Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, good morning. It is appropriations season again and the money is tight everywhere, as we all know, as we discussed the budget in this town. However, there is a $2 billion expenditure that I do not believe is receiving the scrutiny it deserves; the money we are spending on continued United States operations in Haiti. During this very painful process where even the good programs are likely to be cut in Washington, I have been particularly disheartened by the reports I have been receiving from Haiti and by how little return the American taxpayer seems to be getting for the precious tax dollars the Clinton administration is spending there. We know that the total costs will run well past the $2 billion, that is ``B,'' billion, mark or if our soldiers leave as scheduled in February of next year, 1996. This is an extraordinary sum of money. In fact, to put it in perspective, we could have given every person in Haiti $300; more than the average Haitian makes in a year, incidentally. What will we have to show for it when it is all said and done? That is the question. I sincerely hope that we will have at least two free and fair elections. In fact, I am going to travel to Haiti later this week as the head of an elections observation team for a firsthand look at the electoral process for the elections this Sunday. From the briefings I have received, though, I fear that this weekend's parliamentary and local elections may be dangerously close to falling below internationally accepted standards for good elections. And it is not for lack of money. In fact, it seems the Clinton administration had to learn the hard way that doing things in a country with a history of political turmoil and a near vacuum in infrastructure and democratic government costs a lot more to get done than it does to get things done here in the United States. While the FEC estimates that an American election costs around $2 a ballot, recent reports in the Arkansas Democrat I saw indicate that it will cost United States taxpayers between $10 and $15 per ballot in Haiti. That adds up to $30 million in administrative costs alone just to hold elections in Haiti. Of course, this does not include the Presidential elections expected for sometime in December, if all goes well. Still more disheartening is the fact that once again, as in 1934, the United States may depart Haiti leaving nothing behind to help Haitians consolidate the progress they have made. There are very serious gaps in the long-term picture. The constitutionally required permanent electoral council was never formed and the provisional electoral council is just that, it is provisional and it is struggling and not working as well as it needs to be. Thus, we will leave behind no cadre of trained individuals to carry forth the democratic electoral process. We will leave behind no institutionalization of the justice system, the judicial system, which is a prerequisite for any democratic society. A further concern is the police force. The Aristide government is resisting President Clinton and his team not to build a large, well- trained, independent police force. This is no doubt the legacy of his bad experience with former Haitian dictators' military police forces, but it nevertheless remains deeply troubling. At the time U.S. forces are scheduled to leave, next February, barely 4,000 newly trained police will be in place. If training continues as scheduled, the program could produce a maximum of maybe 6,000 police. Would this be enough police, given the dissolution of the Haitian military and the historical propensity in Haiti for chaos? Will this provide stability for a country with nearly 7 million people, 4,000 police? I do not think so. If there is anything that Haiti needs it is law and order, democratic law and order. That means a set of laws that apply equally and effectively to all citizens, a judiciary and a police force answerable to the democratically elected government. [[Page H 6092]] I think every American, including people like myself who opposed the armed invasion of Haiti and entangling military occupation, are hoping that we will leave enough in Haiti for Haitians to build on; that a few years down the road we will not be faced with the same crisis all over again, starting with a great refugee crisis into Florida. Frankly, I am not convinced that is happening, though. I hope every American will write their Congressman or Congresswoman and demand a full accounting of spending on United States and United Nations operations in Haiti by this administration. We are asking all Americans to tighten their belts still another notch. They deserve to know whether or not they are getting a reasonable return on the $2 billion- plus investment of their tax dollars that the Clinton administration has spent in that small Caribbean nation. Mr. Speaker, where has all that money gone? And what did the U.S. taxpayer get for it? That is the question that deserves an answer.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit tomorrow while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5- minute rule. Committee on Agriculture; Committee on Banking and Financial Services; Committee on Commerce; Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on International Relations; Committee on the Judiciary, and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 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, we all should welcome the President to the budget debate--and hope that this time, the shift in Presidential winds will be a lasting one. In announcing that ``It's time to clean up this mess,'' the President made big news. It is not hard to see why such a proclamation, coming from the President of the United States, makes headline news. Four months ago, when the President submitted his official budget to Congress with no plan for bringing about fiscal balance, he clearly did not think the time had arrived to clean up the mess. Even more interesting is that, after signing into law the largest tax increase in history in 1993, the President declared that he had taken the necessary steps to clean up the mess. The President's changing view on this subject has been somewhat of a whirlwind. But today, even though the President's plan is 3 years later and a half trillion dollars shorter than the Republican plan to balance the budget, we welcome him to the debate.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, in the past 2 weeks Haiti has paid host to an impressive list of high-level visitors. The OAS journeyed there for its 25th annual meeting. A U.S. Presidential delegation traveled there for a look around. And, Secretary of State Warren Christopher joined the celebration for the first 370 graduates from the Civilian Police Training Center the United States created last December. These groups saw highway refurbishment projects, met with an optimistic electoral council, and some even stayed in the newly refurbished Club Med. If you read the few articles regarding these visits, you get the impression that the elections are on line for June 25, and that come February 1996, there is no question that Haiti will be a self-sustaining, self- policing democracy under the direction of a new Haitian President. I think we all hope that that will be the case. Especially since much of all this activity has been paid for by U.S. taxpayers. However, I want to urge my colleagues to take a closer look--to understand that, although some progress has been made, there is still a long, long way to go. Foremost on my long list of concerns is the question of whether or not the upcoming parliamentary elections will be fully free and fair and held in a stable environment where Haitian voters and candidates alike feel free to exercise their political prerogatives. Judging from the reports I have received, there are some serious problems. With elections less than 3 weeks away, the candidates list has yet to be finalized. This means that not only are voters and candidates confused about who will be on the ballot, but also that the ballots cannot go to print. The California printing company doing them has said they need 3.5 weeks to do that job--as it stands today they will be scrambling to get them printed in time for distribution to the 9,000 voting stations in Haiti before the June 25 election. Of course, because so many of the facilities used for voter registration have been damaged by frustrated crowds, the question of where these 9,000 voting stations will be remains open. There are also signs of some serious problems with the voter registration process. A recent inventory found that nearly 1 million voter registration cards were missing. To date, the electoral council has only been able to locate 60,000 of them. In addition, despite the reopening of several registration centers in Port-au-Prince for a few days the week before last--a cynic might say for the benefit of those high level delegations--we found that most stations closed in April due to lack of materials. This has left many Haitian voters unregistered, disgruntled, and disenchanted with the electoral process. It should surprise no one that the single most important issue for most Haitians of all types is security. Anyone who has followed elections in Haiti knows that potential Haitian voters carry the memory of 1987 when voters were massacred as they went to the polls. For candidates across the spectrum from left to right, campaigning is done mostly by posters, rather than in person. Why? According to most of the candidates we have been in contact with, they are worried about personal security. The problem is that the combined impact of the dissolution of the Haitian military and the inability of the interim public security force to command the respect and trust of the Haitian people has left an authority vacuum. In fact, the IPSF continues to be afraid to patrol alone. Despite the presence of the United Nations missions in towns and villages in all nine departments, if you ask them, most Haitians will tell you that having the troops there has made little difference in their security situation. Whether they are actually safer or not, they do not feel as if they are and that the new Haitian police force of 6,000 will not be ready to take over until early next year at the earliest. It also bears remembering that the parliamentary elections are only the first step--they will set the tenor for the Presidential elections later this year. Mr. Speaker, it is way too soon to declare a victory in Haiti. In fact, I will not be ready to do that until Haiti has a new President, a new parliament, a working jurisprudence system, and an investment climate that invites investment, and is no longer a country under financed by the international community and especially the American taxpayers. We are far from a Haiti that is once again a Haitian responsibility. American taxpayers may wonder why this matters to them. It is an important country, a country that is struggling with democracy. It is nearby to us. We want them to succeed. It is also important because it is costing us somewhere between $1, $2 to $3 million every day to support our activities there.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend from Glens Falls, NY, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, like the chairman I believe it is imperative, absolutely imperative, that we maintain the strongest, best equipped, most professional military in the world. The world is counting on us to do it. I am pleased this rule makes in order a defense authorization bill that will help to strengthen our national security by restoring funding in several vital areas and focusing on our true priorities in others. This rule makes in order some 56 amendments from both sides of the aisle, 56 amendments. I am confident that there will be full and open debate on such important issues as to whether or not to fund more B-2 bombers, the status of aid to Russia, missile defense strategy, procurement reform, things we are talking about in America. While the minority may find fault with a specific amendment made in order or lack thereof, perhaps, Members should be aware this Committee on Rules has continued the tradition of reviewing and allowing numerous amendments to the DOD bill on a bipartisan basis. National security is not partisan matter. One tradition we have not followed, however, in the Committee on Rules is the practice of granting multiple rules for the consideration of this bill. Last year we needed two rules. The year before, it took four rules to complete the DOD bill. So this single rule is welcome progress toward efficiency as well as fairness. Mr. Speaker, the cold war is over. As we have witnessed in the Middle East, Bosnia, and Korea, there are still many actual and potential regional conflicts that could easily threaten the United States and individual members of our military forces. Our readiness must not be allowed to deteriorate to the minimum acceptable level. In this uncertain world, we still need deterrence and we still need to be able to handle any threat to our security. Our military, for now, I think, has distinguished itself once again in a great way. We certainly have proven that we give the best training and the best equipment to our troops, and that it is justified. It is also true, I might add, we have an obligation not to misuse our military for nonmilitary purposes. Haiti comes to mind in that vein. Having said that, it is evident the administration, sadly, has been cutting back our Armed Forces too quickly and not enough thought given to the impact that specific cuts would have on our security. Once again, I commend the Committee on National Security for bringing forward this bill, and I urge passage of this rule for its fair consideration of the bill. Thinking of the remarkable exploits and successful saga of Scott O'Grady and his rescuers, can any Member do less than support this bill?

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on in the sentiment of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] who has so eloquently expressed our pride this morning in our military. Indeed, it is a great pleasure to wake up to good news in the midst of all the trouble that we are experiencing in the Bosnia area. According to the morning news reports, and as has been confirmed now, the American pilot downed in Bosnia has been rescued by American marines, and is safe aboard a United States ship. I am sure every American's heart sings to hear that news. This was a very risky rescue mission. It was extremely dangerous. It was no easy thing to do. It took a lot of courage and professionalism, but the professionalism, team spirit, and perseverance of our military personnel, coupled with the grace of God, saw those marines through, and helped bring our young pilot out of danger, back to his family, and back to our shores. With the commemorations of Memorial Day still fresh in our minds, this feat of bravery reminds us again the risks and sacrifices our men and women in uniform take very day. We wish the pilot and his family well, and we thank all the families of those brave young men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. They are always there when we need them. Thank God for them.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, my understanding is that we have used that provision up in the first rule, so we will have to complete all of the business in the time left for debate; that is, the 6 hours plus, I understand, with some 25 or 35 minutes of carryover. I am not sure what the exact number was. It is at that time we will be finished with the debate.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, as most Members know, this rule is the product of an emergency rules committee meeting held the day before the House adjourned for the Memorial Day recess. At that time, H.R. 1561 had been under consideration for almost 12 hours and a host of amendments were still pending-- amendments offered by Republicans and Democrats. Using past precedents on similar bills as our guide, we had hoped that the original allotment of 2 hours of general debate and 10 hours of open amendment process would be sufficient, if properly managed, to allow a full and free debate on all the major issues at play in this important foreign policy bill. Looking back at the rules granted for foreign aid authorizations during past Congresses, where 1 hour of general debate and amendment time caps of 8 to 10 hours were standard, we felt that our formula would be sufficient. Clearly we underestimated Members' interest in extending debate on several standard issues along the way. That's somewhat understandable, partially because we have so many new Members and these programs have not been properly reauthorized since 1985. So, when it became clear that more time would be needed on this bill, our leadership attempted to work out a compromise with the minority to allow the extension of debate by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, some Members of the minority were not interested in that type of bipartisan cooperation. Hence the emergency rules meeting that produced this rule, a rule which responds to Members requests to add debate time, hopefully for some important points. I commend Chairman Solomon for his flexibility and his efforts to work this out in a congenial manner--and I do believe this rule leans over backwards to provide a fair solution. Under this rule we will have an additional 6 hours of open debate, with Members having the opportunity to offer any amendment that was properly prefiled by May 24. In addition, this rule allows the chairman of the international relations committee, in consultation with the minority, to offer one amendment that was not prefiled but is otherwise in order under the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, as we gear up for the appropriations cycle in the immediate months ahead it is crucial that we complete our work on H.R. 1561, and I am pleased that our rules committee was able to develop a plan to ensure that the major issues properly managed can be dealt with in a reasonable period of time without jeopardizing that legislative schedule. I say ``properly managed,'' because under this type of fair open rule, there is always a possibility for some abuse of allotted time by some Members who for whatever motive choose to indulge in dilatory tactics. Nevertheless, I urge support for this good workable, fair rule.

