Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to end a powerful, but little-publicized perk associated with Congress. My bill will repeal the Ramspeck Act, which for 55 years has quietly allowed former congressional and judicial employees to burrow into the civil service--given priority consideration over all other applicants, and full seniority when hired--upon the retirement, election defeat, or year-old solution to a problem that no longer exists--namely the hiring and retention of congressional staff. I think we all agree that we have hard-working, dedicated staff, and this is in no way meant to denigrate them or the work they do. But to give any applicant for a Federal job such preferential treatment is wrong--and I hope my colleagues will join me in working to end this practice which smacks more of who you know than how good a job you can do.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, NY, for that extraordinarily over generous introduction. I am petrified to say anything, lest it be disproved. Mr. Speaker, what we have got in front of us is a modified open rule which actually has got a time limit on it, which is the only reason it is not a full open rule. It is a time limit of 10 hours of debate. The 10 hours of debate was thought to have been more than adequate by the Members who have brought this to the Committee on Rules for consideration, the type of rule we are bringing to the floor. And in fact, it was, I think requested pretty much by everybody, and we specifically asked if the chairman of the committee had an objection. He said, no, he felt it would be all right. So I think we are well within the spirit of an open rule, if not technically a full open rule, if it is modified. We did have a lot of discussion, again, at the request of the chairman of the committee, and the ranking member. Excuse me, it was the ranking member who agreed that 10 hours would be enough as well as the chairman. And both the ranking member and the chairman themselves suggested that we have something like an hour and a half or so of general debate. Well, we had planned for an hour and a half but, in discussing this in the Committee on Rules, we brought that back to 60 minutes of general debate. Actually, on the motion of a member of the minority, because there was a feeling that we had taken care enough of the general debate in this and more time that way for amendments. And that seems a reasonable proposition. So we have carved a rule here that has actually considered the time very, very carefully. And we think we have got one that gets as much time as we need focused on the areas that it needs to be, both in terms of general debate and in terms of amendments for all Members who come forward and deal well under the 5-minute rule. Once again, we have put in what we think is the very helpful preprinting option. It is not a requirement. It is not a mandate. It merely allows every Member to tell us ahead of time what his or her amendment will look to the legislation. That allows Members to become acquainted with those amendments. It allows the proponents of those amendments to get some support for their amendments going. And frankly, I think it enhances the process of deliberation and helps us get better laws enacted when we understand what it is we are talking about. We have more time to digest them and we have the opportunity to ask questions of the proponents of these amendments that occur to us not at the last minute but through a deliberative process, after having reviewed what amendments might come forward. Basically, I think it is better government. I want to speak just for one second to the bill itself. In the Committee on Rules, we had some concerns from the ranking membership side on behalf of the ranking member about accountability. Are we somehow or other dodging accountability by going to these community development grants? And the answer, in my view, as member of local government, having graduated from local government to the Congress, if that is the right term, is that I do not think there was less accountability at the local level. I think that there was more accountability at the local level. It is very simple. That is where the front lines are. When someone is down there and they are at municipal meetings or their country commission-type meetings, or state meetings, they generally have more people directly interested in the audience looking at them, eyeball to eyeball, and giving them their opinions, usually rather unrestrained. Mr. Speaker, I think I can honestly say I do not remember times when there is more interest in the agenda at the local level than when the sheriff is doing his annual budget, or when the police departments are doing their annual budgets in the municipalities. Those are the times when the scrutiny really happens. That is when you get the really impassioned testimony about crime, or need for more police on the street, or need for specific programs tailored to the individual requirements of the community, not the one-size-fits all mandates from the Federal Government which are so wasteful and so often so off target. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the question, the shibboleth that somehow there is no accountability in this program is not a valid observation. I would report further on that, Mr. Speaker, that in fact we have put in some safeguards to make sure there are report-back systems, there are monitoring systems, and, indeed, there is some built-in accountability and scrutiny under the legislation that has been proposed. The other thing that I think needs to be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, is that we sometimes have mischaracterized what is going to happen, it seems, in this bill, that somehow or other all the police are going to no longer be on the beat. I have heard all kinds of hyperbole and exaggeration. That could not be further from the truth. What is going to happen is that locals who have a direct first-hand confrontational day-to-day existence with the criminal element are going to be able to take resources which they desperately need and put them right where they need to deal with the criminal element. I think that makes a lot of sense. I think it is a much better, more straightforward deal than saying, ``We are going to give you a bunch of money to go out and hire some policemen for a few years, and then we are going to take the money away from you. Then you are on your own.'' You have created a false expectation, you have created a serious problem, a level that the local governments cannot sustain, and the only recourse they have is either to retire those policemen, those law enforcement officers, or to raise taxes, by and large. We saw it with the CETA program. We saw it loud and clear. I was in local government at the time and I know we got left hanging out there. I am afraid that is what would happen if we did not fix this bill as we propose to do under this legislation. I, for one, Mr. Speaker, feel this is a decided improvement. While we have given it a great rule, so we will have plenty of debate on this and the other subjects that are certainly worth debating. I hope that, when all is said and done, that not only do we have the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] not opposing the rule, we appreciate his support, but we also have him not opposing the legislation. We will wait to see how the debate comes out. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding time to me.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, once again I am delighted to rise in support of a wide open rule that offers all Members the chance to become involved in this important debate. The issue of crime as it relates to illegal immigration is one of great significance to many Americans, and especially to the people of Florida. The statistics tell the story of how illegal immigration and crime have joined together to wreak havoc in States like Florida. In Florida, we would need to build 4 to 5 more prisons just to house criminal aliens--at an estimated cost of $80 to $120 million. By strengthening the laws providing for prompt deportation of criminal aliens and making penalties more certain for deported aliens who return to this country illegally, we take a big step in helping States--especially border States--cope with the complex challenges and of illegal immigration. Obviously Florida will benefit in the long run by a more efficient system for speeding deportations, but in the meantime, the costs continue to mount as we grapple with the fact that approximately 10 percent of our prison population is made up of illegal aliens. For too long, illegal immigration has been a problem sloughed off onto the States. This is a Federal problem--caused by failures in Federal policies--and it is highly appropriate that the Federal Government step in with solutions. H.R. 668 is just such a step forward. I am grateful for the bipartisan effort in the Rules Committee--led by Mr. Beilenson and Mr. Dreier--to come up with a creative way to solve a thorny Budget Act problem posed by language in this bill. In considering the preceding crime bill--the prison bill--yesterday, we demonstrated that the spirit of compromise can lead to a win-win situation. We included important language in the prison bill providing priority in securing crucial resources to States that have been straining to meet the demands of illegal immigration on their prison systems. Deliberative democracy has been working at its best in this House during the course of this debate and I commend all of those involved for their persistence. I urge support of this rule and H.R. 668. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. know many of my colleagues from Florida and other affected States have spoken on this. I wanted to get up and also join the applause for those who have worked out this very complex and difficult solution to what is a very important problem, obviously the chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], for the work he has done, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] on the Committee on Rules, and many others who have labored long and hard. We are a little bit in the situation that probably a lot of American households find themselves when you do not have enough money to the end of the month to pay all the bills. You sort of stack them up. You say, ``Well, I don't have enough money to do all of these bills so I am just going to do this one and this one; I will do the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker this month, but will let the gas company wait.'' What happens is sort of the wheel that does not squeak is always the one that stays in the pile that does not ever get paid off, and over the years the Federal Government has just been a giant household that has run up a big debt and has not paid all of its bills, and it seems that every year the good guys who do not make a big enough squeak are the ones who do not get paid for what they have done. This is a piece of legislation that finally tries to deal with that. It does not solve the whole problem, and it is not retrospective, of course, but it does try to say to folks who are doing the right thing out there on the front lines and say, ``Hey, we know we owe you, and we are going to start paying the bills, at least some of the bills.'' And I am very thankful that we have gotten to this point under the leadership so far to carry this thing forward. Yes, we could have done this a lot of different ways. There is no question about it. This was not easy to craft, I know, but I think we have come to something that is pretty good. We have got assurances it is going to work, and I think the people who have been bearing the disproportionate burden of the cost over the years can look and smile and say, ``We are making some progress on this thing.'' I am sure the statistics have been made about my State of Florida; the load we are carrying down there has gotten so out of control that 10 percent of our overall prison population is what we are talking about here, more than 5,000 people, and we are talking about not a few dollars. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, even so much so that the Governor of our State has felt the necessity to bring a suit against the Federal Government for a billion dollars to get some claim on back money. Now, that suit did not get very far, but at least we now have something that says we are going to start setting up the system that is going to allow for the great household that is the Federal Government to start paying more of its bills more equitably, and that folks who have waited the longest and perhaps for the most money finally see some relief in sight. I want to again congratulate those involved and thank you for the opportunity to say these things.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Columbus, OH, Judge Pryce, for yielding this time to me and would like to say how happy we are to have her as a member of the Committee on Rules. It is already making a difference, as you have just heard. Mr. Speaker, what a difference 7 months makes as well. Last August this House spent countless hours in an effort to pass a crime bill conference report that I do not think anybody was enthusiastic about. After keeping Members in town for an extra week and a half of sweet persuasion, as I think Speaker Foley used to call it--some others of us would call it arm-twisting--the Democratic leadership was able to eke out a very small majority to pass out the rule and the bill. I had the privilege of managing the crime bill rules for the minority last August, and two things about that debate really stand out in my mind. The speech by Minority Leader Bob Michel preceding the original vote on the crime bill, I think, can now be seen as the turning point in 40 years of congressional history and, in some ways, the start of the 104th Congress. An energized Republican minority at that time joined by dissatisfied Democrats defeated the rule, actually defeated the rule, signalling the beginning of the end, I think, for the old order. Republicans won a hard-fought battle for a seat at the bargaining table because of that vote, primarily, and many saw for the first time a light at the end of the permanent minority status tunnel that we were in. However, despite that long bipartisan negotiation that followed, I think most Members of the House were under-whelmed by the final crime bill product, and so here we are today. Our Members on this side in fact did make a promise then, we promised to revisit the crime bill and to address its many shortcomings if we were put in the majority. The American people listened, and we are here today as the majority. A short 7 months later, just over a month into the 104th Congress, we are fulfilling that promise. And we are doing so under an open rule. Let us not forget that the original rules, there were several of them for consideration of last year's omnibus crime bill, were some of the most creative, I think you can read contrived for that, that we have seen, including special provisions to report and consider a rule on the same day, a multitude of waivers, including waivers for not having a report on the bill, a report on the bill, and for dispensing with the normal 3-day layover. In other words, Members did not necessarily know what was in the bill. And a closed amendment process that picked and chose among the scores of amendments that were actually filed. What a difference 7 months make, and what a difference a new majority makes. Today we have an open rule, as promised, to proceed under. So I cheerfully urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill. It is worth your vote.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, today I present my annual list of specific spending cut suggestions. I introduced these yesterday in the Record. Today I want to talk a little bit about them and elaborate on them. These are 75 discretionary cuts which would save an estimated $275 billion, those are taxpayer dollars, over the next 5 years. That is just about double the amount of spending cuts the President has offered us in his most recent budget package. These savings could be produced without touching a single nondiscretionary item. Let me put that into English for the rest of America. Nondiscretionary item would mean entitlement, and that translates into Social Security, Medicare and so forth, Medicaid. This list of budget cuts I am submitting does not touch Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or any of those items that we call entitlements. It is only the discretionary items, the things that we control the purse strings on here in the House of Representatives, the power of the purse as it were. It is imperative that before we ask Americans to sacrifice any of their earned benefits we demonstrate an ability to root out the hundreds of billions of dollars of wasteful spending in this Government. And that is not just rhetoric. That is something that the Grace Commission, the GAO, anybody who has looked at our spending here will tell you, that every year we have waste by the billions, by the tens of billions, by the hundreds of billions. How in the world are we going to balance the budget and do all of these things we have promised if we have not until we get at it, and the hard work of pinning down the specifics has got to start somewhere. That is why we submit our list of what could be cut. Mr. Speaker, an administration official was quoted in Sunday's Washington Post as saying that ``While the deficit is not optimal, it is not out of control.'' Let me tell my colleagues, the national debt is $4\1/2\ trillion. The debt service on