Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, as colleagues return from what I hope was a productive work period, I also hope Members got a little chance for a rest, too, because it is now time for this House to get down to the business of reining in specific Federal spending. We have passed, as everybody knows, the landmark budget blueprint for reaching balance in our budget by the year 2002. That was a big effort. Now our committees are diving into the details, deciding where and how much to cut, to ensure that we fulfill that the problem of fiscal sanity does not go on and become fiscal insanity for our children and their children's children. I am sure this is going to be very hard. There are no easy decisions. There are a lot of tough decisions ahead, and probably some rude awakenings, too, but I think that is why we are here. I think we have a moral obligation to get it done. The gripers and whiners who have so long defended the status quo believe they can actually scare people into opposing our agenda for balancing the budget. Actually the status quo has brought us a deteriorating quality of life in America, and we all know it. As we prove our good faith in making government smaller, more efficient, and more accountable, the American people will support out efforts, so say the people in my district, and I think across the country as well.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this morning in the Washington Post we read that the former Speaker of this House, Tom Foley, believes that term limits is dead. Actually that should be term limits are dead. Either way, so speaks the man who did not understand the term limits movement when he was the Speaker, and he still does not get it. The citizens of Washington State and 21 other States passed term limits, and they are not ready to concede defeat on the issue. Yes, yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court shows an unfortunate disconnect between the judicial branch and the majority of Americans who favor term limits. That type of thing has happened before and Congress has fixed it. Now it is up to Congress to act. The ruling gives us a clear course: the term limit constitutional amendment. We have seen the arrogance of power here resulting from a system where longevity, not merit, determines clout. Let's return to the idea of citizen legislators who go to Washington to serve and then go back home to live among the people that they have worked for. That is what the people want, and they are the people we work for.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 155 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] who I respect immensely, as he well knows, but 10 hours of debate can hardly be a gag rule, and I thought we were doing a favor to the gentleman's party by making sure that we had a family friendly evening one or two nights this week, so we were trying to extend out the debate as best we could during the daytime. We simply ran out of week.

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

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his observation. I was only commenting on the gag question. A 10-hour gag is a long gap, and I think that most people, when this debate gets going, are going to agree that we are going to have pretty free and open debate, and perhaps the concerns of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], that we were going to have a free-for-all, will be more on target than ``Members won't have a chance to speak.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], also a member of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

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 155, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1561.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have tried our best to come up with a rule that provides plenty of time to talk about the things we need to talk about, give every Member a chance to get what is on their heart or mind on this subject out on the floor for discussion, and still manage the debate in a way that the vital issues are provided for and will get the appropriate attention. I think we must have done a pretty good job in terms of the policy, because we have the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget saying oh, my gosh, he was worried about the budget constraints, yet we have the President's spokesperson saying that they are going to recommend a veto because there is not enough money. So we apparently have come up with something that works pretty well here. This bill will spend 5.5 percent less than last year, and does represent 9.5 percent less than the White House asked for, but it does provide for the necessary and affordable business of our Nation overseas, provides for accountability and our national interests and national securities. I guess that no rule is absolutely perfect, but I think this is a pretty good rule for an issue of this dimension, and I think we have done our best to craft it to give every Member the opportunity to have his or her say. I think it is fair and efficient, and I think it will do the job. I urge its support. 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. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just briefly respond to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, and say we tried very hard to have a balance between a free-for-all and the structured rule that gets the major debate, and we came to the conclusion that we provided the parameters, and we hope the floor managers will be able to lead the debate in a way that will get the major issues out there. Under the recognition system that we have, there is priority given to the members of the committee, as the gentleman well knows, and I know that if his side of the aisle holds him in as much respect that people on this side of the aisle do, that truly that they will listen to his governance as we go through this, and I know that the people on our side of the aisle have equal respect for our chairman. So I think we will have a good debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from San Dimas, CA [Mr. Dreier], an instrumental Member of this House and my leader in spirit on the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the committee, who will, I believe, explain this bill more fully.