Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inform the Chair and the distinguished gentleman from Texas that I have one other speaker who is on his way, and possibly we will have some stimulation in the debate here from somebody who is here. We are looking at winding down, but I am in the range of three or four Members.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the distinguished chairman of the conference.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemen from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman, who is making sure that everybody gets their paycheck.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is important to note and the record should show that the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, who just spoke, voted for and attached to the 1993 debt limit bill the largest tax increase in history. There was nothing clean about that debt limit bill, I am sure he would agreed. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would suggest that the full faith and credit of the United States of America would be better served if we got our budget into balance. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time given is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward, fair rule that allows for consideration of H.R. 2924, a bill to ensure that Social Security payments will not be needlessly delayed by the administration. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill to ensure that Social Security payments will not be needlessly delayed by the administration. In other words, the checks are going to go out, they are going to go out on time, they are going to be paid in full. Mr. Speaker, because this legislation involves a matter of simple fairness, and due to the predicted impending winter storm, we are bringing it up under the expedited authority granted earlier by this House. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, and preserves the right of the minority to offer a motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, we should not really have to be working on this matter at all. Despite the fact that this Congress will pass a responsible debt limit increase prior to the March 1 deadline, and despite the fact that the President has already vetoed two debt limit increases, the administration has suddenly called into question its ability to pay for the March Social Security benefits. President Clinton made suggestive remarks along these lines at State of the Union. Well Mr. Speaker, passage of H.R. 2924 will make absolutely clear that the Secretary of the Treasury has the authority to process and send these Social Security benefit checks--which are printed in late February. I find it appalling that the sanctity of the Social Security System should be brought into question in such a cynical manner. Yet we have listened to the President and some in this body employ similar scare tactics for: School lunches, Meals on Wheels, Medicare, and so on. Each time they resort to these threats, I think their credibility drops, and certainly the President's ability to work in good faith with the majority of this Congress diminishes. I would like to address the concerns raised by those who claim that Congress is somehow acting less than responsibly by going into a district work period before passing a full debt limit increase. I disagree--the truth is that this Congress has passed two debt limit measures, both vetoed by President Clinton. So, it is clear that in order to produce a bill that will pass Congress and be signed by the President, it must be negotiated. And these negotiations have not concluded. It makes little sense to keep Members in town waiting for the Clinton administration to get its act together, while Members could be spending time usefully working in their districts. That is where I am planning to spend the bulk of the upcoming work period--and the truth is that even when we are back in our districts we are still on call, ready to return at a moment's notice to deal with the people's business. So I would urge my colleagues to ignore the Clinton scare story du jour and support this rule and this bill which ensures Social Security checks are sent out on time payable in full. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Georgia for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I think it is an appropriate rule that finally takes this piece of legislation which has been moving up and down the field now, lo these many years, and finally pushes it over the goal line. I think we have come to that point. I would like to extend my congratulations to all those involved on the primary committee and all the other committees that looked at it, but particularly the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. This has truly been a remarkable product. This is a bill that is good for all, long distance, regional, new technology, broadcasters, cable, but consumers as well. Consumers, Americans, the people we work for, are going to benefit from this. Yes, there are still some problems out there with local government on revenue and zoning issues. We have assurances they are worked out, and, if they are not, then we can deal with them. Areas of duopoly, the question of free press and diversity of opinion, which are essential to our democracy, these are areas that may need further attention, and we have been promised we will get them if necessary. This is a big, important positive step we are taking, and I urge support. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding me this time and I urge support of this rule. As has been explained this is a standard rule providing for consideration of a very complex conference report. Mr. Speaker, this telecommunications bill is a remarkable piece of legislation in its overall effect. I commend everyone who has worked so hard to create a fair, bipartisan bill--wading through some of the most complicated and controversial issues of our day. According to Chairman Bliley, who worked tirelessly on this project, we have arrived at a compromise that will open the communications industry to real competition and reduce Federal involvement in decisions that are best made by the free market. As America enters the 21st century, telecommunications will be at the forefront of our continuing economic development. Congress simply cannot keep up with the development and innovation that are propelling us into the information age of the 21st century. For too long we have been constrained by the foundations built by policies written more than 60 years ago, long before cable television and cellular phones became reality. With a bill this monumental, differences of opinion will inevitably continue to exist--and the chairman himself has underscored that this is not a perfect product. I am pleased, however, that during conference the rights-of-way and zoning issues were adequately resolved. As I understand it, localities will maintain their ability to control the public rights-of-way and to receive fair compensation for its use. Federal interference is unnecessary, as long as localities do not discriminate. I think that is fair. One remaining concern I have is with restrictions on ownership of television stations. Diversity of opinion--and a truly free press--are hallmarks of American society. In our rules meeting last night, the chairman said that, although the House provision on dupolies--dual ownership of stations in a single market--was not included, guidelines for the FCC in handling such cases were. He assured me that he would look further into the matter of small television markets like those in my district in southwest Florida, where the rules on dual ownership may have unintended negative consequences. Mr. Speaker, these are relatively small issues given the entire scope of S. 652 and I am hopeful the bill will be signed into law. I understand from Chairman Bliley that necessary technical corrections and clarifications will be taken care of in the future and I look forward to addressing these final concerns when we work on the fine- tuning of this historic bill.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to catalog the extraordinary, bipartisan, bicameral efforts now underway to provide urgent relief for Florida's winter fruit and vegetable industry, particularly the tomato growers. We in Florida have been acutely aware of the damage that has been done to those growers because of import surges from Mexico. Thanks to our Florida delegation's efforts these past days, this problem has become a priority at the highest levels in Washington, in this Congress and downtown in the administration. Everyone now understands that, although NAFTA has generally been working well for our State and the rest of the United States, there has been a clear breakdown of safeguard and relief measures for some of our winter produce industries. Yesterday the Florida delegation--including both Senator Mack and Senator Graham--made a bipartisan push to attach relief language to the continuing resolution to correct a technical problem faced by Florida growers because of existing definitions in section 202 of the 1974 Trade Act. Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston, busy as he was worrying about keeping the Government open as budget matters are sorted out, made heroic attempts to clear the path for this important fix. And he succeeded in the House. Unfortunately, we hit a snag in the other body relating to adding last minute measures to the bill, and the effort failed. But this fight is not over. We are exploring every possible avenue for getting this done before the upcoming recess begins. Failing that, the plan is to get this language onto the next train that comes through--we expect that train to be the debt limit legislation coming in the end of February. The section 202 change will not fix everything, but it will help and it will put our administration in a stronger position going into discussions with the Mexican Government. To their credit, Trade Representative Ambassador Kantor and Agriculture Secretary Glickman have been working closely with the Florida delegation on this issue. The Ambassador and the Secretary joined us for a meeting this week in which we agreed on a list of measures that the administration and the delegation can pursue immediately. Section 202 changes are at the top of our task list and that is what the current push is focused on. In addition, the Ambassador and the Secretary agreed to seek to open negotiations with the Mexican Government on this issue, to support section 202 legislation and packing legislation, to work with Customs and USDA services to ensure that inspections and monitoring are done effectively at the border, and to provide an umbrella under which United States and Mexican growers can meet and work together to solve the current crisis. If all of these efforts fall short, I am prepared to take more drastic steps. Today, I am introducing legislation that would direct the President to suspend current NAFTA arrangements as they relate to winter tomato production, pending his certification to the Congress that the safeguard provisions and relief measures are functioning effectively and efficiently. This is a more extreme step than I would like to take, because it would violate the NAFTA Agreement. But if that is what it takes to fulfill our commitment to Florida growers, shippers, packers, and truckers trying to stay in business, feed their families, and contribute to the U.S. economy, then I am prepared to move forward. Florida growers perform a unique function for this country. They compete head-to-head--not with other American producers, but with foreign producers--to provide winter fruits and vegetables for Americans. Mr. Speaker, I know when Mom and Dad say ``Eat your vegetables'' to the youngsters in our Nation, they maybe do not all rise up in applause, but the fact of the matter is that we do need to eat our vegetables, and most of them come from Florida, the domestically produced in the winter, and that is an area that we have to focus on and allow those folks to continue in business. The devastation of that industry I think is truly a matter of concern to all Americans and it would be foolish not to take the necessary legislative steps to repair the problems for which we have clearly identified that we have proper solutions.