Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is absolutely right, of course. The concern we have is there were other Republicans who also said, ``Look, we have got things we want to put in there, too.'' I just said that I had another Haiti amendment. The line was drawn and said, what we have got is what is in; if we start opening up, then you are going to find all kinds of little notes all over this place. People have said, ``I had intended to do that, had I only known.'' You have to draw the line somewhere. I think we drew it fairly. I think we tried to give fair treatment to the four that we have provided for in here. Mr. Speaker, in closing I wanted to point out that there are some alarming things going on. I read the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], in the New York Times as saying about these dilatory tactics that ``We're going to keep this up until we get justice.'' I would say that you want to be careful about justice. Sometimes when you pray for it, you get it. I think when you look at some of the ways that we are trying to accommodate the minority, that we are doing better than in fact was the case when we were in the minority. It is something we are all aware of. We are determined to try to do better and be fairer. If we are abused by dilatory tactics, obviously we are going to have to take appropriate countermeasures because we have the Nation's business to attend to. I read this morning in Congress Daily, I was unhappy to read it, a statement by the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], that says, ``We continue to be deeply concerned about the Republican leadership's attempt to stack the Ways and Means Committee.'' We disposed of that yesterday. I suppose I should say I am astonished, shocked, dismayed, incredulous about the minority leader's statement, but I am not speechless about it. The fact is that the Committee on Ways and Means minority is getting better treatment under this majority than the other way around, on a percentage basis.

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

Mr. GOSS. I agree. I think what happened clearly was there was the thought, the expectation, that others were going to offer the amendment, and it did not happen and we got into this dilatory process.

Mr. GOSS. I was told that they had coordinated with you. If that is not true, then I am misinformed. In any even the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] apparently did have such an amendment.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, the chairman did not have that big sign at the time. I think the only reason he had it is it has become sort of a cause celebre.

