Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I just returned from a quick visit down to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to see how the situation was there with the Cubans who are in the detaining camps and see how our military is doing, and I have nothing but accolades to give to our military for the fine job they are doing down there under very difficult circumstances. They are running a city of about 36,000 people in reality and they are doing it with very little material and very little preplanning and under difficult circumstances when everybody who is there is not necessarily happy to be there in terms of the Cubans who have left. Cubans had hoped to go to Miami rather than to Guantanamo Bay, but I will say that the Cubans themselves who are in the camps are doing very well. They are well cared for. I spent a good deal of time with Senator Bob Graham from Florida talking directly with them about their problems. The main complaint of course is the paroling process. The immigration process is too slow and it is moving very, very slowly for the children, the elderly, the sick among them, and then the big problem, of course, that it does not provide for some 17,000 to 20,000 Cubans who don't really know where they are going to go because there is no process for them and at the present time they are just living in a camp, a tent camp in Guantanamo without too much hope of what is next. We talked about the problems that they were having in those camps, the remoteness, the feeling out of touch, the medical attention, the priorities, not enough medicine to go around, not enough doctors' visits, the food. Everybody always complains about food in situations like that, but by and large the Cubans are being very, very well cared for and I think Americans can be proud of that. Improvements are being made. We are putting in food galleys, putting in air-conditioning in some areas, better recreation areas, better bathrooms, getting away from the port-a-potties, better shelters, sturdier tents with hard roofs. This matters because it is a harsh climate down there. It is an area where the wind often blows hard, the windward passage, and it is subject to hurricanes. In fact, some call it Hurricane Alley in that part of the world. We have dealt with the water problems, the sewer problems and landfill problems, and all of this is going on while there is a very intense opposition to Fidel Castro in these camps that has not diminished in any sense at all, and people who think we should negotiate might want to talk to some of these Cubans down there at Guantanamo about the human rights violations, the suffering, the misery, the economic hardship that the Castro government has put them through, even to the point of death and confiscation. Right now Fidel Castro is in Europe in a self-rehabilitation program promoting himself and what a great guy he is and he has apparently convinced a few people in Copenhagen and is on his way to meet with the President of France and have some type of a photo opportunity to prove to the world that he has not really done all the bad things that these witnesses in Guantanamo are there to attest that he has done. What is going on in Guantanamo is not without cost. It costs us about $20 million a month and it doesn't account for all of the costs we are putting in there. Right now, we are using Navy funds, operational and maintenance funds that the Navy needs for steaming, keeping up our readiness, national security, defense, as it were, is being used and we are going to have to restore those funds. When we get through, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars for this problem that Fidel Castro has given to the American taxpayer in the way we are handling it today. There are some very serious problems staring us in the face right now. What is going to be the future of Guantanamo as a base once it is no longer a refugee camp, I don't know, but we are putting a ton of money in the place so we ought to know. But more important than that, what is going to happen when the long hot summer starts and 17,000 to 20,000 Cubans, mostly young go and no way to get there. That is not a good situation and those who are working in the camps are very, very concerned about it. There are probably more visits to the psychiatric side of the medical facility right now than any others by people who are already feeling stressed and as hope begins to erode and the summer gets warmer, it is going to be a very difficult situation and one that we cannot wait to solve itself or erupt. We need to get ahead of the curve. Senator Graham has a very good idea about shifting the visas that were arranged with the Castro government to apply to those folks in Guantanamo so that they can come here rather than some other folks that Fidel Castro might choose. Senator Graham makes a convincing case that Fidel Castro has violated the agreement that was made in New York with him at the United Nations because he is already charging a thousand dollars for visas for victims of his regime to leave, which is a real extraordinary--it would be a crime in this country, I guess. I believe very strongly we should encourage our allies to tighten the embargo. It is extraordinary to me that Mexico and Canada and Venezuela and our good friends in France and Spain are trading only with Cuba, sustaining the Castro regime. There are solutions but we don't have much time. We must deal with the issue that is there.

