Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am willing to say that the majority is prepared to stipulate that this is a good rule; in fact, a very good rule. The majority is prepared to stipulate that it is noncontroversial. The majority is prepared to stipulate that we could get on with the debate and we will, therefore, reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to my colleagues in the House on a precedent-setting House CODEL visit to North Korea last month during our recess. I was honored to lead a bipartisan delegation of seven members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in traveling on oversight business to Asia. Our trip happened to include 3 days and 2 nights in North Korea, and I will include for the Record the formal written statement of our delegation released about that portion of our trip. Mr. Speaker, the simple fact that the North Korean leadership welcomed a delegation of the size, seniority, and breadth of our seven- member group is very telling and somewhat remarkable, in my view. Crises is forcing the reclusive and anachronistic North Korean regime to reach out to the United States for assistance and pull back slightly on the veil of secrecy that has shrouded that nation for decades. Even though our trip was obviously carefully managed by our hosts, we saw the signals of collapse during our visit. People really are starving; the infrastructure is crumbling; power shortages are routine; proregime propaganda is rampant; and the leadership, while refusing to concede failure, is tightening control and grasping for leverage. After spending 48 hours in that isolated country, I felt as if I had been in a time warp, witnessing a life totally foreign to the American experience today, perhaps something back in the cold war days behind the Iron Curtain. We repeatedly drove home the point that food aid distribution must be verifiable so that we can be sure it reaches the people who are most in need. And we were asked repeatedly about aid. We expressed hope that cooperation on the issue of MIA's would remain coming from the North Koreans and they have given us some cooperation. These are very positive signs. But in response, the North Korean officials stated that the United States sanctions against them must be lifted and additional unconditional food assistance, and I stress the word ``unconditional,'' must be provided. The North Koreans did not acknowledge the need for internal economic, agricultural, or political reform, focusing instead on external factors as the root of the causes of their current difficulties. While they were cordial in their hospitality, and they did give us fine hospitality, these senior officials were obviously mistrustful of the United States. They also forcefully underscored their position that they would not negotiate with South Korea as long as the South's President, Kim Young Sam, remains in office. He is scheduled to remain in office until the end of this year. In the short term, we should be principally concerned with establishing a regular and more verifiable means of food aid distribution to ease the immediate crisis. I pointed out, and the others did, that Americans are a compassionate people willing to respond to human suffering in remote regions of the world. We have already provided about 60 million dollars' worth of aid, that adds up to about 100,000 metric tons of food, in relief of starving people in North Korea. Hopefully, it is going to people starving and not the military. But we were disappointed that during our visit we were not taken to see the food distribution centers, nor did we have access to the regions of the nation where food shortages are most severe. However, we understand that our visit helped pave the way for a staff delegation from another committee to have greater access while in North Korea. In the longer term, an increasing presence of outsiders going about their business on behalf of nongovernmental relief organizations, the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, Congress, and other organizations that have legitimate business there, should help force open the door between North Korea and the outside world. Mr. Speaker, the signals are abundantly clear: The North Korean regime is dying. We must do our part to prevent that process from undermining the security of the peninsula and threatening America's vital interests in the region. Americans do have several good reasons for being interested in the future relations with the North Korean regime. Not just the humanitarian concerns and seeking to prevent the starvation of literally millions of people, but, second, our interests are very much at stake when we consider something on the order of 200,000 Americans and Korean-Americans are living and going about their business in South Korea within close range of the world's fourth largest army, with its massed artillery on the DMZ. And, we have very serious concerns about North Korea's activities in proliferating weapons of mass destruction to rogue nations and, in fact, that has been happening. To the extent that our visit marked a milestone in the United States- North Korea relationship, I hope that the elite band of leaders in the North will not allow current events to foreclose the opportunity now at hand. I believe that the veil is lifting there, and I am certain to believe that a negotiated settlement bringing North Korea into this century certainly is better than any of the other alternatives using the military. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record: Joint Statement of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence--Congressional Delegation Visit to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea--August 12, 1997 From August 9 through August 11, a bipartisan, seven-member Congressional Delegation (CODEL) from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) was in Pyongyang, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) to meet with North Korean officials and gather first- hand information about the current situation in that volatile region. This was a precedent-setting visit to North Korea by a Congressional delegation of this size, seniority, and breadth of experience. The delegation was led by HPSCI Chairman Porter J. Goss (R- FL). The other Members of Congress comprising the CODEL were Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Bill McCollum (R-FL), Jane Harman (D- CA), Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (D-GA), Charles F. Bass (R-NH) and Jim Gibbons (R-NV). In addition to their assignment on the HPSCI, these members represent a wealth of experience on relevant issues based on their other committee assignments. The delegation's interlocutors were headed by Mr. Kang Sokju, First Vice Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), and Mr. Li Hyong-chol, Director of American Affairs of the MFA. All discussions took place in the Pyongyang region. Despite repeated requests by CODEL members, the delegation was unable to travel to famine-stricken areas where it had hoped to determine the extent of the problem and investigate the system used for distributing food aid. In several formal and informal working sessions with the North Koreans, the CODEL made the following points: The United States has a strong and abiding national security interest in helping defuse tension on the Korean peninsula. The four party talks should be responsibly pursued; North Korea must cease its sale of advanced weaponry, missile systems, and supporting technologies to Iran and other ``rouge'' states; The United States stands firmly behind its military and security commitments to the Republic of Korea; North Korea must fully honor its commitments in the nuclear arena, as specified in the Agreed Framework, including allowing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) challenge inspections and comply with its responsibilities to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO); North Korea's cooperation in helping locate and return the remains of several United States military personnel killed in the Korean War is a positive step. Such steps must be continued and expanded; Provocative acts such as those that occurred in the Demilitarized Zone on July 16, 1997 are counterproductive to cooperation and