Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], the chairman emeritus, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule for the clean water amendments of 1995. The Clean Water Act is one our most important and far-reaching environmental laws, and the policies associated with it deserve a full hearing on the floor of this House. I congratulate Chairman Shuster and Subcommittee Chairman Boehlert for their hard work in acting on this reauthorization in such a timely manner--it is a credit to them and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that we have this bill on the floor in early May. Mr. Speaker, clean water is vital to everyone in America, but nowhere more so than in the State of Florida. We are literally surrounded by water--the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. In southwest Florida, we have lakes, streams, and wetlands that are national treasures like the Everglades and Big Cypress--all of which are vital to our economy and our well-being. Thousands of new residents move to my district every year for the pristine beaches, the clear harbors, and the subtropical climate, providing tremendous economic growth. Each one of our major industries--tourism, fishing, and agriculture, depend on clean water and a healthy environment. For years, the Clean Water Act has helped to remove pollution from many of America's lakes, rivers, and coastlines. It has aided in the preservation of our more pristine bodies of water. And yes, it has created some problems along the way. Wetlands protection, for instance, has become a regulatory nightmare for most ordinary citizens. Obtaining permits can take years, enforcement can be inconsistent, and local conditions are sometimes not considered. States and local governments have complained about rigid Federal mandates that are both costly and inefficient. Improvements to the Clean Water Act can and should be made, and I look forward to addressing these issues in a full and open debate. I am especially pleased that this debate will include a substitute amendment offered by my friend, Jim Saxton, from New Jersey. The floor discussion on the fine points of these proposals will likely be determinant for the way many Members will vote. For instance, I will be seeking answers to questions like, will H.R. 961 replace one inefficient, unworkable wetlands bureaucracy with another? How will the classification criteria used by the Army Corps of Engineers relate to the just-released National Academy of Sciences Wetlands Report? Would it be better to address the problems associated with wetlands permitting by adopting the National Governor's Association proposal to do the work at the local level, with Federal oversight? In addition, I will be interested in the debate over the coastal zone management provisions in H.R. 961; specifically, are we better off eliminating the nonpoint source pollution provisions from the CZMA, or do these just need some basic reforms? And if we do repeal section 1627 of the CZMA, are we providing enough coastal protection in other areas? Finally, I am concerned about the takings language in H.R. 961 that would provide automatic compensation for any portion of a property that lost 20 percent of its value. Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office suggest that the cost to the Corps of Engineers of this provision alone could be $15 billion. The alternative could be to leave our most vital wetlands unprotected. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this open rule.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present this wide open rule for the fiscal year 1996 authorization of our smallest--but hugely important--national armed services, the Coast Guard. I am delighted that our Rules Committee, by unanimous voice vote, agreed to bring this important bill to the House floor under an open rule, allowing all Members the chance to offer amendments under the standing rules of this House. I wish to commend Chairman Shuster, Chairman Coble, and ranking members Mineta and Traficant of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their efforts in bringing us H.R. 1361. Mr. Speaker, as Members know, this year marks the first time the Coast Guard authorization has been moved through the Transportation Committee and, by all accounts, the transition has gone smoothly. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It makes in order the committee's amendment in the nature of a substitute as the original bill for the purpose of amendment and provides that the substitute shall be considered as read by title. Members should be aware that this rule does provide four specific waivers, including three technical budget act waivers related to section 205 of the bill, and a waiver of the rule that prohibits appropriations within legislative bills, related to section 201 of the bill. This waiver should not cause Members any heartache, since it is necessary to allow the shifting of funds from pre-existing accounts in order to pay for damages to homes of Coast Guard personnel caused by hurricane Andrew. I think that is eminently fair and makes great good common sense and I do not think it is particularly precedent-setting, Let us hope not. The budget act waivers are necessary because of a provision in the bill that allows Coast Guard officers who were twice passed over for promotion, and have 18 years of service, to continue in active duty until they have served 20 years and are eligible for retirement. Technically this provides new entitlement authority, although subcommittee Chairman Coble assured the Rules Committee that this is not in any way a budget buster. In fact, the total cost of this provision has been estimated to at less than $500,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, I commend Rules Chairman Solomon and the committee of jurisdiction for ensuring that Members have a detailed explanation of the waivers needed for this bill. I think it is most important that all committees take seriously the standing rules of the House and come to the Rules Committee well prepared to discuss any specific rules violations in their bills--whether technical or substantive. This to me is great progress in the 104th Congress. I think it makes pretty clear what the issues are and what is being protected and what is not and what the justifications may be. Finally, this rule provides the minority with its traditional right to a motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Coast Guard may be small in size but it is mighty in missions. It is something of a jack of all trades--its responsibilities cover a