Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple, fair rule providing for House consideration of the conference report on H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act--otherwise known as the State Department Reauthorization. As is the custom for conference reports, this rule allows for 1 hour of general debate and preserves the right of the minority to offer a motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1561 was passed by the House on June 8, 1995. Since that time, Members in both Houses have invested a great deal of time and energy working to make this the first year since 1985 that we have reauthorized the State Department programs in this bill. In our Rules Committee hearing last week, both Chairman Gilman and the ranking minority member, Mr. Hamilton, said they were encouraged by the efforts that the conference committee has made to bring us this far. Unfortunately, I understand that the President is planning to veto this reform-minded initiative, essentially because it will cramp his unique foreign policy style. In response, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I think we all understand that the responsibility for conducting foreign policy rests primarily but certainly not exclusively with the executive branch. Today, this long overdue legislation recognizes and addresses the responsibility of the legislative branch in this area--responsibility it has passed on over much of the past 10 years. These duties include policy oversight and, most importantly, laying out the broad priorities for the expenditure of U.S. tax dollars overseas. In this respect, Congress must share some of the blame for our current confused and inconsistent foreign policy agenda. However, it is clear that the lion's share of the blame for recent flip-flops, diplomatic gaffs, excessive costs and ill-defined missions rests squarely with President Clinton and his foreign policy ``B'' team. To date, the Clinton administration has focussed its priorities and resources on extensive involvement on high-visibility--low-yield projects in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Haiti--to the point where the United States has been actively engaged in the de facto governance of two out of these three regions. While the administration may have the best of intentions, its focus on these efforts has resulted in the neglect and/or mismanagement of critical situations in Cuba and Taiwan, to name just two. Today, the administration is finally getting around to recognizing that Fidel Castro is not such a nice guy, and that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan could threaten the entire balance of power in Asia and the Pacific--but I am afraid that the reason it took so long to arrive at these rather obvious conclusions is that the White House has conducted United States foreign policy in the same way it has conducted domestic policy: setting priorities by what the opinion polls say, bowing to pressure from hunger-striking activists, and giving more attention to photo ops that will resonate with the voters instead of doing the hard work of conducting a vigorous and consistent policy agenda across the globe based on a clear delineation of what our national security interests really are in today's world. Mr. Speaker, I hope that passage of H.R. 1561 will begin to put us back on the right track by freeing up foreign policy assets and making them reflect changing priorities in a changing world. It does make some necessary cuts to the operating expenses of the bureaucracy at the State Department and agencies like USAID, USIA, and ACDA--a total of $1.7 billion over 4 years--and requires one of these agencies to be consolidated into the State Department. It also includes many other important provisions, including asserting the supremacy of the Taiwan Relations Act, and setting strict reporting requirements for the Bosnia operation. I would urge my colleagues to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield such time he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Mexico, perhaps more than any Member of this Congress, knows how helpful Members of this Congress can be in the execution of foreign policy, and I think that it is correct to say that foreign policy is not the exclusive right of the executive branch. It is an area where we both have an interest. I would agree, as I said in my opening remarks, that the executive branch has primary responsibility, but we have primary oversight responsibility. Surely in terms of foreign policy of the national interests of the United States, this body has a tremendous amount to say and should have a tremendous amount to say. Second, I would like to reply just very briefly to the remarks of my distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Beilenson, about this question about points of order. We had looked very closely into that ourselves, and, as traditional with conference reports, I would have waived all points of order against it. We had gotten to the conclusion, after checking with CBO, that we in fact have no unfunded mandate. Therefore, we did not see any problem with waiving a rule when there was no unfunded mandate. In fact, I have a letter I will introduce into the Record from the Congressional Budget Office dated March 12, that in fact says, among other things, the bill would impose no intergovernmental private-sector mandates as defined by Public Law 1044 and would have no direct budgetary impacts on State, local, or tribal governments. I believe that as well. Mr. Speaker, I will also include in the Record a statement which would have been our statement had we actually taken the point of order question to the floor. I would simply say it would be a futile gesture to provide an answer when there is no problem, although that is the kind of thing we do very well in government these days. It seems at great cost to the taxpayers, and I would put that point of order in that particular category. Finally, I would like to urge strong support for the rule at this time. Whether one agrees with the substance of the bill, the rule is actually a pretty good rule. It should allow us to get on with our job. I think there is every reason for people to support this particular rule. Mr. Speaker, the letter and statement referred to earlier are included for the Record. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the question of consideration of this rule and urge an ``aye'' vote on it. Let me make quite clear from the outset that the point of order that has triggered this separate 20-minute debate and vote is completely bogus--there are no unfunded mandates in this State Department conference report. Mr. Speaker, the point of order was made that House Resolution 375 is in violation of section 426(a) of the Budget Act which prohibits the consideration of a rule that waives section 425 of the Budget Act relating to unfunded mandates. A section 425 point of order is triggered if the maker of the point of order can, and I quote, ``specify the precise language on which it is premised.'' In this case, the existence of a blanket waiver in this rule is sufficient specific language to trigger the point of order and a separate debate and vote. There is no requirement that a point of order against the rule need identify any matter in the conference report that might be in violation of the unfunded mandate procedures. And so, while the rule waives all points of order against the conference report, implicitly including any unfunded mandate points of order, there is no provision that we are aware of in the conference report that remotely relates to mandates on State or local governments. There were no such mandates identified by the Congressional Budget Office in the House reported bill, or in the House-passed bill, H.R. 1561, or in the Senate-passed bill. Nor are we aware of any that have been added in conference. I would therefore submit that while the point of order may be technically valid because this is a blanket waiver, its use in this instance is an abuse of process--a dilatory tactic designed to prolong and delay consideration by the House of this boilerplate rule on a conference report that contains no unfunded mandates of order and that the House should not be subjected to additional debate and a vote where no such valid point of order would lie. So, the question might be asked, Why not exempt the unfunded mandate point of order from the blanket waiver in the rule? The point of order that has been made against this rule is the perfect answer to that question. While you can have only one bogus point of order against the rule, you could have an infinite number raised against the conference report--each of which would trigger a separate debate and vote of the House to consider the conference report. In other words, the minority has already made the case for the blanket waiver with this completely groundless and dilatory point of order against the rule. I would therefore urge that the motion to consider this rule be adopted. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, March 12, 1996. Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to the request of your staff, the Congressional Budget Office has reviewed the Conference Report to H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997, as reported on March 8, 1996. The bill would consolidate various foreign affairs agencies, authorize appropriations for the Department of State and related agencies, and address other matters in foreign relations. The bill could impose no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined by Public law 104-4 and would have no direct budgetary impacts on state, local, or tribal governments. We are preparing a separate federal cost estimate for later transmittal. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Pepper Santalucia (225-3220) for effects on state, local, and tribal governments, and Eric Labs (226-2900) for impacts on the private sector. Sincerely, June E. O'Neill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, they say three times can be the charm. Well, today the House will, for the third time this Congress, approve an important budget tool to make sure that spending cuts we agree to actually translate into savings for the American people. We hope this action will be the charm in getting this budget reform done. As Members know, this House voted for the deficit reduction lockbox by a huge margin of 373 to 52 on August 4, 1995, as an amendment to the Labor-HHS spending bill. We voted for the lockbox once again, as a freestanding bill, by a vote of 364 to 59 on September 13, 1995. There is no doubt that if it were up to the clear majority of this House, lockbox would be the law of the land today. Of course we know that we must also convince our friends in the other body to concur--and that's where the holdup has been. And so, in sending them lockbox legislation as part of this omnibus spending bill, we will affirm for a third time that we really do mean business in getting lockbox in place for the upcoming appropriations cycle. While I know some of our colleagues on the Appropriations Committees still have concerns about this lockbox, I remind them that this measure has been thoroughly vetted through subcommittee and full committee hearings, the Rules Committee markup, and careful consultation with Appropriations and Budget Committee staff. We believe that we have an effective product that still allows enough flexibility for the appropriators to do the enormously difficult job we ask of them. I commend Mr. Crapo for his efforts to reach the goal of ensuring that a cut is really a cut; that when we say we are saving money by spending less in appropriations bills we follow through on that commitment. I hope my colleagues will join me once again in supporting this deficit reduction tool.