Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend from the greater metropolitan downtown area of Claremont, CA, the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules and leader of many good causes in this House, for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of his rule. It is a closed rule, but it is a good rule; it is time tested for debating tax- related bills under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. For years, millions of Americans have known what we are today finally acknowledging here on the floor of the House, that the IRS is inefficient, it is unaccountable, and it is often downright abusive for the very people who pay the salaries, the American taxpayer. Even the most routine audit can strike fear in the hearts of Americans, and even more disturbing is the belief by many Americans that the IRS targets based on partisan political motive. The facts serve to underscore their anxiety. In 1993, the IRS gave the wrong answer to taxpayer questions millions of times. Last year, only one in five calls to the IRS customer hotline apparently got through, and even then we were not sure the answer was right. Today we are taking the first concrete steps to clean up this agency. Congressional hearings have demonstrated clearly and poignantly the need for structural reform at the IRS, and we are acting. Built on the recommendations of the bipartisan commission chaired by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], H.R. 2676 will create mechanisms to ensure that the IRS serves Americans with the respect and dignity that we all deserve. For starters, the bill creates an independent oversight board composed of private citizens. The board will place a needed check on the excesses of the agency as well as restore accountability for the American taxpayer. By changing the burden of proof in tax court proceedings, H.R. 2676 will make sure that law-abiding taxpayers are guaranteed the same basic rights offered in other judicial proceedings. They are still innocent until proven guilty, which is our way. After weeks of stops and starts, hesitation, rhetoric, the Clinton administration has finally decided to join our effort in these first steps. They recognize this is a good effort. I welcome the President's conversion, and I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule and this important bipartisan bill.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Solomon, for yielding time and I rise in strong support of this fair rule to expedite the consideration of these nine important initiatives. Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the end of the session and we are taking steps to ensure full debate on these important topics without bogging the House down in days and days of speechmaking. This rule strikes a responsible balance. In my view it is well past time that Congress send a clear message challenging the human rights conduct, weapons proliferation, and hostile intelligence activity of the People's Republic of China. As chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I have been closely following these and other issues to be discussed today. We have examined the activities of Chinese intelligence and military officers in the United States and we have studied the evidence of proliferation by China of weapons of mass destruction. We have also closely examined the brutal conduct of the Chinese Government toward many of its own citizens. The record is clear and tremendously unsettling--it is not one of freedom, but one of repression. China, whether we like it or not, is one of the single greatest national security concerns facing us today. Today we are finally taking concrete action, some basic steps to demonstrate our real concern about the intentions and activities of the Chinese regime. Through these nine bills we will encourage enforcement of the 1992 Iran-Iraq Nonproliferation Act. We will monitor the access of and deny United States subsidies and United States visas to Chinese intelligence officers and others who work against America and its interests. We will promote human rights in China and punish those who persecute, who perform abortions, and who exploit forced labor. In short, we will define a congressional agenda toward China, one of freedom and tolerance. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of all Members who have helped bring these important bills to the floor. I especially commend my friend from California, Mr. Cox, for his steady leadership in this crucial national security area. I intend to maintain a clear and high priority focus on China in my capacity as chairman of HPSCI.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding. When it comes to educating our kids, Washington does not know best. For too long we have had this top-down approach here that the Federal role in education is what it should be, and who is paying the price for the failure? Our kids are paying the price, and we all know it. They are not receiving the quality education they deserve, parents are certainly not being utilized to their full potential in the education process, and the time has come for change. I happen to think charter schools represent good change, a unique approach that empowers parents, teachers, students, letting them work together to determine what actually works in education. Local communities, not Washington politicians or special interests, establish then what the curriculum is going to be and how it works. I think it is a fact, charter schools are cost-effective. They get money to the classroom, they enhance accountability, and are gaining popularity around the country. It is time to deal with that. The HELP Scholarship Act, to provide real educational opportunities for the poorest of the poor in America, this is a good idea. The real question though is a far more reasonable one: Do you support giving local communities the option, and I say option, of using some Federal dollars on scholarships for their poorest children? Who would say, no? That makes good sense. I am inclined to support and trust the local folks back home. We vote for them at school board time. They do a pretty good job. I think their judgment deserves to be heard in this. Madam Speaker, I think it is time that we got the education of our country's children back in the classroom, where it belongs, and out of Washington, DC, the land of special interests and all wisdom.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order on Friday, October 31, 1997, or any day thereafter to consider the conference report to accompany S. 858; that all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration be waived; and that the conference report be considered as read when called up.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to designate a time not later than November 7, 1997, for resumption of proceedings on the seven remaining motions to suspend the rules originally considered on Monday, September 29, 1997.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the sentiments, and congratulate the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for good work under very difficult circumstances. I urge passage of the bill when it comes time.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman profusely for all of those interested in this issue.

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. GOSS. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule, this bill, and engage in a brief colloquy with my friend, the gentleman from California, Chairman Young, on a matter involving Outer Continental Shelf drilling. Mr. Speaker, I have long been interested in the question of oil and natural gas drilling off the coast of the State of Florida. Each year for well over a decade Congress has adopted a moratorium on oil and gas activities in some of our Nation's sensitive waters, and this year's moratorium is included in the conference report before us. We all agree, this is not the best way to do this. The moratorium does not provide a long-term solution to the principal problem affecting the OCS program. Notably, the current OCS regime does not provide States and localities with sufficient involvement in decisions that can greatly affect them, in the minds of many. I have introduced legislation which would establish a joint Federal- State task force to resolve this issue. The task force would be charged with reviewing the scientific and environmental data available, commissioning further studies if necessary, and then making a permanent policy recommendation based on sound science. Others have other views. I would yield to the distinguished chairman for his comments on that.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from greater metropolitan downtown San Dimas, CA, the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time, and I rise to support his rule. By allowing the House to consider this 2-week extension of the existing continuing resolution, this rule helps to ensure that current government functions remain operational while the Congress completes the work on next year's funding measures. We all know that and we all know why we are doing this. Mr. Speaker, we will hear much discussion today of one provision of the law that is still very highly controversial and that may be extended for 2 weeks under this CR. I oppose a long-term extension of that provision of the immigration law, known as section 245(I), which has been discussed already this morning, which allows aliens who are in this country illegally to pay a fee and then adjust to permanent legal resident status. This provision was, in fact, slipped into permanent law 3 years ago without hearings, without public discussion, or without debate on this floor. That is not the way laws should be made. As part of the immigration reform of the 104th Congress, section 245(I) was set to expire on September 30. In other words, we had a phaseout of that provision, to be fair to all people who were put on notice. However, Congress extended the deadline for 3 weeks in the first continuing resolution this year to allow time for Members and the public to consider ramifications. As that discussion is still continuing without resolution, the second CR includes another brief extension. I will support this one last extension in the hopes that a consensus can be achieved, and I believe it can. But I will not support a blanket extension, and I urge the House leadership to set aside time for full debate and vote on this issue. In my view, indefinitely extending the 245(I) provision flies in the face of the reforms we passed last year by negating the consequences of illegally entering the United States. A permanent extension would further damage the credibility of our immigration system, which has for too long had its priorities reversed. For years, illegal immigration has been quick, while following the rules has been a slow and difficult process. Those who did it right, paid a penalty; those who did it wrong, got the rewards. That is backward. In addition, a permanent extension would perpetuate an inherent conflict of interest for the INS, which is both tasked with deporting illegal aliens and requiring to process these people for legal residency. That is a tough decision for them. While it seems there is no obvious middle ground, I have a proposal, which I understand the distinguished ranking member has spoken to already, to mitigate the impact on children under 18, who rely on section 245(I) to become legal permanent residents. In other words, reduce the impact on the families, which is a major concern for those of us in congressional offices who have been hearing about this. This proposal would grandfather in minors already present in the United States and who have approved pending petitions. But it would not contradict the reforms we enacted last year. This is an important debate and there are many issues involved. We simply cannot have a policy that tells people who have abided by the lawful, established procedures that they would have been better off to simply have come across the border illegally or to ignore our laws. That is not good governance, it is not what the people of this country are asking us to do. I urge support for this rule.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, this is a tough subject, involving the need to balance protection of constitutionally guaranteed private property rights with other constitutional guarantees of public health, safety, and welfare as traditional, legitimate functions of Government. While I agree this is a subject that needs our attention, and I commend Mr. Gallegly for his work in bringing the matter forward, I do have some concerns about the bill we are about to consider. As a former mayor and county commissioner, I'm particularly interested in H.R. 1534. While the current system we have of layering government an division of authority isn't perfect, I believe it works well and ensures a balanced role for all three levels of government involved in these decisions. We ought to trust the local officials to work through the zoning issues. They're the ones on the frontlines-- they deal with these questions every day and are in the best position to be directly responsive to the needs and concerns of the community. Of course, there are poster child examples of the extreme development abuses and cases of egregious takings without compensation. If there are questions of State law that need to be resolved, we need State courts to decide those issues. If a legitimate takings claim exists, it is critical we ensure landowners their day in court. We need to maintain for local officials a meaningful opportunity to work with the landowners and other constituents to craft a compromise. In my view, it is not appropriate to have the Federal Government deciding or pressuring local land use questions. In addition, some critics of this bill have argued that the Federal judiciary would be flooded with claims and simply could not handle the caseload that would result if this bill were enacted. For example, the Federal district court for the area of Florida that I represent is already short handed and has a backlog of cases that is measured in years, not just months. I think we need to ensure that any changes to the current system take these concerns into account. In the end, Mr. Speaker, balancing the right of a landowner to develop his property within the bounds set by the health, safety, and welfare interests of the community is a difficult question--I, for one, do not believe there's any particular magic a Federal court has that can solve these problems and make them go away.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me the time. Despite a decade of steady progress in combating drug use and drug abuse during the 1980's, the situation appears to have taken somewhat of a dramatic turn for the worse since the early 1990's, and that is why we are here. In my view, that is because the administration has accepted stalemate in the war on drugs rather than pressing on for the victory that everybody in America wants. So now Congress is going to take charge. We are going to set some tough goals for the Office of National Drug Control Policy. I am very concerned and I know many parents and all Americans are concerned about the permissive attitude toward drug use that once again seems to be spreading out across our country. We need to have leadership that says drugs are not cool, drug use is not acceptable, it will not be tolerated. That is what this bill is about. We set some performance measures to judge the success of the administration's efforts. Let me ask, if we are willing to set performance measures for our kids in schools, why are we reluctant to set performance measures for how well the bureaucrats are doing on the war on drugs? It seems to me to be a curious question. By 2001 under our program, we expect drug use to be at 3 percent of the population or lower. We expect an 80 percent reduction in the supply of illegal drugs. We expect a reduction of 50 percent in drug- related crime and drug-related emergency room visits. And we expect drug use by young people to be down to 3 percent, because one of the most effective strategies for decreasing the overall use of drugs is to convince young people to disapprove of them. The war on drugs has many facets, as we all know, treatment, prevention, law enforcement, interdiction. ONDCP was created to develop an overall strategy, coordinate Federal efforts and channel resources. That was a good idea. While this bill will improve the drug czar's ability to effectively manage and win the drug war, we are not giving him a blank check. There are certain very strict reporting requirements that go along with this, so we know what is working and what is not. I am also very pleased to be able, through the efforts of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] to be able to provide ONDCP with new tools without upsetting the balance that now exists between ONDCP and the intelligence community. It took a lot of workout and compromise to get that done. I urge Members to support this bill. It is time we had a plan to win the war. This is a good one.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I want to speak briefly on the subject of the Coast Guard because it is an agency of great importance and great concern to the quality of life of our Nation and particularly to the people in Florida. The Coast Guard is very well known for the good work it does. It is a wonderful agency. In times of war, the Coast Guard plays an integral role in the defense of our country. In times of peace, it has got so many missions it is hard to account for them all, but basically the safety of our boaters up and down our coastlines, well-being of our fisheries, providing for navigational aids, and emergency assistance. Those types of things are well understood and necessary, and they do a good job on it. Madam Speaker, less well known, and the reason I wanted to speak today, is the vital role that the Coast Guard plays in the war on drugs. In a recent congressional hearing we heard about the reemergence of Florida as a drug transshipment route. We are sorry to hear it. This is not good news, and it is something that demands an immediate response. I was encouraged to hear of the greater coordination we have now among the Coast Guard, the DEA, and our Customs folks in dealing with this problem. If we are going to be effective, we need to have everybody working from the same page in the war on drugs. It is certainly not going to be enough to settle for a stalemate in the war on drugs. We just had that debate, and we are not going to settle for a stalemate. We are going to need to get serious about winning that war, and the Coast Guard is going to be a major player in that. The Coast Guard does fight in the frontlines in the war on drugs, and for that reason this particular bill is very important. I commend the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] for his leadership. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very fair and open rule and get on with the business of making this in order.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Georgia yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this fair and customary rule. One critical component of our war on drugs is the Coast Guard drug interdiction program. By providing full funding for this initiative in this bill, we are sending a clear message to drug runners that drug trafficking in our waters will not be tolerated and will be punished. We are willing to commit the resources necessary to win the war on drugs. I emphasize that, to win the war on drugs, not to settle for stalemate or not to go backward, as we are in some areas now. I am also pleased that the committee has once again held the line on highway demonstration projects. These are projects that infuriate Americans because it is not wise expenditure of their tax dollars. Once again this year, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has resisted these projects, and he should be commended for sticking with what is sometimes a difficult position in this Chamber. I urge adoption of this noncontroversial rule, as well as the underlying bill.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend last night the special order by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], who brought attention to our body, and to the people who are interested in what goes on in this Chamber, about a very important piece of legislation. It is called the Marriage Tax Elimination Act. This is something that will be of interest to all Americans. We have a situation in this country now where, believe it or not, among the many other facts that we see in our tax system and the way it is handled by the IRS, we see the extraordinary fact that there is a penalty, a tax penalty for marriage. This is at a time when we realize the sanctity of marriage, how important it is to our family values, how important it is to the education of our youth, the well-being of our Nation in so many ways, and certainly just the quality of our life. We even talk here quite often about our family-friendly Congress and family values. So when we look at our Tax Code and we uncover the fact that there is a penalty for being married, we wonder why in the world that is. The first thing you might want to say is, how much is this penalty? Is this really something that matters? The answer is yes. I understand that the average penalty for marriage is $1,400. That is a fair amount of money. It seems to me that would matter to most Americans, to have to pay $1,400 more just because you were married. Then on top of that, if you say how many people does this really affect, clearly not everybody. The answer is, when we take a look at statistics, it is about 21 million American couples which obviously means 42 million Americans. That is a huge amount of people to be impacted by a tax which we cannot quite figure out why we have got it. So we now have a piece of legislation that we think is important to move forward and I am pleased to say that as a cosponsor, original cosponsor, that the Marriage Tax Elimination Act is going to see the light of day and we are going to, I believe, take action in this body to correct something that certainly needs to be corrected. It is probably interesting to note for most Americans that the average family today pays more in taxes than for food, clothing and shelter combined. Many Members say that. But think about that, think about your hard-earned dollars, if you go out and go about your job, the sacrifices you make to work hard, the time away you have from your family, other pursuits you are interested in. You are giving away today in taxes more than you are paying for your food, your clothing and your shelter, which are of course the first areas of responsibility for those in the home. That is an amazing statistic and yet we just seem to sort of take it for granted. We know now that we have got to completely overhaul our Tax Code and we are planning to do that. We are about to start a great debate across the Nation. Our colleagues, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], and perhaps others are going to go out and bring the tax debate to the people in a meaningful and understandable way in the next few weeks. I am sure they will be saying the same responses as we hear in our offices and that we hear back in our districts when we go home, from people who say the present tax system is unfair, it is inequitable to Americans, it is not efficient, it is not a good way to collect revenues for the government, but most of all, it is absolutely incomprehensible. And we all know the story about putting all the experts in the room with the same set of facts and they will all come up with a different tax liability, a different tax conclusion after reading the reams and reams of documents that are supposed to guide us through how we pay our taxes and go about that responsibility. So while we are talking about overhauling the Tax Code, while we are talking about reining in the abuses of the family-unfriendly and the consumer-unfriendly IRS, we are also talking about a very narrow specific slice of American life, and that is married people. I think it is very important that we send that message out, that for those people who are interested in fair treatment under the Tax Code and for those people who are interested in getting married and wanting to stay married, it seems to me they need to know that we are aware that there is a penalty. We think the penalty is wrong and unfair and we are going to do our best to remove that penalty. The cloud on the horizon for us, sadly enough, is that we did this a few years ago in our Contract With America. Unfortunately President Clinton vetoed that. I hope if we give him a clearer picture of what is going on and how much this matters to Americans, that this time when we pass the legislation we will have his support to repeal the marriage tax rather than his veto.