broad expanse of activity, from drug interdiction and border control to search and rescue. At any given time the Coast Guard might be called upon to support military deployments-- as in the Persian Gulf--or respond to disasters--as in the midwestern floods of 1993. Especially in coastal areas--but also across this land--Americans depend on the reliability and efficiency of the Coast Guard. Because of its reputation for excellence and its unfailing willingness to tackle new missions, the Coast Guard has repeatedly been asked to shoulder more duties. In response to the Haiti crisis in the past 2 years, the Coast Guard was asked to become a floating picket line to deter desperate Haitians from taking to the seas in unsafe boats. Coast Guard personnel became directly involved in rescue operations and the very difficult process of repatriation in that Haitian affair as we know. While the exodus from Haiti has ebbed momentarily, just last week, the administration announced a change in its policy toward Cuban refugees that once again places the Coast Guard on the front lines of enforcement upon the high seas, to turn back Cuban rafters and enforce a more orderly process of immigration. That is no small order for them to undertake that. But despite its ever expanding list of missions, the Coast Guard has not been given corresponding resources to ensure that its traditional responsibilities do not suffer. In the last Congress, this House adopted language reaffirming our commitment to providing additional resources to the Coast Guard if new missions are added to its plate. That is just common sense. If we ask them to do more, we are going to give them the money to pay for it. Today, I am pleased that the committee has agreed to include that language in its amendment, so we will have that again this year. On a more parochial note, Mr. Speaker, under this open rule all of our colleagues will have the opportunity to assist our local communities and private citizens who are involved in seeking to navigate the confusing bureaucracy of the Jones Act. In my district, we have one city and four private citizens who find themselves wound up in redtape as they seek to use vessels for legitimate municipal or commercial purposes. H.R. 1361 already includes a provision that covers one of the southwest Florida victims of the Jones Act redtape in my case, and I am pleased that the committee amendment will include waivers to address the other three cases I know about, and perhaps the bulk of my colleagues' concerns as well will be included in that amendment. If not, if there is still more to be done in this area, this open rule allows Members the chance to bring their amendments forward. I hope all Members will support this open rule, and this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, 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 the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros- Lehtinen].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 139 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have said it before and I will say it again: The problem in Cuba is Fidel Castro and until Castro is gone the United States cannot and should not normalize relations with the closest of our Caribbean neighbors. Indeed, we should tighten the embargo, not relax it. Last week, many of my colleagues were surprised to learn that I consider the administration's new Cuban immigration policy a positive step in the right direction. As a Representative from Florida who does not support normalizing relations with Castro's Cuba, I believe that we must take steps to regularize Cuban immigration, to bring order to what has been a chaotic situation for far too long. Last year, the President and his foreign policy team created a problem--this year we are trying to deal with the mess left over from some sloppy efforts at a Caribbean policy. Now there are no good choices, only necessary choices. Why? Because sitting in Guantanamo are more than 21,000 Cuban refugees and several hundred Haitians. Even after the current paroling process is completed, the White House expects there will still be more than 15,000 refugees, mostly young men, left in primitive, stressful, living conditions. Add to that an infinite boredom, a hopeless future, and a long hot summer and you have ignition for launching a disaster. My last trip to Guantanamo was in March with Senator Bob Graham. We came back deeply concerned about the situation, about the cost of running the camp, and about the clear security risk for our troops in Guantanamo if something was not done soon. The administration's new approach should at least diffuse this potentially explosive situation. Those 15,000 young men, who have fled from Castro's Cuba now have a realistic hope they will not waste away in a Guantanamo containment camp. Under the agreement, the administration plans to use 15,000 of the existing 60,000 Cuban visa slots for the next 3 years for an orderly exodus of the refugees from Guantanamo--a camp that American taxpayers are paying $1 million a day to run. In addition, the agreement seeks to head off future inundations of refugees by providing a safer, fully organized Cuban Immigration Program for those yet to come from Castro's Cuba. The continuing visa allowances will enable significant numbers of Cubans to take refuge in our country through orderly channels and without risking their lives on the high seas. Obviously, good screening processes will be necessary by the Coast Guard to ensure no political refugees picked up on the high seas will be repatriated in hot pursuit or life-threatening situations. This will require constant and effective human rights monitoring. Handled properly, the administration's new approach could disarm one of Castro's most effective gambits--the deliberate victimization of his people by releasing them as waves of refugees to pressure the United States on foreign policy matters. If this agreement works, it should have the net effect of drastically reducing the danger of another Mariel overwhelming Florida's shores and resources. It should also have the added bonus of allowing the Federal Government--rather than the State of Florida--to cope with the impacts of Cuban migration. That means that all Americans, not just Floridians, will provide locations and will share the financial cost of resettling refugees in an orderly, organized way. Of course, there remain plenty of issues to be dealt with. Impacted States will have to work with the Federal Government to ensure that costs are reimbursed. And the Clinton administration has to perform the difficult task of providing monitoring for those repatriated to Castro's Cuba--the new Clinton policy will all fall apart quickly and completely if we find we are in any way aiding Castro's regime to commit human rights violations on political opponents or on those just simply seeking more freedom. Finally, it demands emphasis that we have an obligation to the Cuban people as well as ourselves not to let up the pressure on the brutal, oppressive, regime of Fidel Castro, even while we work on ways to put more safety and order in the way we accommodate present and future refugees. That from our allies to cut off Castro's economic lifeblood. The ultimate solution to the refugee problem and the key to a free and democratic life for Cubans is not to bring them all to America. The solution is to bring Cuba out of the cold war by ending the regime of Fidel Castro. And that, Mr. Speaker, is the bottom line. Fidel Castro is still what is wrong. We cannot escape that fact, but we can help change it.