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and this bill--which simply ensures responsible management of the Nation's trust funds so that the United States can make good on its obligations for the next 22 days. The purpose of this clean debt ceiling measure is not to increase the limit on the Federal Government's credit card. In fact, the bill is written to ensure that all we get from those 22 days is a useful window of time during which to tie ourselves firmly to the glidepath toward a balanced budget. If we don't accomplish that, at the end of this window we will find ourselves right back where we are today, very deep in the hole. That should be a strong incentive to keep us focused on the ultimate goal: Eliminating our annual budget deficits by eradicating excessive spending and starting to pay down our crushing national debt. I have always been loathe to support increases--even temporary ones--in the debt ceiling because I believe the trend on our borrowing should be toward less, not more. Still, I will support this measure because it provides a clear opportunity to lock us in on the glidepath toward balance. Mr. Speaker, that is something that everybody in this country wants. This is an opportunity. If we fail to take it and do the job properly, I suspect that we will be hearing a lot about it as the months go forward, and I am reminded that November is, indeed, an election month. I think that is an appropriate time for us to have this problem solved by.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from greater downtown San Dimas, CA [Mr. Dreier], vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I agree with his the gentleman's comments about veterans. We have many in south Florida, and we have tried very hard to look out for them and make sure they were properly attended to, but I do not think that trying to take out the administrative expenses that are being used or misused for propaganda is exactly the same area of expenditure that the gentleman from Texas was speaking to. Mr. Speaker, the battle over the fiscal year 1996 budget is coming to an end. It is time. After two partial Government shutdowns, three continuing resolutions, and a lot of stonewalling by the White House, we are prepared to close the books on this fiscal year and move on. I am pleased that the rule before us is a fair rule in that it makes two Democratic amendments and two Republican amendments in order, including the lockbox amendment, which I care about, and many of us have worked on for a long time. This is going to allow the House to consider a fiscally responsible bill that will keep the Government running through the end of the fiscal year. I make that statement, Mr. Speaker, in the full anticipation that this bill is a fiscally responsible bill, we believe it is, and that it will in fact keep the Government running through the end of the year, the end of the fiscal year. But I have to point out that that only happens with the cooperation of the President of the United States. So we are prepared to go forward, get the country on track, and get into the next year and look at the next step. If the President does not want to do that and does not want to cooperate, he has that option as the President of the United States, but of course, that would end up in a Government shutdown, which we all want to avoid. Looking on the bright side of the budget debate, Congress has been able to trim several billions of dollars from the deficit by our efforts so far, an amount that is not going to be added to the $5 trillion debt, or in fact not going to be passed on to our children and grandchildren. Despite our earnest efforts, the President and his administration have resisted all attempts to make desperately needed reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and a whole bunch of other programs that we are going to talk about. Particularly upsetting is the fact, revealed in recent news reports, in fact, that the administration may well have been holding back on the true depth of the crisis facing the Medicare part A account. Of course, this matters a great deal in my district, where I have many senior citizens relying on part A. For over a year we have been operating under the assumption that this program would go broke in the year 2002 if we did not do something to reform it. In fact, the Republicans and fiscal conservatives and others interested have been trying to come up with a program that will in fact make those repairs. We knew about this in the Carey Commission report, so we have proceeded. Regrettably, the President has vetoed that offering as well. Now we are learning that we may be in trouble before 2002, and apparently the Clinton White House has known this but has not seen fit to share that information with us. The problem is worse than we knew. So this is a problem that is not going to go away simply because the administration wants to ignore it. We are going to continue to work to enact a responsible plan to save the Medicare Program and to bring greater choice in health care to seniors, and we are going to do it, and we are going to add to the benefits and the expenditures in health care, but we are going to do it responsibly. There will not be any cuts in Medicare. Mr. Speaker, as we begin to work for the spending bills for fiscal year 1997, it makes sense for Congress, of course, to wrap up what we were supposed to have been doing in 1996, and we have done that in these appropriations measures before us, in this continuing resolution. I think that the damage done by the President's shutdown of our national parks, service centers, and other areas of Government is well known. We certainly do not want that to happen now and we do not want another budget crisis. In fact, I have to say on a personal note, and I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the time to say it, that the damage to small businesses which operate in the Everglades National Park, down in my part of the world, was of such significance that today I am introducing a bill to make those businesses eligible for emergency loans through the Small Business Administration. Had President Clinton not vetoed the fiscally responsible legislation we gave him to keep the Government running, that would not have been necessary, and those people would not have the pain and suffering they are going through. If the era of big Government is truly over, as the gentleman from California says, then this bill we have before us paves the way for the newer era of smaller Government that spends less and is less intrusive. I certainly think that is a good proposition to pursue.