Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman, and I also appreciate the assistance of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the distinguished former chairman, who spoke fondly of our last weekend retreat on collegiality. It was not, however, a retreat from our commitment to balance the budget. I thank those involved in this debate because it is an important debate. This resolution is very direct and very simple, and in fact there is a provision in the motion to recommit for other views. It asks the President to live up to his word with a budget that reaches balance by 2002, as scored by the independent Congressional Budget Office. They are the scorekeepers on this; they are the referees. Far from balancing, the latest Clinton budget is projected to have a $70 billion deficit in 2002 by the scorekeepers. So we do not have a balanced budget from the White House. Now, some will contend that we should place Congress' own budget on the table because of the President's failure to balance the budget. Indeed we have heard that today. They say we need to begin now to do the heavy lifting necessary to balance the budget, and I could not agree more. I think we do need to get on with this, and I can assure my colleagues this process is underway. But the fact is the President must submit a budget. That is required under the law. It is here; I could refer to it. It is page 872 of the House Rules Manual, and when we get into the law and we get into chapter 11 of title XXXI of the United States Code, section 1105, my colleagues will find in fact several pages of very fine print about what the President must do and when he must do it. And he has not done it in the sense of providing us a balanced budget. That is just the fact. So, as the majority leader said, we are sending an invitation. Now judging by President Clinton's track record, I think it is best to follow President Reagan's advice in these matters, and his advice was trust and verify. President Clinton used his first State of the Union Address to endorse the CBO, and at that time it was important to use CBO estimates, he said, ``so we could argue from the same set of numbers.'' I agree with that. Yet President Clinton fails to follow that pledge at this time. Many believe President Clinton effectively killed the balanced budget amendment by demagoguing Social Security. A few weeks after sending us a budget that utilizes Social Security trust funds for deficit reduction, it is a rather curious situation. So given these actions, is it not reasonable for Congress to question the strength of President Clinton's commitment to balance the budget and ask him for a balanced budget? Mr. Speaker, the American people, I think, have had enough of the rosy scenarios and the political gestures that have no particular substance. If we are to be true partners in the process toward a balanced budget, we need to know that both sides are working off the same sheet. The people I represent expect those in charge to do the job. It is therefore appropriate for us to ask the President to send up a balanced budget. Mr. Speaker, that is what this resolution does. I urge support for this rule, which is very straightforward, and I urge support for this resolution, which is also very straightforward and gets the job done.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers legislation to applaud our neighbors in Nicaragua. Seven years ago, as an elections observer, I was sent there to see the Nicaraguan people draw the physical fight for freedom to a close successfully. That day they used the ballot box to officially cast off the Marxist government of Daniel Ortega, which once inexplicably found so many friends in Washington. In 1990, instead of the chaos and violence of the Ortega regime, the Nicaraguans demanded peace, prosperity, justice and democracy. That historic year, the Chamorro government took the reins in difficult times, dealing admirably with the fallout of 5 years of Sandinista misrule. With difficult issues like confiscated properties lingering, last month's peaceful transition to the Alemen administration is a significant achievement and a testament to the commitment and advancement of democracy in that country. It is only proper that today Congress pause for a minute to congratulate the Nicaraguans, to encourage them and to reiterate our support for democracy in that country.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on January 31, 1997, Rear Adm. Luther F. Schriefer retired after 40 years of distinguished service in the U.S. Navy. Admiral Schriefer, who was born in Oshkosh, WI, began his career in the Navy as a cadet at Annapolis in 1956. After 4 years at the Naval Academy, where he excelled not only in academics, but also on the gridiron playing with the great Navy teams of the late 1950's, Admiral Schriefer was commissioned as a ensign in the Navy and 1 year later as a naval aviator. He quickly rose through the ranks serving with distinction in Vietnam and a variety of assignments on aircraft carriers: Intrepid, Independence, Saratoga, and America. He completed over 700 carrier landings, many of which were at night, and accumulated over 7,000 flight hours. In October 1983, he was given command of the U.S.S. Mobile. Three years later, he took command of the amphibious assault ship U.S.S. Belleau Wood. In 1987, he was selected for Rear Admiral and Commanded the Anti-submarine Warfare Wing U.S. Pacific Fleet, and served as Commander of San Diego Naval Base. Admiral Schriefer's service was not limited to life at sea. He also served with great distinction for 2 years as the Director of Inter- American Region, International