Mr. GOSS

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

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, my colleague, Mr. Linder, for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him on his handling of this rule. I think it is very important that we bring the debate back to what we are here about tonight. What we have, as the gentleman from Texas has properly said, is the first of two rules. This evening's rule I think we could call the starter rule. It is designed to begin the discussion of product liability reform, and we want to have enough time over the next 2 days to consider all of the amendment proposals, but offered by Members from both sides of the aisle. It was clear from our mini-marathon Committee on Rules meeting yesterday which lasted about 6 hours as we will recall, that Members acknowledge both the significance and complexity of product liability reform because we had 82 or so amendments. The two committees of jurisdiction, Judiciary and Commerce, worked diligently to present the House with a solid product. The combined bill we expect to consider in the coming days starting tomorrow and the next the day, under a carefully structured and I believe fair rule, takes important steps to bring about consistency and fairness in product liability law, while setting the parameters for consideration of damage claims. Now, there is going to be disagreement on some of that. This is not an easy subject, but I think it is important to point out that the gentleman from Michigan who got up and said that he was feeling bad about this rule tonight is feeling bad a little prematurely because when I went back and took a look at some of the problems, this is a mighty good rule. There is no problem with this rule. And if he is concerned about the rule that is coming tomorrow, then I would suggest that we do a little comparison, reminding Members that we had 15 amendments made in order out of 80-some submitted. Eight of those happen to be Democrat amendments. One happened to be bipartisan, and 6 happened to be Republican. Let me make a comparison with that and some of the rules, the modified and closed rules of the 103d under the other leadership. At that time we had the Reinventing Government Act. That came through with 34 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules; 3 allowed, zero Republican. How about campaign reform, 35 amendments submitted upstairs in the Rules Committee, 1 allowed? How about Motor Voter, 19 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules, 1 allowed? Omnibus Budget Reconciliation, 51 amendments brought before the Committee on Rules, 8 allowed, 7 Democrat, 1 Republican. The RTC Completion Act, 12 submitted, 1 allowed. Now I ask Members when they bring a performance standard like that against what we are going to propose for the second staging of this rule which we will be happy to discuss with the Members tomorrow, I suggest they how it was in the 103d and how much more open and how much fairer it is in the 104th in the way we are handling these things.

Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California because he is going to ask if the Democrats were allowed selection. They were invited to participate always, and my friend from California, Mr. Dreier, is going to speak in just a moment. I think if the gentleman will save his question for the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], he will find the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] is going to answer that question. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GOSS. Well, I hope the gentleman is going to ask that question.