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 time 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Kim].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to congratulate the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for his very articulate presentation, and look forward to being able to deal with that issue in the very near future. I would point out there are some aspects to the American Overseas Interests Act that do deal with some of the problems, particularly this dual management problem with the United Nations, which I am sure every American--if they read about it in the paper this morning--is as outraged this morning as I am about, that we cannot defend our aircraft, but only expose our aircraft. Some of those problems that demand immediate attention are provided for here. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have no further requests for time. Before yielding back the balance of my time, I would just simply like to say that this act is called the American Overseas Interests Act. Usually the labels that we have on a lot of our legislation around here are somewhat grandiose. I think this label actually means something. I think we are making a shift from what we used to call foreign aid to put the emphasis on something that is truly what are America's interests overseas. I think that is a major departure from some of the direction that we have been struggling with in the past 10 years or so here. It is one of the reasons why we have not gotten the bill through. I think this is a new time, and I think that justifies in part this extra debate time which is really an extraordinary amount of time, almost 20 hours when we count the rules and general debate, that is an awful lot of time. With regard to the observation of the gentleman from Maryland that there probably is no greater time or no more important thing right now than discussing Bosnia, there, of course is another avenue, as the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations has pointed out. And the thing about what goes on in the world is that every day there is always something new anyway that is very important for us, not that Bosnia is not critically important, but there will be other things that are critically important. We have to make sure we have a process to bring those things forward. But the basis, the structure, the foundation of what we are trying to signal here in this legislation are American overseas interests and to provide for them appropriately, well aware of the message that we have had from our American constituency that says we have got to be a little bit more careful about how we spend our money, make sure it really counts for national security and true interests overseas and we are not in the business of being the world's policemen or the world's welfare source. I think that this bill goes a long way in dealing with that. The ranking Member and distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], a wonderful man and a good friend, has said we need more time, more debate, and that we might not even have enough after this 20 hours. I do not know how much debate is enough debate on any particular bill, but it seems to me this is an extraordinary amount of time for a very important subject, where we are having a change of direction which is part of the change that was promised in the November 8 elections. I believe that we have got it pretty well covered now. I urge my colleagues to support this rule. 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 have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will that vote be automatically called by the Chair?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear, but was a time certain set for that?