Security Affairs, Office of the Secretary of Defense. He managed two simultaneous crises, one in Haiti and one in Cuba, where mass migrations of Haitian and Cuban nationals in the summer of 1994 called for the marshalling of the Navy's resources to rescue thousands of innocent Haitians and Cubans fleeing tyranny in their countries. Admiral Schriefer also chaired the Department of Defense's Haiti Crisis Response Team and he was at the helm during the invasion of Haiti in September 1994, when 23,000 U.S. troops were introduced into Haiti without casualties, a major military success. Admiral Schriefer's final assignment in the Navy was as Director of the Navy's Environmental Programs, where he brought to bear his management skills and respect for the environment to help the Navy in its aggressive efforts to clean up its facilities throughout the United States. His steady hand, leadership and sense of duty were essential to the success of each of the missions throughout his career. Our Nation owes him respect for the work that he has done. He has accomplished it with flair. I wish him well as he completes his very successful career.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] 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, as we know from the previous debate, we are here today as a result of an agreement reached last year between the Congress and the White House concerning international family planning assistance. The agreement signed into law stated that no family planning funds would be released until July 1997 unless the President determined that the delay was having a negative impact on the program. We have now debated and voted on a privileged resolution to release those funds as the law calls for. Having considered the Armey-Gephardt resolution, we have another option to expedite this funding. That is H.R. 5881, the Smith resolution, as it is called. The rule for the Smith bill is very straightforward. It is a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided between proponents and opponents of the bill. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. While the rule is closed, it was the opinion of the Committee on Rules that a closed rule was appropriate for this alternative to the Armey-Gephardt resolution, which was completely unamendable. I think we all agree on the need for a U.S. role in promoting legitimate family planning services. There are strong humanitarian, economic, and environmental reasons for this. How taxpayer dollars will be utilized to support these programs, however, is where the controversy lies. I tend to agree with many Members who feel that it makes sense regardless of your view on the issue of abortion, to ensure that precious U.S. taxpayer dollars are not used either directly or indirectly to promote or perform abortions. The Smith resolution would expedite the release of the family planning funds, just like the Armey- Gephardt resolution. In addition, it would reinstate the Mexico City policy, as we call it, which worked honorably for 12 years during the Reagan and Bush administrations. This policy, as my colleagues will recall, simply states that U.S. funds will not, repeat, not go to nongovernmental organizations that either promote or perform abortions. That is the issue. I would urge my colleagues to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 46 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that certainly we do not want to get the rule mixed up with the controversy of the debate. This is a good rule to bring the debate forward, and I would hope we would all support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon], my colleague and friend.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that the reason we are here is because of deliberative democracy, a representative form of government that we have. I think that indeed instead of breaking promises, we are living up to promises here, promises to all parties who are interested in the full measure of this debate. It is remembered, of course, that the previous item that we dealt with, that was brought forward earlier today, was unamendable, it was closed, and to round out this issue it was necessary to come forward with a second piece of legislation. This rule I think does it in a way that is entirely fair, and I believe it is in the best interests of deliberative democracy that we do this. I would also point out that there is a motion to recommit attached to it, so we have given an extra measure of fairness, we believe. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 21) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, shortly I will reintroduce the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act, which gained 249 cosponsors in the last Congress. This bill responds to the tragedy of hemophilia-associated AIDS. In the 1980's nearly half of the hemophilia community became infected with the AIDS virus through the use of tainted blood products. About half of those, approximately 7,200 people, many of whom were children, have already died. As they did last Congress, students from Robinson Secondary School in Fairfax, VA, have visited Members' offices to lobby for this bill. These bright and articulate students belong to the Distributive Education Clubs of America, an association of high school students enrolled in marketing education courses and committed to the free enterprise system. Their efforts on behalf of the Ricky Ray bill have been impressive. I hope my colleagues will lend them an ear, cosponsor this bill, and help bring compassionate assistance to hurting victims of the hemophilia community.