Charlie Bass

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Crimson Tide Marching Band of Concord High School in Concord, NH. The talents of this 120-piece band, under the direction of Bill Metevier, were recognized by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, leading to an invitation to perform in the Inaugural Parade in our Nation's capital on January 20, 1997. Concord High School has one of the best marching bands in all of New England. These young musicians earned the wonderful opportunity to perform in front of the President and the First Lady, as well as the entire Nation watching on television. The city of Concord embraced the Crimson Tide Marching Band, as individuals and local companies raised over $20,000 to help pay for the band's trip to Washington, DC. The Concord Schools Friends of Music deserve much credit for leading the fundraising effort to allow these students to enjoy an opportunity that will be remembered for a lifetime. I know that the parents and families, the teachers, students and staff of the Concord School District, and the entire state of New Hampshire are exceedingly proud of the accomplishments of the Crimson Tide Marching Band. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating the musicians of the Concord High School Crimson Tide Marching Band for participating in a memorable and historic occasion, the 1997 Presidential Inaugural Parade.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3452. This bill applies 11 civil rights employment and labor statutes to the White House. H.R. 3452 is a commonsense bill that mirrors the Congressional Accountability Act, which has been discussed before by previous speakers. I also support H.R. 3452 because it includes my bill, the White House Inspector General Act, which I know my friend from New York has talked about in some detail in her discussion, which I introduced with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Clinger, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Horn. My bill establishes an office of inspector general in the Executive Office of the President to serve as the principal watchdog of White House financial management procedures and fiscal resources. This provision not only provides the President with an essential tool for rooting out waste, fraud and abuse, but it also complements H.R. 3452's provision applying the Chief Financial Officer Act to the White House. I would also like at this moment to thank the chairman of the committee, Congressman Clinger, who has been a staunch supporter of this concept now for many years. As many of my colleagues know, the Inspector General Act of 1978 established inspectors general to protect the integrity of Federal programs and resources. IG's are appointed without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of a strong background in accounting, auditing, financial management or investigations. They are provided with the authority and independence to perform audits and investigations in order to combat waste, fraud and abuse, and indeed the act has worked: 61 Federal entities today have IG's, including all 14 Cabinet departments. In 1994 IG investigations and audits led to over 14,000 successful criminal and civil prosecutions and returned $1.9 billion in investigative recoveries to the U.S. Treasury resulting in efficiency recommendations that would save a total of $24 billion. My bill provides the White House IG the basic powers that all IG's are granted under the Inspector General Act of 1978, but it also includes special provisions that protect the constitutional prerogatives and operational effectiveness of the Presidency. The first exemption ensures that the inspector general will not interfere in areas relating to policy, intelligence, national security interests or other sensitive matters. It will focus solely on fiscal financial management and abuses of power. The second broad exemption ensures that the IG does not hinder the President in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities. The President would have broad and sweeping authority to prohibit the IG from, and I quote, interfering with the core functions of the constitutional responsibilities of the President. Some have raised legitimate questions about this provision violating the separation of powers doctrine. The Justice Department, as was mentioned by my colleague from New York, raised concerns about the intrusion on the President's constitutional responsibilities. As she also mentioned, the CRS, Congressional Research Service, American Law Division, concluded, however, that the legislation should withstand a constitutional challenge due to the broad exemptions that I just explained. Some have also objected to the provisions because they feel that it is a partisan attack on the White House. However, since the bill, as Chairman Clinger mentioned, will not take effect until next year, it would impact either a Clinton administration or a Dole administration in an identical fashion. Despite what some might think, this is surely not a partisan issue. This legislation is intended to institute a strong, effective and independent inspector general in the White House that balances the interests of both the President in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities and the Congress in conducting effective oversights of the executive branch and ensuring accountability. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, inspectors general have a solid track record in rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. Establishing a White House IG will provide further Presidents, both Republican and Democrat, a useful tool in identifying and eliminating financial mismanagement and abuse in the White House. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an effort being undertaken by a remarkable young man whom I have the privilege of representing in Congress. I am talking about 16-year-old Steffan Legasse, of Walpole, NH, who has taken it upon himself to help raise money for churches in the South that have been burned and damaged due to the wave of recent arson attacks. We all are shocked and dismayed by these terrible arson fires. Yet one young man from Western New Hampshire was so moved by what he heard and saw that he decided to do something to help those affected by the church burnings. Steffan undertook a 1,000 mile cycling project this summer in order to raise money for the churches and his own church, St. John's Episcopal Church, of Walpole. The name of his project is ``BikeHikes '96.'' Steffan rode his bike from home to his summer job each day and has made excursions to Vermont and Georgia in conquest of his 1,000 mile goal. Recently, while in Georgia, the Legasse family met with the Rev. Harry Baldwin, Pastor of the Gay's Baptist Church, of Millen, GA, one of many churches recently burned. Some of the funds raised through BikeHikes '96 will help Rev. Baldwin's church. Steffan recently wrote about his meeting: ``Rev. Baldwin is a very kind and compassionate person. He helped me better understand the pain felt by the members of his church, yet he also spoke of their faith, hope and determination to rebuild. I have learned that even terrible deeds can result in a positive outcome.'' Steffan has biked more than 900 miles as of today. He is taking pledges and donations to raise $10,000 for these churches. Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting young Steffan the other week and I must say I was very impressed. He is a very polite and delightful young man who is deeply committed to this project. I know that his parents, Mr. and Mrs. David Legasse, are very proud of their son, as are Steffan's other family members and friends. Steffan is still working on BikeHikes '96 and has set up a site on the World Wide Web where computer users can learn for themselves about this wonderful project. The website address is http://www.legasse.com/ bikehikes/update.html. For more information on Steffan's effort, you may write to 14 Roxbury Street, Keene, NH 03431. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me today in saluting Steffan Legasse for his effort to help other citizens in need. He represents the true spirit of volunteerism in America.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, between 1965 and 1994 $5.4 trillion has been spent on welfare. Federal, State, and local welfare spending rose from $158 billion in 1975 to $324 billion in 1993. Now, my colleagues may think that welfare is thought of as providing short-term relief. Well, the fact is that the average stay on welfare today is 13 years. Now, since 1950 the population of the United States has increased 72 percent, from 151 million to 260 million. At the same time, total welfare spending by Federal, State, and local governments has increased by 1,623 percent. Mr. Speaker, today the House will pass a historic welfare reform bill that requires work and personal responsibility and lifts families from lives of despair and hopelessness. Mr. Speaker, welfare should not be a way of life. Commonsense welfare reform will help end the vicious cycle of welfare dependency. Mr. Speaker, I urge the President to sign this historic welfare proposal.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about a bill I am going to introduce establishing an inspector general for the White House, but I cannot help beginning by making a comment concerning the remarks of my friend from Texas a second ago. As they say in poker, the cards speak, and the fact is that those television stations would not have removed those ads from the air if they had said what the real record shows. What Newt Gingrich said at that point was, and I quote, Okay, what do you think the Health Care Financing Administration is? That's HCFA. It is a centralized government bureaucracy, it is everything we are telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. No, we do not get rid of it in round one because we do not think that is politically smart, but we do it through a transition. We believe it is going to wither on the vine. Now what does that mean? That means that the choice here is whether we protect, improve, and preserve Medicare or whether we protect a Federal bureaucracy. That is the issue before us today, and we plan to move forward. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the White House Inspector General Act of 1996, to establish an Office of Inspector General in the Executive Office of the President. The White House IG, like other IG's in the executive branch, would serve as the principal watchdog of White House financial management procedures and fiscal resources. This legislation would provide the President with an essential tool for rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in the White House. As many of my colleagues know, the Inspector General Act of 1978 established offices of inspector general within certain Federal departments and agencies to protect the integrity of Federal programs and resources. Inspectors general are appointed without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of a strong background in accounting, auditing, or financial management. They are provided the authority and independence to perform audits and investigations in order to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. More specifically, the three principal responsibilities of inspector general are, first, to conduct audits and investigations relating to Federal programs and operations; second, to issue recommendations that promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs and operations; and, third, to keep agency heads and Congress fully informed of problems and deficiencies in Federal program administration and operations. Today 61 Federal entities have an inspector general, including all 14 Cabinet departments. Of these 61 IG's, 29 are appointed by the President subject to Senate confirmation and the remaining 32, primarily in smaller agencies, are selected by their agency heads. The Presidentially appointed IG's have a total of 10,000 staff and an aggregate budget of approximately $900 million. According to information gathered by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, funding for IG's is indeed a sound investment. In 1994, IG investigations and audits led to over 14,000 successful criminal and civil prosecutions. Furthermore, IG's returned $1.9 billion in investigative recoveries to the U.S. Treasury and made efficiency recommendations that could save a total of $24 billion. As I mentioned previously, IG's have significant authority and independence to conduct their audits and investigations. They have direct access to all records and information of the agency, and possess the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths for taking testimony. With regard to their independence, IG's have full control over hiring and managing their own staff and resources. Moreover, they can be removed only by the President or the agency head who appointed them, and the President or agency head must communicate his reason to Congress when exercising this authority. As I already mentioned, my legislation will establish an Office of Inspector General for the Executive Office of the President. The White House IG would be appointed by the President and could be removed without cause by the President. All the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978 would apply to the White House IG, but the bill also includes special provisions relating to sensitive information in matters that would protect the constitutional prerogatives and operational effectiveness of the Presidency. The first exemption assures that the White House IG will not interfere in areas relating to policy, intelligence or national security interests, similar to the IG's in the defense area, in defense-related departments. The second broad exemption assures that the White House IG does not hinder the President in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities. Under the IG Act of 1978, agency heads are strictly prohibited from obstructing an IG audit or investigation. However, under my bill the President would have the authority to prohibit the White House IG from conducting an audit or investigation. I do hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of the RIGHT Congress Act. RIGHT stands for ``Restore Integrity, Goodwill, Honesty and Trust in Congress.'' The bill is a modest, commonsense reform that will help bring back some accountability and responsibility to the Halls of Congress and it follows on the action that we took beginning with the first day of the 104th Congress. What will this bill do? It will reduce congressional pensions to put them in line with all other Federal employees. It repeals automatic pay raises for Members of Congress and eliminates COLA's on Members' pensions. It will require recorded votes on all bills or amendments increasing Members' pay; prohibit former Members and senior staffs from lobbying for 28 years after leaving Congress or one full term; deny House floor access for Members of Congress who are registered lobbyists; require lobbyists to wear ID's when they are working in the Capitol; limit the use of expensive military flights for congressional travel; ban overseas taxpayer funded travel for retiring Members of Congress. This bill has received support from across the board, and I urge my colleagues' support for this piece of legislation.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much for his willingness to work on this matter.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to enter into a very brief colloquy with my distinguished colleague from California, the chairman of the subcommittee. The gentleman and I have had numerous discussions about the plight of the Johns Manville site in Nashua, NH. This is an abandoned asbestos manufacturing plant that poses a serious threat to the health and public safety to the city of Nashua. The danger was evidenced when one of the buildings on the site experienced a partial collapse of its roof. Fortunately, the weight of the snow on top of the building prevented the release of asbestos. Nevertheless, a recently issued report indicates that any further collapse or fire at this site could necessitate a full-scale evacuation of the area's residents. Unfortunately, the cleanup cost analysis included in the recent report was not available in time to seek funding for this project through the normal committee process. The new report indicates that the site should qualify for emergency funding and may require up to $5.3 million for the cleanup. From previous conversations, I know the chairman understands the importance of the project to my district. Therefore, I would like to ask him if he and the committee can work with me to address this dire situation.

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

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding this time to me, and I would just like to point out that there is an enormous difference between an effort to preserve a trail and an undertaking that will potentially affect 80,000 acres of property. I would also point out that the scope of this piece of legislation is now, by unanimous-consent amendment, limited to the States of New Hampshire and Vermont. Now, this is a very critical issue for folks in New Hampshire and Vermont, and the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and I have joined together in a bipartisan effort to create a modicum of protection for folks who make a living off of the land that might be affected by this potential wildlife refuge. Nobody opposes the idea of the Silvio Conte Wildlife Refuge. We want it to go ahead. But we feel that this amendment, which is supported by numerous environmental groups in my home State of New Hampshire, and I suspect also in Vermont, is important to us. I would point out that there are 33 other precedents for use of this limitation on eminent domain proceeding, and to the best of my knowledge it has worked very well in all of those instances. So I would urge the body to support this bill along with its unanimous-consent amendment. It is important for Vermont and New Hampshire, and it is important for the future of this very significant wildlife refuge.

Mr. BASS. A statement in the Record, to amend my unanimous-consent request.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] for yielding this time to me, and I would only say that thee are, and I have here, precedent after precedent after precedent in public works for the type of exemption that we are talking about in this particular piece of legislation. What is most significant about this effort is taht it is going to help preserve the Connecticut River basin. It is going to create an environment of cooperation amongst all of the parties involved, and all we are saying is that the Fish and Wildlife Service's promise not to use eminent domain in any instance in this particular project, we are going to hold them to their word. Now, it appens to be important to me tht we preserve the Connecticut River basin, but it is also important to me that we protect the rights of landowners and that we prevent this bill, this problem, from slowing the long-term process. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask for unanimous consent that my colleague from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] be recorded in support of this bill and be allowed to place a statement in the Record in support of the bill.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from New Jersey but also point out that the nature of the districts through which the Connecticut River runs in Massachusetts and Connecticut is considerably different geographically than that of New Hampshire and Vermont. So as a result, I believe that there is justification for this amendment in that the sheer territory covered by the potential for eminent domain proceedings in Massachusetts and Connecticut is substantially smaller than in New Hampshire and Vermont. I certainly would not object to this amendment.

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

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this piece of legislation. I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] for moving this bill promptly, in an expeditious fashion. I believe that their understanding of the time-sensitive nature of this matter in allowing H.R. 2909 to move in an expeditious manner is important. Mr. Speaker, simply put, as we have heard, this bill will smooth the road for the creation of the Silvio O. Conte Refuge by reassuring local residents, and folks who live in the affected areas, that their land will not be taken by eminent domain as a result of efforts to create this very important refuge. The Conte refuge was established in 1991, and subsequently went through 4 years of hearings and input. The result of the plan, which seeks to protect the entire Connecticut River Valley from its headwaters in northern New Hampshire to the area in southern Connecticut where it flows into the Atlantic Ocean, is the scope of the bill. In undertaking this task, the Fish and Wildlife Service has identified virtually all water sources that empty into the Connecticut as potential areas to protect. Consequently, nearly 50 percent of my district, which is a large rural district, and clearly close to half of the district of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], will be potentially affected by this refuge, including, I might add, many major metropolitan areas, cities, towns, rights-of-way and so forth. Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize that the Connecticut River, which flows through many diverse regions of New England, has many different characteristics in different areas. I might use the analogy, if I could, to the shape of an oak tree in describing the Connecticut River. Like any river, near its mouth on the Long Island sound it is like a pencil line, but as it gets farther north it branches out and branches out and branches out until finally up in Coos County, and in Essex County over in Vermont, it covers the entire county. In my district, half of Grafton County, all of Sullivan County, and all of Cheshire County. It is a huge area which it covers. Mr. Speaker, I am not here today to take issue with protecting the Connecticut River. It is a very important project, and I fully support the Silvio O. Conte Wildlife Refuge. However, I feel that there are efforts that need to be undertaken in order to assure that there is cooperation between not only the folks that live along the river's edge and will be affected, and as I said it is more than just folks living along the edge of the river, but also the respective legislatures in New Hampshire and Vermont and potentially Connecticut and Massachusetts. There have been bills introduced in New Hampshire that would create considerable restrictions on the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to effect this important refuge project, and it is all based upon the fact that there is fear on the part of landowners that the Fish and Wildlife Service will use their eminent domain power to take property unnecessarily away from people who are trying to make a living off of it. Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that this is not good for the future creation and growth of the wildlife refuge, but it is also not good for farmers and other individuals who depend, and have depended now for generations, upon the land to make a living. Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], my good friend, has pointed out that this bill does not qualify or may not qualify for the Corrections Day Calendar. I would point out that this bill codifies U.S. Fish and Wildlife's intent using statutory authority of eminent domain for the purposes of the refuge. The potential financial burden, underlined, of large scale eminent domain takings could be high on the taxpayers of America. The refuge plan represents a new approach by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in that it does not have well-defined boundaries. It is not an island or specific area, it is a watershed. Therefore, areas that could be affected by eminent domain are ambiguous. The bill protects the average family and small business by ensuring that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not arbitrarily take their land for the purposes of a refuge that is not clearly defined. And, last, the bill promotes the well-being of everyone by removing one of the final stumbling blocks to the successful creation of this refuge to protect the Connecticut River for all of New England. Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that there is ample precedent for this change in the law. There are 33 different precedents in law in which eminent domain as a mechanism for acquiring land has been inserted; I think the most notable of which is the wildlife refuge in Massachusetts known as the Atchafalaya, or something like that, wildlife refuge in which the exact same language is in law there. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that as one who supports the Silvio O. Conte Wildlife Refuge, as one who was personally acquainted with Congressman Silvio O. Conte, I would take issue with my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts and I would say that Congressman Conte would have wanted to see the wildlife refuge developed with the full cooperation and consent of the Federal Government, Congress, as well as the people who would be affected by this wildlife refuge. Now, as a former State senator and a member of the legislature in New Hampshire, I was pleased to have sponsored shoreline protection legislation in New Hampshire, rivers protection laws in New Hampshire, as well as serving 2 years on the Land Conservation Investment Program, which is a program similar to what is envisioned by Silvio O. Conte Wildlife Refuge, in which $50 million was allocated to protect key pieces of real estate that are environmentally sensitive and important for the State of New Hampshire. Not once did we, we did not have eminent domain in the law obviously, and we never needed it. The fact is we do not need to have the hand of Federal Government taking people's property away from them against their will when there is plenty of property available and more than the Federal Government will ever have the money to purchase to begin with. What we need here is cooperation, which is in the New Hampshire tradition, and I think in the tradition that will be beneficial to the creation and long-term preservation of this very important ecosystem, the Connecticut River.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say that in response to my distinguished colleague from California, as he well knows, just prior to his arrival here on the floor we did exempt by unanimous-consent amendment the States of Massachusetts and Connecticut, which was so eloquently advocated by my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Olver, in mentioning that 80 percent of the people involved by or covered by this wildlife refuge live in the States of Massachusetts and Connecticut, whereas 80 percent of the land is in New Hampshire. Although just a small portion of the total area has been designated thus far to be part of the wildlife refuge, the fact is that this is an open-ended project, as it should be, and there are, as I recall, some 80,000 acres potentially affected by it. So it does have the potential to become quite a bit more substantial, which is not all that bad. I would also point out that the New Hampshire Forest Society, the Appalachian Mountain Club and other environmental groups based in New Hampshire strongly support the passage of this legislation.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention an editorial which appears in today's New Hampshire Union Leader entitled, Rubber President, Here's Bill Clinton, Contortionist Extraordinaire. The editorial discusses the fact that the President has twice vetoed welfare reform and yet, if I may quote, it says, ``Knowing Bob Dole has scheduled a major speech today on the subject of welfare, Mr. Clinton did an about-face over the weekend to declare his support for Wisconsin's Republican welfare reform plan. Unbelievable. Governor Tommy Thompson's innovative Wisconsin Works program embodies more reform, a lot more reform, than either of the two bills Mr. Clinton vetoed. But now the President says he thinks Governor Thompson's approach is just peachy. Republicans should call Mr. Clinton's bluff. They should not let him get away with telling the voters he is for welfare reform while vetoing sensible reform bills. Congress should present him with a welfare reform bill based on the Wisconsin plan and dare him to veto what he says he supports. That is what we will do today, Mr. Speaker. We are going to introduce a sensible welfare reform bill.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] to respond. announcement by the chairman

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].