Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague and friend from Florida for recognizing me. Forty years ago, if we were talking about red tide, it would be a foreign affairs or a national defense issue. Now it is very much a domestic issue. Members may not think they care, but sooner or later they will probably be in Florida or at the seashore somewhere and they may experience part of the problems of the killer red tides that we are trying to deal with. We have learned a lot. We need to know a lot more. It is not just the manatees, although they are critically endangered and critically ill because of the tide. It is dolphins, it is all kinds of fish, shellfish, which create health hazards. We have economy problems for beach front communities and fishing communities. We have tourist problems. This is a good area for an investment in quality of life. Mr. Chairman, I urge that we support this.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3474, the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996, a major reform measure. As Members know, this has twice attempted to reform welfare only to be stopped dead by a Presidential veto. It is my hope that three times will prove to be the charm and we can actually succeed in ending welfare as we know it. This rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides 2 hours of additional general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. As Members know, a unanimous consent agreement was reached to allow Members to proceed last night with 2 hours of general debate so today's time will bring to 4 hours the general debate time. This legislation is brought to the House under the procedures of reconciliation as provided by the budget resolution we adopted earlier this year. For that reason, the time is controlled by the Committee on the Budget, although I know members of the Committee on Ways and Means and agriculture committees will have time to comment on the bill's provisions. The rule provides for the adoption in the House and the Committee of the Whole an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 3829, as modified by the amendment printed in part 1 of our committee on Rules report. This amendment makes this complex bill better and broadens its support. It includes a review of State work requirements, limits on transfers into title XX programs, an assurance that States may spend their own money even after the 5-year Federal limit is reached, a compromise on the so-called maintenance of effort requirement that States have, and Medicaid contingent for cases where work requirements are not satisfied. These provisions are highly technical but also extremely important to the ability of our States to make the best use of these reforms. In addition, the amendment incorporated by this rule addresses the issue of child support and the allocation of fees, ensuring that a percentage of such funds are dedicated to local child support offices. The rule further provides that the text of H.R. 3829, as modified by the amendment I have just described, shall be considered as original text for the purpose of amendment. In that regard, the rule provides for consideration of an amendment printed in part 2 of the Committee on Rules report, if offered by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget or his designee, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. This amendment shall not be subject to amendment and all points of order against it are waived. It provides for a more stringent work requirement for able- bodied adult food stamp recipients who have no dependents. In addition, the rule provides for consideration of a second amendment printed in part 2 of the Committee on Rules report if offered by the minority leader or his designee. All points of order against this amendment, which consists of the text of H.R. 3832, are also waived. This amendment shall be debatable for 1 hour, with the time equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. This amendment shall not be subject to amendment. It is my understanding that this amendment reflects the bipartisan proposal put forth by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner]. Some Members know of this as the Castle-Tanner amendment. Finally, the rule provides for a motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, it is a somewhat complicated rule, as I have just described, but it is fair, it is comprehensive, and it does the job very well. This is an extremely complicated subject. Welfare reform has been one of the most vexing issues in modern times. Our majority has made it a priority to address the root causes of the failure of the current welfare system. I think everyone now agrees that the welfare system is, indeed, failing us as Americans. Thirty years and more than $5 trillion after it began, welfare programs we know today have very little to show for all of the good intentions they had; they have very little to show, tragically, except a self-perpetuating cycle of dependency. We have more children and families than ever before trapped today by the very same programs that were designed to set them free from poverty. It is a devastating fact that more than three-quarters of those folks currently on welfare will stay on for more than 5 years. In fact, the average family on welfare stays on for 13 years. Mr. Speaker, the bill we consider today and hopefully send to the President, and receive his signature this time, is a bold break with the failed policies of welfare as we know it. This bill says that we are committed to moving people off welfare into productive jobs. This bill says we trust our State and our local officials to make crucial decisions about solving their own welfare problems. This bill says that if you are able to work, we will help you get training and show you the way. But we expect you to go to work in exchange for cash benefits. This bill says if you are on welfare and you have more children, your benefits will not increase unless your State votes to allow it. This bill says States can enforce some tough love policies when it comes to requiring unmarried teenagers who have children to live with an adult and stay in school. This bill cracks down on deadbeat parents and boosts child support enforcement. Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize what this bill does not do. This bill does not take away the safety net for children. In fact, this bill has increased levels of funding for child care programs so parents can make the transition from welfare to work. This is not a small matter. It is in excess of $4.5 billion, so I am told. This bill also ensures that families will continue to receive food stamps, nutrition assistance, and health care. Even if they lose their cash benefits they will still be able to get these emergency needs met. This bill also grants States the flexibility to exempt up to 20 percent of their caseload from the 5-year limit, to deal with those who cannot make the transition from welfare to work. And there will be some, and they are provided for. The bottom line is that we have tried the one-size-fits-all, Washington-knows-best approach to welfare, and it has failed. It has failed tragically. It has failed miserably. It has failed pathetically. Our States and localities are asking for opportunity to do better. Under this bill, welfare reform programs such as Wisconsin Works and Florida's WAGES initiative will no longer be derailed by the Federal bureaucracy. Under this bill States will utilize on-target, creative solutions within a flexible and responsible Federal framework. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is also a budget saver. It does provide for an increase of $137 billion of the taxpayers' dollars over the next 6 years as compared with what we spent on welfare in the last 6 years, but it meets our budget targets. We are demonstrating that we can invest in our people, provide new opportunities to better deliver necessary services, and to still meet our budget targets. That is what we mean by ending welfare as we know it. We are offering something better, much better. It is true reform. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a document entitled ``The Amendment Process Under Special Rules.''

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would just note for the record that this is H.R. 3734. I think it has been misspoken a few times this morning as H.R. 3437, for those Members who are watching and tracking. It is H.R. 3734. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from San Dimas, CA [Mr. Dreier], the distinguished vice chairman of the Rules Committee. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 482 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the statement of the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Deborah Pryce, a member of the Committee on Rules, who is unable to be here.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to a few of the remarks that were made. First of all, one of the speakers from the other side said this bill is tough on welfare. This bill is tough on welfare abuse. We all know that there is a lot and we need to deal with it. We are dealing with it. Others have said that we have not provided enough for children. I would add that in the areas of child support, child nutrition, child care, we have added more than there is now under the existing system. In child care alone I understand there is an additional, beyond what we have today, $4.5 billion provided for, and I frankly believe it is in both versions that we are going to have an opportunity to consider. I also need to point out that compared to the last 6 years, which has been a time when we have been spending maximum dollars on welfare, in the next 6 years we are going to spend $137 billion more. I do not think that means we are dodging the issue. We are targeting the money better, and we are going to take care of more people with true need and stop the waste, fraud, and abuse in this program that President Clinton has asked us to deal with. I would also point out in the options that we have today the two that we are going to be voting on frankly are more similar than they are different. The point is they both bring substantial reform. I obviously prefer H.R. 3734, but others have spoken to the fact that there are great differences. Actually there are not that many differences. I would point out that we are giving in this rule two bites of the apple to the other side, which has not always happened in the past when the other side was in the majority under the reconciliation process. There was some statement made that we are having some cuts in the EITC. One of the speakers mentioned that. No; there are not cuts. There are some attempts to reduce fraud and abuse in the EITC, again as the President has asked. Mr. Speaker, I have run out of time. I urge strong support for this rule. It is an excellent rule. 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 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware, Governor Castle.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that apparently we have received the approbation of the minority with the rule. We may not agree on all of the exact bits and tenets of the different versions of the welfare bill, but we apparently have a good rule on the floor. I am pleased that everybody agrees with that. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I, and I am sure all Members, would like to associate themselves with the very fine remarks made by the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt]. 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: The Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the Committee on Commerce, the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Resources, the Committee on Science, the Committee on Small Business, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the minority has been consulted and there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is a corrections bill, it is necessary, and it is necessary now. Mr. Speaker, a stunning decision by the Supreme Court last spring once again leaves this institution above the law. In Hubbard versus United States, the Court held that section 1001 of 18 United States Code is only applicable to individuals who knowingly issue a false statement to the executive branch, implying that penalties for lying do not apply if the individual is lying to Congress. So, in effect, we have a law on the books that says individuals cannot lie to the executive branch, but it is OK to make false statements to the legislative branch of the Government. That is not good government. Think about what that means. It means individuals who do business with the Government or testify before congressional committees are not legally accountable for the accuracy of what they say and do, and that includes Members of Congress themselves. In fact, the Supreme Court's decision makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to prosecute Members of Congress who have been charged with kickback schemes, ghost employee schemes, check-kiting and falsifying financial disclosure reports. It also means that pending prosecution cases and prior convictions of Members of Congress are in jeopardy of being overturned. Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. There are no rules for criminal behavior in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct does not become a criminal enforcement committee. Mr. Speaker, this institution cannot allow criminal activity to go unpunished--and unless all three branches of Government are included in the false statement statute that is exactly what may happen. H.R. 3166, the Government Accountability Act, will extend the false statement statute, clearly and incontrovertibly, to all three branches of the Government. If we are to restore some honor to this institution and hold all Members accountable for a breach of trust--then we must include ourselves in the false statement statute, and this is what we are doing. I support this measure and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] on the way he has handled this, and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] for his insistence on bringing it to this stage.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and Florida colleague, Mr. Diaz-Balart for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this rule, which allows the House to consider the fiscal year 1997 Treasury/Postal spending bill. This rule provides an opportunity for Members to offer any germane amendment under the standing rules of the House, and allows for reasonable debate on three important amendments that otherwise could not have been considered. It is a good rule and we should adopt it. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a particular issue of real concern to me and to many Americans, relating to the White House Office of Personnel Security. This office is funded under this legislation as is the entire White House operation. In recent weeks, the Nation has learned about a serious breach of policy and potential violations of the law with regard to the Personnel Security Office and the improper request and review of sensitive FBI background information on hundreds of former administration employees. I know that the Appropriations Committee had some discussion about this, and I am pleased that this legislation includes language tightening up the process by which information is requested from and provided by the FBI. But I do not think we can let this matter go at that. In addition to making sure such a breach never recurs, we must continue to seek answers from this administration about how it happened in the first place. I applaud the two congressional committees that have been holding hearings to examine this episode. Unfortunately, it seems that each attempt by the White House to lay the issue to rest raises more questions than are answered. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have some questions of my own, sparked by a retrospective review of a little-noticed GAO investigation. Members may remember that in 1994 I and two of our colleagues asked the GAO to investigate the security pass procedures of the very same personnel office now under scrutiny. We were concerned at the time because many Clinton administration officials had not received permanent access passes and had not yet undergone the necessary security clearance procedures. We now know that, at the very time it was having such trouble completing its proper work in providing access passes to current employees, the Security Office was wrongly in possession of and improperly reviewing files it had no business having in the first place. Recent news reports suggest that there may be some direct connection between the Security Office's interest in former officials' files and problems current officials were having in meeting the rigorous requirements of background security checks. Recently we read that there was ``an aggressive effort by the two men [in the Security Office] to help prospective appointees overcome serious legal obstacles and other problems that had impeded their security clearances during the first year of the administration.'' Still, key administration officials have sought to assure the American people that there was no agenda for having those files, that they were unaware that the files were in that office--that it was nothing more than an innocent mistake. But given the fact that a GAO investigation was underway into the practices of the Security Office at the very same time, it is simply not believable that those responsible for internal control over that office would not have discovered the files as they prepared to cooperate with the GAO. It is equally hard to believe that, even if they missed the files during the review, the administration would not have discovered them had they followed up on the GAO's recommendations to consider additional controls on the security process. Mr. Speaker, given what we now know was occurring in the Office of Personnel Security, before spending one more dime of taxpayers' money there, I would like to know more about what the administration was doing behind the scenes to prepare for, supposedly cooperate with and follow up on this GAO investigation. I think the Members who requested this investigation, the Congress that received it, and the taxpayers who paid for it have a right to know. It is time for the Clinton White House to provide some solid answers to justify taxpayer support for certain of their activities. This is a good rule to get that debate to the floor. I urge support for this rule.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman from Mississippi, who is my friend and the substance of whose bill I very much support, even though I am sorry to say I am not a cosponsor primarily because I wasn't aware of the substance of all the bill until yesterday, has been guided on how to go about accomplishing his mission, observing the rules and the protocols of the House. The first we have heard about this and the first I had heard about this was last night as we were in the Rules meeting. It just so happens that through an agreement in the protocol between both parties, the minority and the majority on this, we were not able to stick to our protocols in the Committee on Rules and make him in order. However, there were other options for him to pursue without disrupting what I think is a good, open rule for us to get on with the debate with one of the major appropriations bills that has the funding for major agencies of the Federal Government and a great many people who are depending on the activities of those agencies. It seems to me the right way to deal with that is through the established rules and protocols of the House, and we have been happy to provide that information to the gentleman from Mississippi and I hope he will follow that course and he will have my support if he does. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material:

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a member of both the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], we had one member of the Committee on Rules come in unexpectedly. I would ask if I may deviate to recognize the gentlewoman from Utah, Ms. Enid Greene. It will be a short statement. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. Greene].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all point out that already we seem to somehow get away from preciseness in the use of words. I heard ``cuts in the Head Start Program.'' There are no cuts in the Head Start Program. As the charts will show and as the debate will show as we go into the 2 hours of general debate and the individual open rule amendments, I am sure we are going to see the charts are going to be displayed that in fact there are increases in programs like Head Start; good programs that deserve increases. We have before us a situation where we have many programs that are nice to have, that are funded by the Federal Government. And we have many programs that are, I guess we should say that we need to have, that are funded by the Federal Government for people who have true serious needs and no other place to turn. And I think it is important to try and make the distinctions between ``nice to have,'' and ``need to have'' programs because sometimes we forget here that all of the moneys from these programs do not come from Washington, they come from us, the people, the taxpayers, from back home. And if we do a pretty good job of what we do back home and we do not have to send the money to Washington, it seems to me we are better off. So I think when we talk about ``need to have'' programs, the taxpayers understand a little bit; and when we talk about ``nice to have'' programs, they are a little less willing to send their hard- earned dollars to Washington. I would also point out that some of the people who are working the hardest for the ``need to have'' programs are the people who can least afford those tax dollars, and I would point out that this majority is trying to relieve them of some of their tax burdens as well. What this boils down a little bit to is restraint. And I think that it is very important that we continue to exercise the restraint that we have started on in this Congress toward a balanced budget in the next 7 years. I am going to read just briefly from the administration's statement on this bill that they, apparently the senior advisors to the President, have threatened to veto. And I am going to take just one of the statements, this one has to do with the Department of Education and student loan programs and here is the statement I am quoting. And it says, ``As with the fiscal year 1996 appropriation bill, the administration continues to oppose any cap on direct lending.'' Now, that is a debatable point, but it seems to me there is not much restraint if you are not going to oppose any cap on direct spending. That means the sky is the limit. How does this match up against other priorities and other needs? Those are the kinds of concerns that I am very concerned about. I go on through the administration's statement and there are five pages of the sky-is-going-to-fall type statements in here. Then we come to some of the issues that I think Americans need to know. This is the type of thing that the administration is saying. And again, I wonder how many parents in America are going to think this is money well spent. I am quoting from the administration's statement that is saying that ``by providing no funding for the $30 million teen pregnancy prevention initiative, the committee would stall the development of critical knowledge about how to prevent teen pregnancy.'' Now, I can tell you there is probably a bunch of teenagers running around out there that could tell me a thing or two about how to stop teen pregnancy right now. And I daresay that most of us understand how you get pregnant, whether you are a teenager or not. And I wonder whether or not the sky is really going to fall if we do not spend this $30 million that the President's administration says we have got to spend. I think it is very important that we have good, informed people about all the consequences of their actions, whatever their actions and behaviors may be. But I think to say that we are going to lose the world with teen pregnancy because we do not spend $30 million on critical knowledge about how you get pregnant is stretching the point just a bit. And I would suggest that many American taxpayers are going to say that that is $30 million that might be well spent in other programs that will be better used to prevent teen pregnancy. I take a look at the total difference. It is about $5.5 billion of what the President asked, which is virtually everything that was put on the plate, because the President is in the position of being the candy store proprietor in this budget process. He can come into the candy store and say, Look, help yourself we have all of these things. Somebody has to be responsible and say yes, there are all of these wonderful opportunities, but we have to pay for these things and somebody has to pay for them and that is of course the taxpayer, and besides if we consume too much candy, we will get a tummy ache or worse. We are in a position right now of being the people who are the responsible party in the candy store and saying we have to exercise some restraint both for price and behavioral reasons about how we go about doing things, and that is what this 2 hours of general debate and these amendments are going to lead to: legitimate differences of opinion about what is nice to have and what is need to have in this area. And finally, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the proposal to defeat the rule, I think that would be a very shortsighted action at this point. We should support the rule, and we should vote ``yes'' on the previous question for a very simple reasons. We have an appropriations bill here that has got billions and billions of dollars that are necessary for many critical programs, as we have said. I think that the gentleman from Mississippi has made a very eloquent statement about an amendment that he feels very strongly about, and I frankly think it is a good amendment and I wish it could have been made in order, but we have rules in the House and his amendment is not germane. And we all know it. The gentleman's amendment was voted on in the Committee on Rules and it was voted down in the Committee on Rules because it is not germane. It is legislating on an appropriations bill. We do not legislate on an appropriations bill unless we follow a protocol. The protocol is well- known. The protocol is you have to get a letter of no objection from the authorizing committees, and we have suggested that to the gentleman from Mississippi. He has a remedy to take. And I would urge him to do it because I think he has a good piece of legislation, with a significant number of cosponsors, which will do well on its own merits properly brought forward to the House vehicle. This is not the proper vehicle, and he is asking us to violate our rules and protocol if we are going to try to defeat the previous question. So I would say we should vote ``yes'' on the previous question, and we should vote ``yes'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 the purpose of debate only. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the appropriations bill for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies always involves some controversy and usually involves much heated debate. Issues such as abortion, labor policy, the Federal role in education, stir passions and invite dialogue. I am therefore, very pleased that the rule before us is completely open. Any Member who wishes to offer a germane amendment may do so. Also, in the interest of comity and in recognition of the legitimate differences of opinion over some of the fundamental aspects of this bill, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to double usual time for general debate to 2 full hours, as requested by the ranking member the gentlemen from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and we acceded to that request. In addition, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone or roll votes, a step we have taken on many bills recently which has helped, I think, provide for a smoother and more predictable schedule for Members in committee with important business taking place off the House floor. Finally, the rule includes a preprinting option, I repeat, option, for the benefit of Members who file their amendments in advance. It is not mandatory. Mr. Speaker, there will certainly be very comprehensive debate about the specifics of this bill. In fact, I think some of it has already started on the other side. I will not spend a lot of time previewing those discussions because this is about the rule. I would, however, like to thank Chairman Porter and his committee for the good work they have done to bring this bill to the floor. This legislation, as we will all recall, was indeed a lighting rod last year, and I think most of us will also remember it spent much time being stalled in the other body. I think most Members will recognize the effort that has been made this year to produce a solid bill, one that is free from many of the controversial policy riders that hindered the progress in the fiscal year 1996 bill, a real effort that deserves our attention. While H.R. 3755 fully complies with the strict limits needed to reach a balanced budget by 2002, that is, it is on the budget glide path, discretionary funding is nevertheless up $2.4 billion, almost $2.5 billion in additional, increased spending in this bill. Although we undoubtedly will hear the charge from the defenders of big government that we are not spending enough, we will never be spending enough for some people. Instead of the old approach of funding all government programs, those big and small, good and bad, at equally high levels, which was the way we did business around here for a long time, which got us into such fiscal problems as we are having now, this new Congress, under the new majority management, has set priorities for this bill this time, providing adequate funding for those programs that were effective and do the most good, programs such as Head Start, and reduced or eliminated the tax dollars going to wasteful or ineffective or out-of-date or off-the-mark programs; Goals 2000 is one that comes to mind. This is simple, common sense, the same common sense exercised by families at the kitchen table every day as they plan their own family finances, or by shoppers at the supermarket as they go about the business of buying their necessities. I am pleased that we have been able to instill some of that restraint here in this bill. Americans are asking for that restraint. Americans are used to that type of restraint in their own affairs, and they are demanding that type of restraint for the people who represent them in this, the House of the people, where all funding bills start. I urge my colleagues to support this rule. It is a good rule. We do not ever get a better rule than this rule unless we are opposed to open rules. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio, Judge Pryce, a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 472 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this rule. I thank my friend from greater San Dimas for this time, and I rise in support of this rule for the fiscal year 1997 legislative branch appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, this is the first appropriations bill this year that has not been given an open rule--and in all likelihood it will be the only structured rule we see for a spending bill this year. Yet this is a fair rule making in order a mix of eight amendments from both sides of the aisle. In fact, most of the amendments that the Rules Committee did not make in order would not have been allowed under an open rule process. That is not to say that I disagree with much of what Members sought to do in those amendments. For instance, I strongly support reforms in the area of Congressional pensions, and I am a cosponsor of legislation to cap the accrual of pension benefits at 12 years. I think this would demonstrate in good faith to the American taxpayer that personal financial gain is not an incentive to run for office. However, there is simply no funding in this to address this issue through an amendment to this bill. I look forward to making progress in this area through the appropriate authorizing committees in the future. That having been said, I would like to congratulate Chairman Packard and the members of the Appropriations Committee for building on the reforms we began last year. We have seen dramatic changes in the way this Congress has been run--we are doing more with less, and we are committed to living within our means after decades of expansion. I am particularly pleased that the bill before us cuts a further 2.2 percent from last year's appropriated levels--a savings of over $37 million. These reforms, and others in the bill, are very important to restoring Americans' faith in Congress and our commitment to accountability and a balanced budget. I would urge my colleagues to support this fair rule.