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Florida for yielding time to me, and I rise today in strong support of this rule and the conference report on the Helms-Burton Libertad bill. Today, at long last, we discuss this bipartisan legislation knowing that the President has agreed to sign it when it reaches his desk-- unlike too many other important measures that have run into his veto pen. Today's vote culminates a long effort to educate the administration about the true nature of the Castro dictatorship. I must point out with some wonderment that it took the brutal tragic death of innocent American citizens to finally convince the Clinton administration that Fidel Castro really does not operate by rules of civilized conduct and he is never to be trusted. The Clinton administration, it seems, had to find this out the hard way--having toyed with a misguided policy of appeasement right up until those humanitarian relief planes were shot out of the sky. It is my hope that those who oppose this bill will soon come to the same realization that President Clinton has: That our only policy option is to clamp down on Fidel Castro once and for all. He is the problem. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will put U.S. policy with Castro back on track--back to being tough with concrete action designed to restore democracy and encourage Castro's departure from power. We know from what happened in Haiti under the Clinton administration's policy of misery that properly run and fully supported embargoes can have serious impact. In Haiti, the Clinton administration's policy did damage that Haiti will be trying to recover from--and United States taxpayers will probably be paying for--for decades. But the Haiti experience should have taught us that, once and embargo is made the policy of choice, it has to be enforced with a clear focus on the enemy target and a firm commitment to seeing it through to its desired end. We ask our allies help. This legislation is designed to achieve that goal. I urge my colleagues to support the Libertad conference report and I look forward to the day when the United States can once again embrace a free and democratic Cuba.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-minute rule. Committee on Agriculture, Committee on Commerce, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Committee on International Relations, Committee on National Security, Committee on Resources, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is planning to meet this Friday, March 8, to grant a rule on H.R. 2703, the effective death penalty and antiterrorism bill. Subject to the approval of the Rules Committee, this rule may include a provision limiting amendments to those specified in the rule. Any Member who desires to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment by noon on Thursday, March 7, to the Rules Committee, at room H-312 in the Capitol. Members who filed amendments last December to H.R. 1710, the Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act, do not have to file those same amendments again. Those amendments were already drafted to the text of H.R. 2703. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I will not use the full time. I appreciate my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], taking the initiative on this. The fact of the matter is that we have long tried in Florida. I have been standing on this floor for 7 years trying to get attention and others before me, and certainly a great grouping of our colleagues here today, bringing attention to this. It is a national problem. There is a Federal interest. There is farming going on. This is an appropriate connection, and we are doing the right thing. Mr. Chairman, I would point out for those who have said, particularly my distinguished colleague who has spoken on this subject, are we paying our fair share in Florida, indeed we are. We are paying almost all the share in Florida. This is a national problem. We are trying to bring in now a small Federal participation in what is going to be a gigantic reward for all the citizens of America and the visitors who come here, and I urge strong support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I have stood here many times to argue that the Everglades is a national treasure that needs and deserves our help and we have taken steps in the past to address the degradation of the Everglades and Florida Bay, for which I am grateful but the time has come to make a full-fledged commitment. The alternative is to simply walk away and allow these two unique, priceless areas to die. That's unacceptable. We can do better, and the Foley amendment--and the similar provisions in the Senate bill--does better. There is a legitimate Federal responsibility here--it was the Corps of Engineers--in conjunction with the State of Florida--that began altering and diverting the flow of fresh water to the Everglades and Florida Bay. The State of Florida, and the residents of its southwest coast have now made a major commitment to Everglades restoration, and it is time for the Federal Government to do the same There is also a logical tie-in to the legislation before us, because the Everglades land that was drained south of Lake Okeechobee was turned into farmland, and farmers have benefited from the network of canals and drainable channels for years. Two hundred and ten million dollars is a sizable commitment, and if this amendment passes I will continue to work with my colleagues to find ways to pay for this necessary expense. Right now, the key is for this House to take a bold step toward good environmental stewardship; to take up the challenge of restoring our ``River of Grass,'' and commit the Federal Government to its share of this worthy endeavor. I urge my colleagues to support the Foley amendment.