Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. GOSS. The Washington Post reported that the IRI was partisan?

Mr. GOSS. Mr Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, that in fact was what I said in my remarks to the press on Monday morning. What paper said this was a partisan group?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague and friend from Florida, who has spoken with great passion and articulation on an issue that we all care very much about, I have been involved with Haitian affairs for 30 years now, from many perspectives, all aimed toward building democracy and a better quality of life for Haiti, which is demonstrably the poorest, most impoverished, most backward part of the western hemisphere, a tragedy in history of many ways, of 200 years as the second oldest sovereign republic, free sovereign republic, in this hemisphere. They just have not been able to get it together down there. I think we all as good neighbors in this hemisphere want to do our best for them. I suspect that my colleague from Florida's impassioned speech was in part from the sense of frustration and disappointment that he feels and that I feel, that we all feel, that things are not going better more quickly. I suspect a little bit perhaps of his feeling comes from the same feeling that I have as an American, a little bit of the shame I feel that some of the poverty in Haiti today is a direct result of the embargo that we have advocated against, this economic embargo that has simply made Haiti, I hate to say this, but it is close, a place where there is too much garbage with too many pigs in the city streets going around. It is very hard to think that this is a civilized capital city of a great sovereign nation. Things have gotten so bad economically down there for anybody to come in and see. It is pathetic, and I feel badly about it. But that was our embargo, and as an American I feel very badly. That was unwise policy by President Clinton and his advisers, and I stood on this floor and many times said that. So that does not mean I am not sympathetic to Haiti. It means I am very sympathetic to the people of Haiti and to the country of Haiti. I do not think starving Haitians into democracy is a very smart way to go, and I have said so repeatedly. Now, apparently my colleague from Florida has some type of obsession with the CIA. I do not know what it is about, but, just to make the record clear, I will say I would presume that all of the President's horses and all of the President's men are the people and ways that he is going to get the message about what is going on in Haiti. That is how our government works, and how it should be. The final point I would like to make is that the question of constitutionality that I have raised, using the Haitian Constitution as the measure by which we judge, is not a new subject. It is, in fact, the way the OAS judges its own member states, and has been since June of 1991 per resolution 1080 of Santiago. The test is a sudden or irregular interruption of democracy creates a abrogation. And where was that ever tested? The first place, Haiti. It served Haiti already, and it can serve Haiti again. That is the standard I am asking us to adopt.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do not know. I certainly hope we are all going to have that answer.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, speaking of the budget as the previous colleagues have from this point of view, I think it is important to note that today the Members of this body will be discussing the appropriation for our foreign operations assistance, and that, of course, is part of our budget process, how much money are we going to parcel out for the different things we undertake as the United States of America through the governance in Washington. Today I am here to talk a little bit about a specific budget item and a little bit about a situation where American taxpayers' dollars go in very substantial amounts, because I think there is some interest in it. I think there should be some interest in it. I am reporting about the situation in Haiti today, discussing a little bit the question about foreign aid for Haiti, how much is right and how should we handle it. As we go through the foreign operations appropriations bill, I will be submitting an amendment that will deal directly with the subject, so in a way I am going to use these few moments just to say that I have come back from the elections in Haiti, and I think that there is a very important message in those elections, and I also feel that there is much work ahead and much accountability ahead. Let me be specific. The headline this morning in one of the Washington papers was, ``A step for Democracy?'' After reviewing showing pictures and reviewing the reports that are coming from Haiti, I would conclude, having been there for 4 days and gotten around part of the country and been in charge [[Page H 6315]] of a team that had observers spread countrywide, that it was a very small step, a very halting step, a very hesitant step for democracy, but it was a step. It was a very expensive step for the American taxpayers also. It turned out that by our standard, you would probably not recognize it as much of an election. It was a very compressed election time, virtually no campaign, which I think many Americans would probably applaud, but unfortunately that meant for Haitians they did not know what the issues were or what was going on, and in that country, generally, you vote for an individual out of a loyalty or a personal conviction, and the issues seem to take a subordinate role. There were an extraordinary amount of unaddressed administrative problems, and when I say unaddressed, that is the critical word because the people in charge of the election apparently got the complaints but never gave any answers out. It created a tremendous amount of frustration that led to a lack of transparency. The people did not know what