman Callahan to offer his motion following debate on the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased that this conference report contains the original Goss amendment language on Haiti that the House adopted 252 to 164 on the 28th of June. This language provides a measure of accountability for the billions of taxpayers' dollars that have been spent in Haiti--and continue to be spent today. This measure was important in June, and it remains important today--we are still not sure exactly how much money has been used to restore President Aristide and maintain the peace in Haiti. But we do know that Haiti's fledgling democracy is facing some immediate challenges, including: Presidential elections, scheduled for the end of this year, but that date is rapidly slipping; reform of the justice system; and privatization of the economy which has suffered some setbacks recently. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the responsible use of the review mechanism provided under the Goss amendment with regard to Haiti, and I know other Members have other areas of concern in foreign ops as well, and there will be plenty of opportunity to debate them under the provisions of this fair and simple rule. I urge my colleagues to support the rule in the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the distinguished 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 include extraneous material in the Record.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 249 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I will briefly just close by saying that we have had clearly some evidence here that there are many matters here that have been very difficult. We have gone through the process to achieve the best balance possible. We have tried to craft a rule that we think is fair and reasonable. Obviously there are some loose ends still out there that people care about, as they always will and should. I notice that just about everybody who has an opinion on this who is involved in the conference report did sign the report, so I think we have made great progress on this, enough that I can say that I would urge support for the rule at this time which is the issue before us. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming the time, I would simply say to the distinguished gentleman that we are reviewing that very possibility among other possibilities. We want to get a better outcome than the Senate has had. I like what the Senate has done. I do not think it is enough. I happen to have more stringent rules in my own office. I think many of us do. In the meantime, any Member who is concerned on this subject, of course, has the opportunity to self-exercise his or her own rules as long a they are more stringent than the rules of the House.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and compatriot, and I know I should say champion, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] for all the work he has done, because the Social Security earnings test limitation penalizes seniors who want and need to work. In the Contract With America we pledged and voted to fix this inequity by raising the earnings threshold to a more reasonable level, and we are going to do it. Ultimately I believe we should repeal the limit altogether, because I think penalizing work is un-American and so do most Americans, but we have more work to do to reach that goal. This fix provides much-needed relief in the meantime. This resolution locks in our commitment to getting an increase in the earnings test limit signed into law this year. It also locks in the other body, and we have a commitment from the majority leader to make that happen. By passing this resolution, we jump the hurdle of a highly technical parliamentary problem pertaining to the rules of the other body when it comes to reconciliation, and we get the earnings test limits fix back on the fast track. This is good news for America's seniors. I cannot understand why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot figure that out.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. I did want to underscore some of the points that he made in his excellent opening remarks. This truly is a momentous day and certainly one of the most noteworthy in my short tenure as a member of this body. Before the sun sets today, we actually are going to pass a 7-year balanced budget plan that wipes out our national deficits and allows us to begin the process of paying down our enormous Federal debt. That is a major accomplishment and major good news for America. We will deliver this product to the American people, because it is the right thing to do and because they have asked us to do it. No doubt we will continue to hear the words of doom, gloom, and fear from those on the other side who are still imprisoned in the status quo. Given the dire predictions and the red hot rhetoric we have already heard from the naysayers, some people might conclude that this is just about cuts, that we are gutting all that is great and good about America, instead of what we are really doing, which is excising layers of government fat that have grown up over the past 40 years. In fact, it may surprise people to know that Federal spending under this proposal is actually slated to grow, I said grow, significantly in each of the 7 years ahead. In fact, this plan starts with an annual Federal spending program of $1.5 trillion and ends with an annual spending program that is a full $300 billion more than that. Yet in that 7th year, 2002, we will have also balanced the budget. Now, how do we do that? It is possible because we are allowing our economy to grow. We are creating jobs, opportunities for Americans to work, opportunities to expand our economy, while at the same time we control the cancerous growth of rampant, runaway Federal spending which so many have closed their eyes to for so long. Two years ago I stood in staunch opposition to President Clinton's budget reconciliation bill, the largest tax hike in history. Three years before that I opposed the deal worked out between President Bush and congressional Democrats. Both of these budgets had two basic flaws. They allowed for continued deficits as far as the eye could see, and they raised taxes at a time when we should have been addressing our chronic spending problem. This year is different. We are eliminating redundant and wasteful spending. We are preserving and strengthening our vital health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid. We are reforming welfare, and we are allowing all Americans to keep more of what they earn by lowering taxes. It is their money, not Washington's. Mr. Speaker, as one would expect, given a change of this magnitude, there have been disagreements on individual items within the package. Indeed, there are several elements of this bill that remain troubling to me, but I have concluded that the fundamental and overriding interest of balancing the Federal books while unshackling the American people from the grip of excessive Federal Government far outweighs the drawbacks of certain of the items. In fact, Washington does not know it all. Mr. Speaker, with all the rhetoric surrounding this debate, I recall the words of President Theodore Roosevelt who said, ``Aggressive fighting for the right is the noblest sport the world affords.'' We are today engaged in such a noble sport. We are preserving the integrity of the U.S. Government and the viability of America for our children, our grandchildren, our parents, and ourselves. I am proud of that effort, and I obviously support this rule to get us started along this 7-year path to balance the budget. Notwithstanding the points from my good friend and colleague from California, Mr. Beilenson, about management procedures, I believe that this is a fair rule and an appropriate rule for the reconciliaton budget process, and I certainly think it is fairer than the one we saw in the previous year. I urge support for the rule and support for the bill.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I just felt that it is important that we understand that we in this body, in the House, are much blessed by orderly rules and a wonderful Committee on Rules that makes sure that things are properly brought forward. I believe the suggestion of my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch], that we throw this thing into some kind of an omnibus reconciliation bill because we have already passed it on the floor would make sense from the House side. Indeed it might. But we have a problem on the other side. Again, maybe the gentleman and some of his colleagues on that side of the aisle can help us with somebody over there who has a special rule in the other body, where they have a different approach than we do, might be able to prevail on them. Because it still takes the necessary number of votes to overcome objections and the procedures in the other body. This is not where the problem is here. I know the gentleman from Florida is not suggesting anything as diabolical as that we have got one group in his party here revving this thing up and another group in his party stopping it over there. That would be unthinkable.

Mr. GOSS. We need members of the gentleman's party to help us.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman be willing to use his articulate argument on some members of his own party in the other body? Because in the other body, the gentleman well understands, we only have 53 of us over there and there is something called filibuster and cloture problems.

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

Mr. GOSS. If the gentleman will yield further, with your help, that will not happen.

Mr. GOSS. I would admit that it did not go as rapidly as I wanted, but in 9 months we got further than your party got in 40 years and I think that is a fair comment.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think that some issues are coming out here that are rather clear. First of all, I think everybody understands that bringing this subject up at this point is a fine time to again focus a little interest on the line-item veto for those of us who want it and have been working very hard to get it. In fact, we have been trying to get it out of conference as rapidly as we can. I am delighted to have the opportunity to get up and say publicly to the world we are working on this, and we are working on it as rapidly and as faithfully as we can, as we promised we would, to the body. But it has not been quite as easy as some might imagine. The other body, in fact, has some very significant differences of opinion. We have had an open conference meeting so far. We have met. It turns out that the gap that we predicted was there is, in fact, there. The other body has some things called special enrollment procedures, some sunset ideas, some things that are very different than what we wanted and are working out to get a tough, effective line-item veto that works for the great majority here who supported that. So I can report back and I am happy to take advantage of this time and this motion to say that progress is being made and faithful pursuit of the commitment is, in fact, under way. Now, without sounding partisan, because I do not think we need any more strident, red-not rhetoric and partisanship out here on this issue right now, I would point out that it strikes me that the main opposition we are getting is from the gentleman who makes the motion, his own party in the other body, from some of the more revered and senior Members, I would say. Again, I do not want to speak out of school about what is going on in conference committee. I would also point out that the problem with the motion to instruct conferees that we have before us today is self-canceling. The gentleman, my friend from Florida [Mr. Deutsch], well knows that we have to stay within the scope of the conference. The problem is that we have to stick within the scope, and we therefore cannot reach back into decisions about tax provisions that occur before the line-item veto becomes law. That is not within scope. So what the motion to instruct involves is something that is impossible to do within the Rules of the House. Consequently, what we have is a somewhat meaningless motion in front of us, a meaningless resolution in front of us. However, I am willing to take that meaninglessness in terms of the substance and try and turn it into a self-purpose by saying, I am glad we have the opportunity to report back to the gentleman and those who care that, indeed, progress is going forward, and I believe we should accept this motion in the interests of bipartisan cooperation to reinforce that position of the House team in conference that will, in fact, accomplish the line-item veto according to what we wanted to be in the House at the very earliest opportunity.

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post took valuable editorial space last week to alert anyone who might be paying attention to what is going on in Haiti to the fact that the Presidential election process seems to be falling off track. In fact, the United Nations said last week that they need 110 days to do the job correctly, putting those elections--not the inauguration of a new Haitian President--into the first week of February. [[Page H 10644]] Unfortunately, this is just one of a host of signs that things may be beginning to unravel in that small Caribbean nation. October 15 marked 1 year since more than 20,000 American troops returned President Aristide to his demiisland nation. Even as Vice President Gore traveled to Haiti to celebrate the first anniversary of that happy event, wire services began to report the Haitian Prime Minister, Smarce Michel, unable to get the support of the President for his vital economic reform proposals, had tendered his resignation. While the American media was quick to suggest on Monday that he stepped down because of pressure from the incoming Parliament, the fact is that Prime Minister Michel has been fighting for many weeks against the rear guard action of left-leaning, antireform elements, and apparently anti-American activists in the Aristide government. Why is this so important? Because the inability of the Aristide government to summon the collective will to make the economic reforms required to access $1.2 billion international aid package means that Haitians could face their worst economic crisis to date. For Americans, this ultimately could mean another costly refugee interdiction operation in the windward passage. While the Aristide government has been talking reform with the international community, there are troubling reports that, as happened in 1991, it may be actually working behind the scenes to gain control of key industries like flour, cement, sugar, and rice rather than privatizing as promised. Already what were very promising bidding cycles for the cement and flour plants have been suspended indefinitely--not for lack of bids. An unnamed international official quoted in the New York Times last week summed up well the frustration of working with a government that appears to be working dual agendas: ``The President is not playing straight with us and that means we are on a collision course * * * it is unacceptable for him to give aid and comfort to the international community behind closed doors and then say something completely different to his own people.'' With the overwhelmingly Lavalas National Assembly seated last weekend with the blessing of the Clinton administration--but not of the Haitian political parties--President Aristide and his supporters now have a Parliament to rubberstamp the creation of a new cabinet and what is apparently their real agenda--the consolidation of power for the left and leftist authoritarian rule. It should come as no surprise then that, after publicly stating his intention to depart, Aristide has said he will let his new Lavalas Parliament guide him with regard to his tenure in office. We may be further from the Presidential elections in Haiti than any of us dared to think--even though the 1987 Haitian Constitution says that President Aristide must go come February. The U.S. House of Representatives has even passed the Goss amendment to encourage the Haitians to stick to that Constitution and elect a new president to lead them forward. With almost $3 billion American tax dollars on the line, rest assured that Americans across the country, myself included, are going to be looking to Port-au-Prince come February expecting a new Haitian President to take office and to help his people take the fate of their country back into Haitian keeping. If that isn't going to happen, then the Clinton administration owes this Congress and the taxpayers of this country an explanation about what is happening and what is not happening, as they have promised. These things matter for lots of reasons. They matter because we are the champions of democracy, and they matter because we have a lot of taxpayers' dollars invested, and when we do that we have an accountability to the world and to our taxpayers, and that accountability time has come.