Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS. The 10 percent of affected area threshold is neither, in my view. Trying to do a quick and definitely unscientific overview of case law, I think it is fair to say that 30 percent of total market value is a whole lot closer to what our society has generally and traditionally accepted as qualifying as takings. Certainly that is true in the judiciary, and certainly the 10 percent of affected area threshold, in the Canady substitute, is a major departure, and likely a costly departure, I am afraid, into the unknown. I am not arguing for consistency in the judicial branch in this, but I am stating that encouraging a nationwide frenzy of spot takings claims is poor legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to raise the threshold to 30 percent of the entire parcel of land. We can understand that. We can deal with it. I think it will work.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution of inquiry on the President's aid package to Mexico, and I urge support for the resolution of the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution of inquiry into the President's aid package to Mexico. Immediately following the announcement of the first $40 billion proposal, I notified Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin of some specific concerns I have with regard to the implementation of NAFTA, the bailout proposal, and United States relations with Mexico. These included the question of having adequate guarantees to protect United States taxpayers and interests, the question of why a $40 billion aid package for Mexico and Mexicans took a higher priority than NAFTA casualties in the United States, and the concern that Americans were being asked to bail out Mexico so that Mexico can continue to bail out Fidel Castro's brutal regime in Cuba. While Secretary Rubin has responded to my letter, his response failed to directly address the specific points I raised. In fact, there are a lot of unanswered questions about this deal and many Americans, myself included, remain deeply troubled by the fact that the administration did not make its case for the bailout to the Congress. While the executive branch has the authority to make the bailout deal with Mexico, I support Chairman Leach's resolution because there is a clear need for congressional oversight of the process. Mr. Speaker, it is time for some real answers from the Clinton administration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Salt Lake City, UT, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the conflict between private property and ``public well- being'' is as old as government itself. The takings issue is a complicated subject that cannot be resolved with one bill; in fact, it's fanciful to believe that the legislative branch of the Federal Government alone can solve all our private property rights problems. Land use and zoning cases by their nature are unique, and are best considered on a case-by-case basis at the local level, sometimes with the assistance of the courts, not through some one-size-fits-all Federal formula. Mr. Speaker, the rule we are considering is itself unique--and probably not one we can expect to see on this floor very often. But after we get past the technicalities, it is clear that this rule is well crafted to allow a fair debate on the takings issue--as we promised in the Contract With America. I am pleased that this rule allows us to immediately consider two improvements to H.R. 925: the Canady substitute and the Tauzin amendment. The substitute offered by my friend from Florida fixes several of the potential budget conflicts in the bill, including an important clarification that H.R. 925 would not, repeat not, create a new entitlement whatever ambiguity there may have been. The Tauzin amendment will limit the scope of the bill to just four specific areas: endangered species, wetlands, water draining and food safety. In addition, the Rules Committee voted to extend the open amendment process to 12 hours, a full dozen, and I hope that colleagues will take advantage of that time to make further improvements to this bill. For instance, I am very concerned about the practicality and affordability of the 10-affected-property threshold in this bill; I intend to offer an amendment to raise this threshold to 30 percent of total parcel market value. I also look forward to debating the Gilchrest/Wyden proposal, which focuses on the negative impact that questionable development can have on individuals' private property rights--questionable development that could be allowed, if not encouraged, under H.R. 925. Messrs. Porter/Ehlers/Farr may offer a measure that would replace the potentially costly and unwieldy compensation formula in H.R. 925 with comprehensive Federal agency reporting requirements. Mr. Speaker, I have much front-line experience with the takings issue--from zoning board, planning commissions city council, county commission, State planning boards, court cases, and Federal agency hearings, ad infinitum. I confidently predict that this will not be the last takings debate we have in this body. As the coming debate will show, there are very unhappy people on both sides of this issue. H.R. 925 is not a magical fix because there is no magical fix--trying to strike a balance is as close as we will come to a real solution. I urge support of the rule so that we can move forward with this important debate.