was going on. The people making decisions were not sharing why they were making those decisions, and that, in turn, eroded credibility. Credibility is vital for full, free elections. It turned out not only was there no campaign to speak out, there was no training in advance of poll workers, no preparation of the people. As a result, there was no great enthusiasm to go out and vote and, in fact, the turnout was disappointingly light. It turned out when you went to vote, if you were a Haitian, there were missing candidates. The candidate you wanted to vote for was not on the ballot or the polling workers were not at the polling station to help you vote or to open the polling station, because they had not been paid, or there were no materials to vote. You might have gotten to the right place and your candidate was on the ballot, but there was no other material to deal with, say, no ballot boxes. We found these kinds of problems widespread everywhere. The end result is people were dissatisfied. There was frustration, and as we have all seen in the pictures from the television and newspapers, widespread disturbances, nothing like the violence in past elections in Haiti. We are all glad abut that. but, still, some very serious incidents did take place in the country, when you are burning down voting stations and stoning candidates, as did happen in some places, and we do not know all of these details yet. We have got a problem. The mood was clearly more relaxed than in the last election in 1990, when I was also there as an observer, but there is still concern about personal security, and the light turnout was in part described by some Haitians due to the fact they did not have enough security at the polls. They wanted to see somebody out there who could protect them if they want to vote, because they could remember what happened if they went to vote in the past and they did not have that security. Bad things happened. Another good part of the news, of the good news, is that the political parties are beginning to work better in Haiti. The one thing that did work in these elections was the poll watchers were there and doing their job on behalf of the parties, and I am happy to say that after the election voting process is pretty much over, that the parties are the ones who are getting involved in making the complaints and making things happen in Haiti, and that is the way it should be. The parties were doing a better job than the government did of running, by and large. What is ahead? We have got about a quarter billion dollars in aid going to Haiti. That means a lot of accountability. I think most Americans want to know what has been spent there, for what purposes, what specifically, how much more are we going to spend. We have the Presidential elections coming in December 1995, and that is the big one. That is the one that matters. I think we had better be better prepared than we were for these parliamentary elections.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. That is the only part of the unanimous-consent request that I have presently on the floor on which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] reserved the right to object.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule to the floor today. While it is not a remarkable rule, it does share certain qualities with most of the rules of the new majority that we have reported this year. First, it is open. It has a very limited number of specific waivers, and it is fair to both sides of the aisle. Specifically, the rule for the foreign operations bill accomplishes several things. First, it is an open rule, allowing any Member to offer an amendment that is in order under the standing rules of the House. In fact, this rule does go a little bit beyond that, allowing for debate on four separate amendments, two Democratic amendments and two Republican amendments, that might not be allowed under a regular rule, might not, I say, because we are not entirely sure of the parliamentary rulings on all of them. There are only three specific waivers given to the bill for unauthorized appropriations, reappropriations, and for a technical trade provision. The first two are needed because there has not been a foreign operations authorization bill that has made it into law since 1985, as just about everybody knows. This year the House passed an authorizing bill. We have done our work, and it is worth noting the Committee on Appropriations has worked closely with the Committee on International Relations to ensure this bill is in line with the House-passed authorization. The last technical waiver I mentioned is required because the bill contains a provision expanding the President's existing authority to impose trade sanctions to Iraq, Serbia, and Montenegro. While this provision is included in the bill for very sound foreign policy reasons, trade issues fall under the primary jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Therefore, this section needs a waiver from clause 5(b) of rule XXI. As in previous rules this year, we have included a preprinting option, I stress the word ``option,'' for priority and recognition. And, finally, this rule provides for a motion to recommit with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, as we discussed in the Committee on Rules hearing yesterday, it is important for this House to have a full and complete debate over the issue of foreign aid especially over the true amount of tax dollars involved and the policies that drive these expenditures. I am pleased that this rule allows for this debate, and I look forward to it. This year's foreign aid rule is, in many ways, a tremendous improvement over previous bills. To begin with, it is $1.6 billion below last year's bill and $2.8 billion below the President's requests. Those are significant amounts of money, and, in my view, they are responsible cuts that represent the kind of spending reform that is necessary to achieve the balanced