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it takes guts to do what is right instead of just doing what is popular. President Clinton's own Medicare Board of Trustees, which includes Cabinet Secretaries Donna Shalala, Robert Rubin, and Robert Reich, believe that under current law, Medicare will be bankrupt by the year 2002, or possibly even earlier. These are the President's people telling us. Doing nothing is disaster; doing nothing is a formula for bankruptcy. But what solutions have the Clinton Democrats proposed to correct this problem? None. I hear rhetoric today, but I do not hear solutions. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton Democrats are showing a willingness to let the system collapse by maintaining the status quo. On the other hand, the Republican majority will rise to the challenge of trying to show some guts and offer some real solutions to preserve, to protect and to improve Medicare. The Republican majority is committed to honor our contract with older Americans. I know I am one, and I represent a lot of others. Mr. Speaker, it is real simple. The program is going broke, and we are going to fix it because we care about senior citizens. We want them to have good quality, affordable health care options, and we know doing nothing is disaster, so we are going to do something.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on April 11, the Associated Press ran a story that I believe bears noting: ``Postponed Elections, Unrest, Could Prolong U.N. Mission.'' That one small headline speaks volumes. Keep in mind that there are more than 2,400 American troops on the ground in Haiti still and that we have already spent in excess of $1.4 billion on that small Caribbean island. Although the May update from the administration on the situation in Haiti is not available yet, I think we all understand that the possibility of a longer mission--even under the auspices of the United Nations--equals more American tax dollars and more exposure for our troops. With that possibility clearly on the table, perhaps the President will refocus his attention on Haiti for a moment to give us a candid answer to this candid question: Despite all of the money, time, and manpower the United States has already poured into Haiti, are we really headed for a longer term commitment than February 1996? It seems to me that we are. April voter registration was supposed to bring May elections to Haiti and Haitians. But those elections, originally planned for last December, have once again been pushed back--this time to the end of June. The longer that deadline slips, the longer Haiti goes without its 700 local elected officials and without a parliament--and that does not bode well for the growth of Haitian democracy. General crime and lawlessness aside for the moment, politics in Haiti are becoming an increasingly dangerous pursuit. From the murder of former Deputy Eric Lamonthe on March 7, to the gunman's assault on Philip Stevenson as he departed a Panpra Party meeting on March 14, to the brutal assassination of Madame Bertin on March 28, to violent clash on April 17 between the supporters and opponents of one political candidate in the city of Cap-Hatien--it is clear that, in Haiti, it pays to keep your head down and your hat out of the political ring. In addition to these personal attacks, machete and rock-wielding mobs have launched a series of attacks on electoral offices in La Chapelle, Petite-Riviere, Saint-Michel and Grande Saline, to name just the Artibonite Valley hotspots. Clearly, this is not what an elections process is supposed to be about. Of course, violence is not the only thing threatening to disrupt elections. Voter registration is behind schedule and reports from politicians, law enforcement and electoral officials alike indicate that voter cards are being sold to the highest bidder. But we should return to the issue of general lawlessness as well. Jobless Haitians who once lined up peacefully outside of outside of United Nations and United States military headquarters have begun staging aggressive, impassioned jobs protests. Just last week in the market at Tete-Boeuf, 20 gunmen fired randomly into crowds and robbed bystanders in an effort to gain control of that small commerce center. United States businesses in Haiti report that smuggling and general lack of authority mean that legitimate businesses cannot prosper. Additionally, although I do not want to overstate the significance of the numbers, there are Haitians who are still feeling desperate enough to get into boats and take to the seas. month with more than 240 Haitians on board and bound for Florida. Reports from Turks Caicos indicate that they have enlisted the help of the United States Coast Guard to stem the increased flow of Haitians to their shores. These are Haitians who have been mislead and told that they were being taken to either the Bahamas or the United States or that the they could get into the United States via centers in Turks Caicos. With the Artistide government's recent announcement of their adamant opposition to negotiating another repatriation agreement with the United States, there are clearly some important issues to be dealt with in the coming months. Congress returns now to begin the budget cycle. As we are looking for ways to maximize the benefit of every tax dollar we spend, I believe that the President owes this Congress and Americans across the Nation some answers about where we stand in Haiti, where we are going and how much it is all going to cost before this episode is over and done. Most Americans agree our present Haitian policy is another waste of United States taxpayer's dollars.