Porter Goss

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, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon]. (Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 392 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski]. (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, 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. Speaker, the Rules Committee has carefully crafted this rule to allow for ample debate on the major issues of health insurance reform without opening ourselves up to a free-for-all. The purpose is to pass a streamlined bill that accomplishes meaningful, results without getting bogged down in a replay of last Congress' frustrating and fruitless health reform debate. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a modified closed rule that allows us to knit together the work product of five major committees. This rule makes in order as base text for the purpose of amendment the text of H.R. 3160, modified by a technical amendment printed in part 1 of the Rules Committee report. The rule waives all points of order against the bill as amended and against its consideration, except those arising under section 425(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, relating to unfunded mandates. The rule provides for a total of 2 hours of debate, with 45 minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 45 minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, and 30 minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. The rule allows the minority to offer the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as referenced to the Congressional Record in part 2 of our Rules Committee report. That amendment shall not be subject to any point of order--except relating to section 425(e) of the budget act--or to any demand for a division of the question. The amendment shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided between a proponent and an opponent. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage, without intervening motion, except as specified. The rule provides for the traditional right of the minority to offer one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, but instructions may be offered by the minority leader or a designee. Finally, this rule provides that the yeas and nays are ordered on final passage and that the provisions of clause 5(c) of rule XXI shall not apply to votes on the bill, amendments thereto or conference reports thereon. The purpose of this last provision, Mr. Speaker, is one of an abundance of caution with respect to the new House rule requiring a supermajority vote for any amendment or measure containing a Federal income tax rate increase. The provision in question in the bill is a popular one with Members on both sides of the aisle. It closes the loophole that currently allows people to renounce their citizenship to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Although most people might agree that bringing a currently exempt group of people under an existing income tax rate is not an increase in Federal income tax rates, and thus would not be subject to the new House rule, we have been advised that some might disagree. And possibly the MSA withdrawal penalty could be construed by some as a tax rate increase but I do not believe that was what the rule was aiming at. And so, to ensure that this important provision does not jeopardize passage of this bill, we are providing this protection from the rule. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this cooperative product, to provide genuine health insurance reform for working Americans. The committees of this House have taken the bill from the other body and built upon it, achieving a better product without overloading it to the point of failure. This bill improves on the other body's bill by addressing and fixing the problem of affordability. This bill ensures that individuals will not be denied health insurance if they change jobs. It ensures that individuals who move to another job that doesn't offer coverage can buy an individual policy without fear of preexisting condition restrictions. These portability provisions are the cornerstone, but we have done more because we recognize that if we provide access to the uninsured without making it affordable, we have accomplished nothing. Today, 85 percent of the uninsured work for small businesses. We respond by allowing small employers to join together to purchase health insurance. This bill allows self-employed individuals to deduct 50 percent of their health insurance premiums, giving them the same advantage larger companies already enjoy. By establishing medical savings accounts, this bill offers individuals more control over their own health care costs. We propose to limit lawsuit abuse--which drives up health care costs and makes insurance more expensive for everyone-- and attack fraud and abuse, with stiff penalties on those who cheat the system. It's a solid package of real reform. Mr. Speaker, this bill had not even been produced before opponents began tearing it apart. The same folks who in the last Congress tried to engineer socialized medicine, Government-run medicine that tells you when you are sick, what doctor you must see and what pills you must take. Well, those folks have joined together again to deride our plan which they said would ruin the prospect for health care reform. I believe their goal is to have Government run all of your lives. But this bill is a positive set of proposals for meaningful and doable health care reform now. Support the rule; support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this brilliant, fair rule. I thank the gentleman from Glens Falls for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the rule for the farm bill conference report. This is a fair rule, and it follows standard House procedure for the consideration of conference reports while fixing an important technical mistake. However, Mr. Speaker, I do have some concerns with the underlying bill. It is clearly a mixed bag for southwest Florida. On the one hand, we have seen a real breakthrough in Federal efforts to restore the Everglades--the $200 million in this conference report, in conjunction with the additional land swap authority added in conference, provides a jump start to the joint efforts by the State, the Federal Government, and the south Florida water management district to restore the everglades. This is a serious commitment, and a necessary one. We have not been good stewards of the Everglades and Florida Bay--a series of actions by the State, the federal government, agricultural interests and others has transformed a unique 50-mile wide freshwater river and its surrounding ecosystem--and not for the better. The periodic sheetflow of fresh water has been reduced, rechannelled and regulated for the convenience of agricultural interests and residential developments--causing a rapid loss of habitat necessary to sustain fisheries, waterfowl, and other wildlife. The nutrient pollution of this water has further degraded what habitat is left. Downstream, Florida Bay is dying. These situations have damaged resources that are vital to the economy and quality of life in Florida. We now understand that the once prevalent view that the Everglades is just a swamp is somewhat akin to looking at the grand canyon as just a big pothole. There has been a renewed interest in the Everglades system over the past few years, and we've seen several smaller-scale efforts toward restoration, but it is time to get the ball rolling on a comprehensive, coordinated plan to save what remains of this national treasure. And $200 million is a responsible sum to allocate. I do wish that we were more specific in identifying a funding source or sources for this money. Some of my Florida colleagues have suggested an assessment on agricultural interests that have benefited from the changes in the Everglades, and I think this idea should be given serious consideration. The taxpayers in southwest Florida are already paying more than their fair share in State taxes and extra water fees. The State has agreed to match Federal funds 50-50. Still, while I think we have some work to do in finding an offset, I strongly support the Everglades provision in this bill and I congratulate the conferees for their hard work. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support other aspects of this bill. For instance, the continuation of many large subsidy and price support programs concerns me. I recognize the difficulty involved in making significant changes in these programs. And there are some victories here--for instance, under this bill the dairy subsidy will be phased out over a 5 year period. But, the minor reforms in most of the price support and subsidy programs just aren't enough. I am disappointed that Congress has missed this opportunity to remove the heavy hand of Government from the agricultural marketplace. I do not believe it makes much sense to lock in place these special benefit programs over the next 7 years when we are committed to phasing out unnecessary Government spending and involvement in private enterprise.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this legislation, noting that 43 Governors have the line-item veto. Governor John Engler of Michigan has spoken out strongly that it does restrain unwise spending. Mr. Speaker, there are some supporters of line-item veto who may have despaired of ever getting it done. I must admit that there were days over the past 13 months when I had my doubts. Well, in the spirit of Sean Connery I am reminded ``never to say never.'' Today we fulfill a major plank in the Contract With America and implement a powerful budget-cutting tool. Title II of the bill before us is the text of our conference agreement on the line-item veto. It reflects countless hours of meetings and discussions--and an enormously good faith effort by all the conferees to ensure that this significant delegation of power from the Congress to the President is effective, workable and clearly defined. The conferees understood the magnitude of a delegation of authority of this kind. Quite simply, it is historic. Although some of our colleagues are fundamentally opposed to transferring such power to the President--any President--I firmly believe that this is a legitimate and necessary element of our battle to bring the Federal budget under control. We have been very careful in this conference report to carefully define our terms and the limitations that Congress is placing on the President's use of the line-item veto authority. The purpose of the line-item veto is to add to our arsenal of weapons against low-priority or unnecessary Federal spending. The goal is deficit reduction and we have