understanding; To participate fully in the opportunities of the world community, North Korea must open up its society; and North Korea must make its food distribution to the civilian population fully transparent and verifiable, in order to facilitate the United States' consideration of additional assistance. The food aid cannot be diverted to the military. Though the visit was carefully managed by the North Korean hosts, the tenor of the discussions was cordial but candid. Frank discussion about mutual mistrust occurred on several items of a lengthy agenda. The delegation believes talks were constructive in demonstrating bipartisan support for United States policy to encourage North Korea to engage in honest and good faith negotiations to lessen tensions in the region. The North Koreans were focused on seeing the United States sanctions lifted and the need for additional food assistance. In addition, the North Koreans stated their refusal to abandon their centralized political and economic systems. The delegation emphasized that Americans are a compassionate people, generous in their willingness to alleviate suffering, but who seek assurance that food relief is used to feed those North Korean people most in need. The delegation stressed that sanctions must be negotiated as part of a larger political package involving proliferation and other security matters. The delegation will provide President Clinton, Speaker Gingrich, Minority Leader Gephardt, and the Department of State with a full report of the substance of its discussions and its impressions. The delegation concludes that opportunity for further constructive dialogue exists and will confer with other Congressional committees of jurisdiction. The CODEL travelled to North Korea as part of a trip to Asia, which includes visits to Beijing, China; Tokyo, Japan; and Seoul, South Korea. The delegation returns to the United States on August 15.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 136) and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from downtown San Dimas, CA Mr. Dreier, vice chairman of the Committee on Rules and chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House. I commend him for his very hard work to eliminate the punitive and the self-defeating taxation on capital gains, and I know he feels there is a great step forward here today and even more to do down the road. Two years ago a new Republican-led majority pledged to balance the budget, to save Medicare, and provide overdue tax relief to the American people. Republican after Republican and some Democrats joined us here in the well and said we would do those things, and we are doing them. The naysayers and the big spenders said it cannot be done, cannot be done, country cannot afford it, we have to keep raising taxes. Well, my colleagues, they were wrong. Here we are today to prove it. Today on this House floor we are going to complete the pledge that we made by providing Americans with the first relief from taxation in 16 years, almost a generation. The good news is there is something in this package for just about everyone in America, across the land, in all different pursuits and in all different situations. For families trying to pay bills, that is most of us, we have provided a $500 per child tax credit. That is $500 more that you can use for things like school clothes or taking the kids for a summer vacation, some have not been able to do that, or anything else that they choose to do, because the bottom line here is that the people are going to decide what they are going to do with their money, not the folks here in Washington who may have a different idea about how to spend it. For senior citizens about to embark on their retirement, and many of those come to Florida and my district, we have cut the capital gains tax so they can sell some assets without Washington confiscating, ``confiscating'' is the word I choose, nearly one-third of the gain. But most importantly, as we look to the future of our children, we have made it easier for young Americans to get a college education, and I see lots of young Americans around this building this time of year. Our package is going to allow Americans to withdraw tax free from new super IRA's to pay for college education expenses. This commonsense provision was part of our Contract With America, many will remember, and I am pleased that these new American dream savings accounts are soon going to be an option for all Americans. We have also created the HOPE scholarship, which will provide $5,000 in credits for individuals who wish to go to college or get a graduate degree. Mr. Speaker, these are the right kind of incentives, and I hope that Americans will take advantage of them, and I know they will take advantage of them because I talk to Americans every day who are looking for these things. As my friend from California [Mr. Dreier] knows, though, we are far from done. We need to come back next year to zero out the capital gains tax and eliminate the marriage penalty as well, send the right incentive about our family values. We need to repeal the Clinton tax hike on Social Security benefits, particularly of doctors. This is such an onerous benefit on senior citizens who are on fixed income, and I have again a great many in southwest Florida, where I represent, have the honor to represent, and these folks get taxed who cannot afford to pay the tax. They are on fixed income, they are beyond their earning years, what do they do? This is a tax that needs to be repealed. We have not got it done here today. It is a target for tomorrow. The Clinton administration was wrong on that tax, and they should help us in that effort to repeal it. But most of all, we need to have comprehensive reform to simplify and flatten our convoluted, incomprehensible, and unfair Tax Code, and that lies ahead for us to do as well. I know that when I return to my district in southwest Florida and other colleagues return to their districts around the country we can now look constituents in the eye after we pass this bill and say ``Look, next year Uncle Sam's tax bite isn't going to be quite as bad because we're listening to you and doing the job you asked us to do.'' I think we are going to be able to let them know that more of their money and decision making is going to stay with them, their own individual responsibility, and I think that is a great trend and a great sign for America. That is what we are great at doing so well together, is making the decisions. I urge support of this rule and the very important tax cuts that it makes in order.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon] for yielding me the time and I share his enthusiasm. I rise in strong support of this appropriate rule, and I believe his observation about the tide is correct. Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 30 years since Congress has balanced the Nation's books, a generation and a half that is, of spending money we do not have, running up the tab on our children and our grandchildren, avoiding tough decisions, and Americans are tired of that. So today and tomorrow and the day after we are going to be putting in place the final details of the first real achievable balanced budget in 30 years. The magnitude of the change in the direction this legislative accomplishment represents is very, very great indeed. Consider that just 4 years ago the White House and Democratic majority here pushed through the largest tax increase, the largest tax increase in American history, just 4 years ago. What a difference 4 years and a new majority can make. I know some will be skeptical that may be just another promise that we cannot keep here, and I do not blame people who wish to withhold their full exuberance about this until the ink is dry and the effects of this historic agreement are felt across the land. But the bills we vote on in the coming hours and days hold more than a promise to balance the budget and bring about tax relief for American families. These bills are the implementation of the promises, and there is accountability built in for all of us. We cannot run, we cannot hide, we will be here, and we will be judged. As chairman of a legislative and budget process subcommittee, I want to take a second to point out to Members that this bill