Charlie Bass

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. CARA will provide important environmental and conservation benefits to my state of New Hampshire and to the country as a whole. By making good on the promise to fully and permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, our National Parks, Forests and Wildlife lands will be protected. New Hampshire boasts THE most heavily visited National Forest in this country--the White Mountain National Forest--in addition to critical resource areas like Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, CARA provides funding for other important programs such as the Forest Legacy Program, Farmland Protection Program, the Urban Parks Resource and Recovery Program, and matching grants for state and local outdoor recreation projects. New Hampshire needs this help, to meet the conservation challenges we face. Several Members will be offering amendments to put this bill on hold for the next five years, so that it doesn't put any strain on the budget resolution we passed earlier this year. I will oppose that amendment, because the programs in CARA should be a priority, and because we should work to put it in our budget. We will have the opportunity to do that, in our negotiations with the President on reconciliation legislation, and in reviewing the new economic information that will come before us, and we should take advantage of that to find the resources to accomplish what Chairman Young has set out to do. Amendments to put this bill on hold for 5 years mean one thing--no additional investment for 5 years. And I know that many precious places we have the opportunity to save today will no longer be there in 5 years. And I know that those that are still there will cost us twice as much as they do today. I don't want a bigger government. I don't want more government employees. I want to invest Federal dollars in land and wildlife resources that will yield benefits to New Hampshire and the country in perpetuity. Right now, Congress has an historic opportunity to pass landmark conservation reinvestment legislation to preserve America's natural heritage and protect America's quality of life for future generations. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) is supported by the nation's governors, mayors, county officials, conservation and wildlife organizations, sportsmen's groups, park and recreation advocates, business and industry groups, historic preservationists, soccer and youth sports organizations and more than two-thirds of my Republican and Democratic colleagues. Unfortunately, the unique opportunity we have today in Congress to enact this landmark legislation is being threatened by a series of amendments that would undo this historic bipartisan agreement. Let's not do that. Let's pass H.R. 701. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, whereas the Internet has and will continue to play an instrumental role in improving the quality of life for citizens of New Hampshire and the Nation generally; Whereas educational opportunity abounds for New Hampshire students, formal and lifelong, due to the global nature of the medium; Whereas New Hampshire's economy has grown substantially because of its attractiveness to high technology entrepreneurs and innovators; Whereas the Internet has dramatically improved access to New Hampshire's government services and elected officials; Whereas the Internet has provided individuals with an unparalleled resource for information, goods, and services; Whereas New Hampshire residents are among the leaders nationally in rates of computer use and Internet access; Therefore, be it proclaimed to my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives that the following were recognized and applauded at the Second New Hampshire Internet Awards, held April 20, 2000: Best E-Commerce Site 1st place--Kitchen Etc. (www.kitchenetc.com) 2nd place--PC Connection (www.pcconnection.com) 3rd place--Navtronics (www.navtronics.com). Best Site for Kids 1st place--The Amazing Adventure Series (www.amazingadventure.com) 2nd place--The NHPTV Knowledge Network (www.nhptv.org/kn). Coolest School Web Site 1st place--Bristol Elementary School (www.newfound.k12.nh.us/bes/home.htm) 2nd place--Dover School District (www.dover.k12.nh.us) 3rd place--Bishop Guertin High School (www.bghs.org). Webster Public Service Award 1st place--Moose Country Press (www.mtmoosilauke.com) 2nd place--Lane Memorial Library (www.hampton.lib.nh.us) 3rd place--New Hampshire Writers' Project (www.orbit.unh.edu/nhwp). Best Weird Site 1st place--UFO Sightings Over New England (www.geocities.com/ area51/nova/8874) 2nd place--Mind Mined (www.mindmined.com) 3rd place-- Gypsy Mechanics (www.gypsymechanics.com). Internet Achievement Award 1st place--David Mendelsohn (www.davidm.com) 2nd place--NH Birdsnest (www.geocities.com/ nhbirdsnest) 3rd place--CU-SeeMe World (www.cuseemeworld.com). Best Design 1st place--Flywire (www.flywire.com) 2nd place--Brown & Company (www.browndesign.com) 3rd place--Gypsy Mechanics (www.gypsymechanics.com). Best Media Site 1st place--Keene Sentinel (www.sentinelsource.com) 2nd place--Concord Monitor (www.concordmonitor.com) 3rd place--Moose Country Press (www.mtmoosilauke.com). Best Municipal Site 1st place--Town of Rindge (www.town.rindge.nh.us) 2nd place--Town of Peterborough (www.townofpeterborough.com) 3rd place--Peterborough Town Library (www.townofpeterborough.com)/library). Best Site For Visitors 1st place--Sunapee Vacations (www.sunapeevacations.com) 2nd place--Seacoast NH.com (www.seacoastnh.com) 3rd place--Waterville Valley Region Chamber of Commerce (www.watervillevalleyregion.com). Best Cyber-Entrepreneur 1st place--Advanced Lock Company (www.advancelockcompany.com) 2nd place--Crate Works (www.crateworks.com) 3rd place--Parent's Helper, Inc. (www.childsafety.com). Best Corporate Site 1st place--Franklin Savings Bank (www.fsbnh.com) 2nd place--Brown & Company (www.browndesign.com) 3rd place--West Cheshire Medical Center (www.cheshire-med.com).

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 673 and H.R. 1106.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding to me. Nobody has led the battle longer and harder than the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the IDEA Full Funding Act of 2000. Full funding of IDEA, as I said, for many, many years now is good for communities. It is good for families. It is good for school boards. But most importantly, it is good for the children who are affected by the funding of this program. We all recognize that we have a constitutional obligation to provide equal education opportunity to everyone, regardless of disability or need. Unfortunately, as we have heard over the last few minutes, this government has failed to meet its statutory obligation year after year after year. Now, with the passage of this bill, we will fully authorize the funding of IDEA over a 10-year period. Now, Mr. Speaker, after the passage of this bill, the challenge moves to the Committee on Appropriations, and it is my sincere hope that the Committee on Appropriations can meet its commitment as is outlined in the sense of Congress and the Budget Resolution to increase funding for special education by $2 billion for fiscal year 2001 and meet the authorized levels in H.R. 4055, which I strongly support.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Stamp Out Cancer Reauthorization Act. Now, this bill would extend for an additional 2 years the breast cancer research stamp program enacted by us in the last Congress. Now, this is a 40-cent stamp used normally for 33-cent postage. The excess revenue raised is used to provide funding for breast cancer research at NIH. As of last month, almost 160 million stamps had been sold, raising $11.3 million for breast cancer research. 182,800 new cases of breast cancer are estimated for the year 2000; and, sadly enough, there will be 41,200 deaths expected. Breast cancer remains the most common form of cancer among women. We need every dime we can to promote research in this important field. Please join me in cosponsoring this bill, which I plan to introduce today.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Budget Committee budget recommendation for fiscal year 2001. As was said by previous speakers, this is quite an extraordinary event which we can produce over a period of less than 5 years a budget that goes from deficit to not only to going to surplus but protecting 100 percent of that surplus for Social Security while strengthening Medicare and providing the resources that are necessary to provide prescription coverage for seniors; retiring potentially the entire public debt by the year 2013; at the same time promoting tax relief for families, farmers and seniors; providing significant increases in defense; and strengthening support for education and science. I am here specifically to talk about one aspect of education that is of particular interest to me, and that is funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, commonly known as special education. When I came to Congress in 1996, total funding was just a little bit more than $3.5 billion, or about 5 percent of the total 40 percent mandated as required by law. I am pleased to say that in this budget this year, we have incorporated instructions to the appropriators to increase special education funding by a full $2 billion, which is almost 100 percent of what the entire funding was when I came to Congress in 1996. Full funding of special education is good education policy. It is good policy for communities, for families, for school administrators, for those who are affected and participate in IDEA programs; but most importantly it is also a form of tax relief. For us to have failed to meet this unfunded mandate for so many years is inexcusable. What we do in this budget is move a long way towards meeting that obligation. I stand here today as a proud supporter of the budget plan that we have here before us today; and for American families, for taxpayers, I urge the adoption of this budget.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in support of the Committee on the Budget budget and in opposition to the Blue Dog budget, with all due respect to what I think is a good effort to deal with the issue of debt retirement. However, as is the case in all budgets, we need to achieve balance. I just want to reiterate that what our budget does, most importantly, is to set aside 100 percent of the entire surplus in Social Security for Social Security. That will result in the reduction in the national debt of over $1 trillion over 5 years. Now, we need to talk apples and apples here. I think, unfortunately, we had a 10-year budget cycle last year. We are back to 5 years this year. We should stick with 5 years, because it is as easy to predict the budget 5 years from now or 6 years from now as it is to predict the weather 6 or 7 days from now. We know with our budget we will strengthen Medicare and provide a prescription drug coverage for seniors; and, if we fail to do it, those resources will go into debt reduction as well. Our budget will retire the entire public debt, if you believe in projections that go way out, by the year 2013, and our budget balances the issues of debt reduction and a stronger defense with the need to promote tax relief for working Americans. Never have taxes been higher than they are today. As we strive to deal with making a balance in a budget surplus environment, some portion of that budget surplus has to go to tax relief, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, to eliminate the Social Security earnings limit, just to name a couple of them. Lastly, what our budget does, and it is so important, is to strengthen support for education and science, most notably to increase funding for IDEA by over $2 billion. Mr. Chairman, I respect the Blue Dog budget, but I think that our budget is a more balanced budget that will meet the needs of the American people.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, once again for developing legislation that returns budgetary honesty to our trust funds, ensuring that the necessary funding for our nation's transportation infrastructure is provided. Similar to the success of TEA-21 enacted last Congress, this bill, Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21), will make certain that the receipts and interest of the Aviation and Airways Trust Fund are used to improve our aviation infrastructure first and the administrations of operations second. America's transportation system is the envy of the world. The United States, however, has pushed our air transportation system to the limit. Aviation delays are increasing as we exceed airport and runway capacity. The United States is home to 19 of the world's 20 busiest airports, yet we do not have the world's most advanced air traffic control systems. AIR-21 will provide the necessary funding for airports to keep pace with the dramatic increase in air travelers. Nationwide, passenger travel has increased at a rate of five percent a year, and we expect more than a billion people will board planes by 2010. Manchester Airport, in my home state of New Hampshire, is the fastest growing airport in the country. In 1998, 1.94 million people flew out of Manchester, which represents a 70% increase over 1997. This legislation will make it possible to increase airport capacity, which will not only reduce delays, but will also inject a healthy shot of competition into the airline industry. By creating more gates, more airlines will have the opportunity to fly popular routes, and the increased competition will help drive down ticket prices. Upgrading antiquated FAA traffic control systems is another priority. Just last year, the FAA experienced more than 100 significant system outages where air traffic controllers lost some or all of the primary systems that help them track aircraft. We lead the world in technology yet we entrust the safety of our skies to computers made almost 30 years ago. Additionally, among the many excellent provisions in this bill, I would like to call attention to a provision that requires the FAA to conduct a study of the use of recycled materials in the construction of airport runways, taxiways, and aprons. As used here, recycled materials includes recycled pavements, waste materials, and byproducts. This is an important environmental provision. It addresses an urgent need to do a better job of promoting the use of recycled materials. Furthermore, it does so in a way that will make recycling successful. This is critical to maximizing the volume of waste materials that actually gets recycled. Last year, we included in TEA-21 a provision to create the Recycled Materials Resource Center. That center, funded by and working in close collaboration with the Federal Highway Administration, provides assistance to highway programs nationwide. It helps develop standards for the appropriate use of recycled materials, along with suitable tests to ensure compliance with those standards. In addition, it conducts research into specific applications to determine the conditions under which recycled materials can be used. This is needed for two reasons. First, to ensure the physical performance of the road or highway throughout its planned useful life. Equally important, it ensures that there will be no adverse environmental problems resulting from the use of a recycled material in place of virgin materials. In short, this center was created to provide independent third party analysis of proposed uses, so that decision makers could approve the use of recycled materials in appropriate circumstances based on objective evidence, and with appropriate standards and tests. In other words, rather than just pushing for recycling and hoping the road or highway stands up under long-term use, this center is dedicated to promoting successful recycling. And doing so in a way that responds to legitimate concerns by public officials. Against this background, I proposed that we leverage this ongoing Federal investment in using recycled materials in transportation infrastructure by extending its benefits to our national effort to upgrade airports. After all, airport construction involves large amounts of pavement in runways, taxiways, and aprons; not to mention related parking lots and approach roads. As with roads and highways, public officials want to do the right thing. They understand the value of recycling, providing it does not increase costs, and providing that they can be sure the runway, taxiway, or apron will be built to the required high performance standard. They do not need mandates, they need technical assistance and information based on independent analysis of the issues. As with roads and highways, the FAA study needs to focus both on physical performance--will the pavement work as expected over its full useful life--and also on environmental performance over that same useful life. Public officials need assurance that there will be no unexpected environmental side effects in the future. They cannot be expected to risk possible contamination problems because of incomplete analysis. Therefore, this assurance of future environmental integrity must be based on sound science, validated by an independent third party. Therefore, as with earlier efforts with roads and highways, the logical place to start seems to be with a comprehensive study focusing on issues of long term physical performance, safety implications, and environmental benefits of using recycled materials in aviation pavement. Recognizing that much work has been done in this field, this provision provides that the FAA should carry it out by entering a contract with a university of higher education with expertise necessary to carry out the study. A logical candidate to do such a study would be the Recycled Materials Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. It has directly relevant experience working with transportation pavements. Since the US Department of Transportation already is funding and utilizing this center, it seems especially appropriate that we should leverage that Federal investment by applying that expertise to related issues in airport construction. Furthermore, I am pleased to see the section regarding Airplane Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) included in AIR-21. The absence of ELTs has increased the costs of public and private search and rescue operations following certain aircraft crashes. One such crash occurred on December 24, 1996, when a plane piloted by Johan Schwartz and Patrick Hayes disappeared near Lebanon, New Hampshire. The States of New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, and Massachusetts conducted an extensive search, in cooperation with the Federal Government, in an unsuccessful effort to locate the plane and any survivors. It is believed that the existence of an ELT on this plane would have substantially increased the likelihood of finding the crash. In conclusion, I believed that AIR-21 would help instill honesty in the budget process and allow us to invest in our airports to expand airport capacity and make our skies and airports safer. For too long, we've neglected our transportation needs and allowed the surpluses in the transportation trust funds to accrue in order to mask the size of the budget deficit. AIR-21 will ensure that the airline ticket taxes we pay each time that we fly will be used to improve our airports and aviation infrastructure.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent on Tuesday, February 1, and consequently missed a recorded vote on H.R. 1838. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 5.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent on Tuesday, February 1, and consequently missed a recorded vote on H.R. 764. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 4.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent on Monday, January 31, and consequently missed a recorded vote on H. Con. Res. 244. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 2.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent on Monday, January 31, and consequently missed a recorded vote on H.R. 2130. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 3.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognize Hitchiner Manufacturing Company, Inc., of Milford, New Hampshire. Hitchiner Manufacturing tomorrow will receive the Employer Support Freedom Award. This award is granted annually to those select companies that distinguish themselves in support of the National Guard and Reserve. Hitchiner Manufacturing will be one of only five companies to be so recognized this year, and will represent the Northeast Region's twelve states including Washington, DC. Earlier this year, the New Hampshire Committee for the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Committee submitted Hitchiner Manufacturing as the state's nominee for this award. Hitchiner Manufacturing is a major New Hampshire-based manufacturing firm. It has more than 1200 employees at three New Hampshire plants and employs 22 members of the National Guard and Reserve. It has always encouraged its employees to volunteer their time to support local and civic organizations, and was the 1998 New Hampshire ESGR Pro Patria Award winner. For almost 50 years, Hitchiner Manufacturing has had employee policies that far exceed the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. It has extended salary and benefit packages during times of national crisis as well as world conflicts, such as Desert Storm, Somalia, Deny Flight and Bosnia. In fact, it has a specific policy to compensate employees for the difference between an employee's civilian and military pay while performing his or her military training. They have also provided professional counseling to soldiers who are going through difficult times. But the company's good work goes beyond its own employees. At the Annual New Hampshire ESGR Awards luncheon held in January of this year, the Company President and CEO, Mr. John Morison, III, agreed to video tape his comments so that the New Hampshire ESGR Committee could share his thoughts and perspectives with other employers across the state. His presentation is now part of a major statewide Chamber of Commerce initiative. New Hampshire Adjutant General Major General John Blair, along with several key military leaders, are currently reaching out to Chambers of Commerce and other civic organizations across the state through a speakers program. ``The Value of Employing Citizen Soldiers in the Workplace''. It is clear that Hitchiner Manufacturing has set the pace for other New Hampshire-based companies to follow. In closing, I wish again to commend Hitchiner Manufacturing President and CEO John Morison and all the company's employees on this proud day.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, on October 13, 1999, I was unavoidably detained during consideration of the Sanford amendment to H.R. 1993. However, had I been present during rollcall No. 496, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, my friend and colleague. I, too, join him in expressing the fact that I am proud of this Congress for what we have done today and what we have done for the last 10 months of this year. As a member of the Committee on the Budget, we began the year seriously wondering whether or not we were going to have the integrity and the fiscal discipline to put aside the money that we need to put aside to save Social Security. I recall early on in the year going through hearings which within the Committee on the Budget we debated how we would go about doing it, understanding that in the previous year we had committed 90 percent of our surplus to saving Social Security and the President had called for putting aside 100 percent of the surplus for Social Security. Then in his State of the Union address, he had said, well, let us put 60 percent of the surplus aside for Social Security and to this day he says that we should try to put as much as we can aside for Social Security. Make no mistake about it. The Committee on the Budget made a commitment along with the leadership to put 100 percent of the receipts from the Social Security taxes plus all the interest which is accruing to the Social Security system aside, and that is a number that is in excess of $120 billion. Indeed, that goes to paying down the debt. Now, my good friend from California who spoke a minute or two ago paid tribute to the President's plan to devote, quote, the entire interest savings to Social Security and thereby extend its life. Let us just examine exactly what that means. The fact of the matter is that what the President has proposed is to set as much, maybe 60 percent, maybe 90 percent, whatever he does not spent on new spending programs aside for Social Security which will indeed pay down the public debt. But then what he proposes to do is to take the interest that would have been paid had you not paid down the debt, call it imputed interest, and create a whole new series of IOUs to the Social Security system, thereby making it look like it will last 15 more years. But the reality of it is, it is a shell game, a first-class shell game. What the Republicans are proposing to do is to exercise fiscal discipline and at the same time to set aside in a lockbox the Social Security surplus. Indeed, doing this will not prolong the life of Social Security one more day, that is true. There are other issues that we need to deal with with Social Security. But the one thing we have to understand in the beginning is that we are not going to take the hard- earned money that is paid in payroll taxes by working Americans and use that money for other spending programs. Now, we passed I think a really momentous appropriations bill today. It was a combination of the Labor, Education, Health and Human Services bill, the D.C. appropriations bill and a 1 percent across-the-board reduction in discretionary spending accounts. In my 5 years in Congress, this is the first time I have seen this occur. It is not an easy vote but let us examine the 1 percent cut for a second. One percent, one penny on every dollar. We hear the President talking about how he cannot cut this program and he cannot cut this program, there is not another dime. I understand the Interior Secretary the other day said, and I cannot quote because I do not have the quote in front of me, that there was not one single dime of waste in the Interior Department. I think other speakers after me will perhaps give him some suggestions about where money might be saved. But what we are doing is what the American people asked us to do when they elected us, which is to trim government, to save Social Security, to cut taxes for working Americans, and to balance the budget. Before I entered Congress, the idea of balancing the budget was fodder for laughs at cocktail parties. In fact, the theory was being developed that deficit budgets were good for the United States economy. Of course those lines have now been long forgotten. Now that we face the first real honest cash surplus since I got my driver's license at the age of 16 in 1968, we have a President who wants to put a little bit away but he has a whole lot of new ideas for spending money and we have a Congress that is committed first to setting aside the money for Social Security, secondly paying down the debt, thirdly providing tax relief for working Americans, the people who are pulling the wagon in this country year after year. It is not going to be that difficult to do. I urge the President and the minority to work for working Americans in this country and move this appropriation forward so that we can finish the business of appropriations, avoid a government shutdown and move on to next year. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing up this very important subject tonight, because I really believe that it is critical that Americans understand exactly what our priorities are.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and he certainly is right. The concept that you cannot find one penny in every dollar in a fiscal year is ludicrous. I would suggest that every State in the Nation on occasion is forced to find far more than 1 cent on every dollar because, unlike the Federal Government, they have to balance their budgets every single year. I would also point out that you will hear discussion amongst the minority and the majority about whether or not we, as Republicans with our plan, are using Social Security surpluses or not. You realize that this argument has gotten down now to the point where we are having a fight between OMB and CBO, whether their predictions are right, whether we use OMB numbers or CBO numbers. Well, when you are talking about the difference between the President's proposal to put 60 percent of the surplus aside versus the Republican's successful effort at putting 100 percent of the Social Security surplus aside, I really do not think that the key issue is whether or not the numbers come from CBO or OMB, and I am not even going to tell you what they stand for, Mr. Speaker, because I do not really think it makes a big difference. Let me also point out for those who say that a 1 percent cut will result in unacceptable reductions in spending in critical programs, let me point out that even after the 1 percent cut, across-the-board cut, the Republican plan spends $265.1 billion on defense versus the President's proposal for $263 billion. $265, $263; we spent more. On education we spend $34.8 billion versus the President's proposed $34.7. On education, Mr. Speaker, on education. After the 1 percent cut, the Republican appropriations spends $34.8 billion, the President's $34.7 on education. And on crime fighting the GOP spends $3.25 billion versus the President's $2.8 billion. Now what about this 1 percent across-the-board cut that we cannot find a single dollar? Well, I have here a document put out by Citizens Against Government Waste entitled ``Prime Cuts 1999,'' and I would suggest that every Cabinet member and everybody in the administration take an opportunity to read this book because there are plenty of suggestions which total well in excess, well in excess, of 1 percent. Some of the more interesting proposals that I have seen come across my desk in the last couple of days are, and let me give you a couple of examples. Perhaps we could eliminate a subsidy of $850,000 to a well- known ice cream company in a State adjacent to mine which they received from the Federal Government to distribute their product in Russia, as if it is not cold enough in Russia for them to produce their own ice cream or that this particular company cannot find the resources to develop its own advertising campaign. Or how about delays, administrative delays, in the disposing of more than 41,000 HUD properties that are costing taxpayers in this country a million dollars a day? Or how about a government audit that recently found that Federal agencies were simply unable to account for $800 billion, $800 billion in government assets? And I can go on and on, page after page, and I think that the American people find it pretty ludicrous to believe, Mr. Speaker, that no Federal agency can cut 1 percent from their budget. So again, I think this is a reasonable proposal, and I am proud that this body has taken it upon itself to pass it and send it down to the White House.

Mr. BASS. If the gentleman will yield, would you be willing to point to the place at which on that chart the control of Congress changed from the minority to the majority, the Republicans? Where is it on that chart?

Mr. BASS. If the gentleman will yield for a second, when I entered Congress in 1995 the administration submitted its first budget for the 104th Congress, and that budget had projected deficits for the 5-year period in excess, in excess, of $150 to $225 billion per year, not including, not including, the Social Security surplus. So if you recall the table on the history of the Social Security fund and you notice how the purple goes up and up and up and suddenly drops down, had we not been able to cut a minimum of $300 billion out of projected spending over the last 4 years, that purple, that line would have skyrocketed, because, remember, the total amount of money since 1983 that has been spent on other programs and not gone into Social Security is about $638 billion. Well, the surplus this year alone is in excess of $120 billion. So what we were really dealing with here was a problem where we were on the brink of a calamity in Social Security. It has stopped. It is not going to be easy to fight this battle, but we are ahead at the present time because I think most Americans agree with the fact that we have made this commitment not to let this money get spent on other Federal programs.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me. I will conclude my observations about where we stand today by making an observation about the debate that occurred recently in my home State of New Hampshire between the two candidates running for the nomination for president on the Democratic side. They were both trying to outliberal each other. It was interesting to me to see how, when Mr. Gore accused Mr. Bradley of having a health care plan that would use up the entire surplus, the entire surplus, he was also talking about it using up the entire social security surplus, too. Vice President Gore expressed sadness that Mr. Bradley, Senator Bradley's health care proposal would not leave money for him to propose other new spending initiatives. So Mr. Speaker, I think this debate that we are having this year is a healthy debate. The differences between the Republicans and the Democrats are clear, concise, and understandable. I know that they are committed to their ideals, but when we came to power in Congress in 1995, we set, as our goals, goals that would not necessarily be satisfying every interest group at home, goals that would not be spending more money without any accountability. The goals that we established were the goals that may not get newspaper headlines, but what they were were the goals of achieving a balanced budget, which we have done; the goals of attempting to take the trust funds off-budget, which we have done with the Highway Trust Fund and we have done with social security, we hope, and at least from my perspective to do with the aviation trust fund; and we paid down in excess of $50 billion in debt in the last fiscal year. I know that with the $120 billion plus that we are taking off-budget, we also will pay down that amount in public debt. We will, as Republicans, put this Federal Government on an even fiscal keel as we move into the 21st century. Although they are not traditionally the platforms that garner tremendous public support, we have the interests of this Nation in the 21st century at heart. I know and believe that the American people support what we have tried to do over the last 4 years, and will support us in years to come. I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas, for having taken this time to discuss this issue which is so important not only to working families and to seniors, but for those that believe that this country should be as strong in the 21st century for my children and my children's children as it has been for my father and my mother and my grandparents. I thank the gentleman for giving me the opportunity to participate in this dialogue.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation before us today. I believe that Government certainly has a legitimate role to provide assistance for those who are truly in need, but the fact is when Government traps people in poverty, out of work year after year, that is not a program that works. What this piece of legislation will do, in a common sense fashion, is allow disabled Americans to go back into the workforce without losing their health care. It will help them in a time of high technology. It will help them be empowered to get back into the workforce. True compassion in government empowers people, Mr. Speaker. It does not hold them down. With the unemployment rate amongst disabled individuals in excess of 75 percent, it is time we passed a piece of legislation in an environment where unemployment is at historic lows. It will bring these people into the workforce and do it in such a fashion so they will be able to maintain their health care. So I strongly support this piece of legislation and urge that the Congress adopt it.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to your attention an event in which I participated celebrating the 35th anniversary of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and to bring recognition to the remarkable young girl I met and the group to which she belongs. On July 22, 1999, I joined civic and conservation leaders on a bicycle tour of Mine Falls Park in Nashua, New Hampshire, which has received four separate state-side grants totaling $684,496. During the tour, we stopped at a gatehouse built in 1886. Fairgrounds Junior High School student Joanna Lubkin told us about her involvement with the Student Historic Preservation Team (SHPT) and their efforts to restore the building. The team's restoration efforts began last May with the removal of graffiti from the building's exterior. Once the removal is complete, the students plan to landscape the area surrounding the building and create inside a museum. The museum would highlight the gates that regulated the flow of water into a canal that runs from Mine falls to Nashua's millyard, providing power to the textile mills that were a vital part of Nashua's development as a manufacturing center in the 19th century. This project is important, not only because of the gatehouse's historic value to the community, but also because of the impact participating in its restoration has had on Joanna Lubkin. I hope that Joanna's experience will encourage other young people to get involved in their community. Mr. Speaker, I submit to you a copy of Joanna Lubkin's remarks for the Record: My name is Joanna Lubkin and I have been an active part of the Student Historic Preservation Team for about a year. I hope to see this project out to the end and beyond. Being in SHPT has really changed my outlook on life and the world around me. I have met many new friends and have been able to meet with city officials and have conversations with them about our generations vision for the future. For once I felt that I could really make a difference in our community. When Ms. Coe told my class about the Gatehouse and its role in the making of our city and its sad story of neglect, I felt compelled to join the club, if nothing else to learn some more about the history of Nashua. Over that school year, I learned about more than just my city's past, I realized that we cannot hope to achieve a new future without maintaining the links to our past. I accomplished things that I didn't think I'd ever be able to do, (or want to do for that matter--but I had a blast!) such as editing the first issue of our newsletter. I also spent many hours fundraising and planning with the group. During that time, I often found myself thinking about what a monumental task it was that we were trying to accomplish, but the more I thought about it, the more I felt proud to be a part of such a group of people. I'll never forget how nervous I was at the first Charrette that we held at City Hall. Other older members in the group had meetings with big professionals like this before, but for me, I had never even been in City Hall except once on a tour. The feeling I had when I saw the other adults in the room nodding in agreement with our plans was almost indescribable. Until then, I had this tiny voice in the back of my head saying, ``What are you nuts? You're a kid! No one's going to listen to you.'' But they did listen. And for once someone thought of kids not as a bunch of little gremlins to keep control of, but as real people who could be just as serious as any adult. I look at things now from a point of view where if there is something that I see as unjust I can do something to make a difference. I find myself sticking up for other kids more often now and voicing my opinions about what is going on in the world. I realize that I can no longer be a passive person who sits and watches the news and says, ``Wow. Wish I could do something like that.'' I have the chance to actually be the person making the news, and that I can really do things to help other people. Joanna Lubkin, SHPT Member.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, due to mechanical difficulties with my flight from my district I missed rollcall vote 429. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, due to mechanical difficulties with my flight from my district I missed rollcall vote 428. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker due to mechanical difficulties with my flight from my district I missed rollcall vote 427. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BASS

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