ensured that the authority applies only to money being spent. Just as 43 Governors do today, the President, under the line-item veto, will have the ability to cancel individual items of spending and tax legislation if he believes doing so will help reduce the deficit. The burden of proof will then be on the Congress to come up with a two-thirds majority to override the President and spend the money over his objections. If the Congress is unable to muster that supermajority, then the funds are not spent and are applied to deficit reduction. The remarkable thing about this measure is that it fundamentally shifts the bias away from spending and toward saving the taxpayers money. That is a change that more than 70 percent of Americans have been asking for. Americans know that when huge spending and tax bills go to the President for his signature or veto, often individual items of less or even questionable national merit get carried into law by the greater good in the bill. That costs money-- lots of money--and that's what this tool is designed to control. Our conference built upon the House enhanced rescission model and, I believe, made it stronger by expanding the authority beyond appropriation measures to include new entitlements. As everyone knows, entitlement programs are a major culprit in our current budget imbalance--and the line-item veto should help to curb the creation of new programs that we can't afford. The conference report also allows the President to use his line-item veto to cancel limited tax benefits--provisions that are slipped into the Tax Code to benefit 100 or fewer people at a cost to the taxpayers at large. Mr. Speaker, our staff has spent countless hours refining the language of this measure to ensure that we understand the repercussions of this delegation of authority. While we recognize the possibility for gaming of the system--by the Congress and the executive--we have built in important safeguards, including an 8-year sunset to allow us an opportunity to assess the line-item veto's effectiveness. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I point out to my colleagues that the President and the House leadership have agreed that the effective date of this new authority will be January 1, 1997, or enactment of a 7-year balanced budget, whichever comes sooner. This is a practical result that ensures sufficient time for the Executive and Congress to consider the measure's provisions and impact. In addition, this specified effective date allows the line-item veto to rise above short-term political realities. I think it is an enormously sensible decision and I applaud the President and our leaders for it. Mr. Speaker, last night the other body adopted this conference report by a 69-to-31 vote. It's time for this House to deliver a similar result.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule for business at hand that allows the House to approve necessary legislation to preserve the full faith and credit of the United States--while keeping important promises to the American people. I confess, I am extremely uncomfortable voting for an extension of the debt ceiling. An offer of extended credit is a false favor to someone who is having trouble paying the bills. And the same holds true for the national budget--higher debt limits simply postpone and exacerbate the inevitable pain of paying the bill. We have a moral obligation to break the cycle of debt. Of course we know that decades of neglect cannot be reversed overnight. But that does not mean we should not spend every day moving in that direction. Although President Clinton torpedoed our effort to lock in this year a glidepath to balance in 7 years, the drive toward a balanced budget is continuing. Our new majority has already saved billions of dollars in this year's spending cycle alone. We've crafted positive reforms to preserve and strengthen our national safety net--while shrinking the size and reach of the Federal bureaucracy. We've made tough choices to secure our children's future--and we are not going to be sidetracked by President Clinton's overactive veto pen. We all know the pen is filled with red ink, just like his budget pen. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this debt ceiling increase--but only because we are finally on the right track toward a balanced budget and fiscal sanity. I hope next time we vote on the debt limit we will be voting to lower the ceiling, nor raise it. Thankfully, there is good news in this bill--items that represent promises kept to America. With this bill we will be implementing the line-item veto, a major deficit cutting tool that we are delegating to the President in the interest of saving the taxpayers money. After more than a year of hard work, the conference has completed an agreement to grant the President real, effective and carefully defined line-item veto authority over spending and tax bills. This historic delegation of power will be a significant new weapon in our arsenal as we fight for deficit reduction. It is not a matter of the President pitted against the Congress. It is a matter of the two branches of government working together to ensure wise management of the Nation's finances. For the first time, the bias will shift away from spending and toward saving. Americans understand that big spending and tax bills often get signed into law, carrying with them provisions of questionable national merit that might not stand on their own. The line-item veto allows the President to zero in on these items and bring them to the light of day. That is just the kind of accountability we so desperately need in the Federal budget process to bring our spending under control. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that this legislation includes the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act, legislation to increase, to restore some fairness to our Tax Code for seniors. I take my hat off to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] for the incredible work he has done on that, as well. The Social Security earnings limit is a dinosaur--and it discriminates mightily against those seniors who want to be productive. This is a long-overdue first step toward the ultimate goal of repealing the unfair restriction altogether. Support this rule and the bill. I take my hat off to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], for the extraordinary work they did in prevailing in the conference on this version we are passing today.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I think that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] said it very well. This is a historic day in this body. We are going to pass the line-item veto today. It is something that we have worked hard on and long on, and we finally are in a position where we are going to deliver a version of the line-item veto which works. This is part of the new majority here. We are getting spending under control. This matters to America, so I hope Americans will stay tuned. It is also remarkable to me that on the very same day we are doing this historic event, we are also going to be bringing forward the first meaningful health care reform in many, many a year for the people of this country who need access to affordable health care. That is in the agenda for today as well, and I believe we are going to get that done, too. A great day for America.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I had no intention really of using this time today. It is more by circumstance that I take it. Last night, after our long day's work here, I went home. I was having my dinner with my wife, and we turned on the TV and I was checking on C-SPAN to see if in fact we were having any further floor action on subjects that interested me. I got into the Correspondents Dinner downtown in Washington. I believe that is a dinner traditionally where the correspondents and the top leaders of our country get together and, in a good natured and good humored way, poke fun at each other; they get together and have some time of friendship and fellowship, take time out from their schedules. It is usually an enjoyable circumstance. I would say that I thought that President Clinton did an extremely good job of carrying the mood, making a fine presentation. I enjoyed what he had to say. I think everybody there did. I think Speaker Gingrich did also. I thought his remarks were appropriate, on target, amusing, and it was a good thing going on. Then, Mr. Speaker, we had a monologue from a gentleman, who I guess is a talk show host, named Don Imus, that I think went well beyond anything that should be tolerated on the public airways. I realize it is a free country, and I am in no way suggesting that people do not have a right to say or do what they want, to speak what they want. I would never take that right away from Mr. Imus. But I certainly feel that what he had to say went beyond inappropriate. It was excruciating, it was embarrassing, it was certainly blood sport. It was far more mean than it was amusing. I consider it not washing dirty laundry, but reveling in dirty laundry. And I wonder why anybody would take joy or have any particular participation in something that certainly went beyond decency and went beyond respect, particularly when we are talking about the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House, of this institution. I make these observations because I hope that the people who organize this dinner in the future will get principal speakers who will deal with the spirit of what this evening was supposed to apply itself to, which is in fact some good natured time of fellowship among people who have tremendously difficult decisions to make, tremendously difficult jobs here, who work long days at great personal sacrifice. I think we are certainly all human beings and we all have our little failures, but to go and systematically try and demean people, which is what the purpose of the monologue was, seems to me to be immensely disrespectful, and, again, I hope those folks will not have a speaker like that again. I think it ruined the evening. Fortunately, this is a free country. We are very happy that this is a free country. We just passed in this body something called the V chip, so we do not have to watch violence on TV. My TV set has a V chip already. It is called an off button, and, as a free citizen in a free country, I exercise my prerogative to turn off Mr. Imus. I hope others will do the same if they feel the same way I do about his performance last night.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, it is not often that I rise in opposition to the position taken by my colleague from California. But I am opposed to the Dreier amendment, which would alter the current allocation of targeted refugee assistance. The issues here are insufficient Federal funds and geography--and the proper response of the Federal Government to the disruption that has been caused by the failure of Federal immigration policies. Mr. Dreier proposed dividing up 90 percent of the funds for refugees assistance among all impacted counties. On its face, that might seem reasonable. But the problem is that the Dreier amendment instead of seeking additional justified funding--robs areas that are already hurting badly from lack of funds. The amendment ignores today's reality, as well as the recent past, attempting to treat all regions of the country as if they were starting at the same place when it comes to refugee policy. The fact is that certain regions of the country have suffered a systemic disproportionate and cataclysmic impact from Federal refugee programs. That's why we have in place currently the practice of targeting portions of the refugee assistance funds to deal with specific refugee crises, such as those in recent years that have substantially affected Florida. Although the program as it stands was set up to deal with the massive refugee flows of the Mariel boatlift, the last few years of United States policy in Cuba and Haiti have meant that Florida's need for special refugee assistance has not subsided. Florida counties have done their part through the ups and downs of successive administrations' policies in the Caribbean by welcoming refugee influxes from places like Cuba and Haiti. We have willingly done so, and at a very great cost to our State. However, Floridians have consistently argued that the Federal Government must be made to facilitate the resettlement of those refugees in our State. We are, after all, talking about the direct result of Federal immigration and foreign policies. As such, we support the current program because it recognizes the importance of distributing funding to areas with the greatest need. The Dreier amendment would reverse this policy. Mr. Dreier has argued that this is a matter of principle--a question of equality on its face. If that is the case, I am somewhat surprised to find that my colleague's amendment leaves in place a 10 percent discretionary program for counties impacted by Laotian Hmong, Cambodians, and Soviet Pentecostal refugees entering the United States after 1979. If equality is the issue, I would think that Mr. Dreier would argue that all 100 percent of the available funds should be on the table. Otherwise, if we are going to have targeted assistance, doesn't it make sense to lay out a formula that truly addresses the need? I oppose this amendment and hope my colleagues will join me in doing the same. The idea is to put the money where the need really is--not rely on some Washington one-size-fits-all response.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that our national debt is spiraling out of control, passing the $5 trillion mark earlier this year. To put this incredible number in some kind of perspective, the Washington Times last week gave a particularly timely analogy. It noted, just in time for the St. Patrick's Day weekend, that just the one day's increase that day in the national debt, which was around $8 billion, would be enough money to purchase 8 pints of beer at $3.75 each for every citizen of the United States and Ireland for St. Patrick's Day. That would be quite a celebration, a pretty big party. Of course, the bill for that party is going to be paid for by the children who are not old enough to drink beer yet, because we are going to have to send the bill to them. What I am saying is if we do not address this addiction to debt spending, it is our children and our grandchildren who are going to be stuck with the budgetary hangover. Most know that the first step to recovery from any kind of an addiction is to admit to the problem. The St. Patrick's Day free beer scenario underscores the need for the Federal Government to recognize and treat its addiction to deficit spending. For that reason, I rise again today to offer my annual list of specific discretionary spending cuts which, if enacted into law, could save the American taxpayer more than $300 billion over the next 5 years. The cuts provided fall into nine general categories, a nine-step program toward fiscal responsibility. These cuts dramatically demonstrate the hundreds of billions of waste that still exist in nearly all areas of the Federal Government, from social programs, to corporate welfare, to congressional and governmental operations. There is not a citizen in this country who thinks every single tax dollar that we have spent is well spent. The 104th Congress has taken on the challenges of balancing the budget with an aggressive plan to eliminate our deficit by the year 2002. Unfortunately, while Congress has made the tough choices inherent in balancing the budget, the President has mostly stayed on the sideline, playing what I think I can fairly call partisan games for short-term political gain. President Clinton has thwarted the responsible attempts to rein in spending and eliminate wasteful programs. While he has insisted that the era of big Government is over, he said it right here, his actions hardly complement that declaration. Highlights of Mr. Clinton's irresponsibility include bringing about the defeat of the balanced budget amendment. You all remember, that died by