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I will not use the 5 minutes, but an important event has happened in our district. When the results were in on the citizens referendum to incorporate Fort Myers Beach into a town, a resident remarked ``This is the will of the people. This is democracy in action.'' I rise today to salute the new municipality in my district in Florida, to commend the citizens on both sides of the incorporation debate for their sincere interest in bettering their community and to wish the newly elected town council well in its endeavor. It was more than 20 years ago that my own community of Sanibel, FL, took the same important step into home rule. We felt then, as a majority of Fort Myers Beach residents feel now, that home rule would give residents greater access to and control over the governance of their community. I was proud to have been involved in Sanibel's efforts of democracy in action, and I am proud today of the newest municipality in my congressional district. Fort Myers Beach has always had a distinctive character and charm. Even though we have many beautiful beaches in Lee County, FL, when somebody refers to ``the beach'' down our way they usually mean Fort Myers beach. That unique personality will no doubt flourish as the town of Fort Myers Beach sets out on the course to take charge of its own destiny. I know others in Congress join me in offering a warm greeting to southwest Florida's newest town. Welcome to the town of Fort Myers Beach.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], for his generosity and courtesy in yielding me the time. I rise very much in support of this rule. After careful consideration and looking at the legislation, I support that as well. I think it is important in the spirit of cooperation, unity, and togetherness when we have the opportunity to move forward, that we do that, and I think this fills that role. This is a very important piece of legislation. There are three issues that are at stake today. One is the question of our missile defense national security; that is a subject we are going to give considerable more attention to. The other is the question of the U.N. chain of command; that is in the newspapers today. That is a subject we are going to be hearing more about and talking about on the floor. Another is the cost of peacekeeping that the President alluded to last night. That is an area we have to focus great attention on, because adventures, or perhaps misadventures as we have had in places like Haiti, have an extraordinary cost to them. We are up in the range of about $3 billion now on that, and we do not have any way to really address those kinds of issues--$3 billion here, $3 billion there for what is loosely called ``peacekeeping'' or ``peacemaking'' suddenly adds up to some serious money and is a big issue in the question of how we do our national defense and our national security.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, January first marked the 2-year anniversary of NAFTA. As we begin the third year of tariff reductions and opening markets under this accord, it is appropriate to take a moment to assess our progress--so far reports show NAFTA has been a mixed bag: Mostly the news is positive; however, there are some serious problem areas that clearly need attention. In Florida, we are particularly concerned about the negative impact that import surges of tomatoes and other winter fruit and vegetables are having on southwest Florida's growers, the packing houses and the workers in these industries. This is a bi- partisan concern--and I am pleased that Senator Bob Graham is working this issue in the Senate. On November 16, 1993, the President wrote a letter to the members of the Florida delegation, assuring us that he was committed to taking the necessary steps to ensure that the trade representative and the ITC would take prompt and effective action to protect the United States vegetable industry against price-based import surges from Mexico. Now is the time for him to take that action because, unfortunately, it seems that the safeguards in NAFTA and the implementing language--the volume-based snapback provision, the automatic price monitoring and the expedited import relief procedures-- have not lived up to our hopes. They are not working properly. I am currently drafting legislation calling on the President to live up to the promise he made and to protect our growers from potentially unfair Mexican trading practices. In the meantime, my colleagues in the Florida delegation and I will continue to work in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion to address the urgent needs of the Florida fruit and vegetable industries. To their credit the Department of Agriculture has been very forthcoming and willing to work with the Florida delegation and our growers. Unfortunately, I have to say that the USTR could be more helpful. Of course, the administration and its officers can't fix all of the problems, some of that is our responsibility in Congress. In response to the very real needs of the tomato and fruit and vegetable industries in Florida, a series of bills have been introduced to address definitional problems faced by our growers when they attempted to seek relief through the section 202 process, to address the differences in enforced packing requirements between Mexican and domestic growers, and to create national country of origin labeling to allow consumers to make more informed decisions when they make their individual purchasing choices at the market. An invitation has been issued for U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Kantor and Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman to brief Florida delegation members on the tomato and winter fruit and vegetable situation. I understand this meeting will take place tomorrow and I hope it will bring progress we need and look for. This is a critical issue for Florida and an important one for the Nation. I think it is also a very critical one in terms of living up to the promises that have been made. Those of us who felt NAFTA would be good for the United States of America want to be certain that we correct the sore spots that are there, if they are correctable. If not, we will have to excise those sore spots with legislation. In any event, once we see those sore spots, the time is now to move, and we have seen them and we must move.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the home of the Independence Bowl, Shreveport, LA [Mr. McCrery], of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] for advising us on the Speaker's schedule. I know there are a great many people in this country who are going to be interested in attending some of those events. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis], a member of our committee.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget and chairman of the Committee on Science.