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is day 162 of the occupation of Haiti by United States troops. The costs are about $850 million, heading to $1 billion, but every American can feel safe and secure that the Haitian military is not going to invade us. Congress put itself back into the Haiti policy loop last year, after some of the concerns we had about the way it was being handled by the White House, by requiring reports. I have the report from February 1 submitted by the White House to Congress. The report, a bit self- congratulatory, documents the success of operations in Haiti to date. Indeed, it does that. It is a short report. What it does not do is document the problems we are facing and the risks we are facing and the costs we are obligating our taxpayers to at all, and that is something that needs to be done. I read from the report. It says the purpose of our mission down there was to use all necessary means to secure the departure of the coup leaders. Many will remember they have left, and I think we have primarily former President Carter, General Colin Powell, and Senator Sam Nunn to thank for that. Certainly the threat of the force of our U.S. military was part of that. But the fact is, maybe we did not need to send 21,000 of our assault troops to that friendly, neighboring country to accomplish the removal of those coup leaders. But let us go on to the next point, restoring the legitimate, democratically elected Government of Haiti to power. The administration is claiming great success for that. Well, they have not restored the Government of Haiti to power. They have restored President Aristide to power in his White House, but we no longer have a Parliament in Haiti, which is an essential part of government, and we certainly do not have much of a judiciary system. Any student of the Constitution in this country will understand that a functioning democracy has to have those three branches of government, which they do not have in Haiti. You also have to say that in Haiti that the Haitians are not the power. The Government of Haiti is certainly not the power. It is the U.S. military that is the power down there now. To say that it has been restored to the Haitian people is a further mistruth, because it is only to select Haitian people. If you go to Haiti today and say how do you feel about the United States troops, you will get a number of answers, depending on who you talk to. The people who are pro-Aristide will say we are very friendly. The people who are not pro-Aristide, which is about 30 percent of the country or so, will say we think everything the U.S. Government is doing is backing Aristide, and it is very pro-Lavalas, and we are being identified with one man's power, one man's presidency in that country, and that is a dangerous place for our foreign policy to be. But moving forward from those points, when we talk about whether or not the Haitians can run Haiti yet, it is clear they cannot, and even though we and the United Nations have declared that it is a secure and stable environment, we saw just last week that they had a massacre as soon as our troops left one of the enforcement areas, the police station up in a town called Limbe. Our troops left, the mob went in, grabbed the people out of the station, beat them to death, burned them, and at least had the decency to bury them after that. That is an isolated incident, I agree. But I suspect as our forces leave, we need to be on guard. To say things are secure and stable may be stretching the point just a little bit the way things are in Haiti today. That police force is supposed to provide some of the stability. Some observers now are saying they are being politicized, deliberately politicized by President Aristide; he is bypassing passing some of the screening process put in to build a professional police force. This is a serious problem and we need to know a lot more about it. I think that the report that we are talking about, restarting the Haitian economy, which is very important, signals something very curious for us as American taxpayers. We have about $1.6 billion pledged for our military support, and another $1 billion pledged for some type of aid support over the next year or so, I think would be a fair statement, and yet it is all at the top. It is not down at the bottom. We are not getting the money and the expertise down at the working level on the front lines of commerce. Talking to businessman after businessman after businessman, our program there is misdirected, and that is something we have to refocus very quickly, especially for that kind of money. We are paying a very heavy price in Haiti as taxpayers, as I said. What are we spending money on? We are buying troops from other countries. We are paying foreign soldiers, paying them at the rate of about $1,000 a month to foreign governments, who are taking a handling fee to put their troops into Haiti as part of a joint task force. Our troops down there are being used right now for things like garbage collecting, writing speeding tickets, making traffic flow work, that kind of thing. In this report, interestingly enough, the White House says we must have to cover a $2.6 billion shortfall in our defense spending because without it the net effect will be a significant decrease in overall military readiness. In other words, our military readiness is at threat because our troops are picking up the garbage in Haiti. We need a fuller report from the White House.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I and 21 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle took the first concrete steps toward righting a terrible wrong, by introducing the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 1995. This bill addresses the suffering of approximately 8,000 people with hemophilia-associated AIDS and their families. The premise behind this legislation is simple: The Federal Government must assume partial responsibility for what happened to these people because it failed to respond to the warning signs that blood products sold in this country were contaminated with the deadly virus that causes AIDS. It's time for accountability. The facts of this tragedy are horrifying. During the years 1980 through 1987, despite medical advances that could have wiped out contaminants of blood products sold to hemophilia suffers, contaminated products continued to flood the marketplace and approximately 8,000 people with blood-clotting disorders became infected with HIV. Among the victims was a young Florida boy named Ricky Ray. He and his two brothers suffered from the hereditary blood- clotting disease known as hemophilia, an illness that makes people vulnerable to potentially life-threatening bleeding episodes. The brothers Ray--and thousands of people like them--hailed blood-clotting products known as factor as a tremendous medical breakthrough that would change their lives forever. But there was a dark side to this new wonder treatment--and that was the transmission of dangerous blood- borne viruses, such as hepatitis and eventually HIV. As a result, all of the Ray brothers became HIV-positive--and in December 1992 Ricky-- the eldest of