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding, and I rise in support of this rule. This is a special rule for a special issue. It is fair, it is thorough, it provides for ample debate and consideration of a broad array of options on the subject of term limits. There is no question that when today's proceedings are done that we have had an extensive airing of the term limits issue on the floor, what we would call true deliberative democracy. I commend the chairman and the core group of advocates who have worked so hard to make sure that we fulfilled our promise to make term limits the first substantive legislative issue to be discussed and voted on in this new Congress. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago this body made a historic vote, as mandated by the American people, on a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits. It was inevitable and appropriate that we would consider this issue, given the movement across this Nation, the public opinion. Frankly, Congress has fallen way behind the people in the States on this issue. By 1995 my own State of Florida and 22 other States had adopted State-imposed term limits. But in Congress, despite garnering a majority of votes, term limits failed to achieve the constitutionally required two-thirds or 290 votes in the 104th Congress. Now, even though it failed, we made history in that vote in the 104th Congress by having the vote, and we pledged to bring it back to this Congress; so here we are. The constitutional amendment before us sets a national standard for a 12-year term limit on Members of Congress, one that supersedes the State-by-State approach. As we all know, the Supreme Court has ruled that State-imposed term limits on Congress are unconstitutional, leaving a constitutional amendment as the only route to address the term limits issue. Many of us here today favor term limits as a matter of principle, and we worry less about whether it is a 6-, 8-, or 12-year restriction and about responding to the will of the people, the people we work for, the American taxpayers. In my own State of Florida, we adopted eight is enough in 1992, and I look forward to supporting that approach on the floor today. Of course there are clearly some among us who are opposed to any term limits as a matter of principle. As they respect my view for the principle it represents, I also respect theirs. That is why we have votes. Unfortunately though there are those who do not see the compromise on this issue and who have perhaps unwittingly complicated today's debate. As a result of State ballot initiatives, we now have a handful of Members that are bound by nine State initiatives requiring them to vote only for their own State's version of term limits, all of them 6-year limits, but all worded slightly differently or those Members will be branded by so-called scarlet letter identification on the ballot. This makes for a very interesting mix of amendments today. As a result of the panoply of votes we have today, many say we do not have the numbers on any one option to pass a constitutional amendment. Well, that is certainly a shame if it turns out to be true since the will of the American people is strong on this issue. They want a citizen legislature to do the work of the people and then return home to live under the laws that that legislature creates. I favor term limits, I have always authored my own term limits proposal, and there is one of the amendments today that closely parallels it, and I will vote for all serious term limit options that are on the docket today. If we fail today, we will keep coming back until we get this done so we might just as well support this rule and get on with the job. I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of the House to the dedicated work of Alan Lawrence Hoffman as special counsel to the assistant attorney general in the Office of Legislative Affairs. During the last 18 months, Mr. Hoffman was of immeasurable help to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by expeditiously handling a range of matters of interest to the committee. There were many difficult issues that came before the committee during the 104th Congress. Mr. Hoffman can take great pride in knowing that he approached every issue with a spirit of nonpartisanship that is a tribute to his professionalism. Mr. Hoffman should be particularly proud of his work on the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. This act will contribute substantially to the protection of U.S. trade secrets whose, compromise could endanger the national security of the United States. Mr. Hoffman also helped to develop a proposal that assisted in the clarification of the mission of the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, PA. Mr. Hoffman will continue his public service as an assistant U.S. attorney in Philadelphia. He will be genuinely missed at the Department of Justice and by members and staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It gives me great pleasure to recognize Mr. Hoffman's hard work and I want to wish him well in his new and exciting career. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank him for his continued service to our country and for the unstinting nonpartisan support he gave to the intelligence community.