Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a member of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. KOLBE asked and was to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] for a colloquy.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows the House to consider and hopefully pass H.R. 2076, the fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Conference Report. As most Americans know, we are charged each year with enacting 13 appropriations bills to fund the major functions of Government. This year we have had a difficult time in meeting that goal, given the extraordinarily complex challenge of reducing the size and scope of Government as we attempt to balance our Federal budget. To date, 7 of the 13 spending bills have become law, and we are working hard to have the others on the President's desk as quickly as possible. We are seeking to work with the White House--but we will not abandon our commitment to balancing the budget in 7 years. This conference report makes a tangible contribution to the deficit reduction effort, providing for a real cut of $700 million from last year's spending levels. I wish to commend Chairman Rogers and his entire subcommittee for their excellent work in making the tough choices needed to bring about such substantial savings, and believe me, I know these were tough choices. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a standard one providing for the consideration of appropriations conference reports. There is nothing unusual about the rule. It is the way we do business. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration, allowing us to proceed with getting this bill passed and, hopefully, one step closer to being signed into law. Under House rules, this conference report will be debatable for 1 hour and the minority will have its traditional right to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, we had considerable discussion about the merits of this bill during our Rules Committee hearing yesterday as sometimes happens, and I know there is concern among our friends in the minority about the crime provisions of this legislation. I should point out that the Contract With America outlined a series of important tough-on-crime provisions that the congressional majority promised to deliver. Although those provisions--including truth-in-sentencing and prison litigation reform--passed the House this spring, they have not yet moved through the other body, I am sorry to say. Because we know how important these anticrime measures are to the American people, we are cutting through the legislative logjam that has held them up. I am speaking of provisions to help States keep criminals behind bars and to stop frivolous prison lawsuits. Over and over again, our constituents express frustration that criminals are released early from prison because of overcrowding and lenient State parole policies. Our constituents are concerned about their safety, as they should be, and they want to know that those who commit crimes will do their time. In addition, people are extremely frustrated with reports of endless lawsuits generated by prisoners that clog the system and syphon off precious criminal justice resources. This bill incorporates much of the Judiciary Committee's language to address these two problems in the hopes that we can finally expedite getting these anticrime measures enacted into law before Christmas, I hope. There is also some disagreement about the way this bill addresses the COPS Program--a pet program of this White House that has placed some 26,000 cops on the beat across the country, but which, in a few short years, will drop the entire burden for funding those policemen on the States and localities. In my view, that's a false promise of a very short-term gain. It is attractive bait, I admit, but it is a short-term gain that in the long run is going to end up costing our communities dearly. Mr. speaker, I remember the days of the CETA programs. I know what happened because I was in another one of those. Instead, this bill takes the block-grant approach to allocating those anticrime resources, leaving it up to local officials to determine what the best use will be for those funds. Additional good news in this measure comes in the form of substantial funding for violence against women programs and a significant Federal financial commitment to help States like Florida cope with the tremendous burden of incarcerating criminal aliens. I would point out even though I am from Florida, it is not just Florida that has the problem; it is a national problem. A careful review of the major provisions of this conference report indicates that our House colleagues have done yeoman's work, they have done it well, in their negotiations, bringing the House a fiscally responsible bill that reflects the priorities of our constituents. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the conference report. 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 289 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well today to speak about the prospects for democracy in Haiti, an area where we have a great deal of investment. I am sorry to report that the news is even more dismal, there is more deterioration in the signs that we are getting toward democracy. We are not, and there are some four particular disturbing areas we need to have more information from the executive branch on. First, we apparently are going to have elections on December 17 for the new President in the country of Haiti. It is very important that we do that, but, of course, the elections have to be full, fair, free, democratic elections. There is no indication that the elections are indeed going to be full, fair, or free. In fact, most of the opposition parties are boycotting the election. There is virtually no campaigning going on, with the exception of one party, which is the chosen party of the present President, and it is impossible to underestimate, in my view, the damage done by the parliamentary elections that basically caused the loyal opposition to lose faith in the system and refuse to participate in it. The second disturbing area has to do with these elections, and that is, it appears that some of our taxpayers' dollars that are being financed as aid to Haiti are indeed going into the chosen campaign of the party of the President there. There appear to be some unaccounted moneys in significant amounts, and there is only one campaign in evidence, and it is a very well funded, lavishly orchestrated campaign. The indications are, certainly the rumors are strong and we have had no denials, that those are U.S. tax dollars that are running that campaign and providing for all those banners and T-shirts that are springing up around the country that is so poor that many people do not have T- shirts or food or medicine or other things they need. But these campaign shirts seem to be getting out there. It appears also as we read reports in Miami that some of our tax dollars are being used to lobby ourselves. I suspect we will be hearing more on that as others look into those allegations that are being made about tax dollars that are going to lawyers and lobbyists in our own country. The third area of concern is we have a new chief of the national police, which is the group supposed to provide the stability in Haiti once our troops leave in February. It turns out Colonel Solastine is an old Aristide friend, sort of a political hack, and has been head of the palace guard, and it is not expected that he is going to be able to bring either professionalism or independence to the national police. The final problem that I point to this morning is we just have had a cancellation of a business delegation from Haiti. Haiti desperately needs more investment and business. The Haitians who were coming here on a mission this week to talk to American legislators and businessmen about how to do that have canceled their trip because of the heightened tensions between the United States and Haitian Governments and because of the situation in Haiti, which they describe as ``inopportune.'' Inopportune is a euphemism for we are scared to death, we are closing our business, there is no security, there is a lot of corruption, and there is much to be done. These are problems we need to look more into before we spend more tax dollars. I thank you. I look for a report from the White House on this.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am overjoyed to rise today in strong support of the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act. This is very good news for seniors in Florida and all across America. The issue here is very, very simple. Big brother, the Federal Government, is no longer going to punish seniors who choose to remain a productive part of the American work force. The new majority in Congress made a promise to our Nation's seniors that we would fix the unfair earnings test process and that is what is happening. Mr. Speaker, today's action provides one more example of promises made, promises kept, as we have said before. By raising the earnings test threshold from the meager $11,280 to $30,000 over the next 6 years we are sending a clear message to seniors that hard work and self- reliance are still valued qualities in the United States of America. Although I feel strongly that we should abolish the earnings test limit altogether, because there should be no [[Page H 13969]] additional tax penalty for work just because an individual has reached a certain age, this legislation does move us much further to that ultimate goal. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote and very much commend the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Jacobs], for their strong, persistent, smart leadership in this matter.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, as the subject of Bosnia has come up, Haiti has somehow crept into the conversation as some sort of a model. I think people should know that things are not so good in Haiti. Public security there is literally falling apart. There is violent rioting through the country, mob rule, the streets are unsafe. This past weekend a 6-year-old school girl waiting for a schoolbus was shot dead. Businesses are closed and shuttered. I do not know how many people have been burned to death or hacked to death, but I know it is more than one. The police station in the major city has been burned down. A drive-by shooting took place at city hall. Fear is pervasive. You can measure it; you can feel it. The wave of unrest and violence that is going on is not something that is caused by citizens from the ground up. It was unleashed by the democratically elected President, President Aristide, 2 \1/2\ weeks ago at a funeral. The new police force that is supposed to protect and provide law and order there was disassembled and disarmed by the mob and chased out. The judiciary is in hiding. The presidential elections that we are supporting and paying for are in doubt. Certainly, even if they come off, they will not be full, fair, and free. Investment is not happening. Privatization is not taking place. Corruption is not being taken care of. But refugees are starting again. The drownings are happening again. This is not a model for success. Let us not hope we are going to do in Bosnia what has happened in Haiti.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, much has been said on this floor and on TV screens in American households--and much has been written in newspapers across the country--about the alleged dangers of shrinking Government and cutting spending. The rhetorical warfare playing itself out among the partisan politics and the Presidential ambitions understandably has many Americans concerned. Big changes can be scary--and that fact has given comfort to those whose mission it is to preserve the status quo, whether the status quo is working or not, whether status quo is affordable or not. But I am convinced that most Americans are ready for the big changes we need to bring our Federal budget into balance. I am also convinced that most Americans see the real danger before us--the danger of doing nothing. Americans understand what is at stake in this debate. The facts are indisputable: We are on an unsustainable trend, spending more than we have. We are more than $5 trillion in debt. Seventy years ago, at his inaugural, Calvin Coolidge said: The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the Government. Every dollar that we carelessly waste means that their life will be so much the more meager. Every dollar that we prudently save means that their life will be so much the more abundant. Economy is idealism in its most practical form. I am mindful of my new grandchild, born just a few weeks ago. Because we failed to heed the advice of Coolidge and so many of our Nation's greatest leaders, that baby already carries on his tiny shoulders a lifetime share of the interest payment on the national debt totaling $187,000. That's the bill we are sending to every baby born this year just to pay the debt service for our failure to bring spending into line. Spending is the problem. We spend too much. Looking at it from another view, think about this: If we don't take the steps necessary to make annual deficits a thing of the past by 2002, as we are trying to do, we will be paying more every year for interest on our debt than we spend for our national defense. The President of the United States went on television last night to talk to us about what a tough place the world is, and we are having a great debate about how we spend, but nobody denies we need moneys for national defense and we are spending more on interest payments than we are on national defense. The new leadership in this Congress has signaled that enough is enough. We must control spending. We have gone to the mat in order to implement the big changes needed to bring the budget into balance within 7 years. Balancing the budget will mean that Americans will see lower interest rates--making homes and cars and higher education more affordable. Unshackling the economy from its massive debt will boost productivity--creating millions of new jobs. Per capita incomes will rise and Federal revenues will increase as a result. There should be no need for tax increases--in fact, we will have more opportunities to reduce the Federal tax bite so that Americans can keep more of their hard earned tax dollars. Mr. Speaker, no one enjoyed the partial Federal shutdown we saw before Thanksgiving. All agree that we must settle our major philosophical disagreements before the next major deadline of December 15, so we can avoid a repeat of that anxious time. But we cannot paper over the very real differences that exist between those of us who believe we must balance the budget within 7 years and those who do not see any urgency about reaching that goal. It is something like the irresistible force of reform hitting up against the immovable object of status quo. Given the tendency of this administration to watch the public opinion polls, the best way to bring about the right conclusion is for the American people to make their voices heard about their commitment to balancing the budget. Certainly the cards, the letters, the calls that are coming into my office are overwhelmingly in support of the concept of getting our spending under control and balancing our budget in 7 years. I think that is probably true in [[Page H 13660]] every congressional office. I hope it is true at the White House, and I hope Americans will not lose patience and will keep sending those messages, because now is the time we are going to balance the budget for the United States of America and get spending under control so every baby is not born with the prospect of $187,000 of interest payments alone in his or her lifetime.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we all have some breathing space today, and it is welcome, and we are very happy for the successful efforts that took place over the weekend while we worked here to avoid this Government shutdown, and I am pleased that that has happened. We all now have a chance to stand up and look around a little bit about what is happening elsewhere in the world. I think it is important that we do that, because our responsibilities do in fact have a whole range. I expected to hear some crowing from the White House about now, about the crown jewel of their foreign policy success, which is Haiti. I have not heard much, and I have been curious about the silence. I have not heard much in the press, either, so I just checked and I found that one of the observers who was there for the last election, for the parliamentary elections in June, was there last week and reported back to me this morning on a trip that she had there. And sorry to say that things are not going very well. I say that for three reasons. First of all, the taxpayers of this country have got almost $3 billion invested in Haiti right now, in the Aristide government. I am sad to say that democracy is not building. It is in fact going down the drain, despite that heavy investment to try to help that nation out. I am also sorry to say that U.S. troops are still there and subject to harm in the civil unrest that is unyielding, and we have seen unfortunately an escalation of violence. We will hope that nobody gets hurt, and particularly not our troops. And finally, I am particularly sorry that democracy under the Aristide administration is not working, because he was truly a democratically elected President, and if the Government cannot operate that way, that means we are going to be in for a longer haul in Haiti and things are not as well as we hoped. That, of course, affects us in Florida. We have the refugee problem, we have many Haitians in Florida, many in my [[Page H 13348]] district, a matter of great concern. It is also sad that a friendly neighboring nation that is so close to our shore is having such a difficult time coming to grips with the development of democracy. We will not have a full, fair election there on December 17, if the election comes off, because the legitimate opponents who would run have been intimidated. They have been threatened with being burned to death if they even registered and showed up. Most of the opposition offices are closed. There is no campaigning going on. Fear is throughout the countryside. This is not the ingredient of a democratic election. Businesses are closed. Business is worse. The economy was bad. The economy is even worse than bad now. People just simply do not want to open their stores. They are afraid of mob violence. The privatization effort that the Government was supposed to introduce has not worked. In fact, not only has it not worked, the Prime Minister who was its champion has resigned in protest. A new Prime Minister has come in and is going to a different policy. So those agreements toward privatization, getting that country back on an economic footing, are not working out either. Apparently the government of President Aristide is going the wrong way on that. The most important point is stability. Mobs are driving people into refuges, including Americans. When it gets to that state, it is time to reexamine.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman emeritus, the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] for yielding me time and for those nice compliments. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and I commend my colleagues on the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee--especially Chairman Jerry Lewis--for their perseverance in bringing us this final product. I am particularly gratified that the subcommittee--especially considering these enormously tough budgetary times--has recognized the value and common sense in allocating veterans' resources where the veterans are. For years Florida has seen its veterans' population increase steadily, as veterans from up North and the Midwest recognize the splendid quality of life and healthy climate the sunshine State offers. But the shift of resources to care for those veterans-- particularly the health care component of veterans' services--has not kept pace. Incredibly, over the years, the resources for veterans have repeatedly been distributed to places where the veterans aren't. Meanwhile, in my district of southwest Florida, our more than 150,000 veterans have been grossly underserved. This bill, while demonstrating the reality of declining Federal spending overall, does, at least, make good on a commitment we have received from two successive administrations--that the tremendously overburdened outpatient clinic that serves all southwest Florida will be upgraded and expanded to meet the need that exists. I am delighted that the saga of the unmet promises to southwest Floridians appears, finally, to be coming to a close. On another note, I am pleased that the conferees acceded to the strong instruction of this House not to allow this important bill to be bogged down with highly controversial--and in some cases excessive-- riders designed to restrict the authority of the EPA. That debate--and the larger questions of regulation and environmental common sense--will continue, I know, another day and in another way. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule--and it allows us to get this tremendously important bill to the President, so he may sign it and we will be one step closer to ending the budget impasse. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the bill, and I appreciate those involved for their efforts at getting it this far.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules from Glens Falls, NY, Mr. Solomon, for yielding me this time, and for his very strong leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, today we have seen history made when Congress voted to balance the budget for the first time since the first year of the Nixon Presidency. However, as extraordinary as that is, H.R. 2606 is perhaps more immediately important. I say that because this legislation directly concerns the lives of 25,000 Americans, their families, and friends. More than any other issue that has come before this Congress, the question of whether or not we send troops to Bosnia has evoked a spontaneous and heartfelt response across America and from my district in southwest Florida. The message is clear, and the message is, ``Do not send our young men and women to Bosnia,'' and I agree strongly. This Member has not forgotten that just over 1 year ago the administration brought us to the brink of war in Haiti, a tiny, friendly Caribbean neighbor, before cooler heads outside the administration prevailed. And while I now applaud the efforts to reach a diplomatic solution to the war in Bosnia, I wish the President had learned from his earlier disaster in Somalia and near disaster in Haiti, you cannot put troops in harm's way in a foreign country without a clear, achievable objective and a clearly defined exit strategy. It is a recipe for disaster. We certainly cannot put those lives on the line without an American chain of command in a European country whose intense internal feuds date back to before our country was even founded. The former Secretary General of NATO, Willie Class, has not been replaced since his indictment, in part because of some clumsy diplomacy on our part, I believe. Last night in the Committee on Rules we heard testimony further on what some would call the Michael New issue or the chain of command issue, concerning the uniform to be worn by American soldiers serving in missions overseas. I agree that this is part of our no-foreign- chain-of-command issue that needs to be debated and needs attention, but I do not think today is the day for it. Mr. Speaker, we have a good rule before us, it is fair. We have a mightily important subject before us, and I urge support for the rule and support for the very important bill behind it.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, Congress has been working long days and late hours to find a positive solution to the budget crisis. We have moved appropriations bills, put together the Balanced Budget Act conference report, and passed two continuing resolutions to reopen the Government. The latest one is under a veto threat because it contains a simple statement of commitment to balance the budget in 7 years. Mr. Speaker, it is in this context that the President said, when asked why he was refusing to negotiate with Congress, that, quote, ``Somebody has to do the right thing,'' end quote. It surprises me, and it will surprise many Americans, that the President seems to have an exclusive take on the right thing, one that leads him to refuse steps to reopen the Government. Only President Clinton knows what is right, so says President Clinton. Wrong. Given the $5 trillion debt we have built up and will leave to our children and grandhcildren, I think that a commitment to a balanced budget in 7 years is the right thing. Even better is a specific outline to eliminate the deficit and get us there. Saving Medicare from bankruptcy is the right thing. Allowing Americans to keep more of the money in their paychecks, that is the right thing. The child tax credit, that is the right thing. Phase out of the marriage penalty, the right thing. And a reduction in the capital gains rate is the right thing. This rule provides for ample time to debate this historic balanced budget; it allows us to send the President the balanced budget the American people have demanded. It is up to us to pass this rule, support the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, and once again urge the President to do the right thing. We will not be playing any golf this weekend. I hope the President will not be either. The right thing to do is to sit down and sign the Balanced Budget Act.

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Speaker, just make a few points I would like to speak to very quickly. First of all, we are talking about House rules, not criminal statute. I say that because there are some who have put out some thoughts that there is the potential of going to jail and so forth because of these House rules we are talking about. Breaking the law is always possible and anybody can go to jail and should if they deserve to, but we are talking about the rules of the House here, not about criminal law. Second, I would like to point out that volunteers have been brought up in some scenarios. They are subject to another rule and not part of this legislation today. Third, there was talk about a political convention. That is not covered, as my friend from Texas has talked about. There is a specific exemption from that, and, as we know, we separate our official from our campaign functions very carefully and need to continue to do that. Fourth, this is a bipartisan event. There are participants from both sides of the aisle and many different points [[Page H 13073]] of view involved, not only in the base legislation but in the amendments that we will be discussing. Fifth, I would like to point out that even though some have cast aspersions about GOP's leadership abilities to move this forward, we have only been here 10 months and we have it on the floor on the date we promised. The others who have been here for 40 years perhaps did not come to quite as timely a decision on this. So I think we have done OK. Sixth, I would like to point out that on page 12 of the committee report, an incorrect reference is made to a restriction on the provision of ``free attendance'' at a widely attended event, which does not exist in House Resolution 250. For the record, there is no restriction on who may provide free attendance at such an event. 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, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this partial disclosure that is proposed by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], my friend and colleague, has two things in it that I think Members should know about. First of all, we have a fairly significant new disclosure requirement that means reporting any gift over $50, that includes meals, will have to be reported. There is no such provision now, that is something new, and before you vote for this, I would urge that you think about that if you are planning to vote for it. Second, Mr. Speaker, there is no exemption from disclosure requirements for gifts over $50 from personal friends. Members should know that they and their staff would be required to disclose any gift, including a meal, over $50 from a personal friend. That is also new.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, Abraham Lincoln once said With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. History has proven this to be true time and again. [[Page H 13077]] And that is why restoring the public's faith in this institution must be a top priority. After all, if the people we work for do not believe in us they will not believe in the decisions we make. Despite the fact that almost every individual Member and staffer are honorable--people do not think very highly of us collectively. Many think we have been out of touch, living in a different sort of world than they face everyday; the kind of world where gifts and meals and vacations are paid for by someone else. And because of that, they do not have confidence that the decisions we make are always in their best interests. This is a major problem for us, especially at a time when we are seeking to make the tough choices needed to balance our budget. Public support is crucial to the success of our mission--and in my view, responsible gift reform is crucial to that public support. Mr. Speaker, as a member of both the Rules Committee and the Ethics Committee, it has been my chore to learn the details behind the principles at issue in this debate. I have studied current rules, the provisions of House Resolution 250, and the provisions of the alternative proposals we face. I have listened to question and comments by dozens of our Members--in public hearings before the Rules Committee, and in one-on-one discussions. I know Members want to do the right thing--and they do have legitimate concern that we develop rules that make sense, that are understandable and effective and will not trip Members up even as they try to comply. In my view, the type of approach our Speaker may bring forward later today--involving a total ban on gifts--is the cleanest and best way to go toward accomplishing those goals. But I also believe that we could make major progress if we adopt House Resolution 250 as reported by our Rules Committee. Even though this measure has some problems, it does accomplish significant change. It gets a handle on most gifts and meals provided to Members and staff by imposing new limits. It provides for greatly expanded and more timely disclosure on travel. And it creates new restrictions on the actions of registered lobbyists. These are all positive--and I think workable--provisions. I think they deserve support by this House. Our consitutents have asked for such improvements. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend Dan Burton, that I understand the concerns he has raised and I respect the effort he has made in crafting an alterantive to House Resolution 250. He has some solid ideas, but in my view his alternative is not sufficient to meet the necessity we face. I worry that Americans will see the $50 threshold as too high and the allowance of travel to recreational charity events as too generous. As I have throughout this process, I intend to listen carefully to the debate--we have a series of choices: if Burton is too relaxed or has image problems then vote ``no'' and consider Speaker Gingrich's full ban on gifts--if that's too tough then Waldholtz is middle ground. I'll vote ``no'' on Burton ``yes'' on Gingrich because I believe that is where America is and I believe that is where we should be, too.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Virginia [Mr. Bateman]. (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)