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, the House has just completed a district work period, as Members know. Members are returning to Washington as we speak. The district work period is a time we all go home and listen to what the people we work for have to say. We reflect on what has been accomplished here in Washington. We report back to them. We get a little bit of a report card on how things should be done and instructions about what it is that the people that we work for would like us to try and achieve as we go forward with the congressional agenda. This year's spring break tragically, as we all know, was overshadowed by the terrible bomb blast that occurred April 19 in Oklahoma City. Our hearts and our prayers go out to the victims, their families, the entire Oklahoma community, and all the extraordinary Americans who have rallied together in this time of crisis. So many people were touched by this tragedy. Even in remote southwest Florida that I represent the grief was felt in families who lost loved ones who were killed in the blast. We certainly applaud the efforts of the President, Federal and local law enforcement, and Members of this Congress in coming together to bring the perpetrators to justice and explore the challenge of preventing such a tragedy from recurring again. Madam Speaker, I spent a good part of the break meeting with citizens in Florida, from small business owners and operators to students, to representatives of the media, a broad cross section of the people who make things tick in our small corner of America. It was an extremely valuable period of dialog for me, a time to share ideas and reflect on where we as a nation need to be headed. The timing of the recess--which we all know included the tax filing deadline of April 17--helped focus people's attention on the functions of their Federal Government and the need for change in the way we conduct the Nation's business. Just about everywhere I went in my travels throughout the district and beyond the district as well, people were encouraged by the changes that are taking place up here in Congress in terms of increased efficiency, streamlined operations, less Government interference in their daily life, and maybe even achieving a better return to citizens for their hard-earned tax dollars in the way we spend them. But there was also growing interest in tackling the challenge of reforming our tax system in a comprehensive way, and I suspect that may have had something to do with the fact that people were trying to understand those very difficult instruction forms at the last minute on April 15 when they were rushing to get in even before the extended deadline of April 17 this year. I think most people recognize that our current tax structure is inefficient, it is unfair, and it is largely incomprehensive certainly to the average American if they try and read the instructions. The paperwork alone is enough to ruin anyone's day, and the feeling is pervasive that many filers are paying too much and do not see a fair return on the investment they are required to make, and I think many agree that taxes are not moneys that are always well spent by Washington. In fact, it was while I was home over this break that I received a note from our UPS delivery person who brought a package to my house. He scribbled his message right on the little yellow delivery ticket one gets right over the printed instructions so I could not read it exactly, but the sentiment was very clear. It said: ``Today's tax system is unfair and needs to be changed.'' This particular citizen urged my support for a flat tax, an option that is gaining in popularity and deserves our close attention. There are, in fact, many possibilities for tax overhaul, including not just the flat tax, or some version of it, but the national sales tax and other variations on those themes. I am pleased that the chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means and the House majority leader have committed to beginning the dialog of tax reform this year, with the possibility of real change by next year. That would certainly be a welcome relief by the time April 15 came around. I hope the national dialog will help to educate us all about the pros and cons of the options out there. We understand the problem. We just do not know what the best solution is yet, and I think that that ought to be at the top of our agenda. I think it is clear from those of us who went home and took the pulse that America is ready for bold change. It is time to stop fooling around at the edges of some of these systems and start constructing new systems that are fairer and more efficient. Everybody I talked to one way our the other, when we got on the subject of taxation, said, ``How about a better deal with our taxes? How about a system that we can understand?'' Well, Madam Speaker, how about it? As we tackle the budget process, can we include tax reform? I think the people we work for have asked us to do that, and I can see no reason at all why we should not. So how about it? Let us take on tax reform.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas spoke about hopes. She enumerated hopes. We all share the hopes for our country. We all have great aspirations. We all are doing our best to meet the challenges of this Nation. I think it is fair to say our hopes are the same. It is just how we achieve those hopes is a little different. We come to Washington with a plan. We are putting that plan into effect, and we hope it is going to solve problems rather than sustain problems, which is what the program of the previous 40 years has done. This is a great country, and this is a great Chamber. We can express different views here and still have the same hopes for our great Nation. The gentlewoman has said that we have followed the polls. That is backwards. The polls have followed us in this. The gentlewoman has said that our agenda is somehow gimmickry. I do not think so. It has achieved a great deal of bipartisanship and support. If you look at every single vote that was taken, it had people from both sides of the aisle supporting our agenda. The difference is we have been listening to America while they have been defending 40 years of programs that do not work. Yes, America, we are listening, and we are beginning, and we are going to go forward, and together in a bipartisan way we are going to achieve reality for those hopes so that everybody in America is truly an American with a quality of life that measures the American dream we all have.