includes a series of clean up provisions in our budget enforcement rules, including extending the pay as you go and spending limit procedures. Of course we know additional work is needed to beef up budget enforcement, and budget process reform will take place in this Congress as has been promised. Mr. Speaker, for too long Americans have had to get by with less while the folks in Washington rolled merrily along taxing and spending to support the ever growing Federal Government. Look around, my colleagues will see it. This agreement means tax relief for individuals, for families with children, for students, for small businesses, for homeowners, for those with family farms. It brings a measure of fairness to the system, and it is predicated on the fundamental belief that Government taxes too much, not too little. We are getting control over spending under the discretionary side, and we are shrinking the size and scope of the reach of Government and, man, is that good news for America. This legislation takes the first steps toward solving the long term problems with Medicare, laying the groundwork for us to come together on a comprehensive plan to rescue the problem for coming generations. We are expanding choice and benefits for seniors, clamping down on waste, fraud and abuse, a problem whose vast proportions have made news in recent days; in fact are in the headlines today. And we are modernizing the program's payment and care delivery systems. This is a long overdue down payment on Medicare, and America's current and future seniors come out the winners. Mr. Speaker, there are many, many details in this plan, and I am sure it is still not perfect. I fully expect that the coming days will bring efforts by those who prefer the status quo of big government, to pick it apart provision by provision, and indeed we have already started to hear some of the clamor on the floor today. But we have done the unthinkable by Washington standards. We have kept our promise to the American taxpayers, and that is what this is about. We pledge to balance the budget. We are doing it. We pledge to save Medicare. We are doing it. And we pledge to cut taxes, and we are doing it. I cannot think of a single reason to delay this process. It is all long overdue, it is wanted by the people we represent and work for in this country. The time is now. Any deviation to go to motions to commit or other dilatory tactics are just delaying the inevitable. We are going to give this country the relief this country deserves and wants, and we are going to do it this week. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule and for the wonderful agreement that has been worked out.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this week angry Haitian mobs protested the planned 4-month of extension of the U.N. mission to Haiti, an extension that received surprise Chinese sign-off for an as yet undisclosed price. Frustrated and victimized Haitians accused U.N. troops of only guarding the palace and Aristide's house instead of providing the law and order they are there for. Ironically the United Nations also had to issue an apology recently for what Haitians saw as too much attention from U.N. troops in Port- de-Paix, where the U.N.'s soldier had to be rescued from the mobs by airlift. Haitian parliamentarians have also demanded an end to the occupation. If we have worn out our welcome in Haiti, let us send our troops and the United States trainer/builders out of range of rock-throwing mobs and save further wear and tear on American taxpayers wallets. Aside from time, what can we buy in Haiti in a 4-month extension that $3 billion could not buy in the past 2\1/2\ years?

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me the time. I point out that less than 1 percent of the Federal budget we are talking about here, foreign aid spending, is not the problem when it comes to our budget ills. But it is clear that everything is on the table when we talk about the budget. The reason I am supporting this bill is not budgetary, however. It is because this bill was crafted by making difficult choices, shifting limited resources and reflecting new priorities. And I congratulate both the chairman and ranking member for that. Also of course it keeps spending down, and Chairman Callahan has done a fabulous job at that. In fact, Chairman Callahan has delivered a bill that comes in, I understand, at $4.6 billion below the President's request and below the spending allocation. That is a pretty good trick in these tight budgetary times. But the important point is the committee has prioritized spending to fund child survival programs and to fund efforts in nonproliferation, antiterrorism, and counternarcotics. As chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that is a very important area for me. And it is an area of critical concern involving both the security and the quality of life for Americans at home and abroad. And I think it is very important that this bill focuses on that. And I am pleased it does, and that is one of the reasons I strongly support it. But as a southwest Floridian, I am pleased that this bill will choke off some of the international assistance that might be funneled to Fidel Castro to complete dangerous nuclear reactors at Juragua. The foreign operations bill also includes $72 million in funding for operations in Haiti. But the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has wisely conditioned that aid on progress on economic reforms and investigations into political killings since President Preval's election. Although I would have preferred language that included all the killings since the troops returned President Aristide, I am nevertheless pleased to see that we have some specific markers set out on accountability in this area. To date, and to the best of our ability to get an accounting from the Clinton team, we know that more than $3 billion has been spent for Haiti and we see little evidence for that $3 billion of good governance or any other progress we were hoping for in that nation. I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would simply say that I believe this is No. 8 of the appropriations bills. We have cleared seven in the House. This is the eighth. The Committee on Rules has cleared 2 others, which will make 10. I think there are three left. We are chugging along on schedule doing the work of America. I urge our colleagues to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate on this issue only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 198 is an open rule, as is customary for appropriations measures. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failing to comply with 2(L)(6) of rule XI, the 3-day requirement for availability of the report. The rule also waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XXI, the 3-day requirement for availability of printed hearings on appropriations bills. Given the schedule we had have before us and the bipartisan manner with which this bill has been brought forward to the House, I think these waivers are entirely reasonable and fair. In addition, this rule waives points of order under section 306 of the Budget Act of 1974, which prohibits consideration of bills containing matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. In the Committee on Rules we heard no objection from the Committee on the Budget on this point, so I do not believe this caused anybody any trouble either. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill which do not comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations and legislation on general appropriations bills, as well as clause 6 of rule XXI, prohibiting transfers of unobligated balances. Again, I wish to advise my colleagues that these waivers have been reviewed by the authorizing committee and we have heard no objection to them. Mr. Speaker, as we have done frequently in the recent past to bring greater awareness to the membership of potential amendments, the rule grants priority in recognition of those Members who have caused their amendments to be preprinted in the Congressional Record. The rule also provides that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone votes on any amendment and that the chairman may reduce voting time on postponed questions to 5 minutes, provided that the voting time on the first in a series of questions is not less than 15 minutes, usual procedure. This is a useful time management tool, one that may be especially welcome during these last hectic days as we seek to conclude the historic budget agreement before the August work period. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with our without instructions. That sounds like a fairly complicated rule, but actually it is a fairly straightforward open rule for appropriations that has gone through all the proper process. I believe it has been done in a bipartisan spirit. I wish to commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the ranking member, for the extraordinary work they have done in crafting this bill. We sometimes resort to large adjectives and hyperbole in describing work here. In this case, I definitely mean it. This is a very good work product, and an awful lot of hard work has been put into it. These are lean budget times, as we as know. It is even more difficult to make tough choices about national security under such circumstances. When we find ourselves in occasions such as we have today, we find sometimes tensions and breakdown in communications. Things go wrong. But to the credit of both men, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], that has not happened, and instead we have a bipartisan bill, as we should with something so important as our national security. On a personal note, as chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which authorizes programs within this appropriations subcommittee's jurisdiction, I am most grateful for the level of cooperation, attention, and support we have from the appropriators. The system of congressional oversight does work. It has worked very well in this area, and I am very proud of our effort. Mr. Speaker, none of us wants to consider the possibility of threats to our national security, the risks we face overseas, along our borders, and even here at home that seem to come from an ever increasing variety of threats. But in fact, I would say many Americans, especially the younger generations where there is no firsthand experience with war, seem willing to succumb to sort of a wishful thinking that the world is actually a safe place. This is dangerous and wrong. The world is not a safe place. While the type of threat has changed and the face of the enemy certainly looks different, we must never forget there are organizations, governments, and individuals who actively wish us harm. Just in a short attention span, if we will focus on the tragedy of Pan Am 103 and take it through the bombing of Khobar Towers and think of all that has happened in between, and we will understand, whether it is civilian or military, whether here or there, there are threats to America and American interests and there are casualties and there are tragedies and victims, and we must pay attention. We must remain vigilant and protect ourselves against threats. The spending bill before us makes the tough choices to live within the balanced budget agreement, while ensuring that crucial defense programs like missile defense are properly funded, and other programs that are not so spectacular. Frankly, this bill lays out a challenge to the administration to reverse dangerous trends of below adequate spending in some areas. This bill also provides unquestionable support to our troops, most of the men and women doing the hard work of peace at home and overseas every day on our behalf. We must never allow our budgetary concerns to tempt us to cut corners when it comes to troop readiness or ensuring our fighting forces have the equipment they need, when they need it, and where they need it. Lastly, this bill makes an important statement about our missions in Bosnia. We are all so proud of the work the American troops have done in that very difficult and uncertain environment, no matter how we feel about the policy questions. But we do not want their mission to be extended indefinitely, and so this bill includes language to enforce a June 30, 1998, deadline. To those who think it fashionable or politically useful to cut defense, may I suggest a visit to our troops in Bosnia? I think that Members' minds would be changed. May I suggest a review of the action in Desert Storm, of the work that was done by our military? May I suggest a trip to visit the remains of Khobar Towers, if one thinks it is not dangerous work? Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It is a fair rule. I urge my colleagues to support both. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 198 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Central Intelligence Agency. On September 18, 1947, the National Security Act went into effect creating the CIA. As America entered the cold war, that act recognized the critical need for intelligence about our foreign adversaries, while attempting to balance that with a constitutional mandate that an intelligence service remain within the bounds of democracy. In 1977, in order to monitor and safeguard that critical balance, this House established the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which I have the honor to chair today. By its very nature, much of the work done by the agency will remain anonymous, but we must not make the mistake of interpreting that anonymity to mean that the CIA has had no triumphs, nor can we allow ourselves to forget the men and women who have served there and know much sacrifice and even tragedy. Out at Langley at the headquarters of the CIA is a small courtyard under the oak trees that contains three panels of the Berlin Wall. On the eastern side of those panels there is nothing but the cold, gray face of cement, but on the western side there is color, vibrancy, and the inscription ``and the wind cries freedom.'' Those panels and that wall, Mr. Speaker, never had to be toppled by the tread of our Nation's tanks or stained by the blood of our infantry; they were, instead, breached throughout the cold war by our Nation's eyes and ears, the CIA. Through their bravery and creativity, the officers of the CIA carved a window through that wall that this Nation used during the perilous times of the cold war and ultimately relied upon to bring down the wall's demise. The contribution of CIA officers to our national security, however, has come with a significant cost, because at the entrance to Langley is another less well-known wall on which there are now 70 gold stars. These stars, Mr. Speaker, are for those officers of the CIA who died while serving our Nation as our eyes and ears, in Vietnam, Latin America, Europe, Eurasia, Africa and elsewhere during the cold war. We can acknowledge publicly the dedication and sacrifice of some of those officers, such as Bob Ames, who was killed in the bombing of our Embassy in Beirut, tragically, or Bill Buckley, who died in Lebanon under torture by the terrorists. The work and lives of others must remain anonymous stars on that wall and be remembered privately. Those stars, Mr. Speaker, are a measure of the courage and cost required to keep our Nation informed of the threats against it. The end of the cold war has required the CIA to undergo a tremendous shift. New methods and focuses are needed to meet the challenge before us today. While no transition of this magnitude is ever without its bumps in the road, from my vantage point as chairman of the body's oversight committee, I am pleased to report the CIA is responding quickly and ably to the new threats of the post-cold-war world. Since the Berlin Wall came down, those threats against our Nation have multiplied. Narcotics traffickers ship ever-increasing amounts of cocaine and heroin into the United States; rogue states continue to acquire the components of weapons of mass destruction; foreign terrorists now target Americans at home as well as abroad; and indigenous forces threaten U.S. soldiers on multilateral missions abroad. To address these threats, the CIA has helped the Colombian Government break up the Cali drug cartel, and enabled United States law enforcement authorities to intercept drug shipments. It has discovered several attempts by rogue states to acquire weapons of mass destruction and supported diplomatic efforts to foil those attempts. It has helped law enforcement authorities around the world identify and, in some cases, arrest several notorious terrorists, including Carlos the Jackal in Sudan, the alleged trade center bombers in the Philippines, the head of the Shining Path in Peru, and those involved in the bombing of Pan Am 103; and supported United States Forces in Panama, as well as the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Bosnia, and other places. So, Mr. Speaker, CIA officers performed vital and often perilous service as our eyes and ears during the cold war, and continue to do so in our efforts today against foreign drug lords, rogue states, foreign terrorists and those who would harm U.S. troops abroad and those of us at home. The panels of the Berlin Wall at Langley are a recognition of the contribution of these officers. The stars on the entrance wall there are a reminder of the cost of their contribution. The officers of CIA serve their country and make their sacrifices with no expectation whatsoever of public acclaim. For the 50th anniversary of the founding of the CIA, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to commemorate their lives and their work with these few humble words.