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 242 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, Madam Speaker, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only on this subject. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 242 is a very straightforward rule that allows the House to consider the conference report on H.R. 2266 for fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. As is customary for this type of legislation, the rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule further provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Madam Speaker, the chairman and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Security, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], have done outstanding work in bringing forward this legislation. In our Committee on Rules meeting last evening, they received accolades for all of their efforts that went into crafting this extraordinarily important bill, accolades that came from all Members that were heartfelt and well- deserved. In ensuring that we adequately fund all the necessary elements of our national defense, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] have worked together in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation that is most fitting for an issue that I believe should always transcend partisan differences, and that is, of course, our national defense. The readiness and morale of our troops, the technical superiority of our equipment, and the integrity of the information that is provided to our warfighters and our policymakers, these are matters that are too important to be sidetracked by political mischief. As chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I have had the great good fortune to work closely with the defense appropriators, moving through the tandem authorization and appropriations dance carefully and deliberately, step by step, to make sure our national intelligence needs are fully met. I believe the final product the House will consider today, demonstrates that Congress can and will exercise prudent oversight, working in partnership with the Commander in Chief, to protect American lives and interests both at home and abroad. We are clearly showing that we can fulfill this vital obligation within the constraints of a balanced-budget framework. Everyone knows that there were tough issues to be resolved in this legislation, not just among our House colleagues, but with the other body and the administration as well, among them some big policy questions. Of course, the bill before us today is the product of tough negotiations and some clear compromises from all sides on specific programs and language. That is the way it always has been and always will be. That is why we are here. But this bill says to our friends and our enemies around the world that we will not compromise our core commitment to providing for the best possible national defense for the United States of America and its people. That is the message we must continue to send, and it will be heard. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this rule, which I believe is noncontroversial, and this legislation which is critical to the well-being of our Nation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley]. I think it is a responsible amendment and long overdue. I refer to this as the Stop the Creep amendment. That is not an ad hominem remark. That refers to the fact that in 1995, this body voted to do away with this organization, and at that time the level of support was at about $350 million. I would point out to my colleagues, particularly those on my right, that we are now talking about an appropriation of $453 million, an increase of 29.4 percent that most of the fiscal conservatives in this body voted to do something about just 3 short years ago. Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago a new majority was elected with a mandate to change the way Washington works. Instead of running up the tab on our kids, we pledged to make tough choices and prioritize our limited resources, and everybody cheered. This ambitious agenda was articulated in the House budget resolution which returned power to the taxpayer and eliminated wasteful departments. One of those that was pegged for elimination under the programs and agencies that were considered was the Great Society relic called the Economic Development Administration. So what has happened? While the EDA has failed very badly in its core mission of providing aid to distressed communities, its success in bringing home the bacon is unmatched, and we all know it. Of grants made in 1994, for example, the 17 States represented by the members of the relevant Senate and House subcommittees received $1.10 per capita compared to 68 cents for the rest of the Nation. Rational observers, I am told, are concluding that grants are being made based on political considerations, not true need. EDA proponents will serve up any number of creative defenses for this program, and I admit there have been some spots of success in it, but they are very few. But the supporters also ignore the fact, and here is a fact, the GAO was unable to find any study, any study, that established a causal linkage between EDA assistance and a positive economic effect in a community, the reason we have this program. It is not working. Fact: Nearly 90 percent of the Nation has been found eligible for EDA grants in the past, despite the fact the money is supposed to go to certifiably distressed communities. Is everything in America a distressed community? Fact: Proponents will argue that the EDA has been reformed, yet the agency has not been reauthorized since 