Charlie Bass

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds only to say that the members of their party will flee from their budget like scalded dogs. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump]. (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns.]

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham].

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick].

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds only to say that the reason the deficit went down is that the President of the United States and the Democrats in Congress enacted the largest tax increase in American history. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, the President says he wants a balanced budget, but in reality he has not produced one. He says he wants to lower the deficit year after year, and as we just heard, he does not do that either. And the President has said that he wants to save Medicare, at least on occasion, and end welfare as we know it, and that does not happen. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the President's budget is a budget of assumptions, it is a budget of hunches, it is a budget of nonspecifics, it is a budget based on if's; what if this happens, what if that happens. The Republican budget is a concrete budget that returns power, influence and money back to the people of this country. It is a budget that gives a reasonable tax cut to working Americans, and this is in contrast to the President's budget that does none of this. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg]. (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas talks about tax cuts for the privileged. Of course, that is not true, and it is part of the rhetoric we have been hearing in this body now for a year and a half. It is totally unsubstantiated. You know, we are interested in the privileged, because we consider all Americans in this country to be privileged. We are proposing a budget this year that continues along the path of balance, to relieve Americans from the tax burden that is going up and up and up year after year. And in 1995, we passed the first balanced budget in generations. Unfortunately, it was vetoed by the President. We continued to work to save taxpayers money, and we ended up with a budget that cuts over a 2- year period $43 billion. That is $668 for every American family. Those are our privileged Americans, all American taxpayers. There are a bunch of Chicken Littles walking around over here saying the sky is going to fall, that we have got this problem and that problem. The fact is that we have passed two budgets now and changed the debate in Washington, hopefully forever. The debate now is when we will balance the budget, not whether. Mr. Chairman, here is what we do now. We end once and for all three decades of reckless spending. We stop forcing yours and my children to continue to pay the bills. As our Federal Reserve Board chairman says, if we continue on our course, we are going to raise, and substantially, the standard of living for every American in this country. Those are the privileged people for us, working Americans. The difference between our budget and their budget is that we trust Americans. We trust Americans. We want to send power, money and influence back to the States and localities. And long after the shrill rhetoric dies from this debate, the people who will really benefit from this budget that we pass are going to be my children and your children. They are the people that are going to be the winners in this debate.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, the article reveals that the same individual who drafted several complaints filed against the Speaker also helped raise tens of thousands of dollars for the campaign of the ranking minority member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The article also revealed that the political consulting firm header by the individual in question, Mr. Steven J. Jost, also received over $14,000 in payments from the ranking minority member's campaign committee. Mr. Speaker, in no way am I implying that the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has acted in an unethical fashion, but in the same manner that questions were raised by the minority whip concerning Republican Members of the committee and alleged conflicts of interest, similar questions should also be raised regarding any connection between the ranking minority member of the committee and the individual who helped raise money for him and also drafted many of the complaints filed against the Speaker. It is vital, Mr. Speaker, that the ethics process in Congress remain fair and above reproach, and that we retain the confidence of the American people for this important process. I hope that we will receive in the coming days a full and complete explanation of the ranking minority member's association with this fundraiser and this fundraiser's dealings with the ethics committee regarding filings made against the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article for the Record. [From the Washington Times, Apr. 30, 1996] Gingrich Critic Aided Ethics-Panel Democrat (By George Archibald) The top Democrat on the House ethics committee received tens of thousands of dollars in political contributions raised by a firm whose senior partner spearheaded ethics complaints against House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Rep. Jim McDermott, Washington Democrat, who says he knew nothing of the fund raising and therefore didn't violate committee conflict-of-interest rules raised more than $36,000 from political action committees at two receptions organized last