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the House this rule for the consideration of H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act of 1995. Although this rule is somewhat complicated, it is a modified open rule that provides Members the widest possible latitude in directing the debate and offering amendments, while bringing consideration of this bill to closure at the end of this legislative week. First, the nuts and bolts: This rule provides for 2 hours of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations and makes in order the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The rule provides that the committee amendment shall be considered as read and it allows for an open amendment process to last 10 hours, including voting time. Because of the complexity of the subject, the rule requires that amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record, so that the Committee on International Relations, and all Members of the House, may have sufficient time to review them. To facilitate maximum efficiency in the use of the amendment time, the rule allows the chairman of the International Relations Committee, or his designee, to offer amendments en bloc consisting of preprinted amendments and subject to 10 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled. Once the 10-hour period has concluded, additional amendments that have been preprinted may be considered with 10 minutes of debate time, equally divided, until 2:30 on Thursday afternoon. At that time certain, the amendment process will be concluded and the committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage. The rule does allow for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Because of the reach and complexity of this bill, the rule includes a series of important waivers that Members should be aware of. First, the rule waives the 3-day availability requirement for committee reports. The committee did file its report on Friday evening, which makes today the second legislative day that it was available. Although we generally do not like to provide this waiver, the Rules Committee felt that, given the rush of legislative business expected after the Memorial Day recess, it is necessary to conclude consideration of H.R. 1561 this week. Because we wanted to allow as much amendment time as possible within that constraint, this wavier is needed so we can get started today. The rule also waives clause 5(a) of rule XXI, prohibiting appropriations on a legislative bill--a waiver that applies to technical language in 15 sections of this bill. The International Relations Committee has provided a list of the specific sections affected by this waiver, most of which deal with the transfer and reallocation of funds. Finally, the rule provides several Budget Act waivers, all of which have been cleared by the Budget Committee. These waivers apply to sections 302(f), 303(a), 308(a), and 402(a) of the Budget Act. Respectively, these waivers pertain to consideration of legislation providing new entitlement authority in excess of a committee's allocation, consideration of budgetary legislation prior to adoption of the budget resolution, the requirement of a CBO cost estimate in the committee report on legislation containing new entitlement spending or budget authority, and inclusion of credit authority not subject to appropriations in advance. I should note for Members' comfort level that the Budget Committee has scrutinized these waiver requests carefully to ensure that we do not end up creating a serious budget problem--in fact, one waiver requested by the International Relations Committee dealing with a lease-purchase agreement did raise red flags at the Budget Committee, and as a result this rule removes the offending section from the committee amendment. I wish to commend Chairman Gilman and his staff for meeting the Rules Committee's request for detailed and specific waiver descriptions. The result may be a more complicated rule, but it should provide Members with a much higher level of comfort than the blanket waivers of years passed. All in all, Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair rule, in keeping with the tradition of this House when this type of important foreign policy legislation has been considered. I would like to address the concerns raised by my friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking member of the International Relations Committee, who suggested that allowing an open amendment process might lead to a free-for-all and might end up shutting out important debate on certain issues if the time runs out. Instead, Mr. Hamilton suggested that it would be better for the 13 members of the Rules Committee to pick the big issues and structure the debate. Having lived through three previous Congresses as part of the minority--when the Rules Committee routinely made such executive decisions about which amendments would be considered and which would not--I have to disagree with my friend. I believe all 435 Members of this House were sent here to have a voice on important legislation and is should be up to the will of the House, with strong guidance by the floor managers and party leaders, to determine the path of the debate, within a reasonable allotment of time. Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I must commend Chairman Gilman and Ranking Member Hamilton for their work in bringing forward this bill, which seeks to bring our Nation's foreign policy establishment into the 21st century. By streamlining the Department of State, eliminating three agencies and re-defining our foreign aid priorities to meet the enormous budget constraints we face, H.R. 1561 shakes up the status quo and responds to the will of the American people. I have long been frustrated that this Congress has failed to reauthorize our foreign aid policies since 1985--a failure that has meant piecemeal tinkering with our foreign policy priorities without the comprehensive restructuring that the changing times demand. The American people must understand that this bill reflects a significant cut in foreign aid designed to put our foreign policy programs into full compliance with the balanced budget resolution the House passed just last week. With entire authorization for foreign aid totaling just over 1 percent of the total budget, the funding levels in this bill are nearly 10 percent below the President's request, and more than 5 percent below the current year's budget. I know foreign aid is not popular--and for the past 4 years I have voted against foreign aid appropriations, primarily because every year we kept spending money without completing the work of redirecting our priorities and fundamentally restructuring our policies. That is what H.R. 1561 does. I look forward to a vibrant debate--and some important amendments on this landmark legislation. I urge support for this 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 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. 