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

Mr. GOSS. The people of East Timor have been the victims for a long time. I agree it is a serious problem. I recognize the gentleman represents people from Portugal in his district. I understand his sensitivity. I also know that other Members of this body have dealt with the East Timor situation and reached the conclusion not to offer the amendment.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I think that the gentleman was in fact a victim of process which was derailed by dilatory tactics.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I will be the closing speaker and I just have a few cleanup remarks I would like to make. Much of the commentary we have heard has been the subject of other debate and there is no point in hashing it over at this point. Mr. Speaker, I think we are about 80 minutes away from ending a debate that has so far consumed 27 hours, which I point out has been some 5 hours more than the House spent debating Desert Storm back in 1991. That was probably the most important vote that I have made since I have been a Member of Congress and I am sure many other Members would feel that way. Regarding some other points that have been made about open rules and so forth, I think it is fair to go back and we can put into the procedure, if necessary, the amendment process under the special rules by our Committee on Rules, and comparing the 103d and 104th Congress. And yes, we argue about definitions, I know. But according to, I think, a fair and reasonable judgment, we have, indeed, had many more open rules or modified open rules in the 104th Congress. Mr. Speaker, even I think our colleagues on the Committee on Rules on the other side have admitted that, although they feel maybe we are not doing quite as well as we hoped we would do. I think that is a subject of some debate, but I do not think it is debatable that we have not had more open rules. I think we definitely have. With regard to the opportunity for more amendments here, I think there are probably an endless array of amendments that could come up under the foreign operations appropriation. I certainly had a couple of more Haiti amendments I was ready to bring out, but I think probably everybody is relieved that that has not happened, since we have already spent 6 hours on Haiti and that is probably more than enough. With regard to East Timor, I had understood that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], had all discussed this amongst themselves and had discussed this somewhat in the past and the fact that if there was a casualty on East Timor on this matter, that it is truly a casualty of the dilatory debate tactics. Because had it not been for the dilatory debate, I suspect that would have happened. But for the record I must state that the Committee on Rules met on the 29th and filed the rule on the 29th. The rule was filed. So a day late and a dollar short, it seems to be the situation with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. I am sorry that it happened. I suggest that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] should talk to the leadership in the Democratic Party and the minority party about the use of dilatory tactics. The other point, and my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], with whom I serve very happily and proudly on the Committee on Rules, has said that we began with an open rule, and I am sorry we did not stay with an open rule. I feel exactly the same way. We did not begin with an understanding that we were going to have dilatory tactics on an entirely extraneous matter. I do not know what the problem really was. I do not know whether it was a question of Democratic unity or whether it was a question of a Medicaid speech or whether it was a question of really the committee statistics, the standings of the committees and the Ways and Means issue. I do not know what the issue was, but it clearly was not related to the foreign operations appropriation. It was extraneous, it was dilatory, and that is a matter of record. The fact that we have had a casualty here and had to close down I think is regrettable. I think that it is very clear where that came from and what the problem with it is. Having said all that, I think we have done our very best to make sure that [[Page H 6752]] all the amendments we did know about at the time that we filed were taken care of, that were timely filed and that we felt had been discussed one way or the other. I think we have done a very fair and reasonable job.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague and the distinguished gentleman from greater San Dimas, CA [Mr. Dreier], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], chairman of the subcommittee in the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 177 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, when credible and respected observer organizations, notably the International Republican Institute, returned from the June 25 elections in Haiti to report their documented observations--both the good and the bad--they were not received with open arms. It was more like a shoot-the-messenger situation here and elsewhere in Washington because at that time international organizations, the Clinton administration officials, and some of the national media even were too busy painting rosy pictures of what was going on in Haiti--glossing over widespread irregularities in the elections that actually happened hailing the relatively non-violent atmosphere on election day as the measure of a successful electoral [[Page H 6703]] process in Haiti, never mind the widespread and serious mismanagement, chaos, confusion, and disorganization that disenfranchised so many candidates and so many voters. Now the flurry of election reports of 2 weeks ago in Haiti has dwindled to a few inches of space in the major papers. Last Friday, for example, the news that the run-off elections, the important run-off elections scheduled for the end of this month were being pushed back to August. This was buried in the deepest recesses of the major papers. Even the New York Times barely gave it mention, and none among the major media dared question the wisdom of the provisional electoral council's intention to announce results on this past Saturday despite the protests of most of the parties that participated in the election on June 25. This week, the news that 23 of the 27 parties who actually participated in the elections of June 25 in Haiti have signed official communiques calling for the elections to be annulled, and that still has not made the cut in the smattering of the Haiti-related articles in the major press outlets in this country either. The New York Times did take the time to editorialize and declare the delay of the run-offs as a step that will give officials time to learn from their mistakes. Of course, some might question whether or not it is appropriate to hold a run-off for an election that is being challenged by almost all the participants, because it was characterized by the widespread disenfranchisement of voters and candidates alike, as we now all know. But the Clinton administration marches onward down the yellow brick road. At the State Department briefing this weekend, Spokesman Burns declared that Haiti ``now has a functioning democracy * * *'' and that the administration believes ``* * * the Haitians did rather well, if you look at this election as it should be properly viewed in the context of the environment in Haiti and the history of Haiti.'' Well, indeed, it is good news that democracy has come to Haiti. Now perhaps we can bring back thousands of troops that are down there at taxpayers expense providing security and stability in that country and perhaps we can cut back on the hundreds of millions of dollars being sent to Haiti every day to help get democracy started. Mr. Speaker, the truth is the Haitian people who toiled long and hard on election day trying to make the best of a bad process deserve more than the cursory analysis and condescending statements of support we have been hearing from the administration and the media in this country. Rather than pressure to simply move on, Haitians need the support of the White House, the State Department and the American media to find the truth of what actually went wrong in the elections on the 25th--and to get it fixed. And before this December's Presidential elections because they are going to be very important, and more importantly for the American people, we need to be kept abreast of where are the taxdollars the Clinton administration has been doling out for the elections and for U.S. operations in Haiti? And what good, if any, they are doing? It is a lot of money. The White House owes us an accounting and it is overdue. At the most basic level, these elections were about Haitians being free to elect the entire local governmental structure in Haiti and a new national parliament, a congress, being free to construct in those offices the checks and balances envisioned and provided for in the new Haitian constitution. The success of the process will determine how soon we can bring our troops home and whether or not anything lasting, in fact, does come out of all the money, time, and effort the American people have poured into that small friendly Caribbean nation. Glossing over the rough spots in this process does not help any of the parties involved. I say to my colleagues, ``If you want to shoot the messenger, go ahead, but the fact of it is that there are some problems, and they need to be fixed.'' Even the distinguished New York Times today has had the temerity to suggest what they would not suggest 2 weeks ago after the elections, and I quote from the editorial page from the Times today: ``Haiti is wise to postpone its next round of elections. The first round, on June 25, was marred by massive disorganization,'' et cetera. They would not admit that, and now they admit it. We are making progress. We are getting at the truth.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I found it curious that the gentlewoman from Connecticut spoke so much about the tax on the seniors situation. The Republican platform, of course, does have a tax break for seniors. That has been much discussed and that means a lot to me, because I represent a lot of seniors. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Salt Lake City, UT. [Mrs. Waldholtz].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply refer the gentleman from Texas who is leaving the well to section 210 which is entitled ``Tax Reduction Contingent on Balanced Budget in the House of Representatives,'' which I think will satisfy his needs. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier] vice chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to yield 3 minutes to the well- known gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennyslvania [Mr. Walker], the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, obviously my friend and distinguished colleague, member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], for whom I have genuine affection and great respect, has pointed out there are many ways to balance the budget. I guess the debate is that we have found a way to do it and, under the leadership of the other party from the 40 years, we seldom have done it so we think we are making progress. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce]. I would have to say that Ohio's loss of a jurist has been the Committee on Rule's very tremendous gain.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Glens Falls, our distinguished Chairman, for yielding me this time and I rise in strong support of this rule, a very good and very special rule. Mr. Speaker, with this rule we will bring to the floor the central feature of the new majority's promise to the American people: a balanced Federal budget. We cannot forget the importance of this budget blueprint--every year since 1969 the Federal Government has spent more money than it had available in its coffers. Our total debt is now in the neighborhood of $5 trillion, almost $20,000 for every man, woman, and child. So it is an incredible feat that for the first time in over a quarter of a century, we have made a hard commitment to a balanced budget. And we have done this in spite of the lack of a balanced budget amendment, and in spite of a budget process that, at best, makes it extremely difficult to bring the budget into balance and at worst actually hinders the process of cutting waste and overspending. Mr. Speaker, having served on the Blue Ribbon Bipartisan Entitlement Commission, known as the Kerry Commission, I have seen firsthand the problems that are lurking just around the corner if we do not fulfill our promise of balancing the budget. Asking the American people to put up with continued budget deficits is like asking them to paddle over Niagara Falls in a canoe, a predictably unpleasant outcome. Without serious reforms in all areas of the budget--including discretionary programs, including entitlements--we are setting the stage for certain tragedy. Many people talk about the impact that the national debt and annual deficit will have on future generations, but the threat is actually much more immediate. Take Medicare for example: the trustees responsible for reporting on the state of this vital health program have said, plainly and simply, that Medicare will be broke in 2002--we are not talking about our children or grandchildren--this will have a direct impact on everyone from current retirees on down. This budget resolution addresses this crisis head on, and provides a platform to prevent a disaster--in Medicare and all other truly vital programs. Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee, John Kasich of Ohio, for his tireless work in bringing this budget agreement to the floor. As he told us in committee, it is very important that we pass this conference report expeditiously, so that the various authorizing committees can fulfill their reconciliation goals and further us on the path to a balanced budget in 7 years. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the budget.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] a hard-working and energetic member of the Committee on Rules.