Mr. GOSS. Present ranking? Ranking last year, ranking this year? I would be very happy, I am not sure which ranking members the gentleman is talking about. But I guess I could further complete my statement by saying all these egregious closed rules that we complained about so mightily last year, and I just read the gentleman's statistics, the very people who are complaining about this relatively open rule compared to them all voted for those egregiously closed rules and the Record is clear on that. So I think it is a little bit disingenuous to say the sky is falling on this very important subject when we have made in order 15 amendments, have got all kinds of debate time out there. We have taken out, as we have been asked to do in the Committee on Rules, the walking time, the voting time and we have it adjusted down to pure debate time. The gentlewoman from Colorado, who is rising, who I will yield to in a moment, complained she did not have all of her amendments made in order, but I believe she does have one of her amendments made in order if I am not mistaken.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this week we expect some long-overdue good news for seniors. The Department of Housing and Urban Development will release its new rule defining the ``significant facilities and services'' requirement for senior communities under the Fair Housing Act. We well remember HUD's first attempt to set such standards--a disaster that sparked vigorous and legitimate protest from seniors across the country. From what we have seen, it appears HUD learned its lesson the second time through. I thank all those who made themselves heard. It made a difference. The new rule recognizies the unique social and physical characteristics of senior communities. And it will enable existing senior-only communities to qualify for the exemption without great expense. It is about time the bureaucracy acts to alleviate the unnecessary fears and anxiety caused by the vagueness in current law. I hope the millions of Americans impacted by this proposed new rule will take a close look and let us know what they think.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I read in last Friday's Congress Daily that the chairman of the Budget Committee in the other body is looking for between $150 and $200 billion in discretionary cuts as part of his effort to bring about a balanced budget. Some might see that as a difficult or even an impossible task. But a careful and honest assessment of all discretionary accounts yields heartening news. It can be done, I say. It can be done. There is at least this much nonpriority spending we can eliminate. In fact, I would argue that there is much more than $150 to $200 billion. As we move toward the budget and appropriations process, it is imperative that we address the wasteful spending that bloats our Federal budget, as everybody knows. As I have done for the last 3 years, I have again submitted to the budgetary leaders of both Houses of Congress my annual list of discretionary spending cuts for their consideration. These 75 cuts would save the American taxpayer $275 billion over 5 years. Madam Speaker, critics of the balanced budget amendment contend that it would mandate draconian cuts in entitlement programs because our discretionary budget simply just does not offer significant savings. The facts clearly show otherwise. In reality, we continue to fund outdated and duplicative programs that operate in the shadows serving our bureaucracy and special interests rather than the American people we work for. We desperately need to shed some light on these ancient programs. The Appalachian Regional Commission, a Great Society era created as a temporary response to poverty, continues to spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually with little discernible impact on the long-term economic health of the United States of America. These are probably very worthy projects, but I do not think they really are getting at the core of poverty and they probably would not compete as well with other Federal dollars for more urgent needs. Only in Washington could this be construed as a legitimate response to poverty. The Rural Electrification Administration, which provides electricity for my home in Sanibel, formed in 1935 when only 10 percent of projects have included funding for the NASCAR Hall of Fame and most recently $750,000 toward a new football stadium in South Carolina. Rural America had electricity, continues to spend billions of dollars subsidizing rural electric and telephone companies--this despite the fact that today 99 percent of rural America has electricity and 98 percent has phones. I suggest those who do not have it do not want it. Taken alone, each of these programs may not amount to large costs--but when you start adding them up, going through a whole list of projects, you can see why we have a budget crisis. Unfortunately, programs like these are the rule rather than the exception. Of course, Government must lead by example. That is why I have proposed appropraition by 20 percent, which would save $3 billion over the next 5 years. The American people spoke clearly last November--they want to downsize the Government. We should understand that message. And that process needs to begin at the top with Congress and the President. To be credible, we must not only eliminate wasteful spending but we must also be willing to look at good programs and prioritize our limited financial resources so we get the most important served. I do not pretend to think that we can correct decades of neglect and abuse overnight. While these 75 proposals which I offered are not a cure-all, they will hopefully serve as the first shot in the coming budgetary battle between the defenders of the status quo and those of us who came here to make a difference. The debate is between the habitual big spenders in the District of Columbia and those newcomers who have dared to suggest maybe the Federal Government should stop the waste, fraud, and abuse of the precious tax dollars. There is no one in America who has come forward to claim or even to imply that every Federal dollar spent is a dollar well spent. On the contrary, there are tens, if not hundreds, of millions of Americans who know we are not handling their tax dollars as wisely as possible and they are asking us to do better. There is no excuse for us not to do better. We can start now, we can start today. I urge my colleagues to look at my list of spending cuts, and if they do not like my list, make your own. There are plenty of places to cut spending.