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 58) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], my colleague and close friend, for yielding me this time, and I parenthetically say it is a great pleasure having a gentleman of his esteemed distinction and knowledge serving on the Committee on Rules. The fact that he is from Florida also is an extra blessing. I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak in favor of this wide-open rule on a bill that I hope will have very broad bipartisan support. As my colleagues know, much has been said about the Contract With America and just which is the crown jewel of that contract, and my colleague from the southwest coast of Florida [Mr. Miller], and myself from the southwest coast of Florida believe this probably is the crown jewel of the Contract With America; at least in my district it is in close competition because this legislation makes good on yet another promise we made in the Contract With America, and I have also got to point out another Floridian who had an important part of this, and I commend him as a prime sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Shaw, my colleague who has actually been an initiator and put in a lot of hard work, and it is his persistence which brought this to a successful close today. I think it is important to remember how we got back into this situation, and it is not a great track record. What happened is back in 1988 Congress unintentionally tried to do the right thing when it rightfully sought to exempt bona fide senior citizen communities from a bill to prohibit discrimination against families with children. Congress did have the right idea, but the administrative agency charged with implementing that idea sort of missed the mark. The result was a great deal of unnecessary, I think, unfair anxiety, upset, costly legal headaches for older Americans seeking to live in designated senior retirement communities. This Congress has not wavered on its commitment to assisting our older Americans in their effort to live out their golden years in communities with their peers, places where their special needs can be met. I know our country's grandparents, I think, because I am one, too. I believe our grandparents like to maintain active life styles, complete with frequent visits by their children, grandchildren, yet; I hope I will someday. I understand and I respect the wishes of many seniors to join together in communities designed and specifically maintained for people over 55. After several false starts, the administration seems to have caught on to the problem with earlier application of the 1988 law, and we are grateful that finally we have some much-improved rules from HUD, but still it is clear the bureaucracy has not been able to put the problem to rest on its own, and that is why the legislative fix is important. So, I urge my colleagues to join in this support for H.R. 660 and this very wonderful rule we have to bring it to the floor.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that for today, April 6, 1995, and tomorrow, April 7, 1995, all Members be permitted to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in that section of the Record entitled extension of remarks.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very fair, structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 1391. This rule balances the rights of the minority, with the pressing need to extend the extraordinarily popular, and highly effective Medicare Select Program. Seniors in my home State of Florida have benefited greatly from this pilot program. Currently, more than 50,000 Medicare enrollees in Florida have voluntarily chosen to purchase one of these unique MediGap-PPO products--a product that helps fill the gap between what health care actually costs and what Medicare will pay. Often this is a substantial gap that has placed seniors in tough financial straits. On the whole, Medicare select enrollees in Florida enjoy supplemental premium costs that are about 25 percent lower than traditional indemnity products. To seniors living on fixed incomes, this type of insurance savings can make the crucial difference between barely surviving and maintaining a certain level of quality of life. In some cases, it can mean the difference between having supplemental coverage for such costly things as prescription drugs or not. Seniors I have talked to appreciate the simplified billing process that a Medicare select policy offers--they do not have to front the cost of care and then file two separate claims to seek reimbursement. In most cases, under this program, all out-of-pocket costs are determined and paid at the time of service. While some have expressed concerns about the quality of care provided through these plans, seniors in Florida have consistently expressed very high rates of satisfaction with the care they have received. This has been demonstrated most convincingly by the fact that more than 90 percent of enrollees retain their policies--even though they could choose another Medigap option at any time. Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that the hundreds of thousands of current Medicare select enrollees maintain the benefits of this program, the Congress must act expeditiously. The program is set to expire on June 30. And without assurances that the law will be extended, insurers will have to begin to notify enrollees of their plan's pending termination. By passing this rule, and H.R. 1391 today, we will not only ensure that current beneficiaries maintain coverage, but we will make it possible for seniors in an additional 35 States to enjoy the benefits of this program. By extending the Medicare Select Program to the rest of the country, we will reaffirm our commitment to giving seniors more choices in Medicare--and provide them with more opportunities to reduce their health care costs. I urge adoption of this rule and the bill.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the sooner we start, the better prospects are, the sooner we will get out.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, responding to the previous speaker, I would just like to announce that I do not believe anybody on our side asked him to take a 1-minute, or anybody else over there to take a 1-minute. We are ready to go. We are ready do the Nation's business on the rule. The minute the 1-minutes are over, we will be very happy to proceed.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman, for yielding me the generous time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important vote that is coming up, for many reasons, just one of which is that passage of this rule is indeed going to complete our perfect record of bringing the Contract With America up for a vote just as we promised. We are keeping our promise. This rule does allow the minority free rein to offer its alternative tax plan, such as it may be, and this rule ensures that we match the primary goal of cutting spending so we can balance the budget with the important need to reduce taxation, to curtail Uncle Sam's persistent depressing reach into Americans' pockets and wallets. The average tax filer in my State of Florida will save $1,605 in taxes if this bill becomes law. Other States will fare similarly well. We are delivering the long overdue tax relief that is good for all America, for every American. It will create jobs by providing investment incentives, particularly for small businesses. And it will give much needed relief to our seniors by eliminating the very unfair 1993 Clinton Social Security tax and rolling back the unfair earnings test limit that saps the energies and earnings of seniors who need to work or want to work. H.R. 1215 is a down payment on comprehensive tax reform. The first 100 days, we have done a lot. The next 265 days, we can do the rest. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule, so we can get on with that job and do what we were elected to do last November.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will take up the last item in our Contract With America.'' The passage of H.R. 1215 will reverse the tax-and-spend mentality of recent Congresses, and finally give the American taxpayer some long-overdue relief from the highest Federal tax burden in our country's history. Not only does our bill provide much- needed tax relief for working families, it includes several badly needed, and long-overdue relief measures for our Nation's seniors. I'm especially proud of the fact that our bill provides several carefully crafted provisions to help seniors with the ever-looming, and potentially devastating cost of long-term health care. Our bill will allow seniors to deduct the cost of long-term care insurance premiums and the cost of any substantial long-term care expenses. Adopting these changes will end the tax codes' current discrimination against seniors, and make the tax treatment of long-term care costs similar to that currently provided for employer-provided health insurance and out-of-pocket medical expenses. Not only is this fair--but it is a good idea. These provisions will help seniors provide for their own future health needs while enabling them to maintain their independence and dignity in the event they are saddled with a costly, long-term care episode. Rather than compel millions of seniors to spend down their life savings to qualify for medicaid benefits, as our current laws do, these provisions help seniors preserve their savings while helping themselves. We've also provided a tax credit for families who care for a loved one at home. This will help families stay together, and again, help prevent older Americans from having to suffer, unnecessarily, from the cost and isolation of institutional care. H.R. 1215 also includes several other provisions to provide seniors immediate economic help. First, we've committed to repealing the ill-conceived new tax on social security benefits--imposed by the 1993 Clinton tax bill. This tax is really a double tax on retirees' past earnings. While proponents of this tax like to label it a tax on the wealthy, in reality it applies to any recipient earning over $34,000 a year or to any couple with a combined income over $44,000. This is hardly what most people would consider wealth. And I would contend this is hardly a lavish amount of income for seniors facing today's health care costs. Worst of all, these income thresholds are not indexed for inflation, so over time, as people's earnings rise, more and more seniors will find that they are wealthy as defined by the Clinton tax bill, and be subject to this confiscatory tax. Given all these facts, I think the case for repealing this tax is clear. Finally, H.R. 1215 would provide immediate relief to thousands of Social Security recipients who are currently penalized by the un- American application of the Social Security earnings test limit. Today when a senior between the ages of 65 and 69 earns more than $11,280 a year in wages, we start confiscating a third of that person's Social Security benefits. This puts seniors living on fixed incomes in a terrible dilemma--if they find their benefits are inadequate to live on, and they try to supplement their incomes by returning to work, they face marginal tax penalties of nearly 50 percent. Worst of all, because the limit doesn't apply to dividend income, capital gains, or other nonwage earnings, it disproportionately impacts those seniors who need the additional income from working. Not only does this discourage people from trying to be responsible and take care of their own needs, it deprives our entire economy of the accumulated knowledge of an entire generation of older workers. By raising the earnings limit to $30,000 per year, our bill takes an important step toward ending this nonsense of the vast majority of seniors who need or want to return to work, and return us to a policy which again respects our traditional American ethics of hard work and self-reliance. Mr. Speaker, these reforms constitute the bulk of our Contract With America's seniors. They deserve the full support of this House tomorrow when we take up H.R. 1215.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this weekend Presidents Clinton and Aristide celebrated the very welcome end of the United States mission in Haiti in a very beautiful ceremony with warm congratulations, white doves and all. It was a wonderful photo opportunity and a good moment, especially, a good time to thank our troops who did an excellent job. Again, one more time, our uniform forces have earned the respect and gratitude of the American people, each and every one of us. I hope, frankly, that those folks who are down in Haiti on that long mission are now scheduled for some R&R; they certainly earned it. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help contrasting this with the harsh images of Madam Bertin, mother of four, organizer of a democratic opposition movement, savagely slaughtered in her car just before President Clinton's visit in what was clearly a political assassination, and a very brutal one, a murder our Pentagon has said is unquestionably linked to high level Aristide officials. Just one event, it stands out as a representation of things that are still in the making in Haiti regrettably: The vengeance that abides in some members of Haitian society and the still dangerous mission we have asked the thousands of American troops we still have there as part of the U.N. mission. I understand we have scheduled to have 2,500 American troops staying there until February of next year, possibly even some talk of them staying beyond that. In the meantime we still have more than 2,500 there as they withdraw and we assess the situation. Mr. Speaker, Samuel Berger, our deputy national security adviser, maintains the real problem in Haiti these days is crime and it is, ``at a level probably less than most cities around the world and in the United States.'' I am not sure that is a satisfactory standard and I am not sure that is a satisfactory explanation, because we are not talking about simple crime. What we are talking about seems to be a very deliberate campaign of vengeance against the non-Lavalas members of the Haitian political class at a time when they are gearing up for parliamentary elections and Presidential elections and it is a campaign that is being waged by the Lavalas apparently with hired assassins, vigilante squads, and possibly even commandos operating under a shadow government of Rene Preval. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious business. People are getting killed and it is very anti-democratic business and we have just sacrificed a lot of taxpayers' money putting our armed services in harm's way to try to nourish democracy in that country. In today's Washington Post, Robert Novak outlined some particularly disturbing items. We were told there is a hit list now of 30 people, 2 of whom have already been assassinated. We also know there is a second list, which seems to overlap the first, of people who are not permitted to leave Haiti. In other words, there are people in Haiti bent on vengeance who are going to run a canned backyard hunt. They are not going to let him get away, they are going to run him down and kill him. In fact, the roughest seas may lay ahead as the wave of election cycles, the June to December period, arrive. On the eve of the President's visit, Human Rights Watch issued a report that points to the risks: ``Political tensions are increasing and far from having brought stability, the U.S. led force can point only to a fragile security that impending parliamentary and presidential elections may rupture.'' Indeed, that is the fear. Mr. Speaker, the new U.N. mission commander, who is U.S. General Kinzer, has already said he will be unable to answer the call for security for candidates and polling booths because, as he noted, ``I don't have enough soldiers to do that.'' What is the mission of the United Nations force in Haiti today? Good question. Generally it is to maintain order. Do they have the resources? Another good question we know that plan to spread fewer troops and less equipment around the countryside. We know that their rules of engagement will be more restrictive, including the facts that the troops are no longer authorized to use all necessary means. We know little more than that. I have asked the administration what the rules of engagement will be and I am eagerly awaiting a response, but if recent events are any indication, we do know one thing: The mission for our troops in Haiti is not going to get any easier or any safer. Mr. Speaker, I understand that General Kinzer has now available a SWAT team to go out and do some things that go well beyond what is a traditional U.N. peacekeeping effort. A second thing we are going to need, besides an explanation of what troops are there and where they are to go and what the rules of engagement are as a report from the White House, we are going to need an explanation of just exactly what are the national security interests for the United States in Haiti today to justify spending $2.5 billion over these some 2 years of trying to nourish democracy there and just exactly what justified putting over 20,000 assault combat troops in a friendly neighboring country. It has no designs of invasion on the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, these are important questions that need answers from the White House and they need them now that we have had a successful conclusion of this in Haiti.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it has been 193 days since America's finest combat forces occupied Haiti, a friendly neighboring country. Tomorrow, the occupation will formally end as President Clinton travels to Port- au-Prince to declare the mission a victory and to pass the reins to the United Nations. Our prayers for Godspeed and a safe return, of course, go with him, our Commander in Chief and our President, but we wish it was truly a victory, a mission accomplished, but it is not that easy. We wish democracy, security, and stability could actually be a reality in Haiti, however it clearly takes more and gut-wrenching poverty, some of it I am sorry to say caused by the Clinton administration's costly and ill-advised embargo. It is also obvious that the commitment of 20,000 American troops and more than 1.5 billion American tax dollars, a figure that will pass the $2 billion mark before this mission ends, have not fixed Haiti's problems at all. Look at a sampling of recent headlines: ``Missionary Couple From U.S. Are Shot,'' ``Haitian Slum Residents Sharpening Their Machetes After Deadly Robbery,'' ``Outspoken Aristide Critic Gunned Down in Port-au-Prince,'' ``Violence in Haiti Stops Voter Registration'' and the one from today that sums it all up: ``To Clinton, Mission Accomplished; To Haitians, Hopes Dashed.'' While it is easy enough for the United Nations and the Clinton administration to declare Haiti ``safe and secure,'' it does not make it a reality for people who live there. A marked increase in politically motivated violence has come hand-in-hand with a tidal wave of crime and lawlessness that is threatening to overrun the country. Many of the Haitian and American businesses that managed to stay open, despite the punishing United States-led embargo, are being driven to the brink of closure again by nightly raids on storehouses, regular truck ambushes, and looting at distribution centers. Investors are not being welcomed by the Aristide government or encouraged to return by the deteriorating security situation. In fact, fewer than 10,000 jobs have returned since the embargo ended. Prices are high. Unemployment is at more than 75 percent. People once content to wait for the spoils of Aristide's return are growing increasingly frustrated