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, today is the 150th anniversary of the birth of one of our Nation's foremost technology pioneers, Thomas Alva Edison. In Ft. Myers, FL, the site of his winter home for some 45 years, we hold the annual Festival of Light celebrating his remarkable contribution to modern society. With more than a thousand patents, Edison was certainly a prolific inventor, but more importantly his inventions revolutionized our everyday lives. The light bulb. The phonograph. Wax paper. An electronic voting machine that we use here in-house. As he put it, ``I find out what the world needs. Then I go ahead and try and invent it.'' What a refreshing thought. The enduring spirit of the independent inventor was brought to life by people like Thomas Edison. I join the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Gillmor] today in introducing legislation to authorize a commemorative coin whose proceeds will support the historical organizations dedicated to Thomas Edison's legacy. I hope all of my colleagues will support this bill.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the distinguished chair of our committee, for yielding me this time. She deserves our sincere gratitude for all she has endured, for her persistence, for her determination to bring this to a successful conclusion, and here we are today. It was certainly an unenviable and, I know, thankless task. Today we have a conclusion. Today the House takes the final step in what has been a most difficult process, I think we all would agree. It is not just for those intimately involved in the day-to-day twists and turns in this tortuous case, but also for the entire House. On Friday the full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct approved a recommendation which is today before this House, for an official reprimand and a $300,000 cost assessment to Mr. Gingrich as sanction for his violation of House rules and as partial reimbursement for the costs of the inquiry that ensued. This is unquestionably a serious sanction, but one that is also fair and appropriate, in my view, as evidenced by the fact that indeed Mr. Gingrich himself has agreed to it. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, functioning independently of leadership on both sides of the aisle, is supposed to find the truth through an investigative process. It is not designed to protect errant Members, nor is it designed to permit partisan zealots to destroy Members or to score political points. In this case, the committee's members were subject to frequent unfair and inaccurate partisan political attack. That is a matter of fact. Outsiders attempted to influence our activities, our deliberations, our schedule and our conclusions. That is truly a shame. It has caused harm, not just to the Members involved, but it has also brought discredit to this institution, in my view. Friday, I urged the leadership on both sides of the aisle to tone down the rhetoric, cut the nonsense, and get back to work in repairing the damage that has come to this House. I repeat that exhortation today. With regard to the matter at hand, I am very satisfied with the work done by our investigative subcommittee, whose recommendation was adopted by the full committee and is the recommendation all Members will consider today. The four of us, working with the extraordinarily talented special counsel, Jim Cole, functioned in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation that did actually grow as we went along in the case. I say we started with different perspectives, but we started with open minds, and I am grateful for the very fine service, the unbelievable commitment of time of the members, their cooperation. I take my hat off to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], all of whom in my view bring great credit to this institution. Contrary to what has been reported, the statement of alleged violations that our subcommittee developed and passed and which forms the basis for the sanctioned recommendation did not, I repeat not, find that Mr. Gingrich violated or did not violate tax law in his relationship with 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations. And contrary to media reports, that statement of alleged violation of December 21st also did not charge Mr. Gingrich with intentionally deceiving our committee with his correspondence in this case. Nonetheless, I found it extraordinarily imprudent of Mr. Gingrich not to seek and follow a less aggressive course of action in tax areas he knew to be sensitive and controversial. And even more troubling, I found the fact that the committee was given inaccurate, unreliable, and incomplete information to be a very serious failure on his part. Now, it is certainly true that we had more than enough facts and extenuating circumstances to consider. We all know a Member of Congress wears many hats, for our official lives, our campaign lives, our private lives, our business lives or whatever, and knowledge of how careful we must be in wearing those hats is fundamental to our job. We all have an extra obligation to be sure our activities are appropriate, no matter which hat we are wearing. That is an obligation that each of us signs up for when we run to serve in this institution. That is why the serious sanction we recommend is appropriate, in my view. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] has recognized his lapses and the problems they have caused for this House. He has apologized, forthrightly and sincerely. He has also accepted the unique sanction we proposed, one that includes a clear signal to all Members about the importance of providing accurate and grounded information to the Select Committee on Ethics, whether in response to a complaint or in filing a complaint. I must point out to Members that our mission in the preliminary investigation was to find and examine the dark clouds. That is what investigations do. Mr. Cole is very good at that. He is a brilliant prosecutor. In his report he presented well those dark clouds. He did not, however, present all of the other clouds we looked at that turned out to be not quite so dark. So I found that his report would be well supplemented by reading the report of the Speaker's attorneys for balance, as well. I refer colleagues and interested parties to both reports to get the full picture. In the end, I agreed with my subcommittee colleagues that Mr. Gingrich's absence of diligence subjects him legitimately to charges of conduct reckless enough to constitute a violation of House rules. I sincerely hope with today's voting we can put this matter to rest. I urge this House to adopt the recommendation of the Select Committee on Ethics and remember, the penalty is aimed at findings in response to the specific work of our subcommittee, no matter what feelings any particular Member may personally have about Mr. Gingrich. Some have said this is a sad day. Indeed it is, whenever we have this type of a situation. I will also say it is a day of victory. We have proved to the American people that no matter how rough the process is, we can police ourselves. We do know right from wrong in this institution. We can take the necessary steps.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the distinguished chairman of our Rules Committee Mr. Solomon, for all his diligent work on behalf of the rules of this House. I wish all of my colleagues a happy new year and look forward to working with all of you for a productive session. As Members know, this time 2 years ago the new Republican majority brought forward a bold and comprehensive package of rules changes geared toward creating a more open, more responsive and more effective House. With those landmark changes we began a new era of management of this institution--one that fostered greater deliberation and public accountability. Today we bring forth a second installment, by design more moderate in scope and targeted toward refining the major improvements we made in 1995. I was proud to have assisted in crafting this package, working with our chairman and my colleague David Dreier in holding unprecedented public hearings to solicit suggestions from our colleagues and outside witnesses. Those four hearings--held in the late summer and early fall--greatly assisted our efforts to design this targeted package of rules changes. It is my hope that this exercise becomes standard procedure. Mr. Solomon has already described the details of this package, which all Members by now have had the opportunity to scrutinize and review. I would just like to point out three specific changes that I think are particularly important. The first is the incorporation of dynamic scoring--in effect providing official recognition of what many of us have known for some time: that legislation does affect the way people act. It's about time we became more accurate and sophisticated in our budget scoring efforts and began attempting to remove some of the institutional bias towards profligate spending. Second, I am pleased that we were able to provide for the establishment of a suitable drug testing policy for this House. This is a matter on which the private sector and even the executive branch have moved while this House has lagged behind. It's time we brought ourselves into line with the times and this rules package paves the way for that to happen. Finally, we are continuing our important efforts to modernize Congress and open the legislative process to the sunshine of public scrutiny by asking our committees, to the maximum extent feasible, to put their publications on the Internet. We are all committed to expanding public access to and understanding of the workings of this Congress--and clearly opening up the committee process is integral to that effort. One last note on a topic that has received considerable attention recently--this rules package does temporarily reconstitute the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from the previous Congress, to allow it to complete its pending business. All in all, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a practical and workable package of rules changes, one that builds on the enormous success of the rules rewrite we conducted in 1995--making technical adjustments where the past 2 years' experiences have suggested modifications are needed, and taking additional steps to enhance the openness, deliberation, and accountability of this body.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a victory for America--it's a milestone along the road toward balancing the budget. It hasn't been easy, but the Republican majority of this historic Congress has already delivered $53 billion in tangible savings for the taxpayers of this great country, while locking in program changes that will make those savings multiply in years to come. Sure, there had to be compromises-- and certainly all of us feel regret that we couldn't accomplish more. Of course, we are frustrated by the way the White House constantly moved the goalposts, at times to the point where some questioned whether the administration wanted a bipartisan agreement at all. We also had to contend continually with certain defenders-of-the-status- quo naysayers in the other party who attempted to block us at every turn. But I am proud that this Republican majority held firm to its basic common sense principles for America: We will not abandon our glidepath toward a balanced budget; we will not eviscerate our national defense; and we will not accept endless government intrusion into our lives just because the President and the liberal wing of the Democrat Party have again made big government and more give away spending the centerpiece of their election-year