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. The Committee on Agriculture; the Committee on Banking and Financial Services; the Committee on Commerce; [[Page H5389]] the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; the Committee on House Oversight; the Committee on the Judiciary; the Committee on National Security; the Committee on Resources; the Committee on Small Business; and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 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, I come to the well this morning for the same reason the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] did, to say that this weekend our Nation has lost a very stalwart son and a good friend of ours. To many of us here, he was an especially good friend. Les Aspin's untimely death at the age of 56, after suffering a massive stroke on Saturday, underscores both how much he accomplished and yet how much more he could have done. In the days ahead we are going to be reminded of those accomplishments as we seek to send sympathy and comfort to his family and those close to him. I am sure that important and caring leaders in many places around the world will remember to say, I knew Les, what a great job he did for this country for so many years. Equally, many just plain folks who knew Les around town here or back in his longtime Wisconsin congressional district or wherever it was will say, I knew Les. What a great guy. Mr. Speaker, as a classmate and a friend for many years at college and as a colleague here in Congress for a while and finally as a member of the Commission on Intelligence Roles and Capabilities, which is better and properly known simply as the Aspin Commission, which he was chairing at the time of his death, I had the privilege and the fun of knowing Les and working with him. I think the statement that I read this morning of his cardiologist and the news accounts says it best: It says simply, Les was an extraordinarily fine man. For those of us who knew him in this body, that vote is unanimous.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from greater downtown San Dimas, CA [Mr. Dreier], the chairman of another important subcommittee of the Committee on Rules, for allowing me such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have just had a very strong historic vote in this Chamber. It really was remarkable to be here and feel the sense of what is happening here. We sent a signal. Sadly enough, it is a little too late in fiscal year 1995 to balance our budget this year. But it is certainly not too late to cut our unnecessary spending in fiscal year 1995, and we have a chance to do that right now. Any day is a good day to save taxpayers' dollars. If you doubt it, just ask the taxpayer. Every day that we spend taxpayers' dollars is a good day to spend them wisely. If you doubt it, ask a taxpayer. This legislation starts us toward balancing the budget, which we just had a strong, convincing vote on. It does it in a big way. We are talking about billions of dollars. Why would we delay that? The answer is we would not. Why is the President talking of delaying that by vetoing our effort to stop bad spending now? Let's agree that there may be some disagreement with the President about what actually constitutes bad spending, but then let's look at the next thing. There could be no disagreement about providing prompt and needed relief to Americans, American citizens, victims of tragedies, and this conference report provides relief to such Americans. This conference report also saves money. This conference report is a responsible first step toward getting our spending under control. Why do we not pass it now? Why would we think that the President would even veto such a good piece of legislation? Why, in fact, did we hear from the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, that there is concern about the 3-day layover waiver so that we could get to this legislation now and pass it and provide this relief? The waivers that we have provided for in the rule, and this is a very good rule for this type of legislation, show that the only things that are in this resolution are basically a provision to take care of the victims of Oklahoma, which I think everybody would agree is important, and recognition for Korean War veterans, which I think also everybody would agree is important. There is nothing else new from the original report. Consequently, there is no reason. Members are aware of what is going on here. I do not think there is any justification at all for not getting on immediately with this and passing this legislation and getting it down to the White House. I sincerely hope the President of the United States will agree there is no reason for delay.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, ``What a difference a year makes.'' Who could predict a year ago that we would be standing here today debating not one, but four separate, specific proposals to bring our budget into balance. While I do not support each different vision, it is truly gratifying to see the debate shift toward fiscal responsibility and real accountability to the American taxpayer. I would first like to congratulate Chairman Kasich and his colleagues on the Budget Committee for their tremendous work in crafting the committee's first balanced budget resolution in nearly three decades. We can measure their success by the type of demagogic opposition from those on the other side of the aisle and down the street. Remember, they have no serious proposal. It seems opponents of fiscal responsibility have been reduced to inflammatory rhetoric and misleading assertions of draconian budget cuts. ``The sky is falling,'' they shriek. Nonsense. As you can see from this chart, total outlays under the committee budget will in fact continue to grow at a healthy but responsible rate. And in fact, we show in the Solomon-Neumann proposal that it's possible to go further and balance the budget in an even more expeditious manner--5 years, rather than 7. This proposal underscores what I have claimed for several years, that there are literally hundreds of billions of dollars of low priority, excessive and wasteful discretionary spending programs touching Social Security and while preserving Medicare benefits. In addition, by balancing the budget in 5 years rather than 7 the national debt will be $600 billion less, and so we could save an extra $42 billion in interest payments. The result: interest rates could drop an additional 1 percent. That's good news for families. The Solomon- Neumann budget is, as advertised, truly a contract with our children. Mr. Chairman, this is an historic occasion for this body. This Congress is on the verge of reasserting our fundamental duty to live within our means. This Congress will rein in runaway spending and bring our budget into balance. But most importantly, Mr. Chairman, as we enter the 21st century, it is this Congress that will preserve a bright future for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to just comment that it seems to be that one of the concerns that we have got here is we have heard about this threat of a filibuster by Members of the other party, members of the minority in the Senate, and what we are trying to do here is to propel this whole issue forward into conference. So the purposes of the gentleman from Wisconsin, I hope, are going to be resolved by the actions we are taking here today. I hope he is comforted by that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], the primary sponsor of this legislation, who I think will retort a little to one of the problems we just heard about.