that is about $250 billion every year, every year, $250 billion, so that is a trillion every 4 years just in interest payments. Put simply, this empty rhetoric does not put, in my view, the administration in a very good light. I wonder what an optimal debt situation would be. The White House has consistently ignored the tremendous waste and duplicative spending in the Federal budget and our Federal Government. We have seen that in the budget that they sent up. Instead of opting to try to reduce the deficit through tax hikes and on the backs of senior citizens, they should be looking at cuts, not raising taxes. Mr. Speaker, the American people sent a powerful message to this Congress that was loud and clear, and it was cut spending, and do it now, get rid of the waste, the redundancy, the out of date, the off- target, the things we do not need anymore. The American people did not say trim a little here or trim a little there. The American people did not say move with caution and go slow. The American people told this Congress to look for any and all wasteful spending and get rid of it, take it out. The Vice President complained yesterday that ``Republicans haven't put any cuts on the table.'' Well, they cannot say that anymore, because the cuts are out there for all to see, a list of 75 totaling $275 billion over the next 5 years. I stand before this Congress with most of the same cuts I introduced in the past two terms, and some of them which we have made some progress on, but most of them have gone untouched. So we are still able to come forward with a list of waste of 75 items. I invite the administration to debate us on the specifics. Tell us why we need to be spending $140 million on grants to prepare youths and adults to be homemakers. Explain to the American people why when 99 percent of America's farmers have electricity and 98 percent have phones we need to be spending billions of dollars in assistance to rural electric and telephone utilities. The American people deserve better. They need answers. They deserve full debate on these and other programs that serve narrow special interests rather than the collective good of our country and all taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, we must strive to move beyond the rhetoric, to achieve the fundamental change that we talk about here with real action and with specifics. It is time to debate real spending cuts and real fiscal reform, and I am confident if we do we actually will have taken a very important step toward restoring fiscal responsibility and, perhaps even more than that, retaining, restoring some of the credit that this institution needs to build with the American people. We have done the balanced budget program in the House. We have passed it. We have done that unfunded mandates program in the House. We have passed it. We did the line item veto. We did it yesterday, we passed it. We are going to be talking about and going to introduce a supermajority to raise taxes. Those are all critically important tools to get a handle on spending, to make sure we do the right thing. But the proof will come. Do we have the courage, do we have the wisdom to pick out the things that are true waste and start chopping them? That is actually the easiest part of the job. If it is not doing much for very many Americans, then why are we spending a lot of money on it? Usually the answer is political. ``Well, it's in my district,'' or ``I hate to do something to that program to cut it.'' That is something we cannot be doing anymore. We cannot afford it, and it is not good expenditure of money. Accountability time has come, and we welcome accountability time, and I welcome the American people to take a look at our list of 75 cuts.

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I spent a lot of time working this over, and we talked a lot about expedited rescission, and enhanced rescission, and line-item veto, and the different formats, and what one of those terms used to mean, and whether one would or would not have to have a vote under an approval process, and, as I understand it, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] has come up with a very good program which tries to get the best of two worlds, and I really congratulate him on that because at first sight this appears to be a very good idea, to be able to say, ``Well, we can get the tough version, and then in the outdays of the given year we can go with a simple majority vote,'' and my understanding is that, if we use that process, it would come under the rulemaking powers of the House, and there is probably the single flaw that I see rise now, and maybe the gentleman will disagree with me. I am afraid that, as was shown in our unfunded mandates discussion about the rules, the powers of the Committee on Rules, to deal with different situations, no matter what the plan or the intent is, when those are delivered to the Committee on Rules, it is very clear in the history of this House, certainly clear in the history of the Committee on Rules since I have been on it, and I point out that was under another regime, that we did some things that people did not think we could do, and I am not sure we could, but we did them anyway because we are the Committee on Rules. Then we get down to this subject on unfunded mandates. As my colleagues remember, we have points of order, and we go into this long process of creating a new rule, a new setup, a new process for Members to be guaranteed a way to get something identified or defended under an unfunded mandate, to waive a point of order against it, another elaborate process. I would certainly admit that the gentleman has an intriguing prospect here. The concern I have is one that the chairman made, that it binds the clear-shot vote we had on the Contract With America, line-item veto, up or down, but I think the gentleman is onto a weak, should be made better, and in my view in another day I would rather take this approach on in that process.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I recognize that. That was just an aside. The purpose is the deficit reduction and the problem with that is, I am afraid that if we ever did, let us hope we do someday get to zero, even in 2002, would that not be wonderful? You would be interested to know that my text reads 20002 through a typo. I am not even sure that is good enough. But I wanted to point out that this is a little bit like the lion tamer going into the cage with the lions. Those lions are going to do the right thing as minute that tamer puts the whip down, the lion gets a slightly different perspective of what his capabilities are relative to the fellow who used to have the whip. And I think that is a very important point as we go through this process. I want to make sure that we keep this whip out there. If we ever do get the lion tamed, I want to make sure this lion is never going to get in a position where it can get out of the cage or eat the trainer again.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding time to me. I, too, rise in opposition, but very reluctantly. My good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] I think has explained his glidepath on a football field very well. First, that glidepath is so steep it pops my ears every time I think of going down it. Then when I get to the bottom of it, I see there is not a landing field. I think there is probably a brick wall there. And I do jest a bit. I want to let the gentleman know, we have given this a lot of thought. It is an intriguing idea. It gets away, though, from what we are trying to do. Basically what the gentleman is saying, that the President loses his line-item veto if we happen to hit our reduction targets year by year. That seems like a very intriguing proposition. The problem is those sort of moving targets. I am not sure exactly who is going to set them. I have got a list here, CBO. CBO is always very good and without any, usually, challenge to their targets. That causes me some concern that somebody might challenge them. Those are the kind of pragmatics I have and am a little bit concerned about. I guess there are some other points, too, that are more generic. What we are trying to do here is get a handle on wasteful spending. And the reason we are trying to do that is for two purposes. It is to get rid of wasteful spending, spending that is unnecessary, redundant, off target, not necessary, out-of-date programs, all of those things. And we should encourage the President to do that any time. That should not just be relative to the deficit. That is something we should never do. We should always give some kind of encouragement.

Mr. GOSS. That is good, We are making progress. Mr. Chairman, I think there are a couple of things that need to be clarified. The last time I heard about a change in the tax rate it seems to me there was a special top rate including a surtax of up to 39.6 percent for the people at the top end of the scale, and actually those cuts that I believe the gentlewoman was referring to back in 1981 for the rich were cuts for every American who were paying taxes. But I am glad that she has brought that up on Reagan's birthday, because I think the idea of trying to get spending under control and reduce taxation is something President Reagan stood for. With regard to the amendment itself particularly, I am a little concerned that we have a very vague definition here, ``income earners.'' Now, that would presumably excuse coupon clippers from this, or people from rents, royalties and other types of income, perhaps pensions, that are not earned income under that definition. I am not sure where stock options or other things like that would come in. Certainly when you start talking about large corporations under the definition that is being used in H.R. 2, I would point out that large corporations pay an awful lot of wages to blue collar workers who depend on those to keep food on the table and shelter over their head. So I think maybe it has been mischaracterized a little bit for what it would do, and I would, therefore, be opposed to it. But I am glad the gentlewoman has an interest in this subject.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman for addressing this amendment, as well, on this subject. It is a subject we took up under the Slaughter amendment on these targeted tax credits, and how we do it. I do not agree with the amendment. I hope the fact they have the amendment indicates that perhaps the gentlewoman will support the line- item veto legislation with or without the amendment.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the distinguished gentleman who brought this point forward that we have been watching and listening very carefully. We agree, at least I agree and I think others do, too, that what he is proposing does strengthen the present expedited rescission process, which is extremely weak. It never requires a vote; doing nothing spends the money. That is too much temptation for almost anybody to overcome, and I think we are proof that that temptation is true and is not overcomeable. I think the gentleman has some good ideas. We have gone back and taken a look at section 904 of the Budget Act and matched that up with the gentleman's title II section under the requirement to make available for obligation and his reliance on the antideficiency process. I believe there is some area to work in there. I do not think it is quite right. I would like to state to the gentleman I hope to work with him in cleaning up the budget process. We would like to take a clear shot at this one for the tough two-thirds disapproval vote, which is primarily our main concern. We are worried about the confusion. I do think the gentleman has some good ideas which are worthy of further attention as we clean up the budget process.

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out, it is true I did say that if there is belt tightening, it should be shared by all. But I would like to point out, H.R. 2 talks about discretionary budget and talks about numbers. It does not talk about policy because as so many have articulately expressed, we are concerned about shifting the balance of power.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Orton amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would include under the definition of ``discretionary budget authority'' in the bill the concept of ``contract authority.'' This runs contrary to all existing definitions under the Budget Act which clearly distinguishes between discretionary budget authority and contract authority. This exercise reminds me of a riddle Abraham Lincoln used to pose: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have? While many would answer, five, Lincoln responded that the answer is still four because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. By the same token, calling contract authority ``discretionary budget authority'' doesn't make it so. Contract authority is the authority given to agencies to enter into contracts. It does not obligate the money to be spent and therefore does not involve discretionary appropriations. If we begin to give the President the authority to selectively item veto what is in effect enacted, authorization language, we are raising serious constitutional questions, and we are going against the grain of this bill as it is currently drafted. We have already agreed by way of language in the bill and the report that we are talking about allowing the President to reduce or eliminate dollar amounts in appropriations bills. And we have explicitly adopted language to ensure that the President cannot eliminate legislative language. According to testimony last month of Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice, the pending line-item veto bill does not raise constitutional questions because, in his words, ``The President would merely be authorized to decline to expend certain appropriated funds, not alter or repeal an enacted law.'' To permit the President to sign a law containing contractual authority, then turn around and propose to cancel it by way of the line-item veto process, goes contrary to the lawmaking process of the Constitution. In the words of the Department of Justice testimony, it violates the ``specific textual requirement of Article I, section 7 of the Constitution governing the manner in which laws are made'' because it ``amends a duly enacted law which is inconsistent with Article I, section 7.'' Mr. Chairman, we have already adopted an amendment that provides for an expedited judicial review of the constitutionality of this act. I would hate to see us jeopardize the constitutionality of the bill as it now stands by inserting a clear red flag in the form of permitting the President to cancel duly enacted contractual, legislative language in a manner other than through the normal lawmaking-veto process established by the Constitution. I therefore urge rejection of this amendment.

Mr. GOSS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure that we understood the rule the Chair read in its entirety. It was also our understanding, I believe the gentleman would agree, there would be no secondary amendments offered on votes that were going to be held and amendments that were going to be held for rolling; is that a correct assumption?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and members of the Committee on Rules and staff who have worked so hard to work closely with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and his committee to bring an open rule and to conform two bills and bring them together and solve some of the complexities of the problem of this discussion. I think it is very important we do that, particularly as we speak to that issue, just briefly, at this section, because there has been a lot of confusion about what we are doing. I think we have improved Mr. Michel's words very clearly by saying what he meant in the Record in this bill. It is clear what the Record has said, and I think we have made it clear for everybody. We have read those words in the Record, and our bill reflects that. We have debated it, and we voted on it--one amendment. However, Mr. Speaker, I have to say there has been confusion. I note the gentlewoman from New York, as well as the gentlewoman from Illinois, have both voted against the Michel language when it first come out, the language they are offering today. Then I notice that they voted for the Wise substitute last Friday, which in fact had the version that we are trying to agree on now in H.R. 2. Then I went back and read the committee report, and I discovered that this in fact was a positive aye vote by voice in the committee, which I believe was supported by the Democratic members of the committee when that vote was taken. We have gone around all the circles and corners. We have all taken our sides and positions. What we have finally done is take Mr. Michel's intent, get it into language we can all understand, and put it into the bill. Now I think we should go forward and pass it. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, today I present my annual list of specific funding cut suggestions. These 75 discretionary, not entitlement, discretionary cuts, would save an estimated $275 billion over the next 5 years, which is almost double the amount of spending cuts the President has presented in his budget. The vast majority of these suggestions were contained in my ``Spirit of 76'' package introduced in the last Congress. Unfortunately, since the programs named here escaped intact, as they often do, most are the same old suspects we have talked about eliminating for years. I urge colleagues to look at the list. These suggestions apply only to discretionary spending, because we must prove to the American people that we have truly cut all the waste out of the discretionary budget before we ask for changes in their quality of life programs. We have a balanced budget amendment. We are controlling unfunded mandates. We have a line item veto under discussion. We are talking about a supermajority to raise taxes. All great ideas, but we must cut wasteful spending first. Thrifty Fifty Plus: Seventy-Five Suggestions (In millions of dollars/5 years) Savings Cancel the National Aerospace Plane (NASP)..........................300 Continue partial civilian hiring freeze at DOD....................8,850 Eliminate below-cost timber sales from National Forests.............235 Lower target prices for subsidized crops 