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Klug amendment to cut $90 million in duplicate road funding from ARC. Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear from the start--I believe that we should eliminate all funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. In many ways, the economic development projects that ARC funds are more egregious than the highway projects. Absent elimination, though, I believe the Klug approach makes sense for both sides, as it only cuts a small portion of duplicate funding from the program. The passionate statements of ARC supporters today serves to underscore what Reader's Digest had to say about ARC just a few years ago --``You can't kill a good giveaway!'' A look at ARC's past funding shows that the money largely follows important legislators, rather than needy constituents. An excellent example is the Corridor H program in West Virginia. A proposed 114 mile Federal four-lane highway through the scenic West Virginia mountains, Corridor H would cost $1.1 billion, with 80 percent of the money coming from Federal taxpayers. The costs of carving through 4,000 foot mountains contribute to a $10 million per mile project cost. The West Virginia Department of Transportation's own traffic projections do not support the need for this project and over 90 percent of residents from neighboring Virginia opposed Corridor H in public hearings. Yet, the beat goes on for this Federal pork, partly due to millions of dollars of annual ARC funding. The ARC was founded over 30 years ago on the ``Field of Dreams'' proposition that, if you build a massive highway system with Federal bucks, economic growth would ride into town. Under that assumption, two-thirds of all ARC money spent since 1965 has gone into highway construction. The original estimated cost to Federal taxpayers was $840 million, yet the 26 highway system is now slated to cost $9 billion and won't be completed until 2060. Mr. Chairman, this debate especially hits home for growth States like Florida struggling to get their fair share of highway funds. While Florida has seen dramatic increases in its population, ARC has rewarded States that are losing people with more and more Federal funds. According to their own annual reports, $872 million in ARC grants for highways, out of a total of $1.1 billion, has been spent in West Virginia between 1980 and 1992, despite the fact that the State experienced a population loss of 7.2 percent over that time. As we struggle to make ends meet with limited transportation funds, this type of largesse is simply unacceptable. Mr. Chairman, I am not a fan of the ARC program. I believe that Great Society relics like ARC need to be shelved altogether. But if we are going to provide funding for ARC, we should at least extract some savings for the American taxpayer. We should at least prohibit States from double dipping when other States are struggling to make ends meet. The Klug amendment is a responsible, conservative approach that recognizes the reality of our limited resources while striking a blow for fairness. I urge its adoption.

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my friends, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Dan Miller] and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Schumer. This amendment prohibits the use of any funds in the bill to carry out the nonrecourse loan portion of the sugar program. It only affects nonrecourse loans. We are losing sight of that fact. It leaves in place recourse loans for processors and the sugar tariff rate quota. I think that is an important distinction. The sugar industry obviously is a very particular concern in my home State of Florida for economic and environmental reasons. The delegation, frankly, is split. The sugar industry has contributed great benefit to the economy in Florida, but it has also contributed to some of the problems in the Florida Everglades, and I hope that the industry will continue to pitch in to help with the cleanup efforts and future preventative activity. But the critical issue here today, I believe, is the great majority of the people I represent in Florida believe that the time for deep Government involvement in agricultural markets has ended. It actually ended a long time ago. So on their behalf I am pleased to support the Miller-Schumer amendment, and I commend them for their efforts.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Washington, my friend and a highly valued member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. I rise in support of what is very clearly a fair and open rule. This rule balances the interests of the authorizing committee as well as the appropriators in what is often a contentious area. For all those involved, I think it is a breakthrough and I congratulate them. Mr. Speaker, the bill we will consider shortly is an extremely important piece of legislation for the people of Florida, and I will speak parochially about it for a moment. In recent years, the Clinton administration seems to have engaged in an all-out assault on Federal support for beach renourishment, a subject of great interest in our State. First, the President suggested that the Federal Government had no role in assisting State and local governments to protect our Nation's beaches, beaches that I would say are used by all citizens of our Nation as well as the many, many visitors who come to our country, and especially to Florida. In response, last year's Congress passed the Shore Protection Act which revises the Army Corps of Engineers' mission to specifically include beach renourishment. As evidenced by his budget request this year, the President is continuing his assault on beach programs by not requesting adequate funds for these vital projects. The report accompanying this year's Energy and Water bill admonishes the President, ``In the area of shore protection, the committee is extremely disappointed that the administration has once again failed to request funds to continue several ongoing construction projects and studies or to initiate new studies or projects. As the committee stated last year, shore protection projects serve the same function as other flood control projects. They protect lives and property from the impacts of flooding.'' I think that says it all and it certainly brings back the recent tragedy of the floods and the flood victims. I think if we understand that we are going to provide relief for flood victims in one part of the Nation, we should do it for flood victims in all parts of the Nation. I hope the administration understands that. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and the Committee on Appropriations for their work on this bill. I am particularly pleased with the committee's attention to the shore protection projects and I am sure all Members from States with shoreline that need protection will share that view, as well as all Members from States with people who go to the beach, and that is most of us. This is a fair rule and a good bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support both the bill and the rule.