gameplan. Mr. Speaker, we head home tonight proud in the knowledge that we have replaced the tired debate of whether we should balance the budget with a brave new dialogue about how to accomplish balance. We have ended the failed dependency trap of the welfare entitlement and implemented tough new illegal immigration policies. We have delivered common sense health insurance reforms to allay the anxiety of job lock and pre-existing condition exclusions. We have brought about true reform to this institution, clearing away 40 years of rot caused by out of touch one- party rule. And, we have finally begun to reduce the reach of the Federal Government into our everyday lives. This bill represents a sizeable downpayment on the brighter future that we promised to deliver for America's children and grandchildren. We kept our promises to America--and we have only just gotten started. Vote for this rule and this bill.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I will not yield to the gentleman. I will only make that inquiry to those arguing the other point and trying to use dilatory tactics on this rule.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I happened to catch some of this in my office, and I was concerned about what the resolution might say. I have an inquiry to make to the maker of the resolution, which apparently is at the core of this debate. Mr. Speaker, if I am reading it right, it says the House of Representatives shall convene on the first Monday after the submission of the special counsel's report on Speaker Newt Gingrich to the Investigative Subcommittee to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I cannot comment, of course, on anything going on in that subcommittee, but I cannot in any way assure that there is such a thing now or ever as a special counsel's report. The second thing that I need to point out to the maker of this resolution is that the potential time in this, even if there were to be such a thing as a report at some point, might well be into the future. I presume that the Nation's business should go forward without regard to a resolution that is as ephemeral as this one is. I would like to know whether the maker of the resolution has any time in mind?

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I want to join the accolades to Mr. Young and Mr. Studds. I have had many happy years in this Congress, but among the happiest is when I served with them both on something that used to be known as the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. I never thought I would see the day when we were standing here in such comity. I am delighted that it is here. I address much that is good in the bill and support it, of course, but I want to focus on the Coastal Barrier Islands provisions. Preserving the proper balance between protection of our natural resources and our private property rights is a critical point. I know how much this means to my home State of Florida with its miles and miles of fabulous beaches and outdoor recreational areas and opportunities on our barrier islands. I know that what we are doing here is going to continue that tradition and make possible enjoyment for more people in those wonderful areas. I also would note that this is something that the legislative delegation, the people of Florida, the Governor, Senators from Florida, all are in accord on. It is wonderful when everybody is in agreement on something and it actually happens. I congratulate the Members who have made this happen.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today we will send S. 39, the Sustainable Fisheries Act, to the President. The bill before us is the result of a long process--it was almost a year ago that the House passed H.R. 39, the basis for the bill we're debating today. H.R. 39 was carefully crafted to limit over-fishing, rebuild depleted stocks of fish, reduce bycatch and protect our marine resources. Of particular concern to me is the bycatch issue--when sea turtles, red snapper, and other nontargeted species get caught and die in fishing nets. During consideration of the Magnuson reauthorization bill, the House adopted an amendment I offered to address this issue. It is clear that the delicate balance between protecting our marine resources and encouraging industry has been maintained in this bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill is slightly different than the House-passed bill, but on the whole, it is a responsible step forward and an environmentally sound bill. Reauthorization of the Magnuson Act is long overdue. I strongly urge my colleagues to support passage of S. 39.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I commend my friends, Mr. Boehlert and Chairman Shuster, for their dedicated work. The citizens of Florida's southwest coast recognize the importance of maintaining proper stewardship of our water resources. I am very pleased that this bill contains vital Everglades restoration provisions to promote the innovative partnership that has formed between the State of Florida and the Army Corps of Engineers; speeding up the restoration process by many years through proactively reducing bureaucratic red tape and formalizing the joint Federal-State working group. I am also pleased this bill includes legislation introduced by my Florida colleague Clay Shaw that will overturn an unfortunate Presidential policy and ensure the continued involvement of the corps in worthwhile beach restoration projects. Overall, this is a good bill for Florida's citizens and Florida's environment as it is for all America and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, above the door to the Supreme Court Building