Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Long Island, NY [Mr. Lazio] for yielding time to me, and I congratulate him and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach]. Mr. Speaker, this bill fixes precisely the type of senseless, really I should say dumb, regulation that the Corrections Day process was created to address. Placing violent drug abusers and alcoholics intentionally into taxpayers subsidized senior housing project defies common sense. More important, it puts at risk some of the most frail of our society, as we have heard numerous times here. There have been numerous reports of seniors being harassed, abused, and even to the point of rape, because of this ill-conceived mandate that needs to be fixed. This is wrong, and like so many big government regulations, it is hurting real people across America. Mr. Speaker, obviously seniors should not have to live in fear of their neighbors. They should not have to endure criminal activity in their homes, [[Page H 10659]] and they should not have to endure anxiety-causing rhetoric by architects of failed social experiments either. They should be allowed to enjoy their retirement peacefully, comfortably, and with dignity. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important legislation which also extends the home equity conversion mortgage program, which is of great interest to many seniors.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia [Mr. Linder], for yielding and congratulate him for a marvelous job in managing this rule. Mr. Speaker, the quality and the quantity of debate we had all day yesterday in the Rules Committee underscores the importance of the Medicare Program and the high level of interest it holds for all Members. This rule is fair and reasonable. By way of comparison, when the Medicare Program was first created 30 years ago, there were no amendments allowed, other than technical changes proposed by the Ways and Means Committee. Today's rule allows the minority two opportunities to present alternative reform plans--so let's cut out this nonsense about process. Mr. Speaker, the history of this moment should not be lost on us. We have a bedrock program that affects the most personal aspect of the lives of tens of millions of Americans--but we all know Medicare part A is a health care program that is headed over the cliff to oblivion of bankruptcy in a few short years. The Republican majority, well aware of the risks of losing the rhetorical war to the scaremongers, nonetheless has stepped up to our commitment to preserve, protect, and improve Medicare. We offer opportunity for more choice, more access, less cost. Repeatedly newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times have commended us for taking on this tough challenge. As yesterday's New York Times made clear, we are not ducking our responsibility of governance. We are not employing an oft-used technique of the Democrates in packaging this vote within a larger bill to shield Members from the so-called tough votes. We are going to pass this bill because our constituents want us to save the Medicare program, not just for today's seniors, but for their children and their grandchildren. That's the moral imperative we have before us. And I think, as Americans listen carefully to the details of what this legislation does they'll like what they hear. That's what polls show. They'll find that the scare tactics have been overblown and misleading--``medabobury'' as the Washington Post calls it. Choose our plan. Under our plan seniors who are happy with the current system can keep what they have now. Those who think they can get a better program from a health maintenance organization or a medical savings account, will have those options to choose from. Despite some claims to the contrary, we are tackling the major problems of fraud and abuse, which, by the way, are among the biggest complaints seniors have about the Medicare program. This bill provides incentives for seniors to report fraud and it doubles the penalties on those who cheat the system. And we have seen to it that this rule takes us even further, incorporating critical anti-fraud and abuse proposals drafted by our colleague, former prosecutor Steve Schiff. The Schiff language beefs up enforcement, increases civil penalties and fines, and, most importantly, establishes health care fraud as a Federal felony. Mr. Speaker, I served as a member of the Kerrey Commission on Entitlement Reform. We grappled with the fact that doing nothing means disaster for Medicare and all entitlements. Today we step up to our responsibility and offer positive action to avert that crisis. I hope my colleagues will join me in doing the right thing for Medicare, for America.

