Charlie Bass

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment as one who believes that fuel efficiency in light trucks and SUVs should be improved. But this is not the time for this amendment. For the last 6 years, DOT has been barred from examining the CAFE standards. Just yesterday, or the day before, the NAS released its report. Most of us have had almost no time to examine this report, and nowhere in this report am I under the impression that it recommends an approach similar to that envisioned by this amendment. This amendment could have detrimental effects on a very delicate economy in this country. It may impact safety, as we have already heard. I am assured by the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that we will have complete hearings on this whole issue of CAFE and where we should be headed and come up with a real plan and not a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that has come up in the last 6 months. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is premature, it is potentially counterproductive, and I think we should step back, relax, and support the committee in its reasonable efforts. It is a good start on the process of improving fuel economy.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 281, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) for yielding me a couple of minutes to talk about this wonderful bipartisan bill. Mr. Chairman, I commend the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for their working together and also the rest of the committee for a very good product, because this bill provides accountability which will improve educational quality. It provides local school administrators and school boards with more flexibility. It consolidates 34 out of 66 programs. It provides accountability with more funding for title I, which is significant. Lastly, it provides relief for children trapped in failing schools. Now, although H.R. 1 is a good bill, the single greatest change that we could bring to every elementary and secondary school everywhere in the country is to fulfill the Federal Government's obligation to fully fund its share of the cost of education for the disabled. Now, I bring this up because the Senate incorporated an amendment to make IDEA funding mandatory, but this language was left out of the House bill; and I regret the fact that I was unable to offer an amendment of my own to phase in full funding over the next 10 years as a mandatory program. Now, mandatory phase-in is good for the program if it is done on a percentage basis. It is good because local school boards can plan financially from year to year how much money they are going to have. It is good for education most importantly because we need to meet that unfunded mandate; but lastly and probably even more importantly, it is important for the program to have it funded on a mandatory basis because then the Congress will be forced to address the programmatic side of IDEA and reconcile the program to a budget. There are two problems with IDEA, the unfunded mandate and the programmatic side. I hope that the House will consider ceding to the Senate's position on IDEA because it is for responsible government, smart tax policy, and good for education. I commend the chairman and the ranking member for a job well done on H.R. 1.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Committee on the Budget's budget. This is a budget that balances very clearly the need to provide tax relief for working Americans, the need to save and protect Social Security, the need to pay down our Nation's debt, and, yes, the need to meet unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government. I would commend our chairman, who has led the way every single year that he has been on this Committee on the Budget, and now as chairman, in finding the necessary resources to significantly increase funding not only for education programs, but most specifically the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. Every year that I have been in this Congress, as contrasted with the years prior to me being in Congress, funding for this critical program has increased. I am pleased to say that this year in this budget we have set aside $1.25 billion to increase the part B IDEA funding program. It was never done before, and it is testimony to this chairman's commitment to IDEA as a program. I will yield to the chairman for a couple of clarifications on this ground-breaking accomplishment. The fact is that the reserve fund allocation of $1.250 billion is intended solely for the part B IDEA grants to States, not just IDEA-related funding generally. Now, the report specifies that the IDEA reserve fund is for part B, but the resolution does not. I was wondering if the chairman would respond to that briefly.

Mr. BASS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to emphasize, carrying on the point of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), that this is not necessarily instructions to the Committee on Appropriations to cap the fund at this amount. They are more than welcome to increase it above that. We certainly encourage them to increase the part B funding above that $1.25 or 1 and a quarter billion dollars, if they choose to do so.

Mr. BASS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for his leadership on this important issue.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 724) to authorize appropriations to carry out part B of title I of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, relating to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Mr. BASS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material on H.R. 724.

Mr. BASS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 724 makes a technical correction to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act that is necessary for Congress to authorize future appropriations for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It contains a date correction that was incorrectly referenced when EPCA was reauthorized during the 106th Congress. In the last EPCA reauthorization, Congress instructed the Department of Energy to continue operating the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through September 30, 2003. However, we failed to make a conforming date change to a related section of the act. This was a technical error and H.R. 724 corrects this situation. EPCA authorizes the Department of Energy to operate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The SPR contains approximately 541 million barrels of oil stored along the Gulf Coast. It costs about $165 million a year to operate the Reserve. As a practical matter, last year's Interior appropriations bill appropriated funds to operate the SPR through fiscal year 2001. Given that more than half of our demand for oil is met through imports, the importance of a Strategic Petroleum Reserve to protect against supply disruptions is now greater than ever. The majority of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was reauthorized through fiscal year 2003 during the 106th Congress. Section 166 of EPCA provides authorization for, quote, such sums as may be necessary, end of quote, to be appropriated for operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Due to a technical error in the most recent EPCA reauthorization, section 166 provides authorization for appropriations only through March 31, 2000, the end of last year. In contrast, section 191 of EPCA provides the authority for the Department of Energy to operate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through September 30, 2003. H.R. 724 will eliminate the March 31, 2000 limitation on appropriations for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, allowing future appropriations for the reserve. With this change and pursuant to section 191 of EPCA, the Reserve would not have to be reauthorized again until September 30, 2003. The correction in H.R. 724 also simplifies future reauthorizations of EPCA by placing the effective date in one section, that is section 191, as opposed to two sections. Maintaining a strong Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an important part of our Nation's energy security. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 724 since it is a necessary technical correction to ensure the continued authorization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BASS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BASS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent on Tuesday, January 30, due to circumstances beyond my control, and I consequently missed a recorded vote on H.R. 93. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 5.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. There are many important aspects of this report, but I thought I would use my time to address a concern to all of us, especially today, the scourge of terrorism. The bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania brought the Usama Bin Laden organization to the forefront of terrorist threats to U.S. interests, although numerous other terrorist groups continue to plague us and put American citizens at risk. Now, just this morning, we learned of what appears to have been a very tragic attack on an American destroyer, the U.S.S. Cole, off Yemen that has resulted in the loss of American lives. The committee, together with its counterpart in the other body, understands the critical need to be able to fight back. The Cole incident yet again, Mr. Speaker, reminds us of the importance of good intelligence in preventing these kinds of crises and, as in the case of this one, bringing the perpetrators to justice. The Intelligence Oversight committees are charged, among other things, with overseeing the budgets, programs, and activities of the various counterterrorism elements of the intelligence committee. And I submit, Mr. Speaker, that our ability to fight back and, more importantly, to prevent terrorist attacks from occurring at all is robust and growing. But these capabilities, especially those involving the prevention mission, need constant attention, as the Cole incident reminds us. The millennium celebrations around the world, which are a time of great risk for us all, proved that our counterterrorism professionals were ready and able to protect and defend. I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that the intelligence community has time and time again saved lives and secured the interests of Americans and their allies. This arduous task consumes a significant amount of limited resources, but I would find it hard to believe that any responsible person could deny that this is money well spent. We on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are dedicated to ensuring that the intelligence community has adequate resources and is well prepared to phase down the Usama Bin Ladens of this world. While we are satisfied that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has generally performed well against the terrorist target, we have learned through the course of our normal oversight work that much more can and needs to be done, especially as terrorists attempt to acquire chemical and biological weapons to pursue their shameful war against society. This conference report will enhance our ability to defend ourselves against terrorists through a variety of means. I just want to say that our chairman and ranking minority member have done a wonderful job leading this committee in a bipartisan fashion and I want to thank them for their efforts. I urge adoption of this conference committee report.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for all that this important legislation achieves. It represents a far-reaching effort to honor some of the promises made to retired servicemen and women, it begins to provide our active and reserve personnel with world-class compensation and training, and it continues to keep our commitment to providing the equipment and materiel necessary to protect the interests of this country. For all these reasons and more, this legislation ought to pass with the support of members on both sides of the aisle. But Mr. Speaker, I do want to mention how disappointed I am that the conferees could not negotiate a settlement on the so-called concurrent receipt issue, under which military retirees have their monthly retirement pay reduced by the amount of any disability payment they may have the misfortune to have earned. Military retirement pay is earned for length of service, while a veteran's disability payment compensation ought to be regarded as a payment to a veteran in response to injuries or diseases that happened or were aggravated while on active duty. These are not the same thing and should not be offset against each other. Moreover, a service member who incurs an injury and then goes on to work for a private company is not precluded from receiving that company's full pension benefit and the full disability payment. In essence, the message we send is that servicemen and women are far better off going to work for someone other than the United States if they receive an injury while performing their duty. It seems to me that these people, the very people who have demonstrated their willingness to place themselves in danger, ought to be encouraged to continue with the military--if their disability allows--not discouraged. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I support this legislation because it does address several critical aspects of veterans health care and because I believe the provisions addressing other critical defense needs are too important to reject. Fittingly, I want to note that the very veterans, support organizations, and associations that are most penalized by the failure to address the dual compensation issue all support this legislation because of the security it will provide for the current men and women who provide our shield. Hopefully, that support--more than my own--will impress my colleagues and will be remembered when the next Congress takes up the dual compensation issue.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to ask my colleagues to support this breast cancer awareness resolution, a similar one I introduced last year, as well, which also passed. This will indeed be the second consecutive Congress to pass such a resolution. I look forward to building on this work with my colleagues in future Congresses. I also want to thank the House leadership and the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and, of course, the gentlemen on both sides of the aisle here for their help and leadership on this issue, as well as the leadership of Members like the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Dunn) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) as well as over a hundred other Members of Congress who chose to cosponsor this resolution. Mr. Speaker, the resolution outlines the devastating impact that breast cancer has on far too many women as well as men every single year. But it also notes the critical difference that education, early detection and effective treatment can make. Moreover, it reminds each and every one of us of the role that we can play both as individual Members and as an institution in educating our constituents and raising awareness of breast cancer. And that is really the key to this resolution. The Congress can play a role in communicating an important message to the American people and that message and the effective communication of it may save countless lives over the next year. Now, the last decade saw a leveling off of the incidence rate and an increase in the survival rate. But as we heard a minute ago, breast cancer continues to remain the most common form of cancer among women and the second leading cause of cancer deaths nationwide. More than 180,000 women and some 1,400 men will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year; and nearly 41,000 women and 400 men will die of this disease. Mr. Speaker, no woman, no man, no family should have to suffer all that comes with breast cancer. But each and every one of us must do everything we can to raise awareness of this disease and the importance and methods of early detection and treatment. As was mentioned before, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month; and National Mammography Day is on October 20. With this in mind, I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution today and to adhere to its call upon us all to fight this deadly disease.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to thank all of my colleagues in this body for supporting this significant resolution. As we have seen, there is probably no Member of Congress who cannot cite someone close to them who has had breast cancer. I will only relate one individual who is close to me who died of breast cancer some 28 years ago during a time when treatment for breast cancer was barbaric at best. She was 48 years old when she was diagnosed, and she died at the age of 51. That individual was my mother. I want to commend this Congress for paying special attention to this significant disease, celebrating the progress that we have made in the last 20 years but understanding that there is enormous work yet to go, and we all must put our shoulders to the wheel to find a cure for this horrible disease. General Leave

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a supporter and cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act. I cannot go further without thanking my colleague the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for the enormous energy and persistence that she has displayed in pushing this bill forward in a just-in-time fashion. As we have heard before, the Department of Justice estimates that up to 4 million women are physically abused by their husbands or live-in partners each year. This is absolutely unacceptable. Family violence costs this Nation upwards of 10 billion annually in medical expenses, police and court costs, shelters and foster care, sick leave, absenteeism, and non-productivity. But the real toll on America is really more costly than that. It is non-quantifiable. What domestic violence really is is probably the saddest aspect of our culture in our civilization. And there is no victim worse than the children that are in these households and that are subject to the types of problems that exist in areas where there is physical and emotional abuse in the household. For the past 5 years, the Violence Against Women Act has helped address these underlying causes and has provided desperately needed crisis services for victims and survivors. VAWA has paid special attention to rural towns and counties where previously there had been no organized efforts. I believe that State and local governments should do more to prevent these abuses, but the Federal Government must play a role if we are to continue with the successes of VAWA. Mr. Speaker, we are now in a position to move the successes of the past forward and we can only do this by passing H.R. 1248, the Violence Against Women Act.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for purposes in engaging in a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe).

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his committee's work in protecting many important priorities in this bill. I also want to express my gratitude for his generosity and patience regarding a matter of great importance to my district and the many districts that have point-of-entry border crossings into Canada. I would like to ask the gentleman from Arizona if he would agree to protect the language on rural border staffing and hours of operation as this legislation moves forward and if he will agree to work with me to ensure that the hours of operation at the Pittsburgh-New Hampshire border station and all such rural crossings reflect the security concerns and the concerns of many citizens who depend on open and accessible borders.

Mr. BASS. I certainly yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for that commitment.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1002. Mr. Speaker I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for his tireless efforts on working on behalf of this important issue. Earlier this year, I introduced a bill which would reduce the premiums paid to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation by small businesses that are looking to offer new plans. This bipartisan initiative already had been passed by the House on a previous occasion and was also included in the original version of the bill we are debating today. I fully understand the reasons for removing all nontax provisions from the bill, but I do hope that Members who may be appointed to the conference committee will work for the inclusion of these provisions that were in my bill and other pension reforms that may have been removed from the bill. With the inclusion of that, we will be assured that we will have a bill that will encourage employers to offer pensions, as this one does, increase participation by eligible employees, raise the limits on benefits and contributions, improve asset portability, strengthen legal protections for planned participants, and reduce regulatory burdens on plan sponsors. Mr. Speaker, I also urge Members not to lose sight of the fact that during debate regarding who will benefit from this bill, we should consider the fact that when IRAs were created in 1974, they were widely regarded as a great new step in encouraging retirement savings for all Americans, and the original limit of $1,500 was not criticized as a giveaway for the most wealthy, but was hailed by both parties as the introduction of a planning tool for working Americans. Had this limit been adjusted yearly to account for increases in the CPI, the Consumer Price Index, it would be today $5,353 each year. This bill will not adjust the limit to $5,000 until 2003, and I think we would do well to keep this in mind as we debate this important bill on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill.