Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to include extraneous material in the Record.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 205 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from greater metropolitan Sandimas-Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Representatives Hefley and Solomon. Mr. Chairman, the new Congress was elected with a clear mandate to eliminate any and all wasteful spending and reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government. I applaud the work of Chairmen Livingston and Rogers in crafting a Commerce, Justice, State bill that reflects that goal and makes difficult choices in a responsible manner. Nevertheless, I worry that certain programs that have outlived their usefulness may escape intact, slightly slenderized but still weighing down the American taxpayer needlessly. It seems to me that we must examine all Federal programs not only as to cost, but also ask ourselves if there is an appropriate Federal role. EDA fails this test on several levels. EDA purports to assist distressed areas yet its broad eligibility criteria allows areas containing 80 percent of the U.S. population to compete for benefits. EDA's programs are duplicative--four separate departments along with the ARC, TVA, and SBA fund similar development programs. EDA programs are not cost efficient--one analysis on an EDA Emergency Jobs Program suggested each job created ultimately cost the American taxpayer $307,000, seven times the cost of the private sector. Again, I commend the committee for the 25 percent cut in EDA funding--it is a step in the right direction. But it is not enough to merely cut back on programs that are no longer appropriate. We must take the next step to rip out the roots altogether. As we are ready to eliminate the Commerce Department in the authorization process, I would suggest it is time to fold the tent at the EDA.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Mollohan amendment. Taxpayers in my home State of Florida, as well as many other States, for too long have had to bear the burden of really failed Federal immigration policies. That is what we are talking about. It is estimated that Florida spends in the area of $80.7 million, not $13 million. There was a number for $13 million. That is an old number. The Governor's office now tells us that number is $80.7 million annually to incarcerate illegal immigrants. As a matter of fact, costs are so high for this and other immigration related services that Governor Chiles had to file suit against the Federal Government for reimbursement, and I think everybody knows that Governor Chiles is in the same party as the President. He should not have had to do that. This is a clear Federal obligation, and earlier this year in H.R. 667 we took positive action to help our States with the financial burden. The Federal Government cannot shirk its responsibility in this, which is what the Mollohan amendment would allow. This amendment would take us back in the wrong direction, and that is why I am very strenuously in opposition to it and urge my colleagues to oppose it, as well, because when we look at the facts, it is going the wrong way.

Mr. GOSS

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, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 198, the rule for the fiscal 1996 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, is a ``plain Vanilla'' rule needing little in the way of explanation. It is an uncomplicated, open rule, a fair rule. Despite concerns that some Members have been taking a little advantage of some of the previous open rules, the Rules Committee has not placed limits on time, the number of amendments, or procedural motions. Nor will you find any extraordinary waivers included in the rule. Of course, due to the perennial problem of enacting authorizing bills prior to the consideration of appropriations measures, we have provided the standard waivers for violations of clause 2 and 6 of rule XXI contained within the bill. Members may be interested to know that the Rules Committee is actively exploring ways to avoid this problem--and related problems with the budget process--in the future. The Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process together with the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House are in the process of holding hearings to examine the 1974 Budget Act and what improvements can be made to it. It is my hope that future Congresses will be immune from routine waivers of House rules because of an awkward budget process. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule continues the successful practice of giving the Chair the right to give priority in recognition to those Members who have printed their amendments in the Record. This procedure, without infringing on the rights of any Members, has helped to raise the level of debate in this body by allowing Members to be fully prepared for amendments and issues that arise on the floor. So I urge Members to support this rule so we can proceed with the consideration of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. This important legislation provides funding for three Cabinet-level departments--although Congress may be eliminating one of them, the Department of Commerce--and funding for numerous related agencies. Under this rule, any Member will be able to offer amendments to make cuts, or changes in the bill's funding priorities. For instance, I intend to support an amendment offered by my friends, Mr. Solomon and Mr. Heflin, to eliminate funding for the Economic Development Administration. The EDA is another example of a targeted Government program that over the years has strayed so far off-target that it's time in this gentleman's view to end it and begin again. Another area of special concern to all taxpayers, and especially those in my district of southwest Florida, is the money provided State Department in this bill for peacekeeping efforts and the United States diplomatic mission in Haiti. I look forward to appropriate debate on these topics. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I make a parliamentary inquiry? I think this is very useful, and I think it has an appropriate time for discussion in the [[Page H 7612]] well, but we are trying to talk about the rule on Commerce, Justice, State, which is the scheduled business for this moment. I do not want to call a point of order on the gentleman, but am I on the right track?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter for the Record: House of Representatives, Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC, July 25, 1995. Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon, Chairman, Committee on Rules, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: H.R. 2076, the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996, contains a provision that falls within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. Specifically, H.R. 2076 raises the fee rate under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 from the authorized level of 1/50th of one percent to 1/29th of one percent. Because the fee is raised to a level beyond that which is authorized by statute, this provision of H.R. 2076 would be in violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House. Increases in this fee, coupled with difficulty in funding the SEC's operation, have been an ongoing problem, inherited from past Congresses. The Commerce Committee has been concerned that this situation not be allowed to continue indefinitely. Chairman Rogers, Chairman Archer and I have forged a permanent solution to the problem of SEC fees and funding. This agreement will be codified in the statutory reauthorization of the SEC; this agreement will, over a five year period, step down the 6(b) fee, together with other SEC fees, to a level approximately equivalent to the cost of running the Agency. At that point, the SEC will be funded entirely by means of an appropriation. Based on the agreement I have with Chairman Rogers and Chairman Archer to work out this problem, I would not oppose a waiver of Rule XXI clause 2, with respect to a one-year extension of the 6(b) fee. This action is taken with the understanding that the Commerce Committee will be treated without prejudice as to its jurisdictional prerogatives during further consideration of this and any similar legislation. I would appreciate inclusion of this letter as part of the Record during the consideration of this bill by the House. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. With best regards, Sincerely, Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just wanted to comment that we understand the authorization- appropriations cycle is a little bit out of whack. As I said in my opening remarks, we are trying to work that out so we do not have these problems. I think we have got a very fair rule here. We have heard a lot of discussion about issues we are going to talk about in the bill, but I have not heard any opposition to the rule. Mr. Speaker, I include the following data for the Record:

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. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Utah for yielding me this time. I want to commend her for the excellent job she is doing handling this rule. As a veteran on the Committee on Rules with some very good battle scars of my own from managing the transportation appropriations bill the last couple of years, I very well know the challenges posed by this particular bill and the difficulty coming up with a fair formula that keeps everybody happy and addresses every Member's concern. It is a virtual impossibility. Traditionally, this bill, perhaps more than others, has highlighted the tension that exists between the appropriators and the authorizers; and, frankly, that is what we are seeing played out here, some of that tension, and I know it is a frustrating process. The budget process is supposed to work so that the authorizers set the policy decisions which are supposed to be agreed upon by the Congress before the money is spent. That makes sense. The reality is that we seldom complete our authorizing work before the appropriations cycle begins and, as a result, we end up with spending bills that are filled with programs that have not been authorized and legislative provisions that in a perfect world probably should not be there but nevertheless are important in the Nation's business, which seems to have a higher priority, I think, and most do, than the exactness of our rules as long as our rules are free and fair, which is what we are trying to do. Let me be clear. This is not the fault of any one committee or any one chairman. This is the fault of a budget process that has gotten, in my view, much too complex, somewhat unworkable and probably not up to the task in our current fiscal and political environment that we have. The Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process of the Committee on Rules, working with our counterpart, the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House, both these subcommittees together have begun holding hearings on the larger question of reforming the budget process. Of course, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the Government Resources and the Committee on the Budget are involved in this as well. Perhaps next time we have a transportation appropriations rule on the floor we will actually have some of these systemic problems resolved and reduce some of the tensions. With regard to this specific rule, I think the gentlewoman from Utah has spoken terribly well to the issues that are out there and what has happened. I think we are up to date, and I think she is absolutely right. There will be a fair chance to deal with these issues. I think the Committee on Rules has tried to develop a fair product that respects the wishes of the authorizers to the greatest extent possible, which is a guiding principle because of the situation between the appropriations cycle and the authorizing cycle. But we also want to assure that the hard work that the Committee on Appropriations has done in making the very tough spending decisions they have got to make as we get on the balanced budget glide path, we have got to preserve that work, too. This is an attempt to balance that, and I think it does pretty well. It contains necessary waivers in order to allow the process to move forward to the point it has been negotiated as we get to this part of our calendar. Madam Speaker, to my colleagues still concerned about our commitment to bringing forward a deficit lockbox that works, and I mention this because there has been a great deal of interest in it specifically, I remind the folks that are interested in a deficit lockbox that works that our Rules Committee in fact yesterday marked up a bill and we are hoping to keep it on track and bring it up to the floor for next week. We think we have got a pretty good device that is going to work pretty well. It is simple and it is flexible. Finally, I think this particular rule is written to send a strong signal to the other body that we are serious about our version of the line-item veto which we think very much is the version that will work. Madam Speaker, I urge support of the rule. Once again, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Utah for her professional way of handling this. She has described it exactly correctly, and there is ample opportunity for everybody to get a vote on these issues as we go through the total cycle.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, another week has gone by and by all accounts there are still more questions, more uncertainties regarding the situation in Haiti. I am happy to report, however, that Ambassador Dobbins of the State Department Haiti working group has removed one uncertainty. In hearings last week he took the time to clarify the amount of money the United States taxpayers paid for the intervention in Haiti. As you know, we have been using a rough figure frequently cited in the press--something in the neighborhood of $2 billion. In fact, Ambassador Dobbins told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that for just the period between the occupation of Haiti in September 1994 and the March 1995 takeover by the United Nations mission in Haiti, the Clinton administration only spent $1.2 billion. That is a load off of my mind. Of course, my constituents will still be interested to know what progress has been achieved toward a more democratic and stable Haiti for the sum of $1.2 billion of their tax dollars. How, for example, is the elections process going? This week, the long-awaited OAS assessment of the June 25 Haitian elections was finally released. The conclusion? According to OAS Secretary-General Cesar Geviria: ``It is difficult for us to say that this was free and fair. Everybody knows there were a lot of flaws.'' Given the abuse that credible observer organizations like the International Republican Institute took when they offered the same conclusion, I am surprised at the resounding lack of interest in Mr. Geviria's statement in both the Clinton administration and the media. Secretary General Geviria also went on to say he hopes Haitian officials will ``find a way to get these results accepted'' and ``solve some of these problems in the three elections we have ahead.'' We hope so too, but there are signs that the process may already be seriously damaged. The first of those upcoming elections, originally slated for this weekend, are supposed to be a makeup day for areas where gross irregularities, administrative snafus, or ballot-burning meant Haitians could not exercise their right to vote. As of Tuesday these elections have been indefinitely postponed. Added to this is the fact that 23 of the 27 parties participating in the June election continue to reject the process, and therefore the results. They have vowed to boycott both the makeup elections and the runoffs set for some time in August. There is also a growing list of disturbing events to consider. The shooting of a mayoral candidate during the elections and a deputy candidate 2 days later were disturbing enough. This week Deputy Mayor Elect Johnny Charles was attacked by knife-wielding thugs. If the security environment deteriorates, it will simply add another disincentive for Haitians who might otherwise participate in the political process as either voters or candidates. Time is passing and each day brings us closer to the February date envisioned for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and the end of the U.N. mission. But the lack of progress on elections and growing questions regarding security point to a possible continuation of the mission well into the new year. Mr. Speaker, each day that passes means more bills added to the $1.2 billion tab that the American taxpayers have already paid in Haiti. My constituents and I would like to know: Is the end in sight?

