Speech by Rep. Porter Goss (R-Florida), March 29, 2000

Speech by Rep. Porter Goss (R-Florida), March 29, 2000
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is recognized for 1 hour.

[Page: H1486]
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), my friend and colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules; pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate on this issue only.

Mr. Speaker, in the Committee on Rules parlance, we describe H.Res. 450 as an open rule plus; that is, we have provided an open rule which ensures that any amendments in order under the standing rules of the House may be offered. Additionally, we have provided protections for a variety of Members that require waivers.

There has been a great interest among Members in this bill. In fact, we had more than 40 amendments presented to the Committee on Rules yesterday and yesterday evening, and we spent the better part of yesterday evening, actually well into the night, attempting to craft this rule. In the end, the rule provides for waivers for 14 separate amendments above and beyond whatever amendments may be offered under the regular order of an open amendment process.

While we were unable to make provisions for each of the amendments submitted, we did seek to thread the needle and ensure adequate debate on the major issues raised by this bill.

[TIME: 1100]

In my view, this rule accomplishes that objective. I should note for those who like to keep score, that this type of `open rule plus' procedure is the same format that was used for last year's supplemental. Also, a bit of Committee on Rules history shows that 53 of the last 65 rules granted for supplementals have been open rules.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 450 is an open rule providing 1 hour general debate equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and waives points of order against provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations of legislative provisions in a general appropriations bill, except as specified in the rule.

This exception pertains to a provision in the bill under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, a legislative provision which did not have the concurrence of the authorizing committee.

The rule further provides, prior to the consideration of any other amendment, for consideration of the amendments printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report, which may be offered only in the order printed in the report.

The rule provides for the consideration of the amendments printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report, which may be offered only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill.

The rule provides that all of the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report may be offered only by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report and waives points of order during consideration of the bill against amendments for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI, prohibiting nonemergency designated amendments to be offered to an appropriations bill containing an emergency designation.

The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have caused their amendments to be preprinted in the Congressional Record. The rule also allows for the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.

And, lastly, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions as usual.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion voiced about this bill so far. Questions and concerns raised from many, many different perspectives. Some Members are uncomfortable with the defense funding, others have concerns about the counternarcotics package for Colombia. We have Members who believe this bill spends too much money, and we have other Members who seek more spending in other areas. We have Members who want to allocate more of the existing surplus to debt reduction, and we have Members who seek to realign priorities in the bill. With this rule, we have found a way to accommodate a great many of those Members.

With respect to the defense spending in this bill, an amount that reflects a sizable increase over what was requested by the President, this is necessary because the administration has consistently underfunded and overcommitted our Armed Forces to the point where readiness, training, equipment, and morale have all suffered, undeniably.

Whatever one's views about the wisdom of our policy in Kosovo, and I too have very deep misgivings about what we have been doing there and about what our definition of success is for that troubled region, though I have no misgivings about the brilliant performance of our military, the fact remains that President Clinton got us into that quagmire and now we have an obligation to foot the bill. We have to pay the President's bill.

We have been robbing Peter to pay Paul for too long when it comes to committing our military forces, causing in fact an emergency situation today. I fully support efforts in this bill to reverse that trend.

Turning to the other major component of the bill, the counternarcotics package centered on `Plan Colombia,' I urge my colleagues to look beyond the price tag of today's proposal and consider the cost; the cost in lives, in dollars, and lost productivity; of ducking this fight at this time. I believe we must act now. The administration has already waited too long. The most recent statistics related to Colombia are alarming, and I want to highlight three areas.

First, the amount of drugs coming from Colombia is rising dramatically. Colombia now produces 60 percent of the world's cocaine crop, an astounding 90 percent of which makes its way here to the United States. Now, part of Colombia's problem is caused by our success in fighting the drug war in Peru and Bolivia. Much of the drug problem in terms of supply is now concentrated in Colombia, and that Democratically-elected government has asked for our assistance to deliver the coup de grace to the drug suppliers.

Second, the flow of drugs into the U.S. poses a direct threat to our children. One in every two American school kids will try illegal drugs before graduating high school unless we reverse the trends. We also know that the potency of Colombia's cocaine today and heroin today is rising, making it even more likely that today's curious kids, under peer pressure in school, seeking to try something cool or something new, could get hooked more easily and become tomorrow's addicts.

Illegal drug use costs U.S. society a staggering $110 billion a year right now and results in more than 14,000 American deaths each year. I am going to say that again: 14,000 American deaths each year; primarily our youth. That is unbelievable. I cannot seriously believe that any Member is going to pull out the flag of surrender and say we are quitting on the war on drugs with those kinds of statistics. This is a meaningful way to deal with that subject.

Third, illegal drug use costs the U.S. society, as I said, not only 14,000 American lives but billions of dollars. We are already in this thing; we need to finish it. Today, we find ourselves at a very critical point. In recent years, the United States has decreased the amount of money we spend on interdiction, lowering our guard and opening the door for well-financed, opportunistic, and ruthless narco-traffickers to boost their shipments and bring more drugs to our school yards and our playgrounds, and, indeed, those are their target areas.

Meanwhile, the political situation in Colombia has spiraled out of control, despite the sincere efforts of a friendly Democratically-elected government in that country that is trying to do the right thing and asking for help, not only from us but from other countries as well. So we find ourselves in a crisis we can no longer afford to ignore, and this is a true emergency.

We have heard arguments against the Colombia package based upon the fear that we will become sucked into another Vietnam and that we will be aiding and abetting human rights' abusers. I reject both of those arguments. We cannot simply put our head in the sand and pretend that the emergence of a narco-State in our own back yard would not adversely impact our national security.

Likewise, with regard to the question of human rights, later in today's debate I will be assisting in offering a bipartisan amendment designed to address those legitimate and important concerns head-on by conditioning military assistance on some tough certification requirements about ensuring that human rights' violators are properly dealt with.

And, lastly, we hear complaints that we are overly focused on the supply side of the equation. The fact is that in recent years we have cut back on interdiction and eradication in favor of more demand reduction and prevention programs here at home. And the statistics speak for themselves: That formula has failed. What we are trying to do in this bill is focus on the serious and growing threat that one of our close southern neighbors is being overrun by the drug traffickers who have sat their sights on unfettered access to the impressionable youth of America.

I believe we have provided for conditionality on the human rights' violations. I certainly want to underscore that it is the Colombians themselves who will be conducting this action. We are providing some training, some logistic support and some equipment for them. We are not sending military troops in the sense that we sent them to Kosovo or other places recently we have read about. We are sending them to help train these people to take care of a problem within their borders.

And on the question of the balance between supply and demand and treatment, I believe that we have to fight the war on drugs on all fronts, not just one front. And I believe the statistics will show that we are doing well when we stay applied on all fronts.

So the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that when all is said and done today, the House will have worked its will on a large complicated spending package that contains many important provisions besides those I have addressed. I urge support for the rule so we can get on with this debate, which I suspect will go well into the evening.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

As of March 30, 2000, this document was also available online at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r106:H29MR0-91: