Charlie Bass

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the Cathedral of the Pines in Rindge, NH on its 50th anniversary. This beautiful site is located on 450 acres of land in the southern part of my congressional district offering an incredible view of Mount Monadnock in the distance. The Cathedral of the Pines was founded in 1945 by Dr. and Mrs. Douglas Sloane, in honor of their son, Lt. Sanderson Sloane. Lieutenant Sloane died in the service of his country in World War II. To commemorate his life, Dr. and Mrs. Sloane donated the land for a memorial that was erected in his honor and in honor of all who served their country. The nondenominational Cathedral of the Pines sits atop the site where Lt. Sanderson Sloane had planned to build a home after the end of the war. Today, 50 years later, over 100,000 people a year visit this beautiful site to admire and experience the beauty, the calm, the splendor, and the grace of this wondrous site. I was honored to participate in a recent ceremony commemorating the golden anniversary of the Cathedral of the Pines. This event featured the participation of 70 members of Lt. Sanderson Sloane's old unit, the 379th Bombardment Group. It was an event I will not soon forget. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the memory of [[Page E 1857]] Lieutenant Sloane and the wonderful legacy of his memory, known to us today as the Cathedral of the Pines.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1670. Before my colleagues vote to considerably weaken this bill, I would ask them to consider the reforms being offered here today by the chairmen, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]. H.R. 1670 would enable businesses to compete effectively in both commercial and Government markets, and would eliminate many of the contracting requirements unique to the Government that increase the cost of doing business with it. We have heard this from prior speakers. The simplification of unwieldy requirements and procedures will also encourage more businesses to enter the Federal marketplace which may have been intimidated by the current system. These businesses just simply cannot deal with the system as it is today. These changes will enable the Government to take advantage of leading technology firms, the technology being supplied by these firms important to the Government. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Federal Acquisition Reform Act in the interests of efficiency, a strengthened supplier base, increased competition, and reduced procurement costs. I urge my colleagues to vote against any amendments that are offered that will weaken this bill and make the system work more slowly and more bureaucratically.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that today the House Republicans are ready to finish the job we started 8 months ago. We are ready to balance the budget for the first time in a generation, to help save this country for our children and our grandchildren, and we are ready to pass a plan that will protect, preserve, and strengthen Medicare for our senior citizens. We are willing to take the heat on this controversial issue to save a broken system that three, I repeat, three of President Clinton's own Cabinet secretaries say needs to be dealt with immediately. We are ready to pass a plan that will help end our country's welfare system that creates poverty, dependency, destitution, breaks up families, and discourages people from working. We are committed to ending a system that has created debt and has rewarded inefficiency. We are not afraid to take on the special interests and the status quo here in Washington. In fact, the only ones interested in preserving the old ways are the defenders of the old order who live and breathe inside Route 495 in Washington, DC, and if we learned anything during this August recess, it is that the American people want us to stay the course and continue with this revolution in 1995.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood amendment.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. I thank the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith] for yielding to me, and I want to commend her for the courageous effort that she has made as a freshman Member of Congress to swim against a tide of incumbency. I said many times during my campaign last year that there are really three parties in Washington, Republicans, Democrats, and incumbents, and the incumbents is the largest party of all. I think on November 8 many of us who did not take any significant amount of political action committee money showed that we can make a difference here in Washington. As one of those new Members of Congress who is here today, and proud to be here, I want to create a Congress that the American people can be proud of, a Congress that is elected by people and supported by people from Members of Congress' districts. I also want to commend the gentlewoman for standing up here tonight and bringing to the American people the need to reduce the influence of special interests, to require that campaign funds come from a candidate's own district. I am here tonight to discuss with you, also, an idea I have thought about for many years, as one who has sponsored legislation in my own home State to limit campaign spending overall, to limit the influence of special interests in my own home State, and to establish, among other things, a legislative Ethics Committee to limit independent expenditures. Mr. Speaker, I feel that we ought to be returning some of the power to qualify Federal offices to the States, and it is my intention in the coming week to send out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to my friends asking them if they would be willing to join me in an effort to repeal the provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which preempts all State and Federal regulations for Federal officeholders. The effect of this repeal would be to give States, such as New Hampshire or the State of Washington, or, for example, the State of Indiana, which currently has a law on its books that says that anyone who contracts with the State cannot contribute to candidates, or lobbyists cannot contribute to candidates. If that is what the people in Indiana want to do, they should be able to do that. We are in a Congress now that says that we ought to give States more rights. We have a new attitude here that says that local control is better. I feel that the people and voters of New Hampshire or any other State in this country should be able to set the qualifications and determine spending limits, determine other limits, as long as they are more stringent than the Federal limits, and enact those laws and have them apply to candidates for Federal office.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I am taken by the comments of my colleague from California about sources of income. I think the gentleman makes an excellent point. If you received 2 or 3 percent of the money from your district that you run on, and it is a high dollar campaign, who do you really represent? Who do you really represent? That is what is so cancerous about this system. If all the money comes from the Route 495 Beltway or some big metropolitan area where there may be some special issue, the key here is you ought to be accountable to the people who sent you to Washington. Those are the people that really count, and there is nothing wrong with that. There ought to be limitations on sources of income, and that ought to be one of the highest priorities of this Congress in campaign spending reform. The gentleman from California could not have done a better job in illustrating that. From my own perspective, I have a similar experience in that my opponent's funds were less than 10 percent from the whole State of New Hampshire, and I think that was made very clear that there was some question as to the quality of that representation. I think the gentleman, talking in his own home State of California, makes an equally good point.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield back, nothing that I would envision by repealing this preemption provision, which, by the way, is only three lