Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], who has also been in the forefront of this matter.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, for his confidence. Fortunately, we have staff here who really do know what the Rules of the House are that can help us out, in case I go off track. I think more important, since we are talking about the rule at this point in the debate, I think it is critical to note that today we are fulfilling a commitment that was made to the House and to the American people that we would debate and vote on the new gift rules for our membership by November 16. For those like this Member who may have lost track of the days and nights in the midst of all the budget discussions and so forth in the past few days, it just so happens that today is November 16. Promises made, promises kept. I congratulate our leadership for doing that. I commend the many Members who have worked to bring us to this point, most notably my colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz]. She has persevered under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, and we owe her our thanks. Likewise, I must commend and thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], my chairman, for his hard work and eminent fairness in handling this issue. It has not been easy. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson once said, ``When a man assumes the public trust, he should consider himself as public property.'' Many Americans subscribe to that philosophy, I among them, and it is for that reason that I support efforts to strengthen and expand our current gift rules. I quickly say that I realize that how you deal with the problem of gifts is a very personal decision for all Members, and I totally respect the rights of how they go about doing it. Therefore, I think we have come up with a pretty good rule because we have tried to provide for a number of options, hopefully finding a comfortable home for each of the Members' personal preferences that still passes muster with the idea that we are being asked to explore gift reform by the American people. I believe that most of the Members and staff who work long hours in this Capitol are very honorable and very deserving of the public's confidence. However, I also know from the polls, just general street talk, that the public does not always have great confidence in us, in part because they believe perhaps that we enjoy too many perks and privileges, many of them provided by people who seek special access. For this reason, since my early days in Congress, my policy for myself and my own office staff has been not to accept any gifts, meals, or travel. Although this policy is personal to me, and it is certainly more stringent than any of the reform versions we are taking under consideration today, I find it has proven to be relatively easy to implement and precluded a lot of difficult decisions that frankly would have been in gray areas that might have raised people's concerns. I know other Members who have practiced the same policy generally agree with those conclusions. Regardless of what we do today, I personally will continue my policy. Now, gift reform for the entire House, however, is important even if most of the Members adopt their own stringent policies voluntarily. Why? The answer is simple. Because a large number of American people have asked us to take this extra step. Many feel our low approval ratings can be raised only if we do take that kind of a commitment to begin to build back trust. I think building back trust is an important mission for this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this rule affords Members with differing [[Page H 13067]] perspectives on the need and the proper direction of gift reform an opportunity to be heard and issue their debate and their arguments and their persuasion on the approach that they think is best. I know some Members believe strongly that the approach embodied in House Resolution 250, which is the one that the other body adopted in July, they feel strongly that is the wrong way to go, that will not work. Others believe that that approach does not go far enough, that it will not restrict Members' and staffers' acceptance of gifts and it will not achieve the mission of building credibility. So we have the chance to debate these points of view and vote first on a bipartisan substitute offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], a measure that is designed to emphasize disclosure more than bans. If that should fail, then we will vote on a proposal offered by our Speaker geared toward a more stringent gift ban than the other body has adopted. If neither alternative should pass, then we will have a vote on House Resolution 250, provisions that are almost identical to the other body's, we have cleaned up some of the minor problems in it, but it is very similar to that, known as the Waldholtz version. This seems to me to be a very fair and proper way to go. I do not know how we could have done it better and accommodated more views and still brought the matter to the floor. I urge our colleagues' support for this rule so we can get on and examine the versions that we have offered for us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith], who has been one of the principals in bringing this legislation forward.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], my friend and colleague. (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], my friend and colleagues on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this amendment makes three major changes to the base text of House Resolution 250, leaving the rest of its provisions intact. These changes have the effect of: First, providing a general ban on all gifts--including meals. This proposal does away with the idea of dollar value thresholds--in other words, regardless of the value of a gift or meal, Members and staff would simply not be permitted to accept it. In terms of defining what constitutes a gift, this amendment retains 21 of the 23 exceptions that are in House Resolution 250--most of them commonsense mentions that provide Members with some sense of confidence that they can live normal lives; second, providing a reasonable assurance that Members can make their own decisions about when it is appropriate for them to be accompanied by their spouse or child at an event or on a trip; and third, conforming the domestic travel limit to current House rules of 4 days. These changes make a lot of sense to me. For Members who are concerned that the dollar thresholds and triggers in House Resolution 250 could entrap Members even as they try to do the right thing. By banning all gifts the bright lines should be very clear. Having had such a policy in my office for 7 years--in fact a policy that goes beyond this proposal, because we accept no travel--I can assure my colleagues that a clear ban is workable. I urge my colleagues to support this approach--it is fair and it will go a long way in helping to restore the public's faith in this body.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. general leave

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution (H. Res. 269) providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2564) to provide for the disclosure of lobbying activities to influence the Federal Government, and for other purposes, and that I may include extraneous material.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, with this rule, the House begins important discussions of reform that will, I hope, assist in restoring the public confidence in this institution and its practices. With this rule we embark on the first of the triumvirate of issues that concern Americans most about the mechanics of how this democracy functions: Lobby reform, gift reform and campaign finance reform. Beginning now with lobby reform, we will work to rewrite an outdated, inadequate and exceedingly vague series of rules pertaining to registered lobbyists and, specifically, public disclosure of their activities. I am generally an ardent supporter of open rules, and today I bring to the House an open rule for consideration of this lobby reform bill-- a rule that should have the support of all members. I should note, however, that in this special case, I have some reservations about what will happen if amendments are adopted to this bill. The reason for my concern is that this issue--lobby reform--has been bottled up in the Congress for years. This year, we have a real chance to break the logjam and send a good bill to the President for signature. The other body has already passed the identical measure we begin with today--and if the House passes the same bill without amendment, the measure could head straight to the White House without further delay. In my view, that would be the optimal result. Although I believe very strongly in the merit of several of the amendments members will hear today--most notably a proposal to restrict lobbying with taxpayer funds by executive branch officials and a proposal to restrict lobbying by organizations that are taxpayer-funded through grants--I intend to vote against all amendments to this bill because of my overriding belief that we've got to get the essence of lobby reform passed and signed into law now. I have learned from past efforts on this and other difficult subjects that, if you load up these bills with new ideas, late in the process, you become spoilers of the good in pursuit of the perfect. I hope my colleagues will consider that as they cast their votes today. Mr. Speaker, that being said, Members should know that this is a wide open rule, providing that any Member may offer an amendment to H.R. 2564 if that amendment conforms to the standing rules of the House. The rule provides two hours of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule waives clause 2(1)(6) of rule XI--the 3-day layover rule--against consideration of the bill and it waives all points of order [[Page H 13096]] against two amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. Mr. Speaker, those amendments-- one offered by Mr. McIntosh and the other offered by Mr. Istook--pertain to disclosure by non-profit organizations that lobby and restrictions on the lobbying activities of federal grantees. It is my understanding that the sponsors of these amendments have received some conflicting advice from the Parliamentarian as to whether or not waivers are actually necessary. However, given the great interest among members in these issues, the majority on the rules committee felt that we should provide these waivers just to be sure. The rule further provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions and a procedure to allow for a hook-up with the bill from the other body, should the house pass H.R. 2564 without amendment. Finally, if that hook-up happens, the rule provides one motion to recommit for the bill from the other body. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me commend my colleague from Florida, Mr. Canady, for his hard work on this subject--and for his efforts to reach across party lines and make this a truly bi-partisan effort. I think most members are agreed that lobby reform is not--and should not be--a partisan issue, and it is my hope that we will act with dispatch today to get this matter onto the President's desk. Support this rule and the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], an extremely valued member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the gentleman from Ohio needed a waiver or not. I think in an open rule he would be able to proceed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I, contrary to published reports in the local newspaper this morning, will support this rule. I would add parenthetically that I have received an apology from the newspaper for making a mistake, and that started my day in a very pleasant way, but people have been asking me why I would not support this rule. I am supporting this rule. I urge others to do the same. 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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 269 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from greater metropolitan San Dimas, CA, distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding time to me. It is a good rule. It is an appropriate rule. It is a timely rule, and I urge its support, and this debate is about the rule. Mr. Speaker, most everyone in the country agrees that we need to. That is why we have this good rule. But most also think it is very important that we stick to our commitment to balance the budget in 7 years and if the President can commit to that, then this limited government shutdown problem will get resolved very quickly if not immediately. Americans want this budget balanced by 2002 or sooner, as my friend from Florida noted. In fact, the calls and faxes to our offices today tell the story. Not the predetermined poll results of the liberal media but the calls and faxes that came into my office, they were running up to 7 to 1 in favor of the balanced budget and get on with it. I note that the President has said over and over that he thinks he wants a balanced budget, too. Unfortunately, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the President's best plan leaves this country $200 billion in the red, in deficit, in the year 2002, while our plan does balance the budget. There is no plausible reason for the President to veto this bill unless he really does not want a balanced budget. And in the spirit of bipartisanship, we have created a cleaner CR for him now. There are no more excuses. Now is the time to sign. We hope he is going to do the right thing and so do most Americans.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Colorado for yielding time to me, a hard working and hard charging member of the Committee on Rules. I commend him and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules for their tireless efforts to bring balance to our Federal budget. That is what this debate is about. I know we have gotten off the track here, but that is what this debate is about. It is about money. It is about America and it is about taxpayers. Other than some spending-addicted liberals, there are very few Members who take pleasure in voting to raise the debt limit because it says to the United States of America, we are failing in our responsibilities here. In casting such a vote today, which I have never voted for one of these things before, Congress has got to admit that to date we have been unable to control our Federal penchant for spending beyond our means. It is like endlessly increasing the credit limit on a credit card when you cannot pay off the debt you have already accumulated, and Americans go to jail for doing things like that. In past years the Democratic leadership has sought to protect their Members from having to cast this tough vote, burying the debt limit extension deep in the budget resolution because there was no end in sight to the red ink they could pour out. But here, as in so many other ways, the new leadership in the House has courageously charted a different course, a more responsible course. We are today casting this tough vote out in the open with nowhere to hide, right here in the sunshine. We owe it to the American people to tell the truth about the mess that the liberal spenders have put us in, and we have to fix it and we have to plan to do it. As we come clean on the debt, we are also cementing our commitment on the majority side anyway that such debt extensions will in 7 years become a thing of the past, because we are going to stop spending more money than we have. We are going to balance our budget, and we are going to do it by the year 2002. This bill today will allow our leaders to work with the White House, if, of course, the White House wants to negotiate with us. It allows us to make the necessary down payment on our children's future by cutting spending, by freeing up taxpayers' dollars for investment in productivity and jobs and by shrinking the bloated Federal bureaucracy. One of our colleagues on the other side said we are trying to hide the dismantling of the Commerce Department. Wrong; we are shouting it from the roof tops. It is time. It is time to do this thing. Incredibly, some of the rhetoric suggests that many of our Democratic friends still do not get it. Nearly a century ago, one of this Nation's wisest leaders, Thomas Jefferson, wrote, and I quote: I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. If Thomas Jefferson's view had prevailed, perhaps today we would not be more than $4.9 trillion in debt. Thomas Jefferson saw the public debt as ``the greatest of the dangers to be feared.'' There were a lot of things to worry about when he was alive. His prescient comments should ring in Members' ears. We should past this temporary measure so we can get on with the business of paying down our debt once and for all. I urge support for the rule. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. [[Page H 12006]]

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from greater San Dimas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the Rules Subcommittee on the Legislation and Budget Process, I understand the concerns raised about coming to the floor with a second continuing resolution. [[Page H 11887]] I know many people are confused about these procedures--perhaps even some of our Members. Our subcommittee is currently engaged in an examination of the entire budget process. There have been several helpful proposals on ways to improve and clarify the process, including the Barton-Stenholm-Cox package introduced today that would provide for an automatic mechanism to keep the Government running in these situations. But here and now, the fact is that we are facing two problems: first, spending for most agencies has not been given final approval. A stop-gap measure, a continuing resolution is needed to prevent a partial Government shutdown. Second, the Treasury is rapidly approaching the debt ceiling--a type of credit limit established by law. Unless this limit is extended, the Federal Government's ability to make payments on everything from Treasury bill interest to Social Security benefits will be limited. The House is scheduled to address the debt limit tomorrow. It is our promise that in 7 short years we will no longer have to worry about increasing the Government's borrowing authority, because our budget will be balanced and the cash coming in will be equal to what is paid out. But the important point to remember today is that unlike past years, Congress is considering a continuing resolution that is consistent with a balanced budget, not an ever-growing multibillion-dollar deficit. But Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution is certainly not a new phenomenon--indeed since the 1974 Budget Act became law we have seen many continuing resolutions. The last time Congress passed a reconciliation bill, in 1993, a total of four continuing resolutions were needed before the appropriations process was completed. In other years, entire appropriations measures have been funded simply through continuing resolutions. I commend Chairman Livingston and the Appropriations Committee members for the tremendous work that they have done in passing all 13 appropriations bills in the House, and in crafting this particular continuing resolution to meet the legitimate needs of the Federal Government, while taking steps to ensure that spending in this resolution stays well within the parameters to meet our balanced budget target in 2002. Mr. Speaker, Congress faces a simple choice: pass this limited extension of the continuing resolution, or allow a partial and unnecessary shutdown of the Federal Government. The clear and responsible path is to approve this measure and get on with our pressing business. I urge my colleagues to support this rule. It fairly and timely brings this vital bill to the floor.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend the honorable distinguished gentleman from Glenwood Springs, CO [Mr. McInnis], for yielding me this time and for his management of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and to thank the conferees on S. 395 for going the extra mile to address the concerns of the State of Florida with regard to the deep water drilling provisions contained in the conference report. I, along with many Members of the Florida Delegation, had reservations about the original Senate language that would have provided royalty relief for oil companies drilling in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The overwhelming majority of Floridians are opposed to taking risks with oil and gas exploration in our fragile coastal waters--risks that could jeopardize our tourism and housing industries. I am pleased that through the efforts of Mrs. Fowler and others on the conference committee, the report now spells out in no uncertain terms that ``nothing in this title shall be construed to affect any offshore pre-leasing, leasing, or development moratorium, including any moratorium applicable to the eastern planning area of the Gulf of Mexico located off the gulf coast of Florida.'' This clarification is consistent with our efforts to provide long-term protection for Florida's valuable coastline, and I support it's inclusion in this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I recognize there are many other issues in this particular report, and they have not all been attended to in exactly the way that is going to make everybody exactly happy. I have never seen a piece of legislation that I can recall that has made everybody happy in this body, and I do not think I will live that long. I think that everybody fees they can improve on it. But for the rule that we have here, I think that is a good rule; and I think it is important to point out that there has been a change and an improvement for the Florida interests that involve the protection of the Florida coastal waters; and I think those involved.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida, Mr. Diaz- Balart, for yielding me this time and I commend him for his persistence in bringing this good, fiscally responsible bill to the floor for a second time. We are here today, doing deja-vu all over again, because the President apparently chose to use this bill as a soapbox upon which to seek political points rather than exercising sound leadership on matters of fiscal responsibility. The President vetoed this bill not because he opposed it--he did not. In fact, the President said he would sign the exact same bill--some other time. And so, we will send him the exact same bill, with a new number on it and on a different day, with the hope that the political winds blow in the right direction this time around. Mr. Speaker, many of our friends on the other side of the aisle have assured us that they do not agree with the President's decision to veto the legislative branch funding bill. Nonetheless, judging by our Rules Committee meeting and floor tactics since then, some of our Democrat colleagues have appeared somewhat gleeful at the opportunity to re-run the debate on lobby and gift reform. Those matters are very important-- and in fact, will be on this floor for debate and vote on or before November 16, that is, in a few short weeks. This was the commitment given on Friday by our majority leader, and I have every confidence that commitment will be met. Mr. Armey has tasked our Rules Committee with reviewing the gift rules adopted in the other body, with an eye to strengthening and improving them. And our Rules Committee has plans to move forward this week and next in completing that assignment. As a member of both committees with jurisdiction over gift reform-- that is, the Ethics Committee and the Rules Committee--I am keenly interested in tightening up our rules to improve our credibility with the American people and to better ensure transparency and fair play inside the beltway. In my office, we accept no gifts and no travel, regardless of who pays for it, not because we can be bought, but because the gray areas involving gifts do cause concern among the people I represent. In fact, I believe that most Members are seeking greater clarity and guidance than currently exist in our rules on this subject. Mr. Speaker, given the commitment we have received from our leadership, this attempt to attach a non-germane item to the legislative branch funding bill--which has no bearing on House rules-- appears a bit mischievous, designed perhaps to score a few political points. I hope Members recognize the tremendous changes that are being implemented by this new majority--and gift reform will be among them by the time the record books of the 1st session of the 104th Congress are written.

Mr. GOSS

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