Mr. GOSS. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and congratulate him for his work on this. I have discussed previously with the chairman that the corps has failed to accomplish projects they have promised or to provide repayment for costs incurred for projects with public sponsors in the southwest Florida area. I understand this bill has funds that will now allow the corps to honor its commitments in southwest Florida for these shore protection issues. I wish to receive some assurance that the corps will actually use these funds for the Lee County GRR and reimbursement of the Matanzas Pass as intended. Additionally I wish to receive some assurances that the corps will undertake no further dredging of Boca Grande Pass in the future until the corps' outstanding obligations to Lee County have been satisfied, and then only if the dredging and spoilage plan for Boca Grande Pass is agreed to by the State of Florida, the County of Lee and the local community of Gasparilla Island. The chairman notes from photographs I have showed him and the material I have provided how badly the corps has botched their recent dredging of Boca Grande Pass, and over the last decade taxpayers have spent 10 million for the dredging of this pass, and it is time to reassess justification before any further expenditure.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this rule and today's debate reflect the essence of an agreement reached on June 25 as the House moved to pass legislation implementing the historic budget agreement. That agreement was to allow an up or down vote prior to July 24 on H.R. 2003, which had been offered as an amendment to reconciliation by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], and some of our other colleagues. This rule fulfills that agreement. Promises made; promises kept. Today this House will vote on H.R. 2003, a budget process reform proposal advocated by a bipartisan group of Members. This rule is limited just to provide for the agreement and it does not allow amendment. Not only is this customary for legislation that deals with entitlement and tax legislation within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, but it also captures the moment at which the actual agreement was made to bring this forward to allow the House to consider H.R. 2003 as presented on June 25. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House to be equally divided by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] and an opponent. We have discussed in the Committee on Rules that the time will be divided in such a way as to accommodate Members from both sides of the aisle on both sides of the issue and for all of the committees with an interest. Managers will yield floor time appropriately. In addition the rule provides for the customary motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, as I have outlined, Members understand that we have gone through an unusual process here to get to this point. All three of the primary committees with jurisdiction over this legislation, that is, the Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on Rules, have agreed to waive their right to weigh in on this proposal in the interest of granting H.R. 2003 its unfettered vote as promised. For something of this magnitude and complexity, that in itself is rather extraordinary under Republican leadership. In addition, in doing this Members should be aware of a process that has been under way for some time in the Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Rules, in the policy committee and among various groups of individual Members to reach deliberative and consensus solutions on how best to reform our budget process. In other words, we are focusing on this anyway, and we are now taking this extra step because of this arrangement with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge]. I think we all agree that there is a very real need for review and reform of the process of our budget. But that effort should be done, in my view, in a deliberate and inclusive way that takes full advantage of the expertise that can be found within our committee system which has served this institution and this country so well over the years. I have always argued that changing the budget process must lead to an improvement in the process, not just a different, equally flawed approach. Change for change's sake is not going to get us anywhere. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, I am a little bit familiar with the problems of our current budget framework. Not only is it complicated and hard to understand, but it frankly does not work very well and it does not hold elected officials accountable enough, of course. Moreover, I agree with the proponents of the legislation before us today that our current budget process does not adequately confront the challenge of imposing discipline on entitlement spending, which is a very tough subject. In the Committee on Rules we held three hearings in the last Congress on the subject of budget reform. We have been working closely with the Committee on the Budget this year to develop proposals for reform. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] have committed to developing a comprehensive budget process reform package in this Congress. So we are on our way to doing this anyway. In the short-term I have been very pleased with the cooperative effort we have had with the Committee on the Budget on a bipartisan basis vetting what I will call cleanup provisions in reconciliation to streamline existing procedures. This is an important first step in budget process reform but obviously it is not comprehensive or complete. The bill before us today has a different parentage. It is not the business as usual approach of the committee system. It is a product of an evolution from Member to Member, and outside group to outside group over several years. It has not been properly vetted through the committee system, and its authors have admitted as much by saying that further changes are needed. In the Committee on Rules last night we heard discussion of the need for ``technical amendments and revisions in this bill.'' So it is not quite right even yet. In my view, the problems with this bill go beyond drafting errors into substance. For instance, I do not think we will be improving the transparency and the credibility of our budget process by grafting 15 new very complicated sections onto the already complicated Budget Act. In addition, I am troubled by the authority this bill cedes to the President to define the parameters of budget enforcement. I also have concerns that this bill represents a first step down the very dangerous road toward automatic tax increases. That is what I said. Automatic tax increases. I do not think we are ready for that yet. It threatens to undo all the agreements and commitments that have been made to provide genuine tax relief to America's taxpayers. I cannot support an approach that gives the President the authority to set in motion indefinite delay in the child tax credit that we are working so hard for, or delay of the capital gains tax we are working so hard for, or delay of the estate tax reduction we are working so hard for, or a host of the indexing provisions we are talking about. Our budget problems are not the result of too little revenue. They are the problem of too much spending and too much government and we all know it. In this regard, this bill operates under a basic flawed assumption. With respect to entitlements, this bill is also troubling. I served on the Kerrey Commission on entitlement and tax reform, and I learned a great deal in the process. I well understand the problem we have with entitlements. We are on an unsustainable trend and we have to make some tough decisions, but this bill raises almost as many questions as it answers in terms of the process by which the very important decisions about handling entitlement spending would be made. It puts Social Security COLA's at risk of automatic spending cuts. Now, I cannot imagine anybody who really would stand up for that proposition to say we are going to put Social Security COLA's into an automatic spending cut process. That is not going to hack it with the people that we represent and it should not. Also, this approach that we are going to consider today provides for the possibility of automatic increases in Medicare premiums. Again, I do not think the constituency we represent, certainly not mine in southwest Florida, is going to jump up and applaud very loudly automatic increases in Medicare premiums. Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this legislation are sincere in their effort and I congratulate them on it. They are striving to get enforcement teeth into the budget process, and we need it and I agree. It is just a question of how and when, and I do not think their approach today is how or when. I admire their persistence in getting today's debate. It shows good leadership and good commitment, and I welcome them into our process through the committee process of budget reform, particularly focusing on enforcement with teeth. I find the product we are working with today seriously flawed. I hope the House will defeat it so we can get back to work in developing the budget process reform that we have been working on. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the following section-by-section summary of H.R. 2003 and several letters concerning this issue: Section-By-Section Summary of H.R. 2003, the ``Budget Enforcement Act of 1997'' Prepared by the Majority Staff of the Committee on Rules, July 22, 1997 General Summary H.R. 2003 establishes a new set of budget enforcement procedures specifically for the purpose of enforcing the direct spending levels and the deficit and revenue targets assumed in the Bipartisan Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. This Act would be a free-standing set of procedures, another layer of budget rules and requirements laid over top of the existing Budget Act. The President and Congress would now be required to follow the rules and procedures of three different, yet comprehensive statutes (the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997), all designed to dictate the actions of the budget process. This Act contains two titles. The first outlines how the goals of the budget agreement will be measured and monitored and what the distinct roles of the President and the Congress would be in this monitoring process. The second title provides the methods by which the spending levels and the revenue and deficit targets will be enforced through sequestration and/or a delay of tax reductions. Section 1: Short Title and Table of Contents This section grants this Act the title of the ``Budget Enforcement Act of 1997''. This section also lays out the table of contents for the Act's 15 new free standing budget process provisions. Section 2: Definitions This section provides the definitions for various budgetary terms as they are to be understood in implementing the provisions of this Act including the following: ``eligible population,'' ``sequester and sequestration,'' ``breach,'' ``baseline,'' ``budgetary resources,'' ``discretionary appropriations,'' ``direct spending,'' ``entitlement authority,'' ``current,'' ``account,'' ``budget year,'' ``current year,'' ``outyear,'' ``OMB,'' ``CBO,'' ``budget outlays and outlays,'' ``budget authority and new budget authority,'' ``appropriation act,'' ``consolidated deficit,'' ``surplus,'' and ``direct spending caps.'' Many of these terms and definitions are similar to those currently used and defined in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act). However, there are some new terms and some old terms with new definitions. For example, the definition of ``sequester and sequestration'' is the same as that used in Gramm-Rudman- Hollings while the definition of what constitutes a ``breach'' is different than that contained in current law. Under current law ``the term `breach' means, for any fiscal year, the amount (if any) by which new budget authority or outlays for that year (within a category of discretionary appropriations) is above that category's discretionary spending limit for new budget authority or outlays for that year, as the case may be.'' \1\ Under H.R. 2003 ``the term `breach' means, for any fiscal year, the amount (if any) by which outlays for that year (within a category of direct spending) is above that category's direct sending cap for that fiscal year.'' For the purposes of this Act a ``breach'' is defined as first only applying to direct spending and secondly as only applying to budget outlays as opposed to budget authority or outlays. Since the Act does not repeal any of the current Budget Act, this bill adds a second definition to what constitutes a ``breach''. Other new terms include ``direct spending caps'' and ``consolidated deficit''. Other older terms with new definitions include ``discretionary appropriations'' and ``baseline''. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Footnotes at end of article. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Title I--Ensure that the Bipartisan Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997 Achieves Its Goal Section 101: Timetable This section establishes a new timetable for completion of the new requirements placed on the President and Congress under this Act. This timetable would be an addition to the current timetable relating to the submission of the President's budget, congressional consideration of a budget resolution and any required reconciliation legislation and any sequestration or budget reports required of OMB or

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think we are going to have a multiple choice test for Members after the conclusion of this debate to see if anybody understands what actually has been discussed. As the gentlewoman from Texas alleged, this is a rule that cuts something. This rule does not cut anything. Rules do not cut anything. Anybody who believes that has not quite read the rule. Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of comment about somehow or other this was a perfect product back on June 25 when it was offered, but somehow or other it is not a perfect product now, and somehow or other the Committee on Rules has failed to do its job on that. We need more deliberations, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] says. Others say no, we need to pass this right away. The point is we have a committee system here that works. We have had commitments to proceed with a budget reform process and budget enforcement. That is going to happen. We today are looking at an up-or- down vote that was promised in a deal with the leadership on a 25 of June package to have that vote before July 24. Promises made, promises kept. That is what is going on here today. Some have said the Committee on Rules did not do its job, did not consider waivers or exceptions last night. That is a little disingenuous. We heard the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] speak today about a request for exemptions for one class of people. If we opened this up to exemptions to the enforcement of budget, everybody will come forward with an exemption, and we will have a hollow process of enforcement. We all know that. That is why we promised an up-or-down vote. This is an up-or-down vote on the package of June 25, put together by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge]. That is what we promised. That is what is on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that we have a brilliant strategy over here. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], my friend, who has been a sponsor and has a strong commitment to this particular piece of legislation.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. Again, it seems to me like we ought to have some kind of a multiple choice test on this thing, based on the debate today, there is so much confusion about it. I guess what I would say is this. This was advertised as a perfect product on June 25. We were going to bring this forward and we were going to vote on it as part of the deal then. The point was that a commitment was made for an up-or-down vote on that package, the June 25 package. The deal was an up-or-down vote on that. That is what we have brought to the floor today. It is what has been discussed. As we said at the time, it was not ready. It is not ripe. This is too complex, it is too technical, there are too many people involved in it. We need to work it out through the normal process. We have a commitment from Chairman Solomon, we have a commitment from Chairman Archer, we have a commitment from Chairman Kasich to go forward in the regular process to do this the right way. Trying to write budget reform and budget enforcement at this point in a motion to recommit on the floor is insanity. We all know it. Let the process work. The pledges are there, the commitments are there, the homework is there, the record is there, the good will and commitment and bright ideas of all the people who have brought this forward are there. Not only that, we have a whole bunch of people, of organizations, that have suddenly woken up to this and said this is a very poor way to do this, because they have been listening to the debate and they have been understanding that, oh, my gosh, all of a sudden there may be a need for an exemption from the enforcement. We have the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, AMVETS, Retired Enlisted Association, Blinded Veterans Association, Noncommissioned Officers Association, Military Order of Purple Heart, Jewish War Veterans, Retired Officers, Fleet Reserve, the AARP, and a whole bunch of other people out there saying, hold on, there is a problem. This is not the way to do this. Mr. Speaker, I would urge that we defeat the motion to recommit, we defeat H.R. 2003, and we simply go about the normal process of getting on with budget reform.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I am here rising in support of this rule. I have listened very closely to what the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has to say. This rule provides ample debate on all amendments and major issues in the bill that were pending as of yesterday. I realize that leaves a few out. But I want to make sure that Members are clear what has happened to this bill. Simply, this bill has been hijacked because of a series of unrelated issues and agendas. I think really the underlying question seems to be, who is in the majority in the House of Representatives. I think the majority is trying to operate under bipartisanship, but I do not think the majority is prepared to let the minority hijack the majority. The majority, in the great spirit of our former colleague, Mr. Natcher, and I should say bipartisan spirit, attempted to bring forward the fiscal year 1998 agriculture appropriations bill without a rule, actually letting Members offer amendments and conduct debate under the standing rules of the House. Some of our newer Members may not be aware of the fact, but actually it is within the regular order of the House to move appropriations bills without a rule. There was a time I guess when it was done. I commend Chairman Skeen for his hard work in crafting a bill that could come forward under what was standard practice in this House. Unfortunately, in this case we soon found that some Members had different plans for the proceedings on the floor, unrelated, as it seems, to the bill; that they felt it more important to use the agriculture bill to make points about a larger set of issues that in my view really have nothing to do with the issues in the agriculture spending bill. We heard as much from those Members today during 1- minute remarks on the floor, when one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle informed us of the ``bigger picture relating to the supposed rights of ranking members.'' We believe very much in cooperation, goodwill, yes. That is what we are trying to do in a bipartisan way. But special rights that somehow are coming forth for ranking members? This is something that is not provided for. We do not know about that. If there was a proposal to do something like that I would suggest that an offer be made. But again, I do not believe that it is fair to say that some special rights are being denied. It seems to me that perhaps a hijacking of the bill is going on under the false flag, in this case, of bipartisanship. I must say that I, too, am disappointed that we had to bring the agriculture bill under a rule. I would have preferred not to. It would be my hope that Members could conduct an open and unstructured debate on the substance of our national agriculture programs in a responsible way, without getting sidetracked or bogged down, allowing for the completion in an orderly manner. We have tobacco, peanuts, sugar, and a whole bunch of other stuff out there we are all interested in and want to get to, not to say the fact that we have domestic situations and social disorders in our country that are affected by this. It is unfair to keep these people waiting, just like it was unfair to keep the flood victims waiting. Now we are being held up by what is clearly a political problem on the other side of the aisle. We saw that this could not be the case in the environment, that we have to go forward in a bipartisan manner, so sometimes, as happens in the House, the Committee on Rules, which is provided for in the House rules, properly stepped in to restore order to the process. Any Members who are offended by the rule must first look to their own decisions and actions over the past several days for an explanation of how we have gotten to this point. The House has work to do on the Nation's business and it is vital business. We are not going to let the deliberative process be derailed. The majority's responsibility is to proceed. Dilatory tactics are provided for in the procedures. We all know it. There are ways to trump dilatory tactics, and there are ways to expose dilatory tactics. Those are provided for as well. I hope Members are going to support this rule. Regrettably, we had to come forward with it. But the majority is bringing forth this rule to exercise the overall priority responsibility we have not to become bogged down in nonsense by those who disagree with our politics or want to derail our responsible agenda. Yes, there are casualties, yes, there are consequences for actions, and I would suggest that the gentlemen or the gentlewomen who are left out in the process go to those on the other side of the aisle who have caused us to take this step of restoring order to the rule in this case, because therein lies their problem. Parliamentary Inquiry