Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the gentlelady from Colorado said the Constitution was not a rough draft. I agree that the bedrock principles upon which this Nation was founded are not in need of refinement. But 27 times--on 25 different issues if you subtract out the on-again/off-again concept of prohibition--the sons and daughters of our Founding Fathers revised the Constitution to better adapt those principles to the times. I am sure the gentlelady agrees that the Bill of Rights, the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, the 15th amendment affirming the right of all races to vote, the 19th amendment granting women's suffrage, or even the 22d amendment--which embodies term limits for the President of the United States--have improved upon the Founding Fathers' work. No, the Constitution was not a rough draft--it was a living document and it can withstand prudent modifications to reflect the march of time. Support term limits. The author of the first Bill of Rights in this country said: ``Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interests of his constituents as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people from whence he was taken.'' So said George Mason, IV, who refused to sign the Constitution because term limits was not in it.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear this is going to be an interesting debate. This is not something of the passion of the moment, though. We are talking about a constitutional amendment, two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, three-quarters of the States and several years involved probably in the process. We are also talking about a phenomenon of tenure of more than 12 years here. That is the standard in this that we are putting out. It took more than the first 100 years of the existence of Congress before the average tenure of any Member of the Members was 12 years. My distinguished friend from California mentioned that maybe we will not have an institutional memory; maybe staff will take over. Well, maybe staff has already taken over in some places, and maybe the institutional memory is not very good. But maybe most Americans think we have got enough Congress. Maybe a little less Congress would be better for America. That is something they seem to be saying. My friend from New York, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] said, ``It would be arrogant of D.C. to tell people how long they can vote for somebody.'' Would it be arrogant to ignore what 80 percent of the people of our country are asking us to bring up in debate? I think it would be. So we are going to have this debate. I agree, this is a particularly bony crow which may cause some choking come November. I still believe it is an honorable effort at debate. I urge approval of the rule.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, and thanking the gentlewoman for her part in this colloquy, I still believe we all agree that is not appropriate to have an open rule on a constitutional amendment, which this is proposing to be. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary], who has crafted what I think is one of the most worthy of the substitutes for consideration. I am sure it will be much discussed and get much interest during the debate.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], an extremely important Member who holds down the end of the dais of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], who I must point out has been the architect of one of the amendments that we are not going to specifically debate, but has been enfolded into some others. She has been very generous in that context, and not only that, she has been a real advocate of this issue for a long time. I congratulate her on that.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, again I want to reiterate what the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] said. It is curious that the minority, that used to be the majority, when they were majority and they were talking about term limits, retroactivity never showed up, so we are a little astonished that that seems to be the main menu today. But in any event, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] chairman of the subcommittee, who has done yeoman's work.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], another colleague of mine. He is known as the engineer of the term limits momentum, a man who deserves to be heard on this subject.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], chairman of the always powerful Committee on Agriculture. (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis], who has also been one of the main architects of the term limits movement and has an amendment that states this debate.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentlewoman does not mean to imply that business as usual under the Democrats was an inhospitable thing. Surely that was not the case.

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just congratulate the gentlewoman from Colorado for being consistent, as I believe we have been. She said at the Committee on Rules meeting that the Constitution is not a rough draft. Indeed, it is not. We all agree. It is for that reason we do not have an open rule. Never do we practice constitutional amendments under open rules. I think if you go back and look at the times, the 40 years when your party was in the majority and you were leading from that side, the treatment was the same. What we promised and what I think we are being consistent about, in the spirit of all that goes into the Contract With America, is open debate and fair rules to give the ideas a chance to be deliberately discussed on the floor.