3 percent annually......11,000 Eliminate the Market Promotion Program..............................500 End the Federal Crop Insurance Program and replace with standing authority for disaster assistance...............................1,660 Limit Federal highway spending to the amount brought in by motor vehicle fuel taxes..............................................8,850 Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act........................................3,080 Reduce Commodity Credit Corporation subsidies to those with off-farm incomes over $100,000.............................................660 Reduce the Attending Physician Office by 33 percent.................2.5 Fully implement H.R. 2452 (102d) to provide additional energy conservation measures for Federal agencies......................1,900 Enact H.R. 1620 (103d) to prohibit direct Federal benefits and unemployment benefits to illegal aliens........................27,000 Eliminate the Tobacco Price-Support Program.........................100 Consolidate the Bureau of Indian Affairs.............................53 Close 20 under-utilized black lung offices..........................0.3 Allow private sector investment in the Space Shuttle..............1,522 Eliminate Rural Economic and Community-Development (RECD) duplication with the Small Business Administration (SBA)......................913 Eliminate the Rural Electric Administration.......................3,000 Terminate all highway ``demonstration projects''..................2,590 Lower the travel budgets of all non-postal, civilian agencies by 15 percent...........................................................858 Lower by 10 percent per annum the projected growth rate of non-postal, civilian agency's overhead (excluding travel)..................64,000 Abolish Cotton Price Support and Loan Programs...................12,700 Cut the Foreign Aid budget (150 Account) by 15 percent and make all earmarks in that account subject to a two-thirds vote for passa13,125 Phase out the Foreign Agricultural Service Cooperation funding......150 Eliminate the Appalachian Regional Commission.......................690 Roll back Congressional pay raise to $89,500........................118 Sell the National Helium Reserves to a joint venture comprised of current employees and other private investors.....................692 Reduce the ``Franking'' allocation to Members of Congress by 50 perc167 Cut National Endowment for the Arts by 50 percent.................2,600 Cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by 50 percen883 Phase out subsidies for AMTRAK....................................2,660 Phase out ACTION (umbrella organization for domestic volunteer activities) as a tax-supported program............................660 Facilitate contracting out and privatization of military commissar4,170 Terminate the Interstate Commerce Commission........................188 Phase out U.S. Fire Administration...................................10 End funding for all non-energy Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) activities........................................................580 Eliminate Essential Air Services subsidies..........................195 Eliminate Consumer Homemaking grants................................140 Privatize the House and Senate Gymnasiums...........................1.1 Reduce the Legislative Branch Appropriations by 20 percent........2,844 Reduce the Executive Office of the President appropriation by 20 percent...........................................................284 Close the Bureau of Mines and merge its data gathering activities with other Interior Department research agencies.......................140 Raise the level and schedule of the Power Marketing Administration's debt repayment....................................................970 Reduce the fill rate for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve..........1,000 End all new Bureau of Water Reclamation water projects............7,400 Eliminate the Dairy Subsidy Program...............................5,000 Merge the Agricultural Research Service, the Cooperative State Research Service, and the Agricultural Extension Service; cut funding by 50 percent.........................................................3,950 Privatize the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae2,000 Eliminate the Economic Development Administration.................1,140 Eliminate non-targeted vocational State funding...................3,400 Consolidate the administrative costs of the AFDC, Food Stamps, and Medicaid programs...............................................6,300 Replace new public housing construction with vouchers...............610 Increase Medicare safeguard funding by $540 million over 5 years (net savings)........................................................5,400 Eliminate the Legal Services Corporation..........................1,900 End postal subsidies to not-for-profit organizations (excluding blind and handicapped individuals)....................................2,000 Eliminate HUD special-purpose grants................................990 Reform vacation and overtime for the Senior Executive Service.......540 Eliminate DOD payments for indirect research and development; substitute direct R&D..........................................14,740 Reduce DOE energy technology spending.............................2,550 Scale back Rural Rental Housing Assistance Program................1,400 Reduce mass transit grants; eliminate operating subsidies.........6,250 Eliminate Rural Development Association loans and guarantees......1,380 Eliminate ``Impact Aid'' to school districts with military bases..3,850 Consolidate Social Services programs..............................1,000 Reduce NIH funding by 10 percent, concentrating on overhead.......4,900 Freeze the number of rental assistance commitments................5,700 Scale back Low Income Home Energy Assistance grants...............5,150 Service Contract Act reform.........................................900 Reduce overhead in federally-sponsored university research........1,000 Strengthen and restructure NASA (NPR proposal)....................1,500 Eliminate redundant polar satellite programs........................250 Streamline HUD......................................................144 Reform prison construction..........................................580 Eliminate Travel, Tourism and Export Promotion Administration.....1,002

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. There is no change. There was a misspeaking earlier. I am underscoring the correct time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.