year by Fraioli/Jost, a PAC money-raiser for congressional Democrats. At the same time, Mr. McDermott was the point man pushing for the House ethics committee to appoint an outside counsel to investigate complaints against Mr. Gingrich. The complaints were researched and legally drafted under the direction of Steven J. Jost of Fraioli/Jost. Mr. Jost was the chief fundraiser for Ben Jones, the speaker's 1994 Democratic opponent, who launched the anti- Gingrich ethics complaints formally filed by House Minority Whip David E. Bonior of Michigan. The complaints accused Mr. Gingrich of improperly commingling funds and activities of GOPAC, which helped achieve the GOP takeover of Congress, and a nationally televised political science course the speaker taught from a college in his home state, Georgia. ``We're stringing up the electric chair here, but we didn't make him guilty; he made himself guilty,'' Mr. Jost told the Wall Street Journal about Mr. Gingrich last year after the complaints were filed. Documents purported to show ties between the college course and GOPAC were obtained by Mr. Jost in Georgia during Mr. Jones' 1994 campaign. ``Mr. Jost decided they would be useful as a campaign weapon,'' the Journal reported. ``So he hired a Democratic lawyer, Bob Bauer, to fashion them into an ethics complaint for $4,500.'' Mr. Bauer represents House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, another Fraioli/Jost client. The Landmark Legal Foundation appraised the House Ethics Committee last year of ties between Mr. Jost and Democratic House leaders in the anti-Gingrich campaign. The panel, formally known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, refused to look into the matter. ``Mr. McDermott had a duty to step aside when any complaint with Mr. Jost's fingerprints on it came before the ethics committee,'' said Mark R. Levin, Landmark's director of legal policy. ``Members of the ethics committee are supposed to consider all ethics complaints with a nonpartisan, unjaundiced eye. The record would appear to show that Mr. McDermott and Mr. Jost are joined at the hip,'' Mr. Levin said. ``We are reviewing this information and seriously considering filing a formal complaint.'' Mr. McDermott yesterday denied any conflict with committee rules requiring impartiality and lack of bias in the Gingrich case. He also denied knowledge of filings by his political committee, Friends of Jim McDermott, listing payments of $14,160.61 to Fraioli/Jost for last year's PAC fundraising activities. ``I don't know who did the fund raising,'' Mr. McDermott told The Washington Times in an interview just off the House floor. He then walked back onto the floor, where reporters are barred, to avoid further questions about campaign committee filings by Charles M. Williams, his $106,044-a-year chief congressional aide. Mr. Williams, who runs Mr. McDermott's Capitol office, serves as treasurer of Friends of Jim McDermott. Mr. Williams did not respond to inquiries yesterday. Reports he filed for the campaign committee in December and February list contributions totaling $36,000 to Mr. McDermott from 52 PACs, each of which gave $500 or $1,000 at Capitol Hill fundraising receptions organized by Fraioli/Jost on April 5 and July 15, 1995. Mr. Jost, who left partner Michael Fraioli in June to start his own fund-raising company, said Mr. McDermott ``first approached us'' to do his fund raising in the 1993-94 election cycle. ``As I recall, one of the other members of Congress referred us to him,'' Mr. Jost said. Mr. Jost said his income from Fraioli/Jost, even after Mr. Jones ceased being a client of the firm, enabled him to spend time advancing the anti-Gingrich ethics campaign. ``I have never been compensated for any work by anybody on any of the Gingrich stuff, except for news organizations that have reimbursed me for photocopying expenses.'' he said Mr. Jost said he saw no conflict in Mr. McDermott's reliance on Fraioli/Jost for fund raising are his own work in the Gingrich camp while Mr. McDermott was sitting in judgment of the speaker. ``It sounds like the worst thing you could accuse me or Jim McDermott of is being Democrat,'' Mr. Jost said. He said committee Republicans Porter J. Gross of Florida, Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Nancy L. Johnson of Connecticut, the panel's chairman had greater conflicts. ``Your're alleging . . . a conflict that is far less direct than, for instance, Mr. Goss' giving $5,000 to GOPAC at the time the ethics complaint is before his committee, or that Mr. Bunning and Mrs. Johnson participated in GOPAC activities,'' Mr. Jost said.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that has always been a priority of mine since I first served in the New Hampshire legislature back in 1982, and that issue is ethics. One of my first responsibilities back then was to serve on a task force to make recommendations on the establishment of a permanent ethics committee and guidelines for Members of the New Hampshire legislature and the State senate, by the way, who are only paid $100 a year. As a result of this and subsequent efforts, I was pleased as a New Hampshire State Senator to author the law that established a permanent legislative ethics committee, and I served as chairman for 2 years. By the way, part of this process involved crafting the law. We studied other models in other States, including the model here in Washington that is used for Congress. Because of the work I was able to do with Democrats and Republicans in New Hampshire, including now Governor Steve Merrill, many of the procedures that we used in New Hampshire are based on ethics standards rules that we follow here in Congress. We felt that it was critical that our ethics committee always work on a bipartisan basis and that the actions of its Members be totally above reproach. We adopted language which would require that any Member of our ethics committee recuse himself or herself from any deliberation if there was any possibility of a conflict of interest. Last week I was surprised to read in the April 30, 1996 edition of the Washington Times an article about a possible conflict of interest involving the ranking minority member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Washington Times be included along with my statement in the Record.