Charlie Bass

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for those comments. Nobody has worked harder for educational priorities in this country than the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). I am a latecomer to this process but that does not in any way dampen the ardor with which I feel that we should address the issue of full funding of special education. My good friend, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) stated it so well when he commented about all the ways that full funding of education can affect our communities, from property taxes to parents to teachers, to school districts, to funding priorities. It will make a tremendous difference. I am standing here today on this side of the aisle to demonstrate that full funding of special education is not a Republican issue, it is not a liberal issue or a conservative issue. It is not a Democratic issue. It is an issue that every single Member of Congress and every single citizen of this country, most notably property taxpayers, should be concerned with. Indeed, depending upon what school districts decide to do, one can say that fully funding special education can be a form of property tax relief for every property taxpayer in this country. It returns the decisions for local spending for education to the local level. If we fully fund special education in New Hampshire, the total funding for special ed. will go from $19 million, as it is today by the way, from $17 million, thanks to the efforts of our chairman here, to $64 million. That is an increase of $45 million. That is real money in New Hampshire for education spending. Those are funds that can either be spent on school improvement, it can be spent on hiring of new teachers, it can be spent on building construction, it can be spent on property tax relief, it could be spent on curriculum improvement, depending upon what the local school district in that area wants to do. Indeed, as has been said by other colleagues of mine, this special ed. issue is the largest unfunded Federal mandate probably in the history of this country. We make 100 percent of the rules here in Washington for special education. Sad to say, we fund 10 percent of the cost. Ten percent is better than 5 percent, where it was 5 years ago. In New Hampshire now almost 20 percent on average of the funding of every single school district goes into special education. In some school districts, it is more than 50 percent of the total school budget. Take a small town, if a single family moves into that town, they could take up half of the entire budget of the town of 100 or 150 people. Think of what that does to that poor family. Think of what it does to the relationship between those individuals and the rest of the citizens of the town. What we are talking about here is a promise that the Federal Government made many years ago and has never fulfilled. I want to urge my colleagues, as we deal with the budget here this year, as we deal with the appropriations, as we make important and critical decisions with respect to what we do with this cash surplus, I agree that we should reduce the debt, that we should save Social Security, that we have an obligation to meet our defense needs, but we also have an obligation to meet this unfunded Federal mandate and provide these resources to local school districts. So I want to thank the chairman for having taken the lead in this issue long before I was even in Congress, and I am glad that we have scheduled this special order and I hope we continue to spread this message loud and clear.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before us. This debate is not about the President, it is about the presidency. It is not about marital infidelity or contrition, as tragic as that might be, but it is about lying under oath, and it is not about contorted legalese to create the appearance of truth, it is about facing the underlying facts, facing the reality of what we all know has happened here. Mr. Speaker, no citizen should ever be above the law, and if my colleagues believe, as I do, that President Clinton knowingly made perjurious, false and misleading statements under oath to a grand jury and in sworn affidavits, that he attempted to corruptly influence the testimony of witnesses and potential witnesses, then we must support this resolution. Let us pray that 1998 not be the year that we create a sovereign ruler; rather, let it be the moment when we reaffirm the principle of equal justice for all. I urge support of the pending resolution.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago the Congress passed the Individuals with Disability Education Act, and contained therein was a mandate that the Federal Government should supply 40 percent of the funding to teach disabled children. To date we have broken the record at 12 percent. Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to my colleagues that in the course of these negotiations Republicans and Democrats should join together and urge the budget negotiators to fulfill the unfunded mandate for special education because fulfilling that unfunded mandate will not only help teachers, but it will help school administrators, it will help principals, it will help parents, it will help taxpayers, and most importantly, it will help the children of America. Let us get together and agree on something that Republicans and Democrats can move forward on. Let us put more money into special education because it helps the entire educational system across this country. I urge my colleagues to call my office and join me in urging the negotiators to support special education when it really counts, and it counts today.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the budget negotiators have come to an agreement over the overall funding levels for education, education programs, but they have not yet resolved how that money will be allocated. I rise here tonight in the 5 minutes allocated to me to urge negotiators, both Republicans and Democrats, to use this as an opportunity to put money into special education, to fully fund or to move toward fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. As the previous speaker mentioned a couple of minutes ago, this is a Federal mandate that was established in the early seventies. Originally and today, we are required to fund up to 40 percent of the costs of special education. When I entered this body in 1995, the level of funding was 6 percent, and now it is a little less than 12 percent. This is a tragedy. It is a tragedy because it hits every single school district and school in the United States. It is a tragedy because it hurts families that have children with disabilities and have to live in communities where the cost of this education, which is perfectly legitimate and necessary, is borne for the most part by friends and neighbors. Mr. Speaker, the folks who are negotiating tonight need to look seriously at allocating every single one of these dollars to fully fund our obligation to fund special education. Doing so would go a long way toward easing the financial burden that we feel in every community across the country. Fully funding or using these extra dollars to fund special education would spread the education dollars more equitably across this country. It would give the local school districts and school administrators and parents the right to prioritize spending, not have the folks here in Washington decide who gets these extra Federal dollars. I represent a rural district, and I hasten to say that it is quite likely under the President's plan that my district will receive little or nothing. But if we were to fulfill this unfunded Federal mandate, every town in my district would get an extra dollar or two to help defray the cost of education. Mr. Speaker, this is a compromise that can be supported by Republicans and Democrats, by liberals and conservatives, by anybody that has a commitment to fulfilling an obligation that this Congress made over 25 years ago. Indeed, the true winners in this battle for more education funding will not only be the teachers, will not only be those who believe that we should have better classrooms and more modern schools, but it will also be school administrators, school boards, parents, property taxpayers, and most importantly, the children of this country. I urge the negotiators in this budget deal that is going to be coming before us tomorrow to look at the issue of special education before we establish new Federal programs, before we establish new Federal bureaucracies, before we decide in Washington what the educational spending priorities should be in school districts around the country. Let us meet the unfunded obligation of special education. Let us start tomorrow by putting these extra funds into IDEA.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the breast cancer awareness resolution, which is quite similar to one I introduced last year. I do want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for their crucial help in bringing this resolution to the floor this evening. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), whose partnership on this resolution has been absolutely invaluable. Mr. Speaker, we should all know by now that October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and October 16 is National Mammography Day. It is, therefore, fitting that the House should come together today to pass the resolution that is before us now. This breast cancer awareness resolution encourages women to take a proactive role in fighting breast cancer through steps like seeking regular mammograms, and following up on those mammograms with biopsies, if necessary. It recognizes and applauds the important role played by community organizations and health care providers in promoting awareness of these services and affordable access to them. Finally, it acknowledges the responsibility of the Federal Government to be an active participant in efforts to fight breast cancer, from working to promote awareness and access to services to continuing its support for vital medical research. In recent years, there has been important progress on all of these fronts. On a local level, events like Race for the Cure and Making Strides Against Breast Cancer walkathons that have occurred all over the country, which I participated in last week, have helped raise awareness of the dangers of this disease and support for finally finding a cure. Congress has also made important contributions, including Medicare coverage for mammograms last year, and, as was mentioned by our chairman, the reauthorization of the Mammography Quality Standards Act. Yet, despite progress in encouraging early detection and treatment and funding medical research, much more remains to be done. This year alone, nearly 180,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in this country, and 44,000 will die from this terrible disease. Twenty-seven years ago, when I was 19 years old, or 28 years ago, my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer, and she died at the age of 51. There were no strides for cancer awareness, there were no support groups. Indeed, there was very little understanding of what she faced. Unfortunately, I think she faced this disease with fright, with pain, and sometimes with great loneliness. What we have done in those 26 years is really quite extraordinary, but there is a lot more work ahead of us. I want to see a world for my wife and my daughter, Lucy, that will be better than it was for my mother. I thank the chairman of the committee from the bottom of my heart for making this resolution in order tonight, and bringing the importance of breast cancer awareness to the public forefront.

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

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the conference report and to pay tribute to our distinguished chairman who, under some recently difficult circumstances, has certainly led this committee with great expertise and integrity. I also want to pay tribute to our two ranking members who will not be coming back with us next year, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bill Young) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Norm Dicks). I cannot think of two individuals who are more committed to a strong and capable defense and an efficient and effective intelligence capability. I came to the committee and I watched the gentleman from Washington defend an issue that was particularly near and dear to him, and this individual just would not take no for an answer. And I asked one of our ever respectful staff people, what is the story with this guy? And they said, ``Norm Dicks never has a bad day.'' Over the last 2 years, and after 38 or so hearings, and 30 formal hearings, visits to Bosnia, to North Korea, to China, reports from Central America and from Africa and other places all over the world, I found, much to my surprise, that we live in a world that is far more dangerous than I ever thought it was. Those dangers are more diffuse and more difficult to identify and to contain. Indeed, I feel, as a member of this committee now, like a Dutch boy at the dike as we seek to protect Americans against threats both here and abroad. This bill moves us forward in the direction of protecting our strategic national defense and economic interests around the world. We may never succeed, but the fact that we have a committee and a Congress that is dedicated to addressing these issues and doing it in such a fashion so that our scarce resources are expended in the most efficient and productive fashion, is very commendable to this Congress. So I rise in support of this conference committee report and urge its passage.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my distinguished colleague from Ohio, a fellow Dartmouth alumnus, who has had the foresight to bring forward a bill that is as important and good as this one. I represent a rural New Hampshire district, but drugs are a problem there just as much as they are in any other district around the country. I have a story here, just a couple of weeks ago from New Hampshire: Heroin, A Deadly Problem Statewide. We all share the same problems with drug abuse. As the father of a 7-year-old who has just entered the second grade at the Peterborough Elementary School and a son who is 4, it is shocking for me to understand now that children are first exposed to drugs and drug information when they enter the fourth grade. As the father of two children, I am particularly interested in the provision of the bill that provides for $10 million in each fiscal year after 1995 for community-based parent organizations to get grant money to help provide parent training for individuals. Mr. Chairman, parents are in denial in many instances as to the problems that their children face. As a Member of Congress in this last term, I have been able to offer at least two major conferences involving many members of communities with bringing parents in to teach them how to deal with drugs in their families and in their homes. I am hopeful that this particular provision, which is of great importance to me, will prevail, because parents just as much as children need to understand the problems of drug abuse, how to communicate with their children and how to keep their children off drugs. I strongly commend the individuals who have worked on this bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I rise in strong support of its passage.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for yielding. I rise in opposition to the freshman substitute, not to denigrate in any way the fine efforts of this team and the time that they have dedicated to developing a solution to the problem of reforming our campaign financial system, but to suggest that Shays-Meehan is a better product, wire-brushed by the public, if you will, over the last year or so, debated for countless hours in this body, perfected through the adoption of amendments offered, and worthy of our acceptance as the only product that has a reasonable chance of being enacted into law, which should be the ultimate goal for those of us who truly believe that the time is ripe for reform. Now, I would point out, as has been discussed a minute ago, that the freshman substitute does not end the corrupt soft money system. And we can debate whether the States can do it or not, but the fact is we can still raise soft money for financing campaigns. And of particular interest to me, it leaves in place the current loophole through which unlimited corporate and union treasury funds are funneled into elections and there is no accountability. Now, Shays-Meehan is not a perfect product. There are many provisions that I would like to see added. But this is not the day to demand a wish list. There is a commission established in this bill that will deal with all these other issues at another day. This is the day, my colleagues, to prove the cynics wrong and send Shays-Meehan to the Senate. Now, over the last month or two, many amendments have been offered to Shays-Meehan, some with good intent, some to stymie the process. As painful as it may be to admit, the freshman bill now has become Custer's last stand for those who oppose reform. I would suggest to my colleagues that we make no mistake about it. For better or for worse, a vote for the pending motion is a vote against moving forward with meaningful reform. I urge opposition to the pending motion.

Mr. BASS

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

Mr. BASS. The gentlewoman from Michigan has made a great case, it sounds like heaven on earth, but I think it is important to point out that these three automakers made almost $20 billion. ATP would be .005 percent of their entire profits. The reality is that they could fund the entire consortium.

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

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer today will increase funding for the Edward Byrne grant program by $19.5 million. This increase would be offset by eliminating $43 million earmarked for new grants in fiscal year 1999 under the Advanced Technology Program. The reason for the difference between the $19.5 million and the $43 million is a difference in outlays versus authority, but it is scored by CBO as a neutral scoring. As my colleagues know, the ATP program subsidizes private sector technological R&D, and Byrne programs, which would be increased by $19.5 million, are sources for Federal financial assistance for State and local drug enforcement efforts. Mr. Chairman, the business of appropriations is the business of making priority judgments. We heard about that when we were discussing the last amendment, about where scarce dollars should go, and the question posed by this amendment is very simple: Should we provide Federal financial assistance for State and local drug enforcement efforts, or do we provide companies like Dow Chemical with $7.8 million when they enjoyed a 1997 net profit of $1.81 billion? Do the math. That is like one six-thousandth of their entire profit. Or should we provide much-needed resources to fight crime and drug abuse in our schools, or do we provide IBM with $14.8 million when they made over $6 billion last year? Should we provide more money for the purchase of equipment to provide training and technical assistance to improve criminal justice systems, or is it more important to provide $3.7 million to the Ford Motor Company even though they showed a profit of $7 billion in 1997? Or how about funding education programs in schools to prevent children from getting hooked on drugs, or funds to help parents deal with and get treatment for a drug-dependent child and get that child into treatment, versus giving General Motors $3.2 million when they had a profit of $6.7 billion last year? My colleagues, it is indeed a question of priorities, and the Byrne Grant program is a great program, and I would suggest to my colleagues that it would be difficult to argue that we do not need any more money for this program; that we do not need any more money for crime prevention programs to assist citizens in communities and neighborhoods in preventing and controlling crime, especially crime directed against the elderly; and in rural jurisdictions to improve the response of the criminal and juvenile system to domestic violence and relate to law enforcement in the prevention of gangs or the youth at risk of joining gangs. This is where this money goes. And the question that we have to ask is do we want to add $43 million to ATP, which gives these $1, $2, $3, $4, $5, $6 million grants, up to $14 million to Johnson & Johnson, when these companies are making more money in aggregate than the whole law enforcement budget has accrued in Congress. Indeed, my colleagues, the issue of appropriations is the issue of making priority decisions. And in my opinion fighting crime in our neighborhoods, so that our parents know that their children are a little safer at school or out in the community, is more important than helping companies that have an aggregate research and development budget of almost $40 billion, giving them $43 million for their new programs when they are making plenty of money the way it is now. Mr. Chairman, I do hope that my colleagues will support this amendment and vote it up.

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

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, how is the U.S. doing economically compared to Europe and Japan, given the fact that these governments are providing so much money for economic research and development?

Mr. BASS. Well, we are doing an awful lot better.

Mr. BASS. We are not doing half as much.

Mr. BASS. We have an ATP that is much smaller than those other governments and we are doing so much better.

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

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, a further point here. My colleague may be aware of the fact that on the 26th of July, 1995, just a little more than 3 years ago, this House voted 223 to 204 to zero out ATP. We are also aware of the fact that only 40 percent of ATP funding goes to small businesses. And in their own statements ATP has said that they have ``no special allowance for small business.'' And, thirdly, 42 percent of the recipients of ATP funding said they would have done the research anyway.

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

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I would not disagree it is the most competitive corporate welfare program around, but does the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers) believe that ATP funds should not be awarded to companies that say that they would have developed the product anyway, as 42 percent of them did say?

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of a resident of Nashua, New Hampshire, Mr. Douglas M. Barrett, on the occasion of his retirement from Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Company. Mr. Barrett's 41 years of dedication to improving our Nation's security, and his devotion to his community, set a standard of commitment and excellence for which we should all strive. Since beginning his employment at Sanders Associates in 1957, Mr. Barrett has been an integral part of the development and fielding of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems that have been critical to keeping the peace when possible and prevailing at war when necessary. His devotion to getting the best possible technical solutions into the hands of our soldiers, sailors and airmen in the shortest periods of time, and at the best value to the government is to be greatly commended. As the Vice President and General Manager of the Surveillance Systems Business Area of Sanders since 1982, Mr. Barrett has been instrumental to the growth and stability of the economy in and around Nashua through the creation of jobs. He has also played a major role in providing educational opportunities for the citizens of the greater Nashua area as a board member and past president of the Adult Learning Center. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join with me in recognizing the unwavering commitment and total dedication of Mr. Douglas M. Barrett to his company, community and country.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller-Schumer amendment. By protecting sugar growers, the Federal Government sugar price support and quota system effectively doubles the price of sugar for U.S. consumers. The General Accounting Office estimates that the program costs America $1.4 billion a year in higher grocery expenses. Aside from bilking American consumers, the program also favors large corporate interests over small farmers by focusing a large portion of program benefits on a few corporate farmers. As we have heard from previous speakers, approximately 1 percent of sugar farmers reaped 42 percent of all sugar program benefits in 1991. Within the narrower sugar cane industry, 17 farms accounted for 55 percent of the benefits. Furthermore, the program does not limit the amount of benefits each sugar producer can receive, allowing a few large farms to accumulate enormous windfalls. In 1991, 33 of the largest sugar farmers in United States each received over $1 million in program benefits. In fact, one of these huge agribusinesses accrued $30 million in program benefits that same year. The Federal Government sugar program provides a narrow subsidy to an industry that does not need it. Because the program primarily benefits a few large sugar growers at the expense of all American consumers, the sugar price support system and import quota should be repealed. I urge my colleagues to support the Miller-Schumer amendment.