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the famous admonition that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it is often put another way: We must learn the lessons of the past to prevent making similar mistakes in the future. When it comes to the safety of the Nation's blood supply, this simple adage translates into a message of life and death. We know that during the early 1980's blood and blood products became tainted with the virus that causes AIDS. The early clues that there was a problem manifested themselves in the hemophilia community, because people with hemophilia frequently use products made from blood that is pooled from thousands of donors. We now know that during the early 1980's, approximately one-half of the Nation's hemophiliacs--some 8,000 people--became infected with the virus that causes AIDS through the use of contaminated blood-clotting products. How did this happen? Why did the system that was established to safeguard the supply of blood and blood products fail to heed early warning signs and prove so slow to respond to a dangerous threat? How can we prevent such a tragedy from happening again? More than 2 years ago, I joined with Senators Graham of Florida and Kennedy of Massachusetts in asking HHS Secretary Donna Shalala to conduct a review of the events surrounding this medical disaster. The results of that intensive and objective review have come to us in the form of a report, presented last week by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine--the IOM. The conclusions of this report are important--not just for their candor in describing the quote ``Failure of leadership and inadequate institutional decisionmaking processes'' unquote to meet the challenge of a deadly new blood-borne disease--but also for their recommended changes to the system. In underscoring the Federal Government's shared responsibility for the safety of the blood supply, the report concludes that the FDA-- which has regulatory authority over blood and blood products--quote ``Consistently chose the least aggressive option that was justifiable.'' On several occasions, the report found, the FDA quote ``Did not adequately use its regulatory authority and therefore missed opportunities to protect the public health.'' Unquote. And it notes that decisionmakers acted with an abundance of caution, seeking to engender quote ``a minimum of criticism.'' Unquote. All of these observations led the IOM to recommend a series of changes in the way the FDA regulates blood and blood products--and improvements in Public Health Service structure to yield early and aggressive response to new threats to the blood supply. The IOM panel also proposes a no-fault compensation program prospectively for future victims of adverse consequences from the use of blood and blood products. But what about the 8,000 victims of the tragedy that has already happened? Although this question was beyond its purview, the IOM suggested that its prospective recommendation quote ``Might serve to guide policymakers as they consider whether to implement a compensation system for those infected in the 1980's'' unquote. And so I ask my colleagues to consider H.R. 1023, a bill I introduced in February that now has 110 bipartisan cosponsors. The Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act named for a victim from my old congressional district, as it is known, establishes a compensation program for the victims of hemophilia-associated AIDS. It is based on the premise that has now been supported by the IOM report, that Government shares responsibility for what happened. It is also based on the understanding that blood and blood products are unique--as is the Federal responsibility for them. We have a national blood policy, put in place in the mid-1970's, that says we have a commitment to a safe supply of blood and blood products. In fact, as part of our recognition that these are unique resources deserving special consideration, we have placed the regulation of blood and blood products under the aegis of two separate laws. Mr. Speaker, as we learn from the mistakes of the past, let us be sure we stand up to our obligations for them. I urge my [[Page H 7074]] colleagues to review H.R. 1023 and I hope that the Judiciary Committee will soon hold hearings on this important matter of fair play, as I have now requested. We cannot undo the damage, but we can restore some faith and provide some relief to victims and their loved ones. That would be a good way to go forward.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], for yielding me this time. He is a very, very energetic member of the Committee on Rules and has brought us a very good rule today. I think it is a very fair rule. It is open. It provides necessary protection under the specific rules for the fact that the Congress as a whole we recognize is somewhat behind in all of our authorizing programs, and this rule was set up to help us get back on schedule in completing our appropriations work as soon as possible, which obviously is priority business for our Nation. As the chairman of the Legislative and Budget Process Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the lockbox issue, I want to address the concern we have heard from a number of Members on this subject both in the Committee on Rules hearings and in the corridors and the cloakrooms, Members on both sides of the aisle. We need to move ahead with the lockbox measure, and we are. Tuesday of last week, our subcommittee held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology which is chaired by our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn]. Our staff has been working practically nonstop since that time, including over the hot days of this weekend, to craft a workable lockbox mechanism. We now have scheduled a full Committee on Rules markup for this Thursday morning. I know to some Members it seems that this is a simple concept and we should have gotten this done quickly. I would suggest that moving this fast around here is lightning-like, compared to the usual glacial pace. Locking in savings for deficit reduction once the Congress votes to make cuts in spending bills sounds like a good idea, and it is, and it should be easy to implement, and it is not. There are important rules and technical considerations that simply have to be worked out. There are a lot of players in this. The Budget Act is a very complicated document, as we all know, and we want to be sure we are closing all the loopholes while we are retaining the power to make the necessary decisions to bring our budget into balance, which we have also promised we will do and voted to do, and we are on that glide path. It is incumbent upon all of us to make sure we get the thing right the first time, and I do not think I need to remind my colleagues of the countless times we have rushed headlong into something, swept by the momentum of the moment, only to find we have to go back and rewrite it because we made mistakes. The catastrophic health bill comes to mind, something I remember very well. It is a bit like speeding to the airport to catch a plane. When the policeman pulls you over and gives you a ticket, you end up missing the plane and having to pay the speeding fine. I do not see any reason to do that. I assure my colleagues that I and the chairman of our Committee on Rules, who has just entered the Chamber and I am sure will speak to this, are fully committed to bringing forward a workable product on a lockbox that can be applied to the appropriations work we have already done and are continuing to do for the fiscal year. In fact, we have the legislative draft ready and we are working that out now with the interested players. I see no reason why we do not have a good product that will survive the markup very well. This is on fast track. It will be done. The plane is leaving the runway. We just want to make sure that we get to our destination of deficit reduction without hitting a mountain along the way. I urge support for this rule. I think it is a good, fair rule. I have spoken on the lockbox because it is an issue of concern to a great many people on both sides. I would point out that if we do this the right way with the lockbox, we will be using as our guideposts our CBO figures, which are considerably better in terms of conserving dollars than the OMB figures, which are statutory, because our budget targets are lower. I think that is an extremely important point. I realize it is technical, inside-the-beltway baseball to be talking about that, but I think our Members need to be sure that the savings are real and that they are made.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce] for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this remarkable open rule. I would point out to my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] we indeed are proceeding under the lockbox. Our subcommittee has already had hearings. We are diligently pursuing that. Things are happening. Under this resolution, the House will consider H.R. 1977, which is a remarkable open rule. The fiscal 1996 Interior appropriations bill is what it is about. It is under a completely open amending process. Now, this in itself is not remarkable, I agree, since all but one of the appropriations bills this year has come to the floor under an open rule. However, what is remarkable about this rule is it is the first reported by our committee since the July 4 break, and what is remarkable is the decision to continue granting open rules. We do this in good faith and with full regard to protecting the deliberative debate process for each and every Member despite the recent what I would call guerrilla campaign, to quote the newspapers, of dilatory tactics by some Members of this body. I am pleased, and I think most of our Members are pleased, that a sense of comity has indeed been restored to the floor, and I hope we continue our work on these important bills which are the vital business of our Nation under a workable open process. Mr. Speaker, the Interior appropriations bill is an especially important bill for our Nation and for Florida as well. It includes vital Everglades restoration money, which will complement the State of Florida's efforts to protect additional lands in or near the national park, and funding that will allow the Park Service to fix some of the hydrology problems in the park, to begin to restore the natural historical sheet flow to the legendary river of grass. Also vital to Florida's economy is the annual outer continental shelf oil and gas exploration moratorium, which protects our fragile coastline from devastating oil pollution. While I recognize the early moratorium is not the [[Page H 6888]] best way to accomplish this goal, it is necessary while we work on a better long-term solution. This year's Interior bill is not all good news. Many important programs have been drastically scaled back, as my friend from California has noted. Land and water conservation funds, for instance, used to fund land acquisition in our wildlife areas and elsewhere have been reduced by over 70 percent. This is a big hit. But I understand the overriding need to balance our budget, and I applaud the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], and the members of the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work trying to craft a reasonable solution, which is this bill. I would ask my colleagues to support this rule, which provides for full debate, which is what I think the Committee on Rules should be proud of, and I urge the support for this rule.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, these are indeed historic times. This Congress has adopted the first balanced budget resolution in over a generation. We have successfully shifted the debate from more and more big Federal programs to fiscal restraint and responsibility. In this vein, I applaud the work of Chairmen Myers and Livingston and the committee in crafting an energy and water appropriations bill that reflects this goal. Nevertheless, I remain concerned that certain programs prime for elimination may escape intact, battered; and bruised but still standing. The Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] plainly falls into this category. ARC was formed in 1965 as a temporary response to poverty in a broad section of the United States known as Appalachia. Thirty years later, we continue to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually on ARC activities that are largely duplicated by several agencies, including DOT's Federal Highways Program and HUD's Community Development Block Grant Program. The legitimate programs the ARC funds, from building highways to sewer projects, will continue to be funded. However, ARC has a long history of funding projects that have a rather dubious impact on poverty. The ARC has spent taxpayer money on projects ranging from the NASCAR Hall of Fame to a football stadium for the NFL's Carolina Panthers. ARC has spent $100,000 for a film history of West Virginia and another $25,000 to attract German travelers to that same State. During this time of scarce financial resources, we must ask the question, Where is the Federal role here? I am pleased to join with Representatives Klug and Orton to offer this bipartisan amendment to eliminate funding for the ARC. Many will argue that the chairman's mark already contains a substantial reduction in ARC funding for fiscal year 1996 and beyond. However, we are all aware of numerous temporary commissions that have outlived their original mission but continue to survive for political reasons. The Reagan and Bush administrations were successful in dramatically cutting the funding for ARC only to see the program flourish again in future years. In fact, President Bush's first budget called for $50 million for ARC, a paltry sum compared to the $142 million that this bill calls for, even with a 40 percent cut. Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we act boldly and rip out the roots of ARC now to ensure it doesn't grow back. Many members have correctly noted that the heavy lifting toward a balanced budget begins with the appropriations bills. Let's match our rhetoric with action and take the overdue step of eliminating the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I think before we start the proceedings this morning that we all want to be reminded of the fact that our good friend and colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Joe Moakley, is in the hospital. We wish him Godspeed and early return and all good health. Mr. Speaker, in the week leading up to the Fourth of July break, we witnessed one of the longest campaigns of dilatory floor tactics in the recent history of the House of Representatives. That campaign continues. Yesterday's Roll Call quotes a minority leadership aide as saying, ``We are blowing up the House on Monday.'' Well, it is Tuesday and we are still here, and we are pleased about that. The minority Members have made references to guerilla warfare. Mr. Speaker, these are not the sentiments of the people of the United States who are interested in working for the national interest. Unfortunately, it is clear that the minority has decided to hold the foreign operations bill and possibly other legislation hostage in order to grandstand on what is an extraneous issue and now one that I hope is behind us and resolved. To anyone who still has questions about the matter of committee ratios, I simply urge them to look at the history of ratios in the House under Democratic rule. I think the evidence very clearly shows, as we pointed out in debate yesterday, that the Republicans indeed are more generous to the minority on the Committee on Ways and Means than we have experienced when it was the other way around. So let us end that discussion and get on with the business. Mr. Speaker, the majority is here to do the people's business and today that business is the passage of the foreign operations appropriations bill. Reluctantly, I am here with a second rule, a rule that will enable us to finish this bill and continue the important work of considering appropriations bills. As we all know, we have many left to go before the August recess. As Members are aware, under the rules of the House, limitation amendments to appropriation bills are subject to the majority leader's motion to rise. In fact, we could cut off all debate here and now and proceed to final passage. But at this point we choose not to do that. But it is an important point, so let me restate it. Under the rules, we could end the amending process right now. But we are not going to do that. Instead we have crafted a rule to ensure that the four pending amendments are protected and each one has adequate debate time. To those who may rise to claim that this rule is not fair, I would point out the hours upon hours that this body has spent voting on unnecessary motions already on this appropriations bill, procedural motions, dilatory motions, time that could have been used to finish the bill under a completely open rule. By calculations of the chairman of the Committee on Rules, if I have read his quotes right, so far 27 hours have been used in debate on this, which is 5 more than we used to debate Desert Storm in 1991, and that involved hostile open warfare. This rule strikes an important balance between the rights of Members to offer amendments, most notably the three Democrat Members, I say the three Democrat Members who still have amendments pending are being provided for under this rule, and one other amendment as well, and the need to finish consideration of this legislation in a timely manner, which is our responsibility. I think this is the right balance. It allows those who had amendments pending to complete the business of this bill. It does get the bill moving. I urge my colleagues to support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] pending which time I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I would assure the gentleman I do not believe that was the situation. I believe the Committee on Rules dealt with what they felt they knew were amendments that had been timely filed with us. We did not know what other amendments might have been out there. If there had been other amendments that might have been on the same basis as yours at the time we met, what would we have done?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider the vote on the table.

Mr. GOSS. In fact I am speaking on the rule, Mr. Speaker, because what I am talking about is the rule that we have had to put in place is exactly because we have run into problems that we did not anticipate and I am sorry that we have. I am saying that the Committee on Rules will be forced to consider shutting down some of the openness of debate that we strive for and want to have to get the Nation's business done if we are subjected to meaningless, wasteful, dilatory tactics. That is just the fact. [[Page H 6753]] I urge the passage of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.