the three--died of AIDS at the age of 15. Before his death, Ricky courageously spoke out and became a national symbol of this terrible situation. He inspired many of his peers to tell their stories and begin seeking answers from the Federal Government and the blood industry. I am saddened that he did not live to see the day when legislation would be introduced in his honor, but we know his brothers, his sister, his parents, and the extended family of friends he established around the country, all recognize the enormous contribution he made in his very short life. The Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act establishes a fund of $1 billion from which victims of this tragedy could collect $125,000 each. The fund sunsets after 5 years and eligibility for its benefits are carefully defined in the bill. This legislation is not about charity--and it is not about making everything all right for the victims. Certainly $125,000 is only a very small down payment on the staggering emotional and financial costs that hemophilia-associated AIDS places on its victims and their families. What this bill is about is the Federal Government owning up to a share of responsibility for what happened. In 17 other developed countries where similar disasters occurred, national governments have stepped up to their obligations and established compensation programs. It's time for the United States to follow that lead. As this legislation moves through the process of consideration in this House, we will debate the extent of Government's obligation and the proper response to this tragedy. I know many of my colleagues are concerned about setting precedents and spending money. I share that concern--but I believe this is one of the things Government should appropriately be doing, responding to a tragedy that the Government had some responsibility to prevent. Of course, we look forward to the upcoming release of a thorough study conducted by the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine about what went wrong with the blood supply and how decisions about addressing those problems were made. Our legislation is in no way meant to prejudge or preclude that study, whose results should be available in May, nor do we have any interest in interfering with an ongoing legal process involving citizens and private industry. By presenting this bill to the House, we are simply acknowledging our commitment to the victims of this tragedy and our interest in seeing the Federal Government take action. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], who is a welcome addition to the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am very delighted to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from greater downtown San Dimas, CA, the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Dreier.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], pending which time I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today we are here fulfilling yet another promise to the American people and doing it under a rule that allows for an open amendment process. House Resolution 93 makes in order the committee substitute from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and provides for 1 hour of general debate followed by up to 10 hours of amendment under the 5- minute rule. In the opening debate today, I would like to point out that last weekend, many sports fans witnessed a very serious threat to public health and safety. In fact, several people were injured and thousands were placed in grave danger. Yet the Federal Government did not take any action to prevent these injuries. Nor is it likely to do so in the future. I refer, of course, to our former Presidents playing golf in public. Notwithstanding the germaneness of this, this story serves to illustrate an important point, that the Federal Government, despite the best efforts and intentions it may have, cannot provide protection for all Americans at all times. Yet it seems that we are coming closer and closer to issuing detailed regulations on every minute detail of our daily existence. I ask my colleagues, how many times have constituents come to them and asked for help to head off, sort out, or otherwise mitigate needless harm that has come to them or absolute disaster to them perhaps caused by poorly thought-out Federal regulation. Individuals, small businesses, volunteer groups, local governments have all been victims, have all been harmed in some way by the unending flood of Federal rules and regulations made by people who apparently have not got enough to do. As we begin to stem this tide, it is important to remember that H.R. 450 is not eliminating the rules made since November. Repeat. We are not eliminating the rules made since November. We are merely providing a much-needed timeout for perhaps up to a year to allow Congress the opportunity to responsibly consider serious regulatory reform. I think we all know we need it. There is even precedent for this type of action. President Bush placed a moratorium on new regulation from January 1992 to January 1993. Of course, not all Federal regulations are burdensome or counterproductive. Arguments can certainly be made that public health and safety regulations should not be subject to this moratorium. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has wisely provided for a general waiver process for imminent health and safety threats. I understand that some would like to see certain imminent threats given priority over other imminent threats. I do not agree with the wisdom of this kind of amendment. I was pleased to hear the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the gentlewoman from Illinois, state at the Committee on Rules yesterday that she would seek to have members cluster these amendments offering exemptions of a similar nature in a similar package. It sounds like a good idea. This does make sense, and it will help us avoid the tedious and perhaps unnecessary litany of amendments we saw during consideration of the unfunded mandates bill. I hope that the overall time limit that we have placed on this rule is useful for the gentlewoman, in helping her to organize the efforts to consolidate these kinds of amendments. Mr. Speaker, it all comes down to this. The American people have asked us repeatedly through