are the words ``Equal Justice Under the Law.'' These words apply to all citizens including Members of Congress--but, the Supreme Court decision last spring placed this institution above the law. In Hubbard versus United States the Court held that section 1001 of 18 United States Code is only applicable to individuals who knowingly issue a false statement to the executive branch. This means that individuals--including Members of Congress--who intentionally lie to this institution can no longer be prosecuted under this statute. Following the Supreme Court's decision we witnessed numerous legal briefs filed to dismiss or lessen charges against former Members of Congress. We all know of one former Member that may have received a longer prison sentence for the criminal acts against the American people if Congress was under section 1001. This is not equal justice under the law. We cannot allow criminal activity to go unpunished. H.R. 3166 extends the false statement statute to all three branches of the Government. It is very clear that individuals doing business with the Government or appearing before a committee are under this statute. H.R. 3166 makes Members of Congress legally accountable to the American people. I support this measure and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I offer these comments in response to those submitted by my dear friend, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Moakley, late last week. Mr. Moakley was continuing the dialog about our ethics process and I wish to respond directly to his comments. I am delighted to know that members of the minority are now engaging in a productive discussion about the need to review--and consider changes to--our current ethics process. As I have said for some time, it is my view--shared by many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle--that the process is broken and needs comprehensive reform. Of course the existence and authority of the Ethics Committee is provided for under rule X, which is the unique province of our Rules Committee. I agree that matters relating to this committee and its functions are best addressed without partisanship and with the best interests of this institution in mind. All of my efforts to date in attempting to bring about constructive change in the current process have been made in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation. The Rules Committee included a commitment to review the ethics process, as prescribed by House rule X, in our oversight plan for the 104th Congress. I refer interested observers to the Government Reform and Oversight Committee's report from March 1995 which incorporated the oversight plans of all committees as required by rule X(2)(d). Specifically, the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process' intentions with respect to the ethics process can be found on page 169 of that report, which states that ``the subcommittee intends to review the mandate of the [standards] committee as established in rule X, clause 4 as amended by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and the manner in which its members are chosen and required to serve.'' That particular oversight recommendation was made as part of our committee's overall oversight agenda, and adopted by voice vote of our committee with no complaint by the minority on February 14, 1995. Since that time I have made several efforts to proceed with what I have always believed would be a bipartisan review of the current process, followed by a bipartisan discussion of options for reform for the next Congress. I had many conversations with our subcommittee's ranking minority member, Martin Frost during which he expressed continued reluctance to proceed on this subject. In fact, we conducted a lengthy written correspondence as well, and in deference to him and to the apparent wishes of the Democrat leadership, I postponed our formal review several times. I did, however, proceed in my capacity as a Member of this House in late January of this year and put forward House Resolution 346, embodying my own ideas about ways in which the process should be revised. At that time, Chairman Solomon released a statement that said: ``We are honoring the request of the ranking minority member on the Goss subcommittee, Mr. Frost, by not proceeding with hearings at this time. But I think we have an obligation to begin to gather reactions and suggestions from Members and persons outside the Congress on these proposals so that we are prepared to proceed with formal hearings later this year.'' It has always been clear to me that ethics process reform should be a bipartisan effort and should be based on input from all points of view. I don't think there is any disagreement on that point. In fact, during our committee's unprecedented hearings to take input from Members and outside witnesses about ideas for building upon the changes that were made to our rules in this Congress as we prepare for the 105th Congress, it became clear that many Members already have developed ideas about improving the ethics process. The purpose of all of my efforts on this subject is to move the review process forward in a productive manner so that we do not find ourselves in the position where Members want change yet we are locked into the current process for another whole Congress. It is my view that there is advantage to having Members involved in that effort who have had frontline experience with our current process. I look forward to working with all my colleagues on a bipartisan basis in addressing this issue.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 529 and ask for its immediate consideration.