On the recordApril 13, 2018
I thank the gentleman for his comments. The issue is, of course, not oversight. We believe that there ought to be oversight. The gentleman is correct, I voted ``no.'' The gentleman voted ``yes.'' Many of his colleagues voted ``no'' with me. Many of his colleagues are wringing their hands now and saying too much money was spent. But this was an agreement that was brought to the floor by the majority. This was an agreement that was negotiated by the majority. We didn't have the authority to put the bill on the floor or not put the bill on the floor. And it was an agreement. As I say, Mr. Speaker, it was a tough agreement. I didn't particularly like the agreement, but it was an agreement, and that is why I voted ``no.'' But the fact of the matter is that the majority of this House voted ``yes,'' and the majority of the Senate voted ``yes,'' and they voted ``yes'' as the result of an agreement. And, yes, of course, there have been rescissions in the past; and although I don't know what the rescissions are, there may well be a rescission that I might support. The gentleman is correct. I wouldn't irrationally oppose a rescission which said we have had money lying in an account that has not been spent for 1, 2, 3 years. We shouldn't just have it sitting in that account. The gentleman is absolutely correct. But very frankly, in my view, Mr.…