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, in the 104th Congress the new Republican majority has made great strides in reforming Congress and restoring America's faith in the honesty and integrity of this institution. Indeed, our accomplishments are a shining example of promises made and promises kept. Although we can be proud of these changes, one more vital reform remains, and that is campaign finance reform. Today I am introducing the Congressional Campaign Finance Reform Act to restore credibility and public confidence in elections. It includes provisions that bring elections back home by requiring a majority of campaign funds to be raised from in State sources, it emphasizes grassroots fundraising by reducing PAC contributions to $1,000 per election, and it controls the exorbitant costs of campaigns by allowing States to enact voluntary campaign spending limits as we have done in New Hampshire and in other States. For those of my colleagues who want to complete the reform of Congress that we started so well a year and-a-half ago, let us move forward, and I urge everyone to cosponsor my legislation or any of the other bills. Let us get a vote after the April recess.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on this very important issue. It may not seem like a big issue to most involved, but it certainly is critical to Northumberland, also known as Groveton, NH. I am sure my distinguished colleague from Vermont has discussed why this bill is so critical. I would add at this present time the citizens of Guildhall, VT, the town of Guildhall owes Groveton, NH, about $75,000 legitimately, and if this legislation does not pass as soon as possible, the property taxpayers of Northumberland or Groveton, NH, would be hit with an unnecessary increase in their taxes for 1996. So I appreciate and thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman for moving this bill expeditiously. I am glad to have been able to work with my colleague from Vermont. I hope we can move this bill as fast as possible. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank Chairman Hyde for bringing this legislation to the floor so quickly. While identical language passed the Senate by voice vote on December 18, 1995, the passage of House Joint Resolution 129 is a time-sensitive matter for the towns of Northumberland, NH and Guildhall, VT. The resolution that Mr. Sanders and I have introduced will ratify a longstanding arrangement between these two towns. Northumberland, which is commonly referred to as Groveton, has been supplying drinking water to Guildhall in at least a limited sense for generations. This relationship began with a handfull of Guildhall's residents receiving drinking water and has progressed to the current situation in which a 6-inch water main supplies clean water to the entire town. Guildhall currently owes Groveton $75,200 for the up-front costs of constructing this water system. Unfortunately, the lack of a resolution to ratify the current arrangement has prevented this payment. If this payment is not made soon, the residents of Groveton will be forced to include this cost in their tax assessments, which will be decided at the town meeting this spring. The resolution before the House today addresses a noncontroversial, technical matter. House Joint Resolution 129 will simply allow the payment to be made and the current water supply situation to be legitimized. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution today. general leave

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, in about an hour the House Committee on the Budget will begin its process of developing a new budget for fiscal year 1997. The hearings this morning will focus on the subject of so- called corporate subsidies or corporate welfare. One of our witnesses defines corporate welfare as the use of Government authority to confer special benefits to specific firms or industries where there is no corresponding societal benefit. I am pleased to say that in the balanced budget or in the budget resolution, 1995, the Committee on the Budget identified over $95 billion worth of unnecessary spending on corporations. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be releasing today a GAO report to the Committee on the Budget which will outline over 25 different projects that we could undertake to reduce corporate spending or Government spending, unnecessary Government spending, on corporations. It is time, as we face the 1997 budget cycle, to look to individual responsibility, but also corporate responsibility, and I commend the Committee on the Budget for taking the lead in this process.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I guess the new buzzword we are going to hear now from the other side of the aisle is going to be the use of the word ``extremist.'' Everything we do is going to be called extremist. I would only ask that we return to the issues that we have been talking about here in Congress for the last 14 months, balancing our Nation's budget for our children and our grandchildren. Extremist is passing a welfare reform bill that encourages work and holds families together. Extremist is preserving, protecting and improving the Medicare system for our senior citizens. Extremist is giving the States more control over Medicaid. Extremist is sending power and money and influence back to State and local authorities and citizens of this country, extremist. Mr. Speaker, let us spend the next few months talking about our Nation's hopes and not its fears. Let us make America proud of its elected officials once again.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I regret the fact that the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and I and other folks that are from the North are supporting this amendment. Global warming is really going to have to take off before we see too much peanuts in Delaware or Connecticut or New Hampshire or New York. But I also find it difficult, as a newcomer here, to believe that in this day and age we have quotas in effect in this country that are so strict that we set the price at more than double in the United States than it is anywhere else in the world. I would say that, although this 1930's system was intended to help American farmers, the peanut program in fact is having the opposite effect on small peanut farmers. As my colleagues may know, the current quota system forces, as the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays said, 68 percent of these farmers to expend a tremendous amount of their operating capital to rent these quotas. In addition, the cost of the seeds which are also set, bought artificially, that inflates the quota price as well. These farmers tend to be small operators who are unable to purchase the land as a result of the economic constraints on the system. Essentially, the Federal Government has mandated a sharecropping system that insulates the quota owners from any market fluctuations. This is not what the 104th Congress is all about. This is a bill that--or an amendment that everybody should support if they believe in anything anywhere close to the free-market system. In closing, I hope that Members will support this amendment which will end the quota system benefiting the small farmer. His costs will be reduced and, most of all, American consumers will benefit from reduced cost of product.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday by a vote of 351 to 40, with 133 Democrats joining a unanimous vote on the part of the majority, we passed a resolution reaffirming our commitment to a balanced budget in 7 years using honest numbers. Well, today we are going to have the second part of the story here. We are going to bring up the President's budget for a vote. We are going to find out just how unanimous the support is among Republicans and Democrats to vote for the President's budget. It is time that we got the basic issues here, and that is do we really support a balanced budget in 7 years? It has been 12,093 days since the President promised us a 5-year balanced budget. It is time for Republicans and Democrats who agree on saving this country for our children and our children's future to get together and make the President as relevant as he has been all through the 1995, which is irrelevant, and pass a balanced budget over his veto.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means may have until midnight tonight to file a report to accompany H.R. 2684, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act of 1995.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, New Hampshire today mourns the loss yesterday of former Congressman James C. Cleveland. Congressman Cleveland served ably from the Second Congressional District in New Hampshire from 1963 until 1980, when he retired and his seat was taken by now Senator Judd Gregg. Congressman Cleveland was a conservationist, a sportsman, an attorney. Indeed, he set up a law practice with my uncle in Concord in the fifties. I think what is most important to us was that Congressman Cleveland represented in the sixties and seventies [[Page H 13872]] many of the values that we as Republicans now hold dear to us, fiscal conservatism and a concern for the environment as well. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by the loss of Congressman Cleveland. He was a political ally. He was an adviser. But, most important to me, he was a dear friend.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, we hear all this Chicken Little talk about how the end of the world is coming because of what the Republicans are doing to save this country for our children and our children's children. We hear that we are increasing spending on defense and we are making draconian cuts in social programs. Let me just advise you that under the Republicans' plan defense spending will go down $146.8 billion less than spending over the last 7 years, welfare up $386 billion over spending in the last 7 years. The total increase for the Republican budget is $2.5 trillion over the next 7 years. When I was running for election last year people said to me, ``Let's freeze Federal spending. Isn't freezing Federal spending a good way to balance the budget?'' Well, we are not freezing Federal spending, we are increasing Federal spending substantially. I think it is time that we laid the facts on the line here. We have a plan that will save this country for the next generation and the generation after that.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Daniel Webster College in Nashua, NH, as it celebrates its 30th anniversary. This outstanding institution of higher learning has been recognized nationally as a leader in providing quality educational opportunities for thousands of young people. Daniel Webster College was founded in 1965 by former U.S. Senator, Warren B. Rudman, James N. Tamposi, Sr., and Harry B. Sheffield. Originally named the New England Aeronautical Institute, the school was christened Daniel Webster College in 1978. Its mission is to provide career-oriented education, integrating academic instruction with the development of professional competencies in the areas of aeronautics, business, computer sciences, and engineering. [[Page E 2249]] This fine school opened in September 1965 with 25 students. The ensuing years saw tremendous growth in the number of programs and students as well as its physical size. In 1981, the college opened its own flight center. Innovations in its aviation curriculum have allowed Daniel Webster College to offer the first college-based flight training program integrating motorized gliders and advanced aerobatic trainers with standard and complex training aircraft. Advances in the college's business program led to recognition by Newsweek as one of the top undergraduate business programs in the country, a distinction the college has maintained every year since. Daniel Webster College has contributed to the lives and educational progress of many people in its last three decades. Hard work and dedication by the college's teachers and students have made it a valued resource in southern New Hampshire and all of New England. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating Daniel Webster College on 30 years of excellence and in wishing them many more years of success well into the next century.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson] for yielding this time to me. Quick item: We heard a previous speaker talk about lack of corporate welfare, attention in our Balanced Budget Act of 1995. I would suggest looking here in the Joint Committee on Taxation report that we have here at least three or four pages of corporate and other reforms. The total comes to approximately $26 billion. In my book that is not small change. Like everyone else here, I have listened to the debate all day long about the continuing resolution, and I would like to say that there are no losers in this battle. The people of this country are the big winners as a result of what we have done over the last few days. Let us talk for a minute about what the President has agreed to with respect to saving Medicare. Well, indeed in our Balanced Budget Act of 1995 we increase spending in Medicare from $178 to $289 billion. The President has said that we must pass tax policies to help working families and to stimulate future economic growth. Well, indeed we do that in our Balanced Budget Act. For example, in capital gains we allow individuals who make less than $53,500 to benefit from capital gains preferential treatment. The President is agreed that we must provide adequate funding for education, the environment, agriculture, Medicaid, national defense, and veterans. Well, surely our veterans budget, which goes from, let us see, $36.9 to $41.8 billion is an increase and as compared to the President's veterans budget which constituted a reduction from the baseline of over $17.1 billion. Under the GOP budget, student lobbies would increase from $24 billion today to $36 billion by the year 2002. In short, Mr. Speaker, what this Balanced Budget Act calls for is reasonable increases while we protect and preserve the future of this country for our children and our grandchildren. Who could ask for more? Certainly not anybody who was watching this debate today.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. Mr. Speaker, I come here to urge those who support balancing the budget to vote for the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. First, those who oppose balancing the Federal budget want us to believe that balancing a budget means cutting funds for child nutrition programs. This is false. In fact, under the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, Federal spending will increase for school lunch programs--from $4.509 billion in 1995 to $6.406 billion in 2002. Second, those who oppose balancing the Federal budget want us to believe that balancing a budget means cutting funds for seniors health care. This is false. In fact, under the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, Federal spending will increase for Medicare--from $178 billion in 1995 to $289 billion in 2002. Third, those who oppose balancing the Federal budget want us to believe that balancing a budget means hurting the poor. This is false. In fact, under the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, Federal spending will increase for Medicaid from $89.2 billion in 1995 to $127 billion in 2002. Fourth, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 balances the budget in 7 years, protects our children's future, protects our seniors, and still provides a safety net for the poor and needy. Please support the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, for the future of this country and the future of our children. Under the GOP budget, Federal spending will increase from $1.514 trillion this year to $1.857 trillion in 2002. Fifth, I would like to take a minute and share with you some of the comments from just a few of my constituents who called in support of balancing the budget in 7 years with honest numbers and to get this Government running again. Ernest H. Bridge, East Unity.