Charlie Bass

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Is it not true that either of these two suggested changes can easily be corrected in the committee of conference under technical corrections? There is no need to worry if under the unfortunate circumstance we have a revote that these corrections will not obviously be made, because it is the intent of Congress to make this change.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the pending amendment. Corporate welfare. Everyone hates corporate welfare. We all talk about it in our districts. Irate taxpayers bristle at the thought of their hard-earned wages being given to large and profitable companies, and justifiably so. It is one thing to provide temporary welfare assistance to help poor people, the people in need, get back on their feet, but to give billions of dollars in subsidies to large cooperations is absolutely absurd. Of all the corporate subsidy programs maintained by the Federal Government, the Market Access Program is one of the most notorious. Since its creation back in 1985, the Market Access Program has provided almost $1.5 billion to some of the biggest and wealthiest corporations in this country. For example, in 1997, fiscal year 1997, they doled out $2.6 million to Sunkist, $1.4 million to Blue Diamond, $700,000 to Welch's Foods, and $600,000 to Ernest and Julio Gallo. Other companies that have received market access funds include McDonald's to sell Chicken McNuggets, Joseph Seagram and Sons to promote Four Roses Whiskey. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line that many of the firms that have received Market Access Program funds, including Burger King, Campbell Soup, General Mills, Hershey Foods, Ocean Spray Cranberries, Quaker Oats, Tyson Foods, can afford to pay for their own advertising. They do not need the U.S. Government acting as their ad agency. I urge my colleagues to support this great amendment.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished subcommittee chairman and another Member of Congress has circulated an e-mail warning to Members that the Bass-DeFazio amendment which passed by a 229 to 193 vote majority may have cut more than we, the authors, stated. The e-mail message claims the Bass-DeFazio amendment cut nearly $21 million from the Wildlife Services funding which would, as the e-mail declares, put at risk ``safe transportation, safe drinking water, and an abundant supply of safe and wholesome food, and, most importantly, the safety of children.'' I assure my colleagues that that is not our intent. We worked with the Legislative Counsel over the past couple weeks to draft an amendment that cut only $10 million in Wildlife Services funding for livestock protection, and we did not intend to cut health and safety funding or research funding. However, because of a drafting error by Legislative Counsel, the amendment may result in an additional cut of $10 million. It may. Not necessarily will, but it may. To clarify the amendment and reassure Members that it will only eliminate livestock protection funding, we need only to insert one word that indicates the funding should be taken from the Wildlife Services operating budget. In a measure of good faith, I would hope that the gentleman from New Mexico would accept our unanimous-consent request, which I have not made yet, to clarify the amendment. The House has clearly spoken on this issue. By a 36-vote margin, the House is on record as opposing animal control subsidies for ranchers. I hope the chairman would not use a typographical error by Legislative Counsel to stymie the will of the House. Request for Modification to Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bass

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to accept an additional word ``operations'' to the amendment that passed the House yesterday by a vote of 229-193.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the Bass amendment No. 2 previously agreed to.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical correction that we have made to the amendment which the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and I offered yesterday afternoon, which passed by a significant vote. I just want to mention that since that time, many Members of Congress may have received calls from their State agriculture departments or their State aviation departments or their State fish and wildlife departments saying that in some form or fashion the Bass-DeFazio amendment would affect the funding for such programs as human health and crops and natural resources, forest and range and agriculture and so forth. That may have been the case had the unanimous consent that was just accepted not been accepted. Unfortunately, legislative counsel made a minor drafting mistake which turned out to have a major impact on the interpretation of the amendment and now that this has been corrected, I want to assure my colleagues, each and every one of them, who have any concerns about the impact of this amendment that it will only affect the livestock protection matter which we debated yesterday. I am not going to spend my time repeating the debate that we had yesterday only to point out that this is a very narrow program that affects a very few number of cattle and sheep ranchers in the West to eliminate predators at a significant cost to the Federal Government. We have been through these arguments yesterday. I want to urge my colleagues, should there be a revote after we go out of the Committee of the Whole to support the amendment, it is the exact same vote that we had yesterday. This is an important amendment that is supported by a number of different environmental groups and taxpayers groups, including the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Humane Society, and Wilderness Society. Now that this amendment is corrected. I urge all of my colleagues, should we have another vote on it, to cast the same vote that they cast yesterday.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for purposes of control, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the Wildlife Service's western livestock protection budget from $28.8 million to $18.8 million, a $10 million reduction. Basically, this is a program that has been funded for the last 4 or 5 years at approximately $26 to $28 million, always a little bit higher than that requested by the administration. It is a program that benefits a relatively few number of cattle and sheep ranchers in the West, and it gives them matching funds, half of which are put up by the State, essentially to shoot animals that may be considered predatory to livestock. Between 1983 and 1993, quite a bit longer period of time, wildlife services increased by 71 percent. That is adjusted for inflation. The number of coyotes killed was increased by 30 percent. They also succeeded in killing black bears, mountain lions, badgers, and others. Let me just describe, Mr. Chairman, how this goes about. In 1996, there were 28,575 coyotes killed. The preferred method of killing was the so-called aerial method. The aerial method is basically a means by which you get up in an airplane and you scatter shot on these poor, innocent animals. The other method was cyanide, poisoning these animals with cyanide. Yet, over the same period of time, there has been no decrease in livestock lost to these predators. Livestock Services report livestock losses in 1996 were 5.8 million, while spending on the program was $9.6 million, not exactly a great rate of return. Mr. Chairman, we ask ourselves, traditionally in the United States, wildlife protection has been designated to the States. Yet, we have this very strange Federal program that gives approximately $10 million to ranchers to shoot coyotes and other animals that is matched by the State, but goes beyond the way wildlife has traditionally been managed. Is this really the right level of government to have this program controlled by? Is this really, Mr. Chairman, the best use for Federal tax dollars, to subsidize a few sheep and cattle ranchers? I think not. Does this program work, when we spend almost $10 million to save $6 million in livestock losses? Let me suggest that the losses among cattle and sheep and other livestock are far greater from other diseases, respiratory and so forth. Perhaps the money would be better spent in other areas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the points that have been brought forward by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). I would only point out that all of the good points that she makes are portions of the program that would be totally unaffected by this amendment. She is talking about the human health issue, about the property issue, about crop issue, about natural resources, forest range, and aquaculture. Those are all portions of the program that are separate from the livestock protection program. What the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and I are trying to do is cut the part that has to do with predator control on western ranches for cattle and sheep farmers. It is a $10 million subsidy to this part of the country for this handful of individuals, matched by the State. It is a large program. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that I live on a farm in New Hampshire. We have coyotes all over the place. I lost two or three chickens last year to coyotes and nobody gave me a dime to try to get rid of them. These problems happen all over the country and we do not need a Federal subsidy to help bail us out. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of House Resolution 399, a resolution that would make the full funding of special education a high priority of this Congress. I want to thank the distinguished chairman and gentleman from California for making this a truly bipartisan resolution. The idea came to me as I listened to the State of the Union address in January that the President delivered, and he talked about the importance of education. And as one who comes from a State like New Hampshire which depends on funding for education, 98 percent of the funding coming from the property tax base at the local level, nothing hits the property taxpayers worse in New Hampshire than special education. It really should not be that way, because special education originally was mandated to be paid for at the rate of approximately 40 percent. As we heard the chairman and the ranking member mention in their speeches, that has been chronically underfunded. Indeed, funding of special education has been the mother of all unfunded mandates of this government for the last 25 years. I think this resolution is way overdue and it should be passed today. Let me just point out that in some towns in my State, special education costs make up half of the entire education budget for a given town. This puts pressure on school district administrators, on students, and perhaps most unfortunately on the parents of developmentally disabled students in a small community. I believe that as Congress sets its priorities for new education spending, that fully funding the existing mandates that we have outstanding today should come ahead of new education funding for new programs in education. Fully funding special education in New Hampshire alone would increase funding from $17 million a year to $68 million a year. That, Mr. Speaker, would make a significant impact on the whole education picture in New Hampshire. I am sure the same is true in every other State in the country. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that today the House will pass this resolution which has been introduced by me, supported by the committee, amended to make it as bipartisan as possible, because we all recognize the importance of special education firstly; and, secondly, the importance of fully funding the Federal Government's commitment to this important program.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3494 and I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for having taken bold leadership in this area. As the father of a 6-year-old daughter, Lucy, who is just beginning to become familiar with the Internet, and having witnessed the horror of a rape and murder last year in New Hampshire of a 6-year- old girl, and subsequent to that the rape, mutilation, and murder of a 10-year-old boy, the crime occurred in Massachusetts, he was murdered in New Hampshire, and he wound up in Maine, I can tell my colleagues that we cannot do enough to prevent these kinds of atrocities from being committed against the children in our country. H.R. 3494 is the latest in a number of important steps that Congress has taken to protect our children from sexual predators and an effort that in many ways began with the enactment of the Jacob Wetterling Act and subsequent amendments, including Megan's Law. And it is in the spirit of this comprehensive approach that I offer my amendment which would create the Sex Offender Management Assistance Program, which would provide flexible block grants to States to offset costs directly associated with meeting the Federal requirements for sex offender registration and community notification programs. Mr. Chairman, it authorizes for appropriation $25 million for fiscal year 1999 and $25 million for fiscal year 2000. It would help States fund needs such as training, salaries, equipment, and other necessary costs associated with compliance with the law. States that have been making good faith efforts to comply with the Federal requirements would be able to receive funds under this new program. I am, as I said a minute ago, a strong supporter of the Jacob Wetterling Act and Megan's Law, which last year we waived the compliance requirements for 2 years. Now, many States around the country are struggling to comply not only with the regulations but the cost of this. If they do not comply by October of next year, fiscal year 1999, they will be subject to a 10 percent penalty for appropriations under the Byrne Grant program. These costs of compliance can be significant. In New Hampshire, for example, we are looking at a cost somewhere around $300,000, and we are a very small State. But other States, such as New York and California and Florida and so forth, will face costs that will be considerably greater than that. If the goals of the Wetterling Act are important enough to merit financial penalties, as is envisioned in the Byrne Act penalties, then I think they are important enough to merit the modest financial assistance that would be provided by my amendment. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Committee can adopt this amendment. I think it is important in the process of making sure that these important laws that we passed in the last Congress are properly applied in the States and done so in such a fashion to make it possible to have them work nationwide.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Philippines Centennial Celebration. On June 12, 1998, the Philippines will celebrate the 100th Anniversary of their independence from Spanish rule. Nearly a century ago, a revolution in the Philippines ended more than 300 years of Spanish domination in the area and established the first democratic republic in Asia. The makings of the revolution began in the late nineteenth century with the children of the elite business class. They had been educated in Europe and exposed to ideas of independence and revolution. Among these nationalists was Jose Rizal, whose novel ``Noli Me Tangere'' sparked the revolt against Spain. Followers of Jose Rizal formed a secret group of reformists and radicals called the Katipunan. Eventually, in August 1896, tensions in the Philippines had raged to the point that the Katipunan's leader, Andres Bonifacio, declared complete severance from the colonial government and the revolution began. The Philippine-Spanish Revolution began at the same time that the Spanish-American War was being fought halfway around the world. The Americans came to the aid of the Philippines, and on June 12, 1898, Emilio Aguinaldo, a leader of the Katipunans, declared victory over the Spanish colonial government and established the Philippine Republic. The survival of the Philippine Republic over the last 100 years has not been without difficulty. The Philippines has survived American colonialism, a four year occupation by Japan during World War II, the complete wartime destruction of Manilla, Ferdinand Marco's martial law regime, and a devastating volcano called Pinatubo. However, even with all of these struggles the Philippines is on the road to prosperity. It has been over a decade since the Peoples' Revolution ousted the Marcos regime and instituted the democracy that now exists. The Philippine economy has been rejuvenated and stands poised to join in the globalization of the East-West world market. It is fitting that in the year of their centennial, the dictators are gone, the volcanoes are quiet, and the Philippines appear to have reached what Emilio Aguinaldo proclaimed nearly 100 years ago: that an independent Philippines, ``today begins to have a life of its own.''

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Philippines Centennial Celebration. On June 12, 1998, the Philippines will celebrate the 100th Anniversary of their independence from Spanish rule. Nearly a century ago, a revolution in the Philippines ended more than 300 years of Spanish domination in the area and established the first democratic republic in Asia. The makings of the revolution began in the late nineteenth century with the children of the elite business class. They had been educated in Europe and exposed to ideas of independence and revolution. Among these nationalists was Jose Rizal, whose novel Noli Me Tangere sparked the revolt against Spain. Followers of Jose Raizal formed a secret group of reformists and radicals called the Katipunan. Eventually, in August of 1896, tensions in the Philippines had raged to the point that the Katipunan's leader, Andres Bonifacio, declared complete severance from the colonial government and the revolution began. The Philippine-Spanish Revolution began at the same time that the Spanish-American War was being fought halfway around the world. The Americans came to the aid of the Philippines, and on June 12, 1898, Emilio Aguinaldo, a leader of the Katipunans, declared victory over the Spanish colonial government and established the Philippine Republic. The survival of the Philippine Republic over the last 100 years has not been without difficulty. The Philippines has survived American colonialism, a four year occupation by Japan during World War II, the complete wartime destruction of Manilla, Ferdinand Marco's martial law regime, and a devastating volcano called Pinatubo. However, even with all of these struggles the Philippines is on the road to prosperity. It has been over a decade since the People's Revolution ousted the Marcos regime and instituted the democracy that now exists. The Philippine economy has been rejuvenated and stands poised to join in the globalization of the East-West world market. It is fitting that in the year of their centennial, the dictators are gone, the volcanoes are quiet, and the Philippines appear to have reached what Emilio Aguinaldo proclaimed nearly 100 years ago: that an independent Philippines, ``today begins to have a life of its own.''

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, the Record currently indicates that I did not vote during rollcall No. 170, on the Hunter Amendment to H.R. 3616, the FY99 Defense Authorization Act. It is my recollection that, in fact, I voted in favor of this important amendment. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the Record indicate my support for this amendment.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of H.R. 3694, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. I would also like to associate myself with the very good comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) concerning the strategic importance of intelligence. I would only add to that by saying that intelligence is also more than military and tactical in nature. There are civilian aspects to intelligence that are very important to the national security of this country that go beyond support to our military and provide the kind of protection for the citizens of the United States, not only domestically but abroad, that we all need and cherish. This is one of the safest countries in the world in which to live. Part of the reason for that is the fact that we know what our enemies are doing and we know what their plans and intentions are better perhaps than anybody else in the world. I would like to address if I could for a second the budget itself. The legislation before us today refocuses the President's request upon four major priorities for intelligence in the next century. Firstly, it accelerates the recapitalization of a signals intelligence program that has produced invaluable information against the new transnational targets of the post-Cold War world. Secondly, our bill begins the process, after years of drawdowns and reductions, of rebuilding a clandestine human intelligence program that has provided much of our intelligence on the plans and intentions of terrorists, traffickers and other adversaries. Thirdly, our bill continues the strengthening of the analysis part of intelligence collection that provides both assessment to our policymakers and guidance to the collectors. Finally, our bill enhances the capability of the President to direct and accomplish covert actions when he deems such actions necessary to U.S. foreign policy and our national security. The purpose of our mark in each of these areas is to strengthen the capabilities that will provide policymakers with the intelligence that they will need in the next century. Mr. Chairman, there were also strategic cuts in the budget, made after much investigation and on a line-by-line basis, on programs that will mostly be effective in the 21st century. The intelligence community has for the most part moved forward effectively against new and difficult issues. There are some areas where we can make some reductions and do so in a prudent fashion. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to rise in support of this bipartisan authorization bill. I want to commend both the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Washington for having done an excellent job working together to produce this important bill.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3605.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, last week I introduced House Resolution 399, to work toward fully funding the Federal Government's statutory obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. This resolution says, and I quote, ``Resolved, that the House of Representatives urges the Congress and the President to give programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act the highest priority among Federal education programs by working to fund the maximum State grant allocation for educating children with disabilities under such Act.'' For those who may not be familiar with IDEA, it came about in 1975 as a result of a Supreme Court decision in the early 1970s that essentially said that we have an obligation under our Constitution to provide education for all Americans, regardless of what level of educational ability one might have; a very good decision and an important decision. Unfortunately, however, when Congress passed the original IDEA bill in 1975, we enacted a statutory commitment to cover 40 percent of the excess costs of educating a learning-disabled student. Mr. Speaker, we have never done it. The fact of the matter is that, since 1975, we have never funded IDEA at any higher rate than about 7 to 7\1/2\ percent. It is this Member's opinion that this practice has to end. There is no issue, there is no issue, that is more important to school districts, to school administrators, to school boards, to parents, and perhaps most importantly, to property taxpayers across this country than the chronic underfunding of special education. I introduced this resolution last week. It is currently pending in the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I am hopeful we will see some action on it in the near future. I believe it is time for this Congress to step forward and say it is time to end the mother of all unfunded mandates, a mandate that costs our cities and towns and municipalities over $10 billion a year. It is time, in 1998, to fully fund IDEA. If we want to improve local education, if we want to take the burden off of families that are under stress to provide education for their children if their children may be disabled or coded in some form or fashion and not separate them from the rest of the community, if we want to fulfill the Government's mandate that was enacted over 20 years ago, do it for the first time in 1998. This is the year to fully fund special education. I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation and send a message back to our constituents that the time has come for the Federal government to live up to its obligation to provide our school districts, our cities and towns, with the relief that we promised to provide them over 20 years ago in fully funding special education.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer the Northern Forest Stewardship Act as an amendment to the forest health bill offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith). This amendment will give the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, the tools they need to provide for the long-term management of their forests. The amendment I am offering today grew from the 1994 report of the Northern Forest Lands Council, which the gentleman from Mississippi mentioned in his opening statement. The Council was congressionally mandated in 1991, and tasked with determining the best way to preserve the unique forests that exist across the northern portion of these four States. The product of the Council's work was a report that recognizes the importance of promoting responsible, private stewardship of forest lands, and utilizing government resources to ensure that these lands remain commercially and aesthetically productive for generations to come. During development of the Council's report, nearly 3,000 people attended nearly 20 listening sessions and 12 open houses. Furthermore, the Council received 1,676 comments on the draft report, many from Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and 165 from other States outside of New England. The amendment that I am offering today is based on the report of the Council, which recognizes the current land management in the region, where most of the forest land is privately held, has been successful. The amendment seeks to reinforce these patterns of responsible land management. The specific recommendations were developed with broad public input, involvement of Federal, State and local governments, and the goal of these provisions is, and I quote from the amendment, to ``support the primary role of the Northern Forest States in the management of their forests, to support the traditions of the region, to emphasize the rights and responsibilities of the landowners, and to advance new mechanisms for cooperative conservation of the Northern Forest lands.'' To make clear that the bill is not intended to inject more Federal government into land management, each substitute section of this amendment begins with the words ``At the request of the Governor of the State of Maine, New Hampshire, New York, or Vermont,'' and goes on from there. Furthermore, Section 12 specifically states, ``Nothing in this act creates new authority in any Federal agency to regulate the use of private or public lands.'' In short, Mr. Chairman, this bill comes from the State and local level, not the Federal level, and will only provide benefits at the State and local level. Some may be concerned that this bill has not been fully vetted in the hearing process. To this I respond that it has been fully vetted at the local level. The Northern Forest Lands Council held hundreds and hundreds of hours of public hearing on this bill, on this concept, and the open process has allowed all interested parties to participate. Another concern I have heard is that the language of this bill is a land grab. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, the amendment specifically states that the Federal Government can only engage in land acquisition at the request of the State, and with a willing seller. Furthermore, any acquisition that occurs as a result of this amendment must have community support, a provision that will make the conservation efforts in the northern forests even more locally driven. Mr. Chairman, earlier, at the end of the summer last year, I traveled to the States of Wyoming and Montana and Idaho, and I know and I understand the problems that they face. We also have problems in the Northeast. We have national forests. Sixteen percent of my district is a national forest, and we need to plan for the good and proper use of these forests over the next 20 to 30 years, not only the national forests but the land outside of those forests. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment to the bill before us today.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.