and prone to crime and violence. This is hardly conducive to establishing a secure and stable environment. Although the Clinton administration has placed tremendous faith in the ability of the interim police force, a force cobbled together from former Fadh members and Guantanamo refugees to provide for law and order as the transition to the United Nations mission is made tomorrow, the truth is that those individuals are not up to the job. They do not command the respect of the Haitian people. Even President Aristide has recently referred to the media as cowardly. They are underresourced. In Port-au-Prince, for example, 182 of the police share 3 weapons and I do not know if those weapons work. They are afraid to patrol at night, and they are easily intimidated by the vigilante groups that have become a common phenomenon in Haiti. Let me add that when reportedly at the encouragement of President Aristide, armed mobs went out into Haitian cities meting out justice with machetes, rocks, and torches, it has to be clear, even the Clinton White House that something is seriously wrong in Haiti. It is not secure and stable. Just as disturbing as the lack of security is the lack of progress on elections. There are signs that that process may be seriously flawed and subject to lengthy delays because of increased political violence, lack of public interest and the logistical nightmare of starting from ground zero. Until the elections take place Haiti, has no functioning legislative branch. There is no Congress there. In addition, the judicial branch, weak as it is, has not come back online in Haiti. In other words President Aristide rules without the checks or balances of either the parliament or the judiciary. Question: How can you have a democracy without a parliament or a judicial branch? Answer: ``You can't. It's not a democracy.'' I suspect that President Clinton and his advisors will breathe a heavy sign of relief to no longer be in charge of what happens in that small Caribbean nation in the weeks ahead. But the White House and Congress still have a job to do because the policies pursued in Haiti by this Clinton administration have made Haitian Affairs our business. American tax dollars still flow into Haiti at an alarming rate. More importantly, 2,400 of our men and women in uniform will be part of the United Nations mission in Haiti until at least February 1996, although indications are that that deadline may slip even further by the time the new President is supposed to be installed. Mr. Speaker, all is not well in Haiti, and all the wishful thinking in the world, all the White House spin doctors, are not going to change that. The reality is we have spent an awful lot for a very little, and it is appropriate for full accountability for the events to date. We hope to get that from the White House, and it is also appropriate to have realistic planning to deal with the mess that remains. It is a mess, and we owe them some assistance and recovery.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, next week this House will fulfill our Contract With America, and, more specifically, our contract with senior Americans. We promised to vote on raising the punitive Social Security earnings test limit so seniors would not be penalized for working. Next week, during the consideration of our tax relief bill we will fulfill that promise. We will also vote on repealing the unwarranted double taxation of Social Security benefits that was imposed by the 1993 Clinton tax bill. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will recall the Clinton tax bill. That is the special extra tax that President Clinton and the Democrat Party placed on, quote, ``wealthy seniors'' with incomes in the range of $30,000 to $40,000. Well, instead of taxing, quote, ``wealthy seniors'' living on fixed incomes like the Democrats do, the Republican Contract With America provides seniors with much needed tax relief to help with the increasingly high cost of long-term health care, among other things. Our bill also helps families stick together and encourages them to help one another by providing a generous tax credit for family care givers. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax bill is good for seniors and it deserves this House's support now, before our seniors grow any older or any poorer.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida, my colleague, for yielding time to me. This sudden interest in promoting term limits by the advocates of this amendment is a little misleading and, I have to admit, a bit intriguing. I think we have got to be clear on one thing, because the time is short and it is time for candor. Many who are supporting the Peterson- Dingell-Frank amendment are the same Members who freely admit, at least to the press they freely admit, that they oppose term limits. They are the same people who helped ensure that under 40 years of Democrat rule no debate or vote on term limits would take place. They are the same people who have shown little interest in responding to the will of the American people on this issue. We know almost 80 percent of Americans support term limits. They want us to deal with it. We also know that 22 States have adopted them. In every case, those term limit proposals predominantly written by citizens are not, repeat, not, retroactive. If, as the proponents of this smokescreen amendment argue, Americans want retroactive term limits, then why have those 22 States passed citizen referenda that are not retroactive? Why, in the one State that voted on such a proposal, was the proposal of retroactivity soundly defeated? It is because Americans are smarter than the status quo Democrats seem willing to believe. Americans know a true term limits supporter from one who is simply seeking to score political points on its way to the dust bin, which is what this amendment will do. Vote against this amendment. Its sole purpose is to provide political cover for those politicians who like the status quo and want term limits to go away. Of the man who wrote the first Bill of Rights in this country, George Mason the Fourth, a man who did not sign the Constitution, even though he penned that Bill of Rights for the Commonwealth of Virginia which was the model for our Bill of Rights: Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people, from whence he was taken. So said Mr. Mason. I think those are valid words, and I think he was right not to sign the Constitution until he had a commitment to the Bill of Rights, and when he finally did get the Bill of Rights in there, I think he would have been glad to sign it.