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply strikes one paragraph from the bill--language added to H.R. 39 during consideration by the Resources Committee. The provision I am seeking to remove bars two regional fishery management councils--the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic--from taking any actions to reduce shrimp bycatch for another year. ``Bycatch'' in this case refers to the finfish, turtles, marine mammals, and any other non-shrimp sea creatures that are caught and killed by shrimpers. Put plainly: Bycatch is waste, pure and simple-- the fish, turtles, sharks, and so forth are caught in the nets, die, and are discarded. How much of these resources are wasted under current practices? The National Marine Fisheries Service states that in the South Atlantic, shrimp make up a mere 20 percent of a shrimper's typical harvest--and in the Gulf of Mexico that figure drops to just 16 percent, meaning that over 80 percent of the average haul is wasted. For every 1 pound of shrimp caught in the gulf, more than 4 pounds of finfish alone are killed and discarded. Congress and NMFS have [[Page H 10237]] recognized that this level of bycatch can cause serious environmental and economic problems. On the economic front, the tremendous waste of finfish hits two Florida industries hard. It hits commercial fishermen who rely on healthy stocks of finfish like the red snapper in order to make a living. These stocks have been heavily depleted by shrimping nets and according to NMFS, ``This source of mortality would have to be significantly reduced in order to rebuild red snapper stocks within the time frame established by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council without halting all directed commercial and recreational red snapper fisheries.'' Other commercial finfish stocks are also threatened. Another industry important to Florida is recreational fishing. Former President Bush and millions of others enjoy Florida's coastal waters for the excellent sport fishing opportunities. But the stocks of gamefish are dwindling-- in some part due to bycatch by shrimp trawlers--and we in Florida cannot afford to lose this resource. On the environmental front, the decline of fish stocks overall has a negative impact on the entire food chain and could potentially throw the whole system out of balance. In addition, endangered sea turtles have historically been caught and killed in shrimp nets. While efforts in the gulf--specifically the use of turtle excluder devices--have reduced the take of these creatures, the death rate has climbed this year, and it is clear that more could be done to reduce turtle deaths. Again, in the State of Florida this is a fairness issue: residents of Florida's coastal communities have imposed strict limits on the size, location, and lighting of houses--partly in an effort to help the endangered sea turtles. These measures won't make a difference without the cooperation of those who share the gulf's resources, including the shrimpers. Mr. Chairman, others will argue that allowing this exemption for the shrimpers in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico is unfair because it puts their own fishermen at a disadvantage--but I will leave that to them. I am here as a gulf coast Member, representing Southwest Florida. And the message from my district is very clear--don't waste more time and money on studies of this problem. Since 1990 we've spent some $7.5 million on studies--all the while delaying action. The time has come to move forward and allow the fishery management councils to do their jobs. I would ask my colleagues to support my amendment which allows councils opportunity to get on with the job of reducing unnecessary and significant bycatch waste.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], chairman of the committee, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, despite all the hard work by so many on this bill, including the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, I reluctantly rise to register my disappointment with the Agriculture appropriations conference report, and on a related note, the real lack of progress Congress is making on bringing real reform to agricultural price support and subsidy programs. Despite statements from the leadership that this session would bring genuine reform of Federal agricultural policies, it seems that at the end of the day very little may change with regard to sugar, tobacco, cotton, and other programs. The sugar program is of particular concern to those of us from the State of Florida and, in fact, what compels me to be here today. It is a Federal program that continues the direct involvement of the Federal Government in the marketplace--where it does not belong. In addition, the sugar program has a unique impact on Florida because it artificially supports and encourages farming a crop that is known to damage the Everglades ecosystem and Florida Bay--true national treasures. If this Congress falls short of achieving the repeal of sugar's benefits, I hope the committee will work with the Florida delegation to deal with the consequences of this Federal program for our State--possibly by using dollars from Florida sugar producers to bolster efforts to save the Everglades and Florida Bay. This is the absolute minimum I will accept.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further speakers at this time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no speaker scheduled at this time and I continue to 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 yield is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to include extraneous material in the Record.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple, very fair rule for the consideration of the conference report for H.R. 2126, the Department of Defense appropriation bill. We provide for an hour of debate, and all points of order against the report are waived. It is that simple. As we rapidly approach the end of the 1995 fiscal year, and it becomes clear that we will not be able to have all 13 appropriations bills signed into law by October 1, I am pleased that we are making defense a priority. The Constitution explicitly requires Congress to provide for the national defense, and it is entirely appropriate that we are moving this bill today. Many people, myself included, feel that this administration has allowed our military readiness to decline at an alarming rate. I am concerned that scaling our Armed Forces back too far in the name of peace may actually invite new aggression. Certainly the Soviet threat is gone, but in the wake of its passing, we are left with multiple problems. Mr. Speaker, the lessons of history serve us well here--allowing our defensive capabilities to be reduced too much could easily be an invitation to aggression against American interests abroad, or even here at home. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, United States troops have been far from idle--they have been actively involved in a major shooting war in the Gulf, and many hotspots such as Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia. New threats have emerged, too. Many relatively small countries are gaining access to advanced equipment such as submarines and nuclear weapons. And international terrorism has reared its ugly head here at home. Mr. Speaker, being prepared means meeting our defense needs--from top to bottom. And the little things are important--it does an army no good to have thousands of soldiers, equipped with the latest weapons, if those soldiers do not have boots for their feet. My friend and colleague, Bill Young, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, vividly demonstrated for the Rules Committee all the small needs like boots, laces, and so forth, that were not currently being met by stretching a list of these items from one end of the Rules Committee hearing room to the other. I am pleased that we have made some real headway in correcting these problems in this bill, and I urge adoption of the rule and the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I will only say that this vote is about the rule. It is a good rule. It is a fair rule. They do not get any simpler or better, when we come to rules. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 232 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this rule and I thank my friend, the vice-chair of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, for yielding. For those who despair that partisan politics have ground the legislative process to a halt, this rule and this continuing resolution should provide some encouragement. Today we have before us the product of good faith negotiation and practical cooperation between the Houses of Congress and up and down Pennsylvania Avenue. The continuing resolution reflects a bipartisan commitment to ensuring that the Government continues to function beyond the first of the fiscal new year. Yet we must be perfectly clear--this continuing resolution is temporary--lasting no more than 6 weeks--and it is carefully designed to squeeze discretionary spending enough so that all parties to the budget negotiations will have the incentive to get the real job done in passing--and signing--the 13 regular appropriations bills. This concurrent resolution reflects our commitment to balancing the budget and cutting Federal spending, while allowing us to work out some very deep philosophical differences on issues involving the size and scope of the Federal Government. That work lies at the heart of what must be accomplished in our congressional budget process. I know that many Americans are concerned about what has been labeled an impending train wreck in the budget process. While we have yet to reconcile the issues of Medicare, Medicaid, welfare and other major components of the budget picture, today's action at least clears the way for the discretionary spending train to leave the station, only slightly delayed, but on the right track. Mr. Speaker, this rule, as has been explained, is simple and should be noncontroversial. Although few people believe that continuing resolutions have been--or should ever be--standard business, today's rule is highly standard for such matters and I hope my colleagues will support it. I would like to note that we did have some testimony in the Rules Committee from Members taking a longer view of the congressional budget process, seeking a way to avoid annual action on continuing resolutions in the future. While we are not able to resolve that process question here today, I would like to assure Members interested in the broader topic of budget process reform that our Rules Subcommittees, chaired by Mr. Dreier and myself, have been reviewing our entire budget process and seeking opportunities for reform. We welcome the input of all Members. While process cannot protect us from making the tough policy decisions needed to find balance in our budget, it can help us adhere to those decisions once they are made.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues will join me in extending a warm welcome to today's guest minister, the Reverend Dr. Kurt Gerhard Jung. Reverend Jung is a constituent of mine from Cape Coral, FL, which is the largest city in my district, and I am delighted to introduce him to the House and to thank him for his inspiring words of opening prayer for today's session. Reverend Jung has devoted the better part of his life to public and spiritual service, both in this country and in Germany. He served in the U.S. Navy during World War II and has taught religion, theology, and language courses at a variety of higher learning institutions in this country and abroad. During his nearly four decades in Germany, in fact, Reverend Jung served as the adjunct chaplain to the American military forces in Berlin and presided as senior minister in several German churches. Although he describes himself as semiretired these days, he is certainly quite active in the southwest Florida community that I live in, teaching Bible study, filling in for other pastors, and doing all kinds of good works for our community. He and his wife, Ruth, have three children and three grandchildren. One of his children, David, is known to many of our colleagues because he serves us well on the staff of the Committee on International Relations. We are most pleased to have Reverend Jung and his wife, Ruth, and children, Nancy, Jonathan, and David, and grandchildren, Jan, Andreas, and Karsten with us today. We wish them a warm welcome and thanks. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for 6 years I and my staff have worked with victims of hemophilia-associated AIDS seeking justice and assistance from the Federal Government. Because hemophiliacs rely on blood- clotting products made from human blood, they are at an enormous risk of contracting blood-borne diseases. In the 1980's, tragedy struck this community, and approximately 8,000 Americans--or one-half of all hemophiliacs in this country--became infected with the deadly virus that causes AIDS. This tragedy occurred in part because the Federal Government failed to fulfill its unique responsibility for regulating the safety of blood products and for taking aggressive action to prevent the spread, through blood products, of the HIV virus. That conclusion was strongly supported in a recent report of the Institute of Medicine, a highly respected, objective, scientific analysis arm of the National Academy of Sciences. This report has confirmed my belief that the Federal Government shares the responsibility for what happened, since the regulatory system failed to respond to the clear early warning signs of blood-borne AIDS. As a result, in my view the Federal Government has a clear and compelling obligation to provide compassionate assistance to the victims of what has been called the worst medical tragedy in modern history. I have introduced legislation, called the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act, to establish a compensation program that would allow the Government to own up to its obligation. This bill is named for a 15-year-old Florida boy who died in December 1992, and whose family today still suffers from his loss and the ongoing illnesses of Ricky's two brothers, who are also HIV positive hemophiliacs. The Ricky Ray bill, which carries more than 125 bipartisan cosponsors, establishes a trust fund from which eligible victims could each claim $125,000. The legislation specifies that the trust fund, once authorized, would sunset after 5 years and would be capped at a total of $1 billion, with the funds to come from the annual appropriation process. Some people have asked, what makes these victims special? What is it about this tragedy that moves us to provide Government compensation? What is unique about the victims of hemophilia-associated AIDS? In my view, the record is clear: Government has established a unique regulatory scheme for blood products, overseeing their safety under the auspices of both the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Biologics Act. In making its regulatory decisions about the safety of blood products, the FDA, until just recently, relied heavily on advice from an advisory panel comprised in large part of people with expertise from the blood banking industry itself. In addition, we have a national blood policy, established in 1974, that outlines our commitment to blood and blood products as a national resource. And blood products are exempted from national product liability legislation, fostering the development of a unique legal framework in which blood products are shielded from normal product liability standards under nearly all State laws. Mr. Speaker, this is a brief outline of why I believe a strong case can be made that this situation--in which we have about one death every day of a hemophiliac with AIDS--is unique and requires a special Federal response. I understand that the Federal Government cannot become involved in every tragic case that occurs in this country. But this case is unique--and the Federal Government has a unique responsibility for what went wrong. I urge my colleagues to look at H.R. 1023--and I again ask that our Judiciary Committee schedule hearings to consider the complex regulatory, legal, and ethical questions this tragedy raises. Mr. Speaker, it is not going to go away. Every day one more person is going to die tragically, and it is partially our fault. We need to deal with it.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 927, legislation that refocuses attention on the root of the problem in Cuba--Fidel Castro. His willingness to use his people as a leverage point, by deliberately manufacturing refugee crises, has been his greatest weapon. He has done a much better job of using this weapon than we have using ours--the embargo. But today Fidel Castro's regime is struggling to collect the hard currency it needs to survive. H.R. 927 ups the economic pressure on Castro by cutting off the currency supply line, in particular by sanctioning foreign investors willfully trafficking in the confiscated property of American citizens. The bill goes further to address some of gaps left by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act regarding U.S. policy for the transition period after Fidel Castro's departure and before democratic elections. It is time for America to stand its ground and it is time for Castro to go--only then will we be able to re-embrace the closest of our hemispheric neighbors. I look forward to that. And that is what H.R. 927 is about. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is not only House Republicans that are questioning the barrage of scare tactics on Medicare that are being presented by the Democrats and certain of their special interest associates. Last week's Washington Post editorial entitled ``Medagogues'' puts the entire Medicare debate into perspective by comparing the two parties on this critical issue. Mr. Speaker, as you may be able to see from this copy, the Post finds the Republican plan to be credible, gutsy, and, in some respects, inventive. It addresses a genuine problem that is only going to get worse, as we all know. What the Democrats have, instead, is a lot of expostulation, TV ads, and scare talk, so says the Washington Post. The Post is not generally given to commenting so harshly about Democrats. The Post goes on to wonder about how the Democrats propose to finance Medicare without real structural change. They conclude that they are listening in vain for a real response from the Democrats. Mr. Speaker, I join with the Post to call on my Democratic colleagues to abandon the politics of fear and join us in saving Medicare for current and future beneficiaries. The country needs it and we can do it.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric has gotten pretty thick and possibly even a little sick around here recently, even by Washington standards. That is why I thought it would be helpful to take a look at the bigger picture. Specifically, I would like to take a moment this morning to investigate the long-term ramifications if we heed the advice of House Democrats and ignore the pending bankruptcy of the Medicare reform situation. This chart, compiled by the bipartisan Kerrey Commission on entitlements, which I served on last year, states in no uncertain terms the dire consequences of inaction, of doing nothing. As you can see, in this area here, under current trends, by the year 2012, this year right here, which is only 17 years away, outlays for entitlement spending and interest on the national debt will consume all tax revenues. That is the green line. When this line is exceeded by any one of these columns, we are spending more than we are taking in. And in this case, entitlement spending and interest alone on the national debt will consume all the revenues we have collected by the Federal Government. There will be nothing left for anything else, law enforcement, military, or anything like that. By the year 2030, entitlement spending alone will consume all tax revenues collected by the Federal Government. This is a major crisis, albeit it is a little hard to grasp and it threatens every Federal program, including the entitlement programs themselves, whether they are Medicare, Medicaid, veterans, even Social Security. You name it. We have to do something. Mr. Speaker, what is driving this explosion in entitlement spending which we are seeing in this chart? There, in fact, are many factors, but primarily it is the out-of-control and gigantic increases in Medicare spending. We all know that the Medicare trustees' report states that the Medicare part A trust fund will be bankrupt in 7 years, in the year 2002. Ninety percent of Americans understand that according to the polls. Mr. Speaker, essentially we have two options. We can reduce costs and reform the system now, which is what the Republicans are trying to do, or we can wait and raise taxes again later, which seems to be the plan of the Democrats. A study conducted by John Berthoud of the Alexis de Toqueville Institute underscores the dire ramifications of raising taxes rather than addressing the inefficiencies in the current system right now today. His study backs up the Medicare trustees' own numbers showing the potential disaster for future beneficiaries and taxpayers. If we do not act until 2002, as the other side seems to advocate, the payroll tax would have to more than double, rising from the current 2.9 percent level to 6.81 percent just to bring the fund into long-term balance. A tax hike that steep would mean over $1 trillion in taxes over the next 7 years alone on American taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, to bring that astounding number into human terms, a worker earning $45,000 would have to pay an extra $1,500 in nonrefundable payroll taxes annually. That would be $4 a day more every day, Saturday and Sunday and holidays included, $4 more in taxes every day just to cover the trust fund of Medicare if we do not act now. And that is just part A. Assuming middle-of-the-road projections, the part B taxpayer subsidy will grow to $147 billion by 2004 if allowed to remain in auto pilot, which is where it is now. That is four times what it is today. Mr. Speaker, where are we going to get that kind of money, $147 billion? You guessed it, from the taxpayers. The leadership on the other side of the aisle last week in the Washington Post accused Republicans of playing a shell game and disguising the real costs of Medicare reform. What they really should acknowledge is the tremendous cost of maintaining the status quo and the increasing cost of the future status quo they advocate. Mr. Speaker, my constituents gave me a clear message over the August break: Go back to Washington and do what it takes to fix the problem. They have seen payroll taxes increase before, in fact, 23 of them in the past 27 years. Twenty-three payroll taxes and they know that isn't the answer. [[Page H 9036]] By expanding choice and utilizing reforms that have worked in the private sector, we cannot only save the Medicare program and strengthen it for our current and future beneficiaries, but we can also provide a brighter future for our children and grandchildren. We do have a program that will work and that is what we are going to do, hopefully with the bipartisan support and hopefully with constructive cooperation from the White House. Meanwhile, all the scare ads on TV, the class warfare stirred up by the liberals, and the generational debate hyped by the cynics does not solve the problem and does not make America a better place to live. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are trying to offer a positive solution to a real problem. Even if we do not get all the details exactly right the first time, we will get the details right and we will have made an important change for every American's quality of life and pocketbook.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

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 yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1162, the Deficit Reduction Lockbox Act of 1995, an important budget tool to hold us accountable for making sure that spending cuts translate into savings for the American people. I am delighted that we are following through on the promise of considering the lockbox as a freestanding bill. As Members know, this House approved the lockbox as an amendment to the Labor-HHS spending bill in early August. If it were up to the clear majority of this House, lockbox would be the law of the land. But of course we know that ours is a bicameral legislature, and we must secure enactment of our good ideas by convincing our friends in the other body to concur. In sending them lockbox legislation as part of a spending bill and a freestanding bill, we are sending a clear signal that we are committed to lockbox and we want them to act. Although there was much agreement on the Rules Committee proposal, we do expect several issues to be raised during the debate. The open amendment process will provide Members the chance to air any remaining concerns they have in a full and fair way. Once again the rule provides the option for priority recognition to those Members who have had their amendments printed in the Congressional Record. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides an hour of general debate and makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules. The rule also provides that the amendment considered as read and open to amendment at any point. On the advice of the Parliamentarian, this rule waives clause 7 of rule XVI against consideration of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The reason for this germaneness waiver is somewhat technical. The original bill as introduced by Mr. Crapo in March proposed a lockbox mechanism called a trust fund to be maintained in the Treasury, while the Rules Committee has recommended a lockbox mechanism called an account to be maintained by the Congressional Budget Office. The end result of this is the same: we want to ensure that a cut is really a cut; that when we say we are saving money by spending less in appropriations bills we follow through on that commitment. The change in terminology apparently raises some germaneness questions but the outcome is the same. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. I would like to commend Mr. Crapo, the entire bipartisan lockbox team, our Rules Committee Chairman, the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, the Budget Committee, and the Appropriations Committee for the enormous cooperative effort that went into the lockbox. The lockbox team spirit could be a model for how this place can and should operate to do the Nation's business. This is a good rule, a good bill, and I'm proud to have played a part in getting us to this point. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record material from the Committee on Rules:

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 218 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. tomorrow, Thursday, September 14, 1995.