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Glens Falls, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in support of this very fair and comprehensive rule for the consideration of H.R. 2854, the Agricultural Market Transition Program. There are two critical factors that went into the creation of this rule. Time is of the essence--the President's veto of the Balanced Budget Act has left farmers in the lurch, forcing us to expedite the process here on the House floor at this late February date. The second principle that went into forging the rule is that a debate about the fundamental principles behind our farm programs is desirable and healthy at this point. We are on the verge of approving a 7-year authorization for most major commodity programs, tobacco being a notable exception. We need to be sure we know where American farmers and consumers are headed. As any guide traversing the Everglades will tell you, it is far better to consult the map and plot a course before setting out across the territory, rather than after you have gotten lost. Personally, I believe that the time for deep Government involvement in agricultural markets ended long ago. I would like to see this country move away from this last bastion of central economic planning and into a true free-market system that will reward farmers and consumers alike. The rule before us allows the House to consider important amendments in all the major commodity areas, including rice, cotton, wheat, peanuts, dairy, and more. I look forward to supporting my colleague from Florida, Dan Miller, on his amendment to gradually phase out the sugar price support program--this is an issue of some consequence to southwest Floridians. From the jobs point of view and consumers point of view and quality of life. The rule also allows for amendments dealing with the issue of conservation. In Florida, we have learned a lesson about conservation that should be noted nationwide-- without proper environmental stewardship and protection, national treasures like the Everglades could literally disappear. An amendment to be offered later will provide some much-needed funding for Everglades restoration--this is a necessary and responsible step that Congress can take on a major environmental issue and I would urge my colleagues to support the Foley amendment. While the Rules Committee could not possibly make in order all the amendments filed--there were 74 of them--I am confident that this fair and balanced rule allows for a full debate of American farm policy. If my colleagues doubt that, I ask them to stay tuned for the next 2 days because they are going to hear it and see it. It certainly says that this rule is worthy of Members' support, and I urge Members' support for the rule.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, Fidel Castro has done it again. He's caused tragedy and pain and suffering in pursuit of brutal repression. Castro's actions this weekend coupled with Clinton administration foreign policy ineptness present the world with another misadventure in the Caribbean, resulting in the apparent death of four innocent human beings and the human rights violations and arrest of dozens of others. Why? Because Fidel Castro is a brutal tyrant and because the Clinton administration has spent its efforts in Cuba on developing ways to appease Fidel Castro and to ease restrictions on the flow of money and people into the country he holds captive. All the while, the President's foreign policy ``B'' team has studiously ignored Fidel Castro's track record as a liar and a bullying tyrant and an egregious violator of human rights of people he is supposed to serve, not torment. Those who closely follow Cuba and have unbiased knowledge of Cuban affairs were deeply saddened, but I guess not really surprised, to hear about the tragic murder of Brothers to the Rescue this past weekend. Murder is something Castro does. It is a tool of this dictator's trade. My thoughts went back to the 13th of March tugboat and a long series of similar incidents where innocents were deliberately killed. Added to this is that fact that even as Fidel's jets were scrambling, the crackdown on Cuban dissidents and prodemocracy groups on the ground in Cuba was being stepped up. I hope that this weekend's events will be the wake-up call the Clinton White House has clearly needed on this issue. The announcement that the White House will support legislation to strengthen the embargo is good news, as long as it follows through on that pledge. Rather than cozying up to this long-time self-avowed enemy of the United States, the administration should step up the pressure on his regime. After all, only last year the Clinton White House leveled a devastating and effective blockade embargo against the poorest people in our hemisphere--against the friendly neighboring country of Haiti. After that, I would think stepping up the embargo on Castro's Cuba would be easily justified. Part of doing that will mean demanding quid pro quo from our allies--and aid recipients--in this hemisphere. Take Mexico, as an example. If we are going to bail them out, then we expect them to join us in squeezing Fidel Castro out of Havana. The same applies for our European allies, who have benefited greatly from American support against the tide of aggression in Europe. Even now, these allies are keeping Fidel Castro's corrupt regime--a mere 90 miles from our shores--afloat with trade and tourism. In this context, it is scandalous to think that the United States went out of its way to support a new Spanish pro-Castro leader for NATO. Mr. Speaker, I hope the administration will finally take off the rose-colored glasses and take a close look at the man they have chosen to extend a helping hand to. Ultimately, I think any meaningful examination will produce an understanding that Fidel Castro isn't a man to trust or to bargain with. That reality should be the basis of any United States policy in Cuba. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri asked me what I would recommend as a Member from Florida. I would recommend getting serious with the embargo. I would recommend that we remember that Fidel Castro is the problem, and, if you do not know that, you should not be dealing in Cuban foreign policy matters.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, the Committee on Rules is planning to meet on Tuesday, February 27, 1996, to grant a rule which may limit the amendments to be offered to H.R. 2854, the Agricultural Market Transition Act, which incorporates in large part the provisions of title I of the Balanced Budget Act. Any Member who desires to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment by 3 p.m. on Monday, February 26, to the Committee on Rules, at room H-312 in the Capitol. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the Agriculture Committee reported version of the bill, which is available in the document room. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House. Madam Speaker, the Committee on Rules has forwarded to each Member's office a ``Dear Colleague'' with the same information. We realize that Members are responsible for being attentive even while they are in their districts, and we want to make sure that we get this news out.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 355 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I many times watched the Perils of Pauline, and I never actually saw the train run over the victim. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close with a couple of points. First of all, this has been a very intriguing debate about the rule. I do not think I have heard the rule mentioned, more than in passing at the beginning, but we have had a pretty good debate on some other things. I frankly have gotten to see my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, show us that in addition to his extraordinary oratory, he has exemplary footwork as well in the well of the House, and I commend him on that. That was certainly a fresh moment in my experience in the U.S. Congress. Mr. Speaker, some on the other side have mentioned that we are going on vacation. If Members are going on vacation over there, I wish them well. I do not believe anybody over here is planning to go on vacation. We have a considerable amount of work to do. We are doing some negotiating. We will be in our district in a work period. I know some of us will actually be here working on committee work as well, as is our custom. If those Members have time to go on vacation on the other side of the aisle and can work it into their schedules, they are fortunate, indeed. Mr. Speaker, the next question I wanted to raise very briefly is this sort of switching of the debate from what is really adding on, piling onto a $5 trillion national debt an unlimited amount of money for the future without any kind of control. That is really what Members are proposing to do. What you are doing, however, is switching the subject and saying ``My gosh, if we do not do that, we are affecting the full faith and credit of our country.'' I think that is very bizarre. The people who keep score about full faith and credit are more interested in us getting control of our spending now. That is the signal they are looking for. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we do not do the responsible thing, we will in fact do more damage to the full faith and credit, which, or course, nobody wants to cause any problem for in any way. The next thing that has happened, Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from New York, said we are going to have a big vote on this. We are indeed going to have a big vote on this. We are going to get probably a unanimous vote on this piece of legislation. Who would vote against sending out the Social Security checks? Who would vote against making sure those checks were not going to bounce? It seems to me that is a pretty good proposition to vote for. We have a good rule, we have a good proposition to vote for. I am having a little trouble understanding what, therefore, the problem really is. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk about gloom and doom and the sky falling. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that those who are talking about all this red hot partisan rhetoric, self-fulfilling rhetoric I hope it is not, about the world ending and the full faith and credit coming apart and so forth, need to go back and look at their voting records. I did not read them all because of time, but most everybody, as the chairman has said, who got the low rating from the NTU for being big spenders are also the people who, by and large, have voted for the largest tax increase in history, and that was attached to a debt limit bill, so let us get real. The other point I would make is I would suggest that Alan Greenspan's pulse rate is probably more important to the interest rates than the debate we are having here today in terms of the well-being of our economy, so I urge that we pass this rule and get on with it. We will then pass this legislation and remove anxiety. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the Record should show that the gentleman from New York who just spoke voted for an attached 1993 debt limit bill, the largest tax increase in history. There was certainly nothing clean about that debt limit bill either, and I suspect that the gentleman from New York would not agree with my conclusion that it is not responsible parenting to stop children from runaway spending.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the record should show that the gentleman who just spoke so eloquently voted to attach to the 1993 debt limit bill the largest tax increase in history. There was nothing clean about that debt limit bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].