1980. Translation: There has been no real reform. Despite years of promises that there would be some real house cleaning, it has not happened. Mr. Chairman, the Hefley amendment does not end the EDA. It does not end the EDA, however deserved that might be. It simply makes a responsible cut down to the Senate level. I want to repeat, this amendment does not end the EDA. It reduces it to the Senate level. It ends the cost creep. Last year the House-passed bill contained $348 million for EDA, yet somehow it emerged from conference almost $100 million heavier; $426 million, to be exact, of taxpayers' money. A glance at the numbers reveals that we have increased EDA funding by 29 percent since 1995, the year that we pledged to end it altogether. What happened? Mr. Chairman, the present House bill not only exceeds the Senate level, but it is even higher than the President's budget request. I urge my colleagues to support this sensible reduction in the funds for the EDA back to the Senate level of $250 million, a quarter of a billion dollars, which is a $90 million savings for the taxpayer for a program that we do not think is working very well, and our agency, the GAO, has not been able to find a positive benefit from it. I think it is a reasonable amendment. I ask Members to consider it sincerely.

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, my previous submission to record how I would have voted on rollcall Nos. 403-415, when printed in the Record, did not include my stated position on rollcall Nos. 403 and 404. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on both 403 and 404.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we continue to have no speakers from here, but I did want to point something out, that this is the debate on the rule, and we all agreed this was a very important subject, the question of how we do the census constitutionally and accurately. It matters to everybody in this country. We had therefore almost tripled the amount of time at the request of the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, my former chairman and good friend, and I thought we provided for ample debate. I suggest we take this noncontroversial rule and support it and get it passed and then get to the orderly process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we do not at this time have any additional speakers. I do not know what the status of the other side is.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from greater San Dimas, CA, and the surrounding metropolitan area, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding time. I rise in support of this open rule. This continues a trend of fair and responsible rules to get us through this year's appropriation process in an orderly fashion despite perhaps what some might call some dilatory tactics now and then. I would like to begin by congratulating the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for their work on this important package. It is not a perfect bill, as we all know, but given some very fiscal and political constraints that are real I think they have done an extraordinary job. This appropriations bill, probably more than any other that we have, demonstrates the importance of making tough choices when we are spending our precious tax dollars. There are obviously many national priorities housed in the agencies and programs funded by this particular legislation. Fighting crime, winning the war on drugs, representing our interests overseas, securing our national borders are just prime among many others. There are also clearly some wasteful programs and agencies that come under the Commerce-Justice-State label that need to be trimmed back, perhaps phased out altogether, something we shall no doubt discuss through the debate under this open rule. As a starting point for that discussion this bill does a good job of increasing our commitment in the highest priority areas while scaling back expenditures on what many consider lower priority items. For example, the bill provides $300 million for a new juvenile crime block grant that helps States attack a growing threat of crime in our communities. I think that will be well received. The incredible rise in crimes committed by young people is known everywhere. This trend has hit hard in my district, too, in southwest Florida. These dollars will enable local folks to develop local solutions, and they seem to work. I am especially pleased that the bill provides a $100 million increase for the State criminal alien assistance program. By fully funding this program we have acknowledged the dilemma that States like Florida face every day in a big way, how to pay for the incarceration of criminal illegal aliens, and unfortunately we have too many in Florida. Securing our borders is a Federal responsibility. So when we fail to do that, live up to that responsibility, we need to face up to the consequences and provide the States with the necessary resources to do the job we could not do in Washington. The bill also makes a strong case about our commitment to winning the war on drugs rather than just accepting stalemate. I am fully supportive of the $34 million allocation for a new Caribbean antidrug initiative as part of the overall increase in funding for drug enforcement. Mr. Speaker, we know this bill is not perfect. The Economic Development Administration, a relic of what I would call the Great Society, remains intact despite mountains of testimony to its ineffectiveness, and to that end I support the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] in his effort to scale back the EDA to the Senate-passed level. But overall this is a good bill, it deserves our support, and as we have heard testimony from both sides of the aisle, there is no reason not to support the rule. So let us pass the rule and get on with the debate and finish this appropriations bill.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 402-415, I was unable to record my votes because I was called away on a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall Nos. 415, 413, 411, 410, 409, 408, 407, and 406, and ``nay'' on rollcall Nos. 414, 412, and 405.