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the previous speaker who so eloquently spoke about retroactivity, and so forth, that of the 22 States that have voted for term limits, not 1, repeat, not 1 has gone the retroactive route. And where it has been tested in State elections, it has been defeated. I think that is worth noting. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to open this historic debate and mindful of the significance of our discussion. As we speak, reports suggest that there are not yet enough votes to pass the constitutional amendment limiting Members terms. A loss on this issue will be decried by some as failure--but that would miss the point. It is a victory to be here having this debate, to have a rule that forces Members to come clean on where they really stand on term limits. We promised this vote--and we have delivered. It was not so long ago, that Tom Foley was Speaker of this House--the same man who sued the people of his own State over this question; the same man who refused to allow term limits to come to the floor for an honest vote. We may or may not have the 290 votes when all is said and done here this week, but either way the issue of term limits is not going away. There are 22 States with term limits; 80 another election coming in November 1996. The final vote taken here Thursday afternoon will be irrefutable to our constituents, as they watch to see where we stand individually and collectively. It is a vote that matters and Members should know there is no place to hide. Mr. Speaker, this rule offers Members a chance to consider the major issues involved in this debate. The rule makes in order as base text House Joint Resolution 73. I should note that this text is the same as was used as the chairman's mark in the Judiciary Committee. Although the committee adopted some amendments, the reported version came forward without recommendation, without much committee support on either side of the aisle and without a prime sponsor. The rule allows 3 hours of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, after which Members will have the chance to vote on four substitutes, with 1 hour of debate on each. The minority was consulted and given the choice of which substitute to offer, and has chosen to present the 12-year, so-called retroactive Peterson-Dingell version. Subsequent to that vote, Members will vote on a 6-year proposal offered by Representative Inglis and then a 12-year measure that does not preempt State limits offered by Representative Hilleary. Last, Members will have a chance to cast their votes for or against the 12-year McCollum proposal, the version that is contained in the base text of House Joint Resolution 73. Once the amendment process is complete, the substitute that earns the most votes will be considered for final passage--the winner-take-all approach--at which time, because this is a constitutional amendment, 290 votes are needed. As is customary, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I expect this to be a fascinating debate. Recognizing that very sincere and thoughtful people strongly oppose the concept of terms limits, passage is far from certain. But the mere fact that we are having this debate--and the coming series of votes--at all, suggests just how much change has taken place in this Capitol since January 4. The fundamental, bottom line distinction that will be drawn in this process is the one most Americans are watching for: Who supports term limits for Congress. We can expect a fair amount of ducking and weaving by those Members who want to appear committed to term limits but might prefer that term limits disappear without enough votes for passage. Americans should not be fooled by the attempt of long-time term limits opponents to change the subject to one of so-called retroactivity. Americans should consider the source of that proposal. Keep in mind that most of its sponsors and those senior, status-quo Democrats who will speak up for it have never supported term limits, have never introduced such a bill, and did nothing when their party controlled this House to move that debate to the floor. It is a smokescreen and it should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, Florida is a term limits State--the voters there have spoken for an 8-year limit on Members' terms. As a long-time believer in the need to shake up the status quo, create some national parity and still respect States' rights to establish their own, more stringent limits--I believe the best option before this House is the Hilleary proposal. Still, the most important mission we have this week is to verify if 290 votes exist to pass national term limits--in one form or another. I urge my colleagues to listen closely to what the American people are asking us to do. Either way, we will establish some clear accountability. Our constituents should appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder], a very valuable member of the Rules Committee who has helped us craft this very fair rule.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 116 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, today is day 191 of the United States occupation of Haiti. The United States occupation of Haiti is scheduled to end in 3 days. The invasion will be over. What will we be leaving behind in Haiti besides one billion United States taxpayers' dollars? Are we leaving a stable and secure government? I think not. Unfortunately, the evidence is in, and we are leaving a mess. We are leaving 2,500 of our troops there to do some peacekeeping with some other troops from some other countries in a situation that is far from optimistic. There is a requirement that Congress has put on the White House for regular reporting about what is going on, and I asked for that report as we neared the end of this occupation time. The White House tells us that things are fine in Haiti. Quoting from a letter from President Clinton to the Speaker, dated the 21st of March, it says: ``Overall, Haiti has remained calm and relatively incident-free since the deployment of United States and MF forces. The level of political violence has decreased substantially since the departure of the de facto government,'' et cetera, et cetera. I think it is time that the folks in the White House started reading the newspaper. Things are not quite that way. I go back to a New York Times article that came out just as recently as this Sunday, and I say, quoting, ``Only a week before the responsibility for maintaining security here is to shift from the United States to the United Nations, the Haitian government is struggling to contain a sudden surge in crime and street violence. Frustration over the crime wave, which has included slaying of political figures as well as robberies and break-ins, has led to a series of vigilante attacks against suspected lawbreakers,'' et cetera, et cetera. Reading on from the same New York Times article last week, that was a week ago, after a series of daring daylight holdups and car thefts, the capital was hit by spasms of vigilante violence. Over 2 days, 21 suspected thieves were beaten, stoned or hacked to death by enraged groups, mainly residents of working class neighborhoods. This seems to belie the statement that calm has returned to Haiti. This seems to belie the statement that we now have a secure and stable environment, as the United Nations asserts. I guess it is all right for them to assert it since we are maintaining the maximum exposure, we as the Americans, and our forces down there. I think that the media is breaking down the misrepresentations that are coming out of the administration on why we are in Haiti and what we are about there. What is important for Haiti is that we do establish democracy and we try to help it in an intelligent way. The implications for our upcoming elections, given this wave of violence and the breakdown that is going on there, are not good. Candidates have been killed. We have got elections for parliament in June. We need a parliament in Haiti. We do not have one; and, in fact, we have a de facto dictatorship. We have no justice system and no parliament, so we have a de facto dictatorship. And where people are being discouraged, they are not only being discouraged, they are being assassinated if they run for office. That is pretty strong discouragement. The implications for business, we have had 20,000 of our combat troops down there. If we cannot get prosperity, security, and create an investment climate with that kind of stability, what is going to happen when those troops leave in 3 days? So, clearly, we are not doing well in the area of encouraging investor, and unfortunately the facts show that very well also. The implications for security are not so good, either. President Aristide, quoting him from another newspaper report, said, ``Mr. Aristide was particularly critical of the remaining Haitian police and judicial authorities, whom he described as, `cowardly and derelict in their duties'.'' When the President of your country gets up there and says you cannot count on your police, that does not contribute to calm. When he goes further than that and says, ``Look, folks, you better be prepared to take care of yourselves and the workers down in the slum part of Port- au-Prince, down in Cite Soleil, are encouraged to go out and take care of themselves, that means they are down there sharpening their machetes.'' And indeed we do have exactly that report, that the people in Cite Soleil are back, going back to protect their homes, are sharpening up their machetes and are preparing for even more violence. This is not a stable and secure environment by any stretch of the imagination. We do not have a parliament. We are pulling out American troops. We do not have a government that has got any confidence in its police force for stability. The justice system is breaking down. They found that when they went to one prison out of something like 527 inmates only 15 of them had actually been convicted. So they turned loose 200 people who are actually people who should have been brought to justice but the system had broken down. And then turning criminals loose on the streets. That is another system that has broken down. It is critical in a democracy to have the three branches of government working, and in Haiti not any of the branches of Government are working. Rather than delude ourselves and declare victory, let us look at the real situation and get a foreign policy that is comprehensive, works and does build democracy in Haiti and stop kidding ourselves with these false reports from the White House.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis], a new and hard-working member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we are today indeed launching a very historic debate on welfare reform, as Chairman Goodling has outlined. We are going to be struggling with some of the most vexing and and, more importantly, confront the people of our country. One thing is very, very clear: In this most important comprehensive reform on welfare programs that we have ever attempted in the House, there is no ultimate wisdom. There are going to be disagreements. No one has all the answers, and it is likely that we will not get it exactly right on all fronts the first time we go through this, but we have got to start because we owe it to our children and others in need to make the best possible attempt to fix what is broken. And what is broken is the system that we have now. It is clearly broken, and it is failing. Doing nothing is not the right answer. As the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] said and as many others are going to say, doing nothing only leads to more grief for more Americans, because we can see that we are running out of money and we can see that we are not succeeding in what we are trying to do. This rule allows 5 hours of general debate to get the process started, and I look forward to a truly deliberative and productive process, bringing together the best judgments of every Member of this institution. But first, let us review the facts. Mr. Speaker, in the early 1970's the United States declared war on poverty. That was the cry, and despite the best intentions and $5 trillion of taxpayer funds, we just about have to say that we lost the war, that it is time to surrender and do something different. Illegitimacy rates and welfare rolls continue to soar and as everybody knows, more people live in poverty today than when we started the war and before we spent the $5 trillion. Worse still, the current system hurt some of the very people it was intended to help. The Republican welfare reform bill focus on three important things. First, it consolidates programs to minimize bureaucracy, fraud, and hopefully gets rid of some of the waste we have got, in order to ensure that our finite resources, and they are increasingly finite, reach those who truly need the help. In other words, we are not going to deal with the marginal cases. We are going to deal with the needy. Second, the Republican plan is legislation that allows States the flexibility to enact programs that are best suited to their individual needs while at the same time providing accountability at the local level. It is not exactly the same in New York City as it is in Alaska, Florida, or someplace in the Midwest. We need that flexibility. Finally, the bill does away with many of the destructive disincentives that have helped to perpetuate generations of dependency, and we all know that. Although this bill is estimated to save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over the next 5 years, we have managed to increase spending for important programs like WIC and school lunches, despite the rhetoric to the contrary we keep hearing, and we have changed the carrots and sticks to move people off welfare roles and on to payrolls. Mr. Speaker, I spent a good deal of time this weekend meeting with people in southwest Florida in my district who are right on the front lines, people working within the current system who know the issues, who have the expertise to redflag possible problems with this reform. And there are some serious and legitimate concerns, especially about the block grant approach and the potential for abuse and unfair distribution of funds within States. We have to make sure we build this into the block grant approach, some kind of safeguard to make sure dollars flow to the areas where they are most needed. And I support that. That is just one area that we need to explore through this process. But we have so many opportunities to make improvements and do things better. I sat at a Headstart luncheon yesterday with youngsters in the prekindergarten and kindergarten program. This is a program that works. We are keeping it. We make sure it is funded. The things that work, we are trying to save. It is the things that do not work we are trying to excise and replace with something better. I think the authors of our proposal have done yeoman's work in bringing us to this point. Obviously, it is not a finished product, but it is a place worthy of beginning debate. Let the debate begin and support the rule.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to try and respond to the previous speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I will just simply say we will be debating welfare this week and if the gentleman represented a welfare program that was working, I do not think there would be the need for change and change is what we are trying to do to make it work better. I want to talk about a niche of the welfare problem. In the 1980's, approximately one-half of the hemophilia community in the United States, that is between 8,000 and 10,000 people, became infected with the virus that causes AIDS through the use of contaminated blood clotting products, products which U.S. Government agencies have direct regulation and oversight over. More than 30 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have joined me already in offering H.R. 1023. It is a bill to establish a government compensation program for the victims of this tragedy. This bill is known as the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act, named for the 15-year-old Florida boy who died of hemophilia-associated AIDS in 1992, that I knew. Its premise is that the Federal Government which has taken on the unique obligation to safeguard the blood supply and regulate the sale of blood products failed to respond to clear warning signs in time to prevent the tragedy. Records indicate that there were serious red flags about the dangers of blood-borne diseases even in the early 1980's although our understanding of course of the implications of AIDS has evolved in the years somewhat after that. Hemophilia sufferers are often described as the canaries in the coal mine because when something goes wrong with the blood supply they usually succumb first because they use a blood clotting factors known as Factor. A single dose of Factor is often manufactured from the pooled blood of thousands of people, placing hemophiliacs at an extraordinary risk for blood-borne diseases. According to industry estimates from the early 1980's, the blood of one infected donor could end up contaminating between half a million to 5 million units of Factor, potentially infecting as many as 125 hemophiliacs in a given year. The risks for hemophiliacs were enormous during that crucial period of time and we are seeing the results today. Nearly 2,000 hemophiliacs died of AIDS between 1981 and 1993 from contaminated blood and many more including members of their families are now suffering from its debilitating effects. My view has been that