individual pleas, and more dramatically in the November elections, to reform the Federal rule-making process. We are taking the first step here by placing the burden of proof on the regulatory agencies to prove that new regulations are necessary. This is a responsible change and a good beginning for the reform process. Mr. Speaker, I expect today we might hear a word or two from the minority side about the question of the 10-hour time limit on this. It was discussed in the Committee on Rules, and it has been much discussed. We have done a lot of homework and review of the records on this matter. We think this is a fair way to proceed and still allow the necessary debate time to come forward, but also to provide for the orderly management of all legislation in this House. Of course, we have a very heavy agenda of legislation to undertake. I know that the minority sometimes feel that they would like to have endless debate, and some might call it dilatory tactics, and in fact, we have seen some of that. Our view is that we have given the minority more than ample blocks of time to manage as they will to bring forward with their membership those issues they think they would like to debate on the floor. We hope they are able to use that time wisely. It does, I admit, put a management burden on the minority leadership to control what they are doing, and I believe that is a fair burden to place on the minority. It is certainly one we had placed on us when we were the minority. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we will see wise use of that time, and if we do see wise use of that time, I am entirely satisfied that the 10 hours that we have set aside under the open amendment process will be sufficient. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 93 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes at this time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], a member of the Committee on Governmental Reform and Oversight.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the honorable whip of the majority party.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Salt Lake City, UT, Mrs. Enid Green Waldholtz, a very welcome addition to our Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, an awful lot has been said out here about who got what, and what is an open rule, and whether we have got the right approach to this. I say to the distinguished minority leader, ``I went back and looked at the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, the 103d Congress back when he was in the responsibility of leadership for the majority, and looked at the testimony the distinguished gentleman made before the Joint Committee on Organization of Congress last January.'' Mr. Speaker, he said, and I quote, ``I believe we should support the Rules Committee when it puts time constraints on bills as this provides for more certainty for scheduling legislation.'' I think that that is a fairly clear statement, and I agree that the gentleman has made it very clear that we should not necessarily apply that to his support on this particular rule. But the fact of the matter is we have got a rule here that, when it is compared to the work of the Committee on Rules of the majority last year, and the 103d Congress is at least two and a half times more generous in terms of debate, the time constraints on debate, in legislation that I think most Members thought more pretentious than the debate on the legislation that is in front of us, which is after all a moratorium we are talking about while we get to the real question of real regulatory reform, and I would like to specifically suggest that the Employment Retirement Security Act of 1974, ERISA, it takes about 4 hours to explain what that is, let alone get into a debate on it, and yet we in the minority agreed Rules of the then majority asked us to do with that time constraint. Then we had the State and local government Interstate Waste Control Act of 1994, again 4 hours, 40 percent of the time we are allowing for this moratorium resolution to deal with that that affects local governments and States, and it is a very serious issue. Again by voice vote we agreed to go along with that, and why did we do it? In the interests of the management of time. We accepted the responsibility on our side of the aisle, as the minority, to manage our time, to manage the debate, to make sure our speakers got covered what they wanted to get covered, to make sure that those amendments that were going to be brought in were brought in in an orderly way to make sure that dilatory tactics were not going to squeeze out people with higher priority, more worthwhile amendments. That is a responsibility the minority must accept. Mr. Speaker, I believe any fair, reasonable, prudent observer would agree that 10 hours of open rule debate is plenty for this moratorium, and I believe, if we go back and read the testimony before the Committee on Rules that we had, Ms. Collins suggested that she would be able to cluster amendments into packages on the same subject so we could move rather quickly on this particular piece of legislation. The suggestion was made that somehow this is a self-imposed thing we are doing to ourselves. I would have to disagree with that. It is true that we are trying to move a big agenda. But it is an agenda that has been through the fire of a national referendum back in November. Yes, I would agree the vote at the ballot box was not on the Contract With America exclusively, but surely it was a part of that process, because whether the Republicans made it a part of that process or not, it is clear that many of the Democrats tried to make it a part of that process, and apparently succeeded. So I would say to try and characterize the Contract With America's agenda as a self-imposed one at this point on this body is stretching the definition of self-imposed somewhat. I think when you go back and you take a look at what we are trying to do and the way we are managing our time on this side, with the history of the unfunded mandates that we have seen, that legislation I believe was carried over 3 weeks on 8 actual working days, was subject to all kinds of dilatory tactics, we have felt it appropriate from the management of the majority, and we have the management of all legislation to deal with here, we have done a responsible job. I know we are never going to end the debate on what is an open rule because everybody will define it their way. But the people of this country have spoken that they like better the way we are running the rules of this House right now. We are seeing a rise in the approval rating. When I go home and talk to folks around my district and in other places, I find people say we are finding the debate on the floor a lot more lively, a lot more pertinent, a lot more germane. You are getting good issues out there. They are being voted up or down, but at least it is not a truly gagged issue. People are getting out there and being able to put their hardware out for all to see in this amendment process. Now, I regret if the other side, if the minority, has been unable to figure out a way to manage what priority amendments they wanted to bring up in the magnificent amount of time that has been allotted, but I suspect that the minority will get good at that, as we got good at it when we were the minority. We had 40 years to practice, and I hope perhaps that in the next 40 years you will have enough practice to be able to do the same. I think that would be an appropriate comparison after 40 years to see how we did. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule, I urge support of the bill, 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. Speaker, I ask unamimous consent that the following committee and its subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-minute rule: The Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to this request.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how the previous speaker knew that not one person was better off in America. I have talked to a lot of people in America in my district and they are very happy with what is going on. The polls indicate people are better off and definitely happier with the way things are going in this Congress. We are not just up passing bills. Americans know that. We are up here taking away from Big Brother in Washington, the Government, and we are returning the control of this country to the people we work for, the people all across America. We are doing something else too, something that perhaps the former majority who are now the minority failed to do, and that is we are keeping our word. We are accomplishing exactly what we said we would do in the election. We are out here working harder in January and February than this Congress has ever worked, certainly more than it has in the last 40 years. We have had four times as many hours in session, we have had eight times as many votes, we have had six times as many committee meetings. The reason for all of that is not because we want more Government, it is because we want less Government. We are cutting down Government, that is what this is about, and we are returning it to the people.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from greater metropolitan San Dimas, CA, for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] and as well the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, for their hard work in crafting what I think is a very fair and well-tailored rule. The purpose is to implement a policy that many of us have long advocated around here, and, that is, paying for what we do. This rule will allow us to marry together an important defense appropriations supplemental bill needed to provide for military missions already undertaken as described by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] with a rescissions package designed to actually pay for them. What is at stake here is really restoring readiness to our forces, which I think is beyond question a life-and- death issue for our troops. The rule also allows the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the opportunity to offer a substitute package. Frankly, I am little puzzled by the Obey amendment as I have seen it so far. As best I can tell, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has suggested temporarily granting a power I thought he opposed, that is, the line-item veto authority to the Secretary of Defense, a distinguished but nevertheless unelected official, and this is all without ensuring congressional review. For those who thought H.R. 2, the line-item veto act passed by this House last month, was a little too much delegation of power away from Congress, I would have to think that the Obey approach, giving line- item veto to the Secretary of Defense, would be completely out of bounds. But that remains to be seen. Finally, I wish to comment on the substance of this defense supplemental appropriations bill. The bulk of the money is earmarked to cover the costs of unbudgeted contingency operations in places like Somalia and Haiti. This is money that has already been spent and some of us think unwisely in part. Now the bill is coming due. Although I strongly support our military, as we all do, and recognize that at this point we have no choice but to settle up our accounts on missions already underway or done, I am really troubled by the administration's tendency to embark on costly, ill-defined peacekeeping adventures around the globe without consulting with the Congress, and then coming forward after the fact and saying, ``Oh, we've got to have some money.'' This trend was especially disturbing in the case of Haiti where the administration did find a lot of time to seek U.N. approval for its plans but somehow or other did not seem interested in coming up to get some congressional support in advance for sending our troops there. We have drained funds from our troops readiness to pay for what is arguably the misuse of our military in Haiti, and many Americans, including this one, strongly resent it. Mr. Speaker, I fully expect a broad discussion of foreign policy and the appropriate use of our troops to continue as we move into the regular budget cycle. That is what we do. But in the meantime, I urge support for this creative rule, even though I know very full well there are those on the other side of the aisle who voted for misadventures such as the one we have experienced in Haiti who now do not want to pay for the bill. We must pass this bill. It is a matter of life and death for our troops that we count on.