budget we set out to do. In addition, there is much greater accountability for the funds spent under this bill. Americans have demanded that. And we make these two issues, affordability and accountability, our top priority in any foreign aid bill, and I think we have done that pretty well here. We are now down to less than 1 percent of the budget for foreign aid, something under $12 billion. [[Page H 6234]] There is one area in which I would like to see even greater accountability, however, and that is aid to the Government of Haiti. The Clinton administration has committed an enormous amount of taxpayers' dollars to Haiti, actually without much explanation or accounting so far. There is an important pair of elections scheduled for this calendar year, elections for Haiti's parliament this weekend and the Presidency in December of this year. I plan to offer an amendment that will require that before United States dollars are sent to Haiti, those elections be conducted in a democratic and constitutional manner. This will provide greater accountability for the foreign aid dollars that are spent in Haiti and ensure that they are ulitized to enhance democracy and provide a real incentive to Haiti to stay on the road to democracy. Mr. Speaker, I believe the rule before us today is both fair and open. It was voted out of our committee on a voice vote, and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask for an accounting on the time?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just note in response to the gentleman's comments that one of those amendments was brought forward by a distinguished Member of the gentleman's party, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], and he was treated very fairly. It was thought to be an important amendment. And the other amendment, the one about Haiti which was brought forward by myself, actually probably does not need protection, because it is a cutting amendment, a limitation amendment, not a legislating amendment, we are told. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague and friend, the gentlewoman from the State of Florida, Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I would point out that some of the discussion has been talked about with regard to Haiti and Turkey and so forth. We are talking about cutting amendments, and we do have an open rule. So that is in the area of the spirit of things that are traditional and available to any Member under this type of legislation, as we all know, nothing really extraordinary there. And the fact that we have an open rule on an appropriations bill, I think, is very important for the deliberative process, something we promised we would do as often as possible. With regard to the concern of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], on the Smith amendment, indeed we have not followed exactly the authorizing language because we did pass an authorizing bill and that is what we want to follow. With regard to the concern of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], about the lockbox, she needs to know that we are dealing with that issue. We have planned debate and hearings and so forth, and she has been advised that she will be invited to participate. So there is process in the legislative mill. It just does not happen to be ready yet for the appropriations round that we are in now. Many of us wish it were. I hope we get there soon. We are trying. Finally, I think a very important point on this rule, I do not think anybody has really suggested this is not fair rule, but I would point out that last year the Committee on Rules, this was under the previous majority, the Committee on Rules made in order [[Page H 6241]] only eight amendments on this appropriations bill, five by Republicans and three by Democrats. We thanked them for those five. The rule waived all points of order against all eight amendments. By our count, five of the eight involved violations of clause 2 of rule XXI. So if your concern is that, we are definitely making progress and doing a better job of getting our authorizers and appropriators in sync. I think that is important. I think it makes for a better product and an easier vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 170 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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 purposes of debate only. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to include extraneous material in the Record.) permission for member to offer amendments in modified form

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] be permitted to offer either of his amendments numbered 1 or 2 in House Report 104-147 which accompanies House Resolution 170, to the bill H.R. 1868 in the modified form which Representative Hall has placed at the desk.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] so he may respond to that.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's vote by the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to lift the 14-year-old [[Page H 6164]] OCS moratorium on oil and gas activity was a big disappointment for Florida. Even through we know that the annual appropriations ritual to protect our sensitive coastal waters may not be the best way to operate, the lack of a long-term policy has forced us to take what we can get. Floridians and millions of visitors to Florida strongly oppose opening up our coastal waters to oil and gas drilling--not just because of the tremendous risk of a spill to our environment, our beaches, and our tourist economy, but also because of the onshore infrastructure such drilling would spawn. In the near term, we urge the full Appropriations Committee to restore the ban--and we will take our fight to this floor if necessary. For the longer term, it is time to develop a real solution to this annual problem, perhaps by passing H.R. 72, a bill that provides for good science, some degree of certainty, and a rational plan to determine if and where exploration can be done safely. Meanwhile, those who love Florida will fight to protect it.