the Federal Government must share their part of the responsibility for what happended with the industry that manufacturers blood products because we have responsibility for oversight. The hemophilia community is currently seeking redress from four major pharmaceutical companies through the courts. They have always known that this would be an uphill fight. Manufacturers of blood products have special protection from liability under most State laws which grant them status as providers of services, not products, when they make blood products. As a result, seeking judicial redress for harm caused by these products is a very difficult undertaking. Still, hemophiliacs believed in their case and have pursued their legal options as is their right in a free society. However, over this weekend, something very disturbing happened. The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Illinois issued an unsettling ruling in a pending negligence class action lawsuit. Writing for the court in overturning an earlier ruling regarding certification of the class, Judge Richard Posner appears to have concluded that this group of victims may not constitute a class because doing so could ``hurl the industry into bankruptcy.'' The judge seemed highly concerned that despite the protections that already exist for blood product manufacturers under State law, a jury in a class action case could provide awards that would ruin the industry. I am troubled by what appears to be a greater concern on the part of the judge for the solvency of a multibillion-dollar industry than the rights of victims to join together in seeking justice here in America. As a member of this House, I have no intention of becoming involved in a pending matter before the judiciary obviously, especially since reports suggest that the claimants will appeal the ruling. Still as we seek to do our part in meeting Government's obligation to victims of hemophilia-associated AIDS, we have got to recognize that the judicial option may be closing for these victims, perhaps providing even greater impetus for relief coming from the U.S. Congress. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to look closely at H.R. 1023, the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act. It is the right thing to do and may be the only way out for these folks. It is the right thing to do now, this week especially, because this is the week we are discussing meaningful ways to deliver relief to truly needy Americans. Believe me, these 8,000 to 10,000 victims are people who are in desperate need.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Also under this rule we allow Members to set cutting and spending priorities and to offer further reductions in government spending, a new idea here. Mr. Speaker, the broader vision today is to take on another important step toward fiscal responsibility and accountability to the American taxpayer. That is what we promised. I want Members to know that passing this rule will give us the opportunity to make two crucial advances in the way we do business. First, we will have the opportunity to vote for emergency disaster relief. That is entirely paid for, never been done before, new idea. We are paying for it, and at the same time we are making a major downpayment on our pledge to the American people to cut waste, reduce spending. That is what the vote was in November. Last month I submitted my third annual list of spending cuts to the Committee on Appropriations. I am pleased and gratified to see that committee acted on several of those proposals in this package. Included, for instance, is a $45 million rescission in the Economic Development Commission, a $5 million rescission from the Legal Services Corporation, a $3 million rescission from the Rural Electrification Administration, a $5 million cut in TVA programs, along with several more cuts in areas I and others have targeted as wasteful spending, and, as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has just been reading from a long catalogue of redundancies, there is more to be done. While we will hear some Members saying we are cutting too much spending in some cases, I am hopeful we can go beyond what the committees requested. I am proud to join with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] and others in bipartisan support of an amendment to further cut the Appalachian Regional Commission, that rescission increasing the committee's cut of $10 million to a full $117.5 million. Mr. Speaker, there are contentious items in this bill, including a big cut in veterans funding, which I personally opposed, but I am pleased I am going to have the opportunity to restore those funds by cutting lower priority projects. That is a very fair system. My State of Florida ranks 2d in veterans population, yet it is 34th in VA funding, so I am confident that we are going to find the necessary offsets in a National Service Corps to preserve funds for our much- needed veterans clinics for Florida where they have been promised, and they are needed and deserved. Mr. Speaker, this bill demonstrates the progress we in the majority have made in cutting spending. We said we would pay for all the supplementals and reduce the deficit. We are keeping our promise. We said that we would get specific spending on spending cuts, and we are doing that today. I think the array of opposition shows that we are on target, we are hitting the mark, we are excising pet projects that have been overserved and overprovided for many years. I urge support of this rule.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this democratically constructed, fair, and modified open rule. Mr. Speaker, our first mission is to provide emergency disaster relief to the people of California and other States. This is what we set out to do, and I will yield to the gentleman when I am through.