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to point out that this really is not a vote about going home. This is a vote about opening up Government. This is the vote that gives us the key to getting to that clean, clear, continuing resolution that I keep hearing about from the other side. This is the vote that smooths the pathway to get us to that chance. So, Mr. Speaker, those who vote ``no'' on this procedural vote are voting to keep the Government closed and are voting to keep those employees coming to their desks and not having the money to do their jobs, and having that scenario of ``the sky is falling'' that has been so graphically painted by so many Members on the other side. So, if Members care about efficient government, if they care about having the opportunity to open it up to get the funds, the services flowing, the people back to work, then they must vote ``yes'' on this procedural vote so we can get to the next piece of business before this body, which is, indeed, a continuing resolution that does, I hope, get us to a balanced budget with the President of the United States aboard as a player.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has asked for 21 responsible Members of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives to come forward. There will be 236 responsible Members of the Republican Party coming forward today, and we will indeed provide the quick action and the morally responsible position that has been referred to by previous speakers. It is the lost liberal left and the President in the White House who is listening to them that has caused this problem. Mr. Speaker, we have had 40 years of business as usual, our social contracts are in disarray, our quality of life is down in this country, we are $5 trillion poorer because these social programs do not work, and the best that the other side can come up with is more business as usual, a continuing resolution is the answer. It is not the answer. The answer is to do what we are trying to do; that is, a balanced budget in 7 years with real numbers, and to get the President of the United States to live up to his pledge to do it.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from greater downtown Metropolitan San Dimas, CA, for yielding me this very generous allotment of time; and I rise in support of his rule. Mr. Speaker, I know that Americans are very frustrated with the twists and turns the balanced budget debate has taken in these past weeks, and I know that there have been very real sacrifices out there made by some Federal employees, their families, some entrepreneurs whose livelihood depends on the operation of the Federal agencies that are currently impacted, and some inconvenience to citizens and tourists alike who want to use facilities. I think that the bill that this rule makes in order will largely address these problems and ensure appropriate Government services are provided, a quick response that was asked for earlier today on this floor by Members of the other party. We all wish for a speedy resolution of the specific impasse that we have here so that we can get back to the work and concentrate on the main effort. The main effort is to get the President of the United States on a glidepath toward a true, 7-year balanced budget and a more efficient, less intrusive Federal Government. Along with that wish goes the resolve that many of us feel, the moral imperative; and it is a moral imperative noted by Americans across the country, not, repeat not, to squander this opportunity to bring balance to our budget for the first time in three decades and to get our spending under control. Mr. Speaker, during the long debate over the last few months, some of us have asked why can we not simply restore business as usual and worry about balancing the budget some other time. In fact I have heard some of those voices here today. In the short term this probably would smooth out a few wrinkles, but the long-term implications are devastating. It is precisely this inclination to put off the tough arguments, to postpone the really difficult decisions and to sidestep the most grueling choices that have brought us to the point where we are in this country today fiscally. We know that there is never a right time to effect major change. There are never comfortable ways to fundamentally alter the status quo, when almost all agree the status quo is broken. It is an inherently anxious and uncomfortable business that we are engaged in here. But responsible people all know that it has to be done and, if we allow this opportunity to pass by, it is going to be gone forever. The next 40 years, with the same failure rate in society and the same cost of trillions brought to us by the Democrats over the past 40 years is not a pretty picture, and it certainly is not a worthy goal for the United States of America as we start the next century. I am sorry to say that this administration, for all its public statement about wanting a balanced budget, allowed an entire month to pass from mid-November to mid-December without a workable or even serious balanced budget presentation. The President's vetoes on three major spending bills at the outset of the current shutdown ensured that tens of thousands of government employees would be in limbo during the holiday season. Frankly, it is the view of many that some in the administration have sought to use Federal employees and their families as sacrificial public relations pawns to delay committing to the terms of a real enforceable balanced budget plan. Cynically, these same victims who are Americans and taxpayers have been used as fodder in a barrage of scare stories by the White House and its tax and spend allies here on the Hill. Mr. Speaker, we do live in extremely uncertain times. We have troops in Bosnia doing the hard work of peace under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. In the private sector we read now that we have some 40,000 employees of a major company who are faced with losing their jobs due to corporate downsizing. We have Federal employees worried about when they will get paid and when this shutdown will end. We have millions of American children facing a future of extraordinary debt because of years of lousy liberal tax and spend leadership accepting the easy way out on the question of our budget. I hear some today calling for more of that. I know that real people are suffering real consequences of this struggle. But I also know that real people will suffer greater consequences if we fail to succeed in this effort. This rule allows consideration of a targeted bill to put thousands of Federal workers back to work and to get paid and ensures the continuation of a handful of vital government services. But as important as those goals are, they will be lost unless the President comes to the table with a serious balanced budget proposal so that we can take further steps to get the Government back on the track. I suppose also at stake is whether the President will keep his word. He has promised the voters a balanced budget. He has promised us a balanced budget. Now is the time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we had other speakers, but they are not on the floor. Since the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] has yielded back all time, I will yield back all time also, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 318 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 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. Speaker, this is an appropriate rule for a conference report and I am delighted to bring it to the House so that we may expeditiously consider the intelligence authorization conference report for fiscal year 1996. This rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration, and I would like to commend Chairman Combest and his staff for diligently providing our Rules Committee with detailed information about the types of waivers that this bill requires. In addition this rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, as a conferee who worked on this bill, I am very proud of our final product. Members should know that, despite all the partisan rhetoric that's been flying in this Capitol in recent weeks, this legislation is the product of bipartisan cooperation in the finest tradition of this House. Oversight of intelligence policy and implementation of crucial national security programs are very, very serious subjects and its oversight is taken very seriously. The Members of the House Committee on Intelligence, and our counterparts in the other body, sorted through a multitude of complex and vexing problems in order to complete this conference report. Although it is fashionable in today's environment to bash the intelligence agencies and complain about problems that have come to light, I think most Americans realize that today's highly complicated and chaotic world demands that our policymakers have accurate and timely information--perhaps more so in this modern information age than in any other time in our history. Of course, we must ensure that we learn from the mistakes of the past--the highly public mistakes we've all read about--so that we don't make such mistakes again. And we must also ensure that our finite resources are being put to their most effective and appropriate use and, frankly, that is what this bill is about. My colleagues, this process of review and assessment won't stop there. Our committee is undertaking a comprehensive review of our intelligence capabilities and how they can carry us into the next century; and I am proud to be a part of that effort under Mr. Combest's and ranking member Dick's leadership. Likewise, the former Aspin Commission--now known as the Brown Commission--is conducting a major review at direction of Congress. As a member of both those efforts, I assure my colleagues that this important subject is being carefully addressed and we will have reports to you back next spring. As an important piece of that whole picture, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the conference report on H.R. 1655. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am not feeling paltry today, Mr. Speaker. I admit to being a little fatigued, but not paltry. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glens Falls, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule to allow us to consider the conference report on H.R. 4, the welfare reform bill. Despite the conspicuous lack of consistent leadership from the White House, Congress has carried this bill through. There are two reasons we need this legislation. The first is that the current system is riddled with waste and abuse of tax dollars, and I am pleased that H.R. 4 will save taxpayers some $58 billion over 7 years. But more important than money, we need this reform because the existing system simply does not work for those who need it. Instead, we have designed a new system that will identify and protect Americans in their times of real need but will eliminate the never- ending cycle of dependency and illegitimacy that the current status quo system has fostered. With the help of the States, we are going to encourage people to work, to make them productive contributors to American society, giving them the dignity and sense of worth that a job provides. For our children, this bill makes two key changes. It encourages parents to work, and it aims to break the vicious circle of teenage pregnancy by unwed mothers. These reforms, along with our efforts to reform education and public housing should help us make progress in our efforts to renew our cities and save our at-risk children. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let us look at what H.R. 4 does not do. The President says funds for child care are being cut. Not true. They are going to go up faster under this bill than under current law. The President says that disabled children will not receive Social Security Income benefits. Not true. We are eliminating Social Security Income checks for kids that are hyperactive, but not for disabled children in need of special care. This bill is a good bill and it is a promise that we made as part of the Contract With America. Once again we are keeping our promises. I urge adoption of the rule and passage of this important bill. Mr. Speaker, I will say that the status quo does not work. It is bad government. We know that. Everybody knows the system is broke. We know that scaring Americans with skewed statistics is bad governance, it is not the way to do it. The gentlewoman from California before me spoke and she said just say no to this rule; just say no to this bill. There is a time to just say no, but this is not the time to just say no. This bill has been through the process. We are at the conference report process. Both houses have had a chance to work on it. I urge adoption. It is a good bill, it is a good rule, and there is no reason to say no.