--Today is the second day of the ``Shutdown'' and I've heard many radio reports which indicate that people are upset and blame Congress for ``not doing its job''; however, nobody I've talked with expressed anything but satisfaction that you've stood up to the White House on this issue. I encourage you to stand firm on this issue and I believe there are far more of us who believe in the importance of the issue than there are who buy into the President's pandering for re-election votes. Richard and Marilyn Horton, Grantham.--Please hang tough on the budget resolution. Don't give into the President. As members of AARP and other senior citizens we do not agree with the President and support the Republican budget plan. Shut it down for a while. Steven S. Hall, North Woodstock.--Please continue to hold the line with the White House and President Clinton on the budget. Please do not blink. William Thompson, Litchfield.--I support the Republicans budget plan, and hope you will not give in to the President on reducing the deficit in seven years. This battle will go down in history and I hope we the people win. Do not give in to the President in this fight for the future of our country. Ruth Becker, Nashua.--Stand tall and firm and do not give in. John Elliot, Weare.--The sooner you get the Federal Budget balanced, the better it will be for all your constituents as well as all Americans.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the words of the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. This is indeed the time to stand up and be counted. Indeed this is not a debate about airplane trips, or education, or EPA, or veterans, or Medicare, or whether the national parks will be open or closed. This is a debate about whether or not we should pass a continuing resolution that is going to open this Government up, end the shutdown, and at the same time affirm the vote that 300 Republicans and Democrats cast earlier this year to have a balanced budget in 7 years and save this country. For my two little children, Jonathan and Lucy, and all the other children in this country in whose hands the future of this country will lie long after we are all gone, please join me in supporting this resolution tonight.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to rise to pay tribute to David G. Walchak, Chief of Police for the city of Concord, NH, as he becomes the 83d President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Chief Walchak has a long and distinguished record of service as a law enforcement officer, going back to his days as a patrolman for the LaCrosse, WI, Police Department in the 1960's. David Walchak also excelled in law enforcement positions in Minnesota and, for many years, in Maine, where he served as the director of the Maine Criminal Justice Academy and the law enforcement director of the Maine Municipal Association. For the past two decades, David Walchak has served as the chief law enforcement officer for the city of Concord, NH, the capital of our great State. He has earned the respect and admiration of the citizens of Concord, the city's elected leaders, his police department, and his colleagues from around New Hampshire and around the country. Chief Walchak has served as the First Vice-President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and serves on numerous professional and civic boards at the local, State, and Federal levels. His long record of dedication to the field of law enforcement speaks volumes about his character, his honor, and his respect for the law. I know that his family and friends are very, very proud of his accomplishments, and I know that he will do a fantastic job as President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating Chief Walchak in his new role representing law enforcement officers from around the country and across the globe.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I will start with a quote that I would like to bring to your attention: It goes as follows: We have no right, frankly, to continue to finance a Government budget that is 20 percent debt-financed, and will be more debt-financed in the years ahead, and leave it to our children to figure out how to live with lower incomes than they otherwise would have. And believe me, it isn't just our children. We're going to be living with the consequence in the very near future. Mr. Chairman, that is not Newt Gingrich, our Speaker. That is not Dick Armey. That is not our chairman, John Kasich. In fact, it is not even you, Mr. Chairman. That is President Bill Clinton in 1993 talking about the budget. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have 2 children, Lucy and Jonathan, ages 2 and 4. They owe the Federal Government today over $18,000. As has been said before, if we do nothing, in their lifetimes they could owe as much as $180,000. I am not going to leave this country to that kind of a destiny. The future of this country is indeed in our hands today, and indeed, one could say, the world. Now, this reconciliation package is not perfect. There are problems with it. There are problems with any document that is developed as a result of consensus. But what is at stake today is the very institution of this Government and the country. We have spent beyond our means now for over 30 years, and if we fail to get this country on a path to a balanced budget starting today, I do not know where my children, Jonathan and Lucy, are going to be 20 years, from now. Mr. Chairman, when all the rhetoric does down, the shrill rhetoric and Chicken Little discussion about how the sky is falling in is over, the American people will remember this Congress for many, many years after the rest of us are gone. Please join me today in passing this reconciliation package. It is needed.