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 104 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, as part of our ongoing commitment to fulfilling the Contract With America, today we consider the first of a series of commonsense legal reform measures. Americans are all too familiar with abuses and indefensible judgments spawned by our legal system. Almost every American can recall reading in a paper or seeing on TV some episode that boils their blood or elevates their blood-pressure about a system run amok--enough is enough. People across our Nation have called upon us to restore some basic fairness and reason to the judicial process now. I would guess that most Americans probably agree that the $3 million judgment recently awarded to a woman who spilled hot coffee in her lap was unreasonable. While the plaintiff in that case, and likely her lawyer too, now may rest comfortably on that judgment, the rest of America can expect to pay more for lukewarm coffee in the future. ``Beware of hot coffee'' signs are springing up at drive-in windows. Clearly, the system is out of balance and needs reform. And that is what we are doing here today. House Resolution 104 is an open, fair, and hopefully noncontroversial rule that allows us to consider H.R. 988. I am pleased that this resolution was reported out of the Rules Committee on a unanimous voice vote--with the full support of the minority. Specifically, House Resolution 104 provides 2 hours of general debate and a total of 7 hours for any germane amendments Members may wish to offer under an open amendment process. Majority and minority members of the Judiciary Committee who testified on this measure at our hearing on Friday suggested that 7 hours of amendments plus 2 hours of general debate should provide Members ample opportunity to discuss the bill. In fact, the timing in this rule was agreed upon in friendly negotiations with minority members of the Rules Committee. While the gentlelady from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] indicated for nonattorneys to fully appreciate, she suggested that only 5 hours of amendment time would have been sufficient--we have offered 7. In fact, the minority members of the Rules Committee and the minority members of the Judiciary Committee indicated that they anticipate very few amendments from their side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, in 1989, Americans filed more than 18 million civil lawsuits against each other. That is about 1 suit for every 10 adults in America. Meanwhile, the number of lawyers and the profits of the legal service industry have been exploding. In 1970, there were only 355,000 attorneys in America. Today, that number has more than doubled, to nearly 1 million. I doubt anyone would claim our quality of life has doubled because of all those attorneys. Revenues to the legal industry have grown at a pace that exceeds that even of health care costs. I am delighted that the House is now beginning to address these disturbing trends by reconsidering some our system's current incentives. The Attorney Accountability Act of 1995 seeks to discourage frivolous lawsuits while encouraging good faith settlement negotiations by plaintiffs and defendants alike. The bill provides for a modified loser pays rule for certain civil suits brought in Federal court. By requiring that litigants who reject reasonable pretrial offers of settlement pay a portion of their opponents' legal costs, the Attorney Accountability Act should to more fruitful good faith negotiations. While making changes to our legal system that should make that system work better for all Americans, this bill also preserves America's unique contingency fee tradition--which is often crucial to ensuring access to the courts and our justice system by the poor. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and this fair and open rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I 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. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make sure to all those who supported my original amendment, that that explanation was going to be forthcoming, it is forthcoming, and it is satisfactory to me, because it gives the precision we were looking for, it allows the agency to make that determination. That protects the public, and on the other hand the private property owner is protected with this 20 percent threshold. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, what we are involved in here is obviously a moving negotiation, and a number of things have happened in the last couple of votes on this in this very difficult area of trying to come to a compromise that will hold together a working block of votes to get on with the benefits of this legislation and to make it as good as possible and still attract a majority. A couple of things need to be pointed out here. Mr. Chairman, the three particular areas of trouble that we wanted to discuss at this time were to get a further explanation on when we are talking about affected areas that are going to be subject to regulation, who sets those boundaries and how that happens. In a moment I am going to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], for that. The second was an area where after the vote last night I had several Members, particularly from the Midwest, come to me and suggest they had a difficult time with my amendment that went to the total parcel, and they had not supported us because of concerns they had in explaining to me about prairie potholes and other types of situations that are very important, but somewhat unique to that part of the country, and they felt they did not understand it properly. The third area was the question of the small lot owners. I am satisfied by moving this percentage to 20 percent, we still protect the small lot owners either way from unreasonable takings. So I am, in the spirit of compromise, trying to get something that will work, and that is the purpose of this amendment. We now have a 20- percent threshold to trigger an automatic taking on the affected part of the property. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] to explain about how these affected areas actually work.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be very brief and not take advantage of his generosity. I did want to say that the question of the Florida Rock case is certainly an interesting illustration. That is not the only case in the case law, as I think we all know. But I am not going to stand here and practice law without a license, but I think anybody who has done some work understands that the Supreme Court has done everything they can not to come to a final decision on this, because it has been just as hard for them as it is for us, and this remains sort of a case-by-case situation. The reason we went to total property is because it is very easy to get an agreed-upon market price for a total parcel. It is very difficult to talk about whatever an affected area is on a percentage basis because we have three or four separate areas that may be involved in a low-lying piece of property, endangered species, 404, we may have several affected pieces of property. Once we have determined what the affected pieces of property are or what the fair market value of those are, then we figure out what the value is and we can tell what the 10 percent of that is. That is a long, complicated, new process that is going to create, in my view, another bureaucracy. I think what we are trying to do is provide precision definitions so that private property owners know exactly what they are entitled to, under what circumstances, and so the government regulatory agencies know with precision what happens if they get the 30 percent, they have a problem on their hands. I think it is fair because the other constitutional remedies certainly provide for anything less than the 30 percent as they do today.

Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, that is not entirely true. You lose the automatic taking, you do not lose your constitutional right for less than 30 percent.

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

Mr. GOSS. I believe the gentleman's assessment is exactly correct.

Mr. GOSS. Yes. That changes 10 percent to 30 percent.

Mr. GOSS. My amendment calls for a 30 percent trigger for the total market value, for the market value of the total parcel.