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and dear friend, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, for yielding me this time. I must say that it has been a pleasure to have him on the Committee on Rules and I am pleased to see him managing these legislative efforts. Mr. Speaker, in the time I have been in Congress, we have had much discussion about the need to look close to home as we work to bring balance to our Federal budget. Not only is there an actual real need to clamp down on unnecessary and lower priority spending--but there is also a very important symbolic need behind that effort. My mail strongly suggests the American people are willing to make some sacrifices in order to bring down our deficit and begin paying off our debt. But they want to be sure that the sacrifice is spread fairly, all the way around--and they sure want to know that their elected officials are leading the way, not hiding behind some royal velvet curtain in the castle or the Imperial Congress. I am very proud of the work done by our friends on the legislative branch subcommittee in bringing us H.R. 1854, the bill that outlines our own budget up here on the Hill for the coming year. The subcommittee made some very real cuts--reflecting the action we took on the opening day in cutting our staff budgets by one- third and in reducing the actual dollars we intend to spend next fiscal year by 8.2 percent from what we are spending this year. That is a real cut--not just slower growth or some budgetary hocus-pocus. Still, though the committee has done good work--there are Members who have ideas about further cuts and ways to change priorities in how the money is spent. Although appropriations bills are privileged and could come straight to the floor without a rule, this bill requires certain waivers as explained by my colleague from Florida. In addition, because we are under a tight time schedule to complete our work on all the appropriations bills, our Rules Committee chose to follow recent precedent and provide a structured rule, which was reported by our committee on a voice vote. This rule provides for consideration of 11 amendments--including several proposals for additional cuts in Members' franking. I am a strong proponent of reducing the allowances Members get for free mail--having spent the past 6 years fully responding to my constituents' inquiries and staying in touch--while only using a fraction of my allocation. I am certain many other Members have had similar experience of underutilization of the over generous franking allowances. Likewise, we will consider an amendment to afford Members the opportunity to return unused office funds to the Treasury for deficit reduction--an important proposal designed to change the incentives from spending toward saving. All together--the bill and this rule--provide strong testimony to the fact that Members are starting to get it--the American people want us to lead by example and that is exactly what we are doing. This doesn't reduce Congress and its Members to sackcloth and ashes. It does responsibly tighten our belts another notch or two. I urge support for this rule.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 168, legislation which is designed to respond to the plea of the American people that the Federal Government become more responsive and more attuned to common sense. One of the worst byproducts of our overblown Government and the cumbersome bureaucracy that it has [[Page H 6110]] spawned over the years is hat often good intentions lead to bad, or just plain dumb, rules or regulations upon implementation. That is what happens, unfortunately, when you try to enforce too many centralized, one-size- fits-all requirements on the diverse communities and individuals that make up this great country. Government is not the answer to every problem that comes along and it never was intended to be so. Like so many good and creative ideas, the proposal for corrections day arose because of discussions with ordinary citizens and with State and local officials who for years have labored under the rigid, onerous, and at times downright absurd requirements of the Federal Government. It is our intent, through this procedural change, to find a way to cut through the redtape and inertia and allow for speedy, narrowly focused action in addressing those problems. It is the old principle of feedback, some call it representative government, when the Federal Government hands down an ill-advised or misdirected requirement and the folks at the other end of the mandate cry out for relief. The corrections day procedure provides for a rapid-response means to receive that message through the static and tune out the problem quickly. There were concerns raised by my friends on the other side of the aisle that this proposal could be abused and would not protect the rights of the minority. I shared that concern on the Committee on Rules and was pleased that our Committee on Rules, under Chairman Solomon's leadership, adopted an amendment by my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] to afford the minority its traditional right to a motion to recommit, with or without instructions. I think that, coupled with the Speaker's public pledge to seek bipartisan corrections proposals, should allay those concerns of the minority. The abuse that we should be most worried about is the abuse that for years has allowed unnecessary, burdensome and counterproductive rules to weigh down the productivity and the individual freedoms of Americans and American institutions. That is the relief we are after here today, and while some in opposition have questioned whether Republicans have got exactly the right formula, I think we do have a formula that will get the job done, and I am delighted to urge support for approval of this effort. I urge a ``yes'' vote as we go into this.