Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], for yielding me this time, and I congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Rules for revealing the true specific plan to achieve a balanced budget, showing that it can be done. Madam Speaker, on November 8 of last year, the American people elected us to fulfill a contract. That contract includes allowing a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. And not just any balanced budget amendment, but specifically one that would permanently protect the American taxpayer from further unwarranted tax hikes--tax hikes like the one in President Clinton's 1993 reconciliation--that come in the name of deficit reduction. The American people signaled on November 8 that they want us to vote on the Barton amendment, and to require a three-fifths supermajority to raise taxes. And that's what we will do here today--as promised. Today's modified open rule is fair. It provides guidance to navigate through the 44 substitutes offered--including many overlapping proposals--by bringing forward four Democrat substitutes and one bipartisan alternative. There was ongoing consultation with the minority, and the minority leader was given the opportunity to designate priority amendments. There is some merit in all of the proposals--notably the Schaefer substitute, which offers a well-known balanced budget amendment that this House has come close to adopting several times in the past. But make no mistake, this debate focuses on the version of the balanced budget amendment that Americans said they wanted, the one included in the Contract With America. Some in this minority will no doubt complain that one or another specific proposal is left out of the process. But the American people understand that this debate should focus on the big ideas--and we won't be sidetracked by those who oppose balancing the budget and are using every excuse to slow down passage of the balanced budget amendment. American's did not vote for delay--they voted for action--now. Madam Speaker, as a member of the bipartisan Commission on Entitlement Reform and as a Representative from Florida, I am quite familiar--if not acutely aware--with the situation facing Social Security. According to all the experts, the Social Security trust fund will continue to run a surplus until at least 2012--and it is not expected to add to the deficit until 2029. The idea that passage now of the balanced budget amendment will mean immediate and drastic cuts in Social Security benefits is a scare tactic pure and simple. That is just not the truth. In fact, as demonstrated by the Entitlement Commission findings, the greatest threat to Social Security comes from our annual red ink and mounting debt--if allowed to continue, interest payments on the debt alone could eventually squeeze all other programs--Social Security included--out budget, and it will stay that way. The Flanagan resolution--House Concurrent Resolution 17--made in order under the rule, shows our firm resolve in this respect. The situation is serious: We are currently in debt to the tune of $4.6 trillion, a figure that continues to grow by over $200 billion a year. Madam Speaker, in light of this I was startled to hear the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee testify to the Rules Committee that the national debt is currently being reduced. I'm not sure how he arrives at this, since every year that we run a deficit, we add to our national debt. Surely the minority is not advocating still bigger debt for our children to bear. In closing I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the Barton amendment.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago President Clinton was sworn in to office promising big change. But it became clear that the change America wanted was not going to come from the Clinton White House. So tomorrow the President delivers his State of the Union speech to a historic 104th Congress and a country that is no longer waiting for change to come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. With an unquestionable mandate from the American people, this Congress is responding to the call for smaller, less intrusive government. We are going to reverse the trend of the Federal Government handing down rigid, one-size-fits-all mandates to our States and localities without even considering the costs we are passing on to them. Mr. Speaker, we are going to set ourselves on a course to a balanced budget. We are doing that now. We are going to make government smaller and more responsible and more attractive. America is going to keep watching. They are going to keep watching this Congress because this is where the change is happening.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I am very happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I think the chairman has laid it out well. I, too, am a mayor and former county chairman, and I understand the problem of these mandates. I think we have crafted a way here, and we are going in the right direction to get the desired result. I am particularly mindful of the two very great benefits we are going to get out of this legislation when we are through with it after this very open debate that we are having, is we are going to start having price tags and start having accountability. Both of those are tremendous pluses. We are also going to have trouble with what are the priorities and how much are we going to spend? I think that is the essence of democracy. I think we set up a pretty good system.

Mr. GOSS. I will yield briefly to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, our States, counties, cities, and towns have all experienced the frustration of unfunded Federal mandates in one form or another. As the first mayor of Sanibel, FL, and later as chairman of the Lee County Commission, I became much too familiar with the pressures that such one-size-fits-all mandates put on local budgets. It has become a very bad habit for the Federal Government to tell their State and local counterparts what to do, often spelling out how to do it, and usually doing so without consideration of the costs involved or the unique characteristics that make our localities differ from one another. I am gratified that today we are moving to reverse that trend and establish safeguards against such irresponsible Federal dictates in the future. The Committee on Rules has original jurisdiction over the changes and additions to the House Rules contained in H.R. 5. We considered title III, after a very thorough and informative briefing