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union under the 5-minute rule: The Committee on Commerce; The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; The Committee on Science; and The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minority has been consulted, and that there is no objection to these questions.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the House is moving expeditiously in meeting the pledges it made with the American people under the Contract With America. We continue to progress on issues of major importance to a clear majority of our constituents. Today we will act on legislation of great concern to many Americans--and one that has some sense of urgency with tax season upon us--the permanent extension of a 25-percent health insurance deduction for self-employed individuals. While this is a modified closed rule, all Members of this House seem to agree that certain types of highly complex bills--especially those involving the Tax Code--must be considered under carefully structured debate. I am pleased that we are able to provide for one amendment in the nature of a substitute to be offered by Mr. Gibbons or his designee, which will allow those Members who came to the Rules Committee seeking changes in H.R. 831, a chance to have their views debated and voted upon. I am delighted that H.R. 831 achieves a goal supported overwhelmingly by Members on both sides of the aisle. The deduction for the self- employed was unfortunately allowed to expire at the end of 1993, leaving many individuals and small businesses in limbo and at a distinct disadvantage under the Tax Code. H.R. 831 takes an important step in providing some certainty to these folks, by making the extension of the deduction permanent. The goal is to establish the right mix of carrots and sticks so more people can secure health insurance. It was clear judging from the debate in the Rules Committee meeting last Thursday, that Members are eager to rejoin the larger issue of health care reform--of which H.R. 831 is only one small piece. I share that eagerness and look forward to a substantive debate on the whole picture of health reform in the coming months. In the meantime, I know there are some tangential issues raised by H.R. 831 that will prompt lively discussion on this floor--especially the side issue of minority preferences and the FCC--but I hope that the purpose of H.R. 831, providing a degree of fairness and reliability to the Tax Code for the self employed, will not be lost. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support this rule and to participate in this debate. I think it is going to be a good debate, with a good result.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman emeritus of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], for yielding time to me, and let me first, at the request of the leadership, make a unanimous consent request. permission for certain committees and their subcommittees to sit today during the 5-minute rule

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is official--with or without the first- string players, spring training is now underway in Florida and other warmer climes across the country. This morning's national news featured reports from my home district cities of Fort Myers and Port Charlotte-- reports tinged with regret and resentment about the lost opportunities and lost dollars caused by the protracted baseball strike. Americans really are fed up with the fighting and all agree it is time for both sides to come back to the bargaining table and resolve their differences to save the season. But most still think it would be a mistake for Congress to interject itself into this dispute and impose a settlement. I agree--but I believe there are legitimate issues to discuss about whether the antitrust exemption has outlived its purpose--and Congress is reviewing that issue. But in the meantime, we all ask players and owners--can't we just play ball?

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of our Committee on Rules for yielding this time. Mr. Speaker, Americans have not forgotten the last time we allowed our become muddled. Terms from the Carter years, like hollow force and foreign policy quagmire, are terms that we still see and still strike a chord with us and, unfortunately, they are resurfacing in our national dialog. H.R. 7 attempts to address some of the immediate concerns Americans have about our national security and foreign policy. It does not solve all of the problems, but it starts. I am pleased that the Committee on Rules gave us a rule for consideration of this bill that allows for 2 hours of general debate and 10 hours of an open amendment process, 10 hours. Make no mistake, this rule allows for the consideration of any germane amendment by any Member. Unlike consideration of national security in previous years, the Committee on Rules has not excluded specific amendments nor have we singled out certain amendments for special status, placing them above others. Yes, there is an option to prefile, and, yes, there is an overall time limit to help us move reasonably expeditiously on this legislation. But I am confident that we can have a well-managed and disciplined debate--and the word here is disciplined--that covers all the major issues in the time allotted. H.R. 7 does raise some substantive issues, issues on which it is clear Members have legitimate philosophical differences and deserve debate. One area that I happen to take a strong interest in is Haiti. Right now, upstairs in the Rules Committee, we are determining ways to pay the bills that are now coming due for that misadventure and a result of what I would call muddled foreign policy, characterized by flipflops, suffering, a brutal embargo on a friendly country, an armed invasion in a friendly country, and costing millions and millions and millions of dollars, that we are going to see as we get into the emergency supplemental bill from Department of Defense, and look at that and some other issues. The lack of coordination, the lack of consistency, and the lack of clarity in foreign policy has a price, and unfortunately we are going to have to pay it. H.R. 7 addresses some of that, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule. I think it is the right rule for the process, and I support H.R. 7.