one vote, and the defeat of the Penny-Kasich spending cuts bill, and vetoing the first balanced budget plan in over a generation, which we sent to him and he vetoed. In fact, even when he finally agreed to offer a balanced budget using real numbers, he relied on accounting gimmicks, and ignored out-of- control entitlement programs. Specific recent revelations about the Medicare Trust Fund suggest the administration has been playing a shell game with seniors' health care and other mandatory programs. Even more incredibly, more than 95 percent of his discretionary cuts would not have taken place until after the year 2000. The beat goes on, and it goes on today as the President announces that he is urging Congress to increase, increase, Commerce Department funding at a time when we are moving to eliminate this wasteful agency altogether. He is also threatening to shut down the Government again, unless Congress ponies up a handsome ransom of $8 billion more for his pet projects in fiscal year 1996 spending. That is today. That is this year. While the President is quite vocal as to which programs should be expanded and increased, he has given us very few details about which should be cut or terminated. If he is truly serious about ending the era of big Government, he should get specific on what programs he would cut to pay for his priorities. As the President releases his budget today, I remain hopeful, not particularly optimistic, but hopeful, that it will contain the type of real fiscal discipline this country needs. I hope that he has a list of spending cuts that reflect his priorities and his desire to eliminate deficit spending. Mr. Speaker, my list is certainly not exhaustive, nor is it noncontroversial. There are several items on the list about these cuts that I am not particularly happy about, but I do not think they are high enough priority. Still, it begins to frame the debate in terms of our priorities and it eliminates those programs, agencies and initiatives that fail these three simple tests that we should all ask ourselves. First of all, is this a Federal responsibility? Second of all, does it work? And, third of all, can we afford it? If we do not ask those three simple questions about every program that comes forward in our budget process, we simply are not doing our job. If we could afford the luxury of endless spending, perhaps we would not have to do that. We cannot afford that anymore, and, besides, it is just good practical business, taking care of the American taxpayers' dollars, to ask those simple questions: Is this something Government should do, can we afford it, and does this thing work, is it on target? That is pretty simple. I think we can even get that message here. Mr. Speaker, I include the following nine-step program for fiscal responsibility for the Record. A Nine Step Program for Fiscal Responsibility All savings are over a five year period, calculated in millions of dollars and based on best official estimates. leading by example: congressional and executive branch reform Savings and description 2,200--Reduce the Legislative Branch Appropriations by 20 percent 284--Reduce the Executive Office of the President Appropriation by 20 percent 85--Reduce the ``franking'' allocation to Members of Congress by 50 percent 118--Roll back the Congressional Pay Raise to $89,500 2.5--Reduce the Attending Physician's Office by 33 percent 1.1--Privatize the House and Senate Gymnasiums free market agricultural reform Savings and description 12,700--Abolish the Cotton Price Support and Loan Programs 11,000--Lower target prices for subsidized crops 3 percent annually 5,000--Eliminate the Dairy Subsidy Program 3,950--Merge the Agricultural Research Service, the Cooperative Research Service and the Agricultural Extension Service; cut funding by 50 percent 1,660--End the Federal Crop Insurance Program and replace with standing authority for disaster assistance 660--Reduce Commodity Credit Corporation Subsidies to those with off-farm incomes over $100,000 200--End the Peanut Subsidy Program 100--Eliminate the Tobacco Price Support Program government for the people, not the bureaucrats Savings and Description 64,000--Lower by 10% per annum the projected growth rate of non-postal, civilian agencies overhead (excluding travel) 14,740--Eliminate DOD payments for indirect Research & Development; substitute direct R&D 8,850--Continue the partial civilian hiring freeze at DOD 6,000--Defense Acquisition Reform 3,080--Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act 2,550--Reduce DOE energy technology spending 1,900--Fully implement H.R. 2452 (102nd) to provide additional conservation measures for federal agencies 1,500--Strengthen and restructure NASA (NPR proposal) 1,000--Reduce overhead in federally-sponsored university research 900--Service Contract Act reform 858--Lower the travel budgets of all non-postal civilian agencies by 15 percent 540--Reform vacation and overtime for the Senior Executive Service privatizing and downsizing government Savings and description 9,000--corporatize the Air Traffic Control System 4,170--Facilitate contracting out and privatization of military commissaries 2,000--Privatize the Government National Mortgage Association 1,900--Eliminate the Legal Services Corporation 1,522--Eliminate the Economic Development Administration 913--Eliminate Rural Economic and Community Development (RCED) duplication with the Small Business Administration 690--Eliminate the Appalachian Regional Commission 580--End funding for all non-energy Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) activities 174--Eliminate the Rural Utilities Service (formerly the Rural Electric Administration) 140--Close the Bureau of Mines and merge its data gathering activities with other Interior research agencies 56--Eliminate the Arms Control Disarmament Agency 10--Phase out the U.S. Fire Administration foreign assistance that puts american taxpayers first Savings and description 13,125--Cut the foreign aid budget (150 Account) by 15 percent and make all earmarks in that account subject to a two-thirds vote for passage 8,100--Eliminate the Agency for International Development 1,510--Eliminate Public Law 480 International Assistance Program 150--Phase out the Foreign Agricultural Service Cooperation Funding attacking corporate welfare Savings and description 3,388--Eliminate Export Enhancement Program 3,372--Sell the Power Marketing Administrations 2,660--Phase out subsidies for AMTRAK 2,000--End postal subsidies to not-for-profit organizations (excluding blind and handicapped individuals) 1,002--Eliminate Travel, Tourism and Export Promotion Administration (as a taxpayer supported entity) 692--Sell the National Helium Reserves 660--Phase out ACTION (umbrella organization for domestic volunteer activities) as a tax supported program 500--Eliminate the Market Promotion Program 195--Eliminate Essential Air Service subsidies 121--Terminate Dairy Export Incentive Program prioritizing our social spending Savings and description 27,000--Prohibit direct federal benefits and unemployment benefits to illegal aliens 6,300--Consolidate the administrative costs of the AFDC, Food Stamps and Medicaid programs 5,700--Freeze the number of rental assistance commitments 5,400--Increase Medicare safeguard funding by $540 million over 5 years 4,900--Reduce NIH funding by 10 percent, concentrating on overhead 3,850--Eliminate ``impact aid'' to school districts with military bases 3,400--Eliminate non-targeted vocational state funding 3,060--Eliminate AmeriCorps 2,930--Eliminate the William D. Ford program (direct student lending) 2,600--Cut the National Endowment for Arts by 50 percent 2,060--Eliminate the Goals 2000 program 1,400--Scale back Rural Rental Housing Assistance program 1,400--Eliminate Office of the Surgeon General 1,000--Consolidate social services programs 990--Eliminate HUD special-purpose grants 883--Cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by 50 percent 610--Replace new public housing construction with vouchers 144--Streamline HUD ending taxpayer subsidies that degrade our environment Savings and description 7,400--End all new Bureau of Water Reclamation water projects 2,200--End Irrigation Subsidies 1,100--Privatize the U.S. Enrichment Corporation 1,000--Reduce the fill rate for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 1,000--1872 Mining Law Reform 880--End the ``Corridor H'' program 912--Eliminate the Clean Coal Program 250--Grazing Reform 235--Eliminate below-cost timber sales from national forests 80--End the Boll Weevil Eradication Program cutting out the pork Savings and description 8,850--Limit federal highway spending to the amount brought in by motor vehicle fuel taxes 6,250--Reduce mass transit grants; eliminate operating subsidies 5,150--Scale back Low Income Home Energy Assistance Grants 2,590--Terminate all highway demonstration projects 1,380--Eliminate Rural Development Association loans and guarantees 250--Eliminate redundant polar satellite programs 0.3--Close under-utilized black lung offices

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and generous rule which allows for a broad debate on a massive subject. I congratulate Mr. Smith for persevering in bringing H.R. 2202 to the floor--and I am proud to be a cosponsor. This is about the failure of the Federal Government to control our borders and the impact that failure has had on our society. Although I agree that the issues of illegal and legal immigration are distinct, I know that they are closely related. All immigration is out of control. We cannot consider either legal or illegal in a vacuum without looking at the other--a conclusion with which many Americans agree. In recent weeks the Wall Street Journal reported that 50 percent of Americans surveyed oppose any legal immigration. Such views are born of years of watching the system fail. Mr. Speaker, the problems of illegal immigration are readily definable. Today more than one quarter of all Federal prisoners are illegal immigrants; fraudulent employment and benefit documentation is rampant; and criminal aliens linger in our country at significant taxpayer expense. Well, H.R. 2202 doubles the number of Border Patrol agents; dedicates more resources to prosecuting illegal aliens; streamlines the rules for removal of illegal and criminal aliens; and strengthens penalties against those who disobey orders to leave. H.R. 2202 also clamps down on illegal aliens accessing public benefits. And it implements a program to address a major incentive of today's illegal immigration--the promise of jobs--by setting up a 1-800 number for employers to call and verify citizenship status. This provision does not--repeat, does not--create a ``Big Brother is watching you'' system with a new