by CRS and CBO, and after listening to a broad array of views during an extended committee hearing. The nuts and bolts of the rules changes in this bill have been pretty well explained--it will be out of order for the House to consider legislation that creates a new unfunded mandate, above a certain, national trigger cost level, on States and local governments. This point of order can be waived by a majority vote if enough Members of this House feel that the need for the mandate is urgent. While this will not automatically stop all new mandates in their tracks, it will force the House to take the issue of the unfunded mandate specifically into consideration, casting an up or down vote, in full public view on the issue of whether to proceed with such a mandate or not. Accountability in short. As a strong supporter of this bill, I nonetheless did have some concern over the possible unintended consequences it could have on existing environmental and public health laws. As initially drafted, it was unclear whether the cost of existing programs, such as the Clean Water Act, would be counted toward the $50 million trigger in this bill when such programs came up for reauthorization. While it's clear that the intention of this bill's authors was never to gut the provisions of every piece of environmental legislation, I am pleased that we were able to further clarify this point in the Rules Committee through an amendment to title III. That amendment makes it clear that only the incremental costs of new mandates will count toward the $50 million trigger. This keeps within the spirit of H.R. 5, in looking ahead to future mandates while a commission reviews all existing mandates. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, complicated by the nature of the subject, but well thought out. A host of talented Members, State officials, and staff worked long hours to bring us to this point. Congressional action to reverse the trend on unfunded mandates is long overdue and vital to the financial stability of our State and local governments. For more accountability, for thriftier spending, for better Government--I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Knoxville, TN [Mr. Duncan]. (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from greater Metropolitan San Dimas, CA [Mr. Dreier], who is the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this rule today, because this is the first rule that has actually been brought to the floor through what we would call the normal Committee on Rules process. Opening day is one process, and the only other legislation has been the suspension process. Mr. Speaker, this is our first product, the first baby we are delivering. I am delighted that it is a wide open rule. It is a rule we are calling an open rule plus, because every Member is protected. I say that again. Every Member is protected. We have provided for an open debate and an open amendment process, and we have gone one step further and encouraged, encouraged, not required, not mandated, but encouraged Members to preprint their amendments. The purpose of course for the voluntary process is to prompt Members to plan ahead, to develop their amendments fully. Other Members will have a chance to look at them and consider ideas from all our colleagues. It is called deliberative democracy for those who may not recognize it. Having said, I want to take a moment to respond to criticism we heard Tuesday with regard to bringing the Congressional Compliance Act, better known as the Shays Act, to the floor under suspension of the rules. I notice there were some complaints about this. A few Members cried closed rule and some of the misguided media bought that argument. As someone who has spent a good deal of time in the minority staring down the barrel of one closed rule after another in the 103d Congress, I would urge my colleagues to be careful about crying wolf on these matters. If we look at the rules of the House, specifically rule XXVII which allows the Speaker to bring up bills under suspension, we will recall that this longstanding practice is meant to be used for bills that are noncontroversial. Given the 390-to-0 result of Tuesday's vote on the Shays bill, I think everybody could agree that we were dealing with one of the most noncontroversial bills in recent memory. Of course everybody knows bills under Suspension Calendar are not amendable but must endure the extra burden of a two-thirds vote. I think we understand that. Finally, I would like to say that we on the majority side understand the role of our colleagues in the minority in the Committee on Rules in defending the rights of the minority and we respect it very much. I know they have an especially difficult chore today finding fault with this wide open rule like the one we have on unfunded mandates--I hope it is the precedent for the future--especially one that really goes out of its way to encourage all Members to participate in orderly and planned-ahead debate. I was somewhat surprised and dismayed that the minority went ahead and opposed this rule in committee. Voting unanimously against it in fact. I hope that my friends on that side of the aisle will recognize that this is an open rule that completely protects their rights and that ensures an orderly and unfettered debate on an issue that we care about. I think this is the way rules should be in circumstances like this and I think we are one-for-one on open rules in the Committee on Rules. To my good friend, the distinguished ranking member who has properly said that this is legislation that will affect all America, I agree. It will be a great improvement for all Americans.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the budget problem in Washington is not caused by too little revenue. The problem in wasted on low-priority, redundant or unnecessary programs. The dollars in fraud, waste, and abuse total billions annually. The basic message from November 8 was that people understand their Government is too big and spends too much. This historic Congress is now beginning to clean out the cobwebs left by 40 years of one-party rule. We cannot turn our backs on 40 years of mismanagement overnight, and we cannot turn back those mistakes. But in these first 100 days we will take the necessary first steps, voting on the balanced budget amendment, considering a line item veto, and beginning the hard but necessary work on cutting back on Federal spending. As the Clinton campaign has been fond of saying, ``It's the economy, stupid,'' Now America has told us, ``No, it's the spending, stupid.'' So let us cut out the stupid spending and balance the budget.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, today is day 122 of the American occupation of Haiti, a friendly country just south of our borders. The United States command in Haiti has determined that a secure environment has been established. The United Nations is expected to rule on this question in the coming weeks and the process of transition to a United Nations mission will be online, hopefully for an end of March completion. What will this transition mean? Today, our forces in Haiti have the authority to arrest and detain troublemakers and to respond with force. And in fact they have been doing that. The U.N. mission in Haiti, which will include approximately 2,500 United States troops, will be a chapter 6 mission--strictly one of providing presence and monitoring. Under current mission parameters, American soldiers provide the security in Haiti, to the degree that that security is real. They are the folks who are enforcing the security there, to the degree that there is any real security. Today, our soldiers are involved at the local level in the day-to-day running of villages throughout the Haitian countryside. Our soldiers are serving as mayors and judges; they are serving as the electric company and waste disposal management company. In any given day, they might be called upon to deal with a charge that perhaps the local magistrate is engaged in extortion; they will probably buy the food for the prisoners in the local jail and make certain it is delivered; they will probably give out a few speeding tickets and might even confiscate a few guns. As we always expect of them, our troops are doing an outstanding job. Whether or not it is an appropriate or safe job for them to be doing and what sort of track record they are building in the eyes of the Haitian people are questions still open for debate. We have lost one soldier tragically in action in Haiti--he was trying to force someone to pay a toll to an individual who apparently had no official authority to collect it. We are deeply troubled by this death and renew our call for a thorough review of United States policy in Haiti. Knowing the degree of American financial and personnel involvement in Haiti, Americans were no doubt surprised to read in the national press yesterday that their men and women in uniform are not accepted with open arms by all Haitians. Despite the fact all we are doing for Haitians, apparently there are some problems. This is in sharp contrast to the pictures they remember of jubilant Haitians in Port-Au-Prince welcoming Americans to their shores. But there is more to Haiti than Port-Au-Prince. It is true that in many Haitian villages, American soldiers are cheered as they drive through the streets, and that gladdens the heart of all Americans. But the feeling that American troops do not belong in Haiti also is real in many areas of the country. It is a little bit of going back to the old days of the occupation that some remember, the gringoism that we have suffered for so many years in our hemisphere and tried to get away from through the good works we have done in so many countries in our hemisphere. Haitians from the provinces will tell us that the soldiers have made little difference in their lives. They are disappointed. The farmers will tell us that they still have no one to go to when someone steals their crops or their livestock, or that if they do complain, nothing happens. People will tell us that the American soldiers have let themselves be used in some instances by thugs and vagabonds. Some will also tell us that they would prefer that no foreign soldiers be in their country. I guess we can understand that. In other places, like Jeremie, they are crying foul because they believe the U.S. troops are too close to the military leaders who once terrorized that population. It is a very thin, delicate line our troops have to walk. As we make the transition to a U.N. mission, any feelings of insecurity and resentment will continue to grow. We know that. That is not uncommon in a transition. But we have to add into the equation the fact that the Haitian Government is not up to the administrative and financial challenge of providing for its own security right now or for getting government up and running, even with the present monitoring of our United Nations mission. They are not going to be able to do that. Haitian police forces do not have the respect of the public, and they do not have the weapons or the vehicles to provide for law and order. The conclusion I reach is that below the surface of the so-called secure environment there remain very serious problems that could become deadly in an instant once the transition is made. Mr. Speaker, the U.N. mission in Haiti is not the end of the risk for our troops. In fact, it may even up the stakes. I hope the Clinton White House is looking below the surface to ensure the safety of our men and women in uniform. And while they are thinking about Haiti, the Clinton administration might start thinking about the American taxpayers who are footing the bill for the hundreds of millions committed to bail out the Aristide ship of state, which many observers feel is a boat that will not float no matter how hard you bail.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, our contract with America states, on the first day of Congress, a Republican House will: force Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else; cut one-third of committee staff, and cut the congressional budget. We have done that. In the next 87 days, we will vote on the following 10 items: No. 1, a balanced budget amendment and line-item veto; No. 2, a new crime bill to stop violent criminals; No. 3, welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; No. 4, family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; No. 5, tax cuts for families to lift Government's burden from middle- income Americans and senior citizens too; No. 6, national security restoration to protect our freedoms and our military chain of command; No. 7, Senior Citizens' Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalties from their Government; No. 8, Government regulation and unfunded mandate reforms; No. 9, commonsense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits that are costly, and No. 10, congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract with America. This will happpen.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it has long been known that Congress has a bad habit of passing laws without understanding the full impact they have on the American public--then it exempts itself from those same laws. In the 102d and 103d Congresses, I introduced a resolution to eliminate the special treatment that this institution has granted itself. Last Congress, I voted in favor of the Congressional Accountability Act which the House passed--but the Senate failed to approve. During the final hours before adjournment of the 103d Congress, the House passed a watered-down version of the compliance bill as an amendment to the rules of the House. Although I am a strong advocate of congressional compliance, I felt compelled to vote against that weak- kneed resolution--which, to me, was nothing more than status quo dressed up to look like reform. Today we have an opportunity to move forward with real reform. I support S. 2, the Congressional Accountability Act, and I intend to vote for it. Congress is not, and should not be, above the law. It is time to move this institution into the real world of the laws that we expect the private sector to abide by.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, today is day 115 of the U.S. occupation of Haiti. For almost 6,000 of our troops still there, the mission remains as open-ended and as ill-defined as it was when it started back in September. Still the White House is very vague about the time line for the withdrawal of our troops. They offer very little substantive commentary on what is the real situation in Haiti today where our troops are at risk. Mr. Speaker, many Members have questions they would like answered, like: What is the prognosis for an orderly withdrawal of our troops without a return to a climate of brutal vengeance in Haiti? Where do Haitian moderates fit into White House plans? How much is this costing American taxpayers as we talk about balancing the budget? What is being done about shifting the aid emphasis from commitments for handouts for Haitians to support for investments and jobs that will actually make a real difference in that country's future? Mr. Speaker, it is time for some accountability from the White House. It is our troops that are overseas.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the wave of reform is moving through this House. On opening day we made good on our pledge to start changing the way we conduct the Nation's business. Now we are getting down to the business of change to shrink the Federal Government and restore fiscal sanity. The streamlined committees of this House are already hard at work on a balanced budget amendment, a true line-item veto for the President, and a mechanism to stop unfunded mandates from crippling our State and local governments. We have pledged to cut spending and realign our Federal priorities--and we are going to fulfill that commitment. We will not be distracted by the diversionary or dilatory tactics of yesterday's powerbrokers--things have changed around here and Americans can once again trust their elected Representatives to do what we have said we will do.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is proxy voting or ghost voting. It is a bad habit that has grown to be a serious disorder in the process of this institution. I notice that apparently no one is willing to defend proxy voting, because I certainly have not heard any defense from the other side of the aisle, so I guess the time has come to get rid of proxy voting or ghost voting and we thank very much what I think I am hearing correctly, is the support from the other side of the aisle so I think we can expect a very large vote to do away with this procedure which has not done credit to this institution since it has been a bad idea and since it has been abused so badly. I think we all know it, I do not think there is any particular point in overstressing, finding nobody supporting it, so why do we not just agree with it and get rid of it? Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I congratulate her for her effort.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], for yielding me this time. It is the 4th of January, but it seems like the 4th of July, to me. It is Independence Day. It is Independence Day in this House, as we begin to set ourselves free from the shackles of what America knows is the status quo, business as usual. I hardly need to remind my colleagues about the Dark Ages, when committee chairmen zealously perpetuated their turfs; when Members missed committee meetings because votes were taken by proxy; when committee meetings could be held in the dead of the night behind closed doors, sometimes locked closed doors, locked to the minority; when Members could come to this floor and apparently wilfully disclose classified information without admonition; when large tax bills could pass on the slimmest of margins and huge spending packages could slide through on a voice vote. The excesses of Congresses past are well documented. On November 8, Americans sent a message. Well, Mr. Speaker, message received. Limiting the terms of committee chairmen, banning proxy voting, establishing truth in budgeting, reducing staff, opening up and streamlining the committee process, mandating recorded votes on spending bills, these changes today will make this a more responsive and responsible House. By laying this groundwork for a new beginning, we take the first concrete steps toward earning back the trust of the people that we are here to serve. I am pleased that this rules package includes a simple but important requirement that Members wishing access to classified material sign an oath of secrecy, a powerful change that should increase Members' awareness and accountability where national security is at stake. At the same time, we are taking major steps to bring sunshine into the daily workings of this House's business and to ensure individual Members' accountability for all of their actions. All around, this is a balanced of package of substantive change. It is not exclusive. There will be more, and I invite the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] to join me in sponsoring my bill that bans lobbyist-paid travel, if he wants further reform. This is the beginning step. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of these new rules today. It is not the final thing, but it is the most important thing we are going to do, because it is going to show America we are serious about making the changes. Of course, there will be more oncoming. Today it is a good agenda. It is an American agenda, and it is today's agenda, so let us pass it.