Mr. GOSS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 156 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, my understanding of the rule, as it was originally filed before we had the second rule, was keyed to a time specific on a certain date for that provision. So, therefore, that provision is not available, and all Members need to be advised that the rule, as I explained it in my statements, would be the way we carry on, and after the 35 minutes or 30 minutes has gone plus the 6 hours of debate, that is the end, subject to the other parts of the rule.

Mr. GOSS. I cannot confirm that. I believe approximately.

Mr. GOSS. I believe it is in that order.

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

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

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 Banking and Financial Services; Committee on Commerce; Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on the Judiciary; Committee on National Security; and Committee on Science. 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, the Nation's Capital is famed for its parks and wide open spaces. The Mall, the area between this Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial, is one of the most venerable and most visited of our alabaster city's sights and all Americans have a right to enjoy it. Of course, we have to ensure that one set of rights does not outweigh another. Today, a walk down The Mall suggests that we have lost our balance on that score. Simply put, large parts of The Mall have become a disorderly tourist trinket bazaar. This famous open space has become haven to countless unsightly, makeshift tables and weather covers from which temporary vendors push their merchandise in an atmosphere of cacophony and hustle. Those vendors, it seems, secured U.S. Park Service permits under their first amendment rights. As an ardent defender of the Constitution and its amendments, I certainly support the right to free speech. But Americans also have a right to and an expectation of unobstructed, safe, and peaceful use of their national parks. Especially one with such majestic monuments. I hope we can restore some balance and find a more suitable spot to relocate the tourist merchants while there is still summer ahead to enjoy The Mall peacefully.