national identity card. And this provision is not an unfair burden on employers. In fact, employers who have tried it have given it rave reviews. When it comes to legal immigration, there are also serious problems. Today there are approximately 1.1 million cases pending in the system, which can translate into a 40-year waiting period. Those who get caught up in this bureaucratic nightmare suffer from prolonged separation from their families and uncertainty about their futures. It's no surprise that they get frustrated and seek to jump the line. H.R. 2202 increases the percentage of immigrants admitted on the basis of needed skills and education. It places emphasis on core family units, favoring ``nuclear family'' admission over ``extended family'' admissions. And it guarantees a way for bona fide refugees to enter our country in an orderly manner. Immigrants have contributed immeasurably to the greatness of this Nation. This legislation doesn't close the door--but it does seek to balance the generous nature of Americans with the reality of limited resources. That is a laudable result.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very fair rule allowing us to consider a host of important issue relating to crime, terrorism, punishment, the proper role of the Federal Government, and the rights of all Americans. The Rules Committee had a tough assignment in wading through some 70 amendments to this bill--and I believe we have done a fair job of selecting amendments to ensure a broad and inclusive debate. Mr. Speaker, in a nation that is accustomed to extraordinary personal liberties, we have had to consider the terrible reality of terrorism hitting home. The World Trade Center bombing made us painfully aware of the risks associated with living in a free society in a dangerous and unsettled world. We agree that all Americans deserve to be safe in their homes, at their schools, on their jobs, and in their neighborhoods. And we are attempting with this bill to improve our ability to meet that challenge. There is a delicate balance, however, between the necessity of empowering Government entities to protect the peace and the necessity of preserving the constitutional rights of free people in our society. I have heard in recent days from many southwest Floridians who are concerned that this bill as now written upsets that balance, overextending the power of the Government at the expense of individuals' rights. They have urged us to be sure that we do not fall into the trap of responding to the risk of terrorism at home simply by passing new legislation that does not effectively attack the problem. As have many of my colleagues, I have been reminded by my constituents that Federal law enforcement already has significant tools with which to combat terrorism--and all the new powers in this bill may not be necessary. Given this serious concern, I am pleased that this rule allows for ample time to debate the merit of the antiterrorism provisions of this bill--and to consider alternative proposals. Mr. Speaker, that being said, I believe that this bill has many positive aspects, most notably the important judicial reforms that were part of our Contract With America, passed by this house but have not yet become law. For example, we are going to offer victims of crime the opportunity to gain fair restitution. Long-overdue reform will make the death penalty a real punishment, ending in timely execution instead of the never-ending court proceedings that keep justice from being carried out. And marking dangerous plastic explosives will help the FBI solve crimes faster and more effectively. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate these issues--since they matter very directly to every family in this country. Public safety and the security of our neighborhoods is of prime concern to all of us and this bill offers a solid foundation upon which this body can build. I look forward to the debate.

Mr. GOSS

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

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 375 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. For purposes of debate only, Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 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 include extraneous material.)

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, March 8, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to all Members of the House, committee offices, and leadership offices providing notice of the amendment process to be used on H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act. This announcement is intended to serve as a reminder of that process. The Rules Committee is planning to meet Thursday, March 14, at 10:30 a.m. to grant a rule on the immigration bill. 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 Wednesday, March 13, to the Rules Committee at room H-312 in the Capitol. Amendments to the portions of the bill in the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee should be drafted to the text of H.R. 2202 as reported by the Judiciary Committee. Amendments to the portion of the bill in the Agriculture Committee jurisdiction, the guest worker program, should be drafted to the text of the Agriculture Committee reported amendment. Both of these texts are in the Office of the Legislative Counsel. 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.