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to join my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, in his motion to help us move forward on the important issue of granting the President an effective, workable, and tough line-item veto. It is fitting that we come to the floor to take the next step in this process on the day we begin consideration of a landmark budget resolution to bring our finances into balance by the year 2002. It should be clear to the American people by now that this 104th Congress--and the new Republican majority, with moderate Democrats--are absolutely committed to ending the fiscal insanity of rising deficits and ever-mounting national debt. A real line-item veto for the President is a powerful tool for fiscal accountability that will help ensure Congress stays on the right spending track, even beyond this current budget crisis. Although I commend our friends in the other body for their creative efforts in producing S. 4--I remain committed to the House-passed line- item veto as embodied in H.R. 2. H.R. 2 is [[Page H5092]] the product of years of study and analysis. Modeled after the type of authority wielded by 43 of our Nation's Governors, it provides a workable framework for ensuring that low-priority, wasteful, and unnecessary spending can be lined out of big appropriations bills and conference reports. It places the onus on the Congress--requiring a two-thirds vote to spend money a President has identified for veto--and it establishes specific procedures to ensure that Members have recourse in the event a President abuses his power. The taxpayers are the winners in this Scenario--H.R. 2 shifts the bias in the process away from spending and toward saving. With all due respect to our friends in the other body, I am leery of the novel and untested approach they have adopted in S. 4. That measure, which introduces a completely new and different process of separate enrollment, will be both cumbersome and difficult to administer. Although it does preserve the crucial requirement that Congress come up with a two-thirds override to spend money the President wants to save, the subjective nature of deciding what constitutes an `item' will likely be a major stumbling block to effective implementation of line-item veto authority. I urge my colleagues to support this motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time. I commend him for this extraordinarily fair rule on this vital issue, and, of course, I also have to commend him for his brilliant substitute with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] that we will be discussing. By sticking to the announced parameters that the only substitutes allowed will be those that bring the budget into balance by 2002, this rule ensures that we move beyond the question of if we balance our books within 7 years to how we will reach that goal. And that is truly a remarkable turnabout from the years past. Still, of course, we have the liberal naysayers who seem to prefer the status quo. The impact of the status quo is really letting the ship of state sail full speed ahead into the rocky cliffs of certain bankruptcy for certain programs, as we know, and, I believe, fiscal calamity for our children and grandchildren, and as a grandfather, that is not responsible. As a grandfather, that is not responsible. I am still amazed that the President has refused to join this effort and has abdicated all responsibility for mapping out a strategy to bring our budget into balance within the specified period of time. This rule does offer the President a final chance, and it is fair. It is a place holder, in case he has a change of heart in this crucial issue and decides he was to be relevant to the debate after all. In addition, this rule allows three other proposals to be offered under the standing procedure of the House, including a proposal I am proud to cosponsor offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] that charts a path to a balanced budget within 5 years instead of 7. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that doing nothing really is disaster. We have a moral responsibility in our country to bring this budget into balance. The mess we are in certainly did not come about overnight. It took decades to accumulate nearly $5 trillion in debt. By the way, that is still growing today, as we speak, under the Clinton budget. Cleaning up the mess will not be easy, but it must be done, and the first step lies, obviously, in balancing the annual budget. I am proud of the extraordinary effort of the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Kasich, and his Committee on the Budget. They have demonstrated that we can indeed have a balanced budget by 2002. They have attacked waste and fraud; they have attacked abuse, reviewing every program in the Federal budget to set priorities. I am gratified that they have included many of my discretionary spending suggestions totaling more than $30 billion it seems in savings over 5 years as we proceed through the processes. I would note to Members that they can review the rest of my list of 75 proposed cuts that save $275 billion over 5 years if there are specific discretionary cuts suggested in the Kasich budget they strongly oppose and they would like to replace them in months ahead. Equally important, the Committee on the Budget has acted to save Medicare, a program headed for collapse, unless we do something. Again, doing nothing is disaster for Medicare. This is a program that is in fact going broke, part A. Let it be clear to you: Under the budget blueprint before us today, per capita Medicare spending is set to increase by more than 33 percent in the next 7 years. Only in the minds of status quo Washington liberals would that be translated into a cut. I know the increase in Medicare is good for seniors. I am one. I am also a grandfather, as I said, and I think I have responsibility to both seniors and to my children and grandchildren. Sure, it is going to get hot in this kitchen. But to my friends on the other side of the aisle who seem more interested in hot and hateful rhetoric about the rich and in the cool comfort of the status quo, I say if you cannot stand the heat, then find a door and exit the kitchen, and let those of us willing to take the risk, to meet the challenge, to get on with the recipe for saving the American dream for our children and grandchildren. Vote for this rule, please, and for the Kasich balanced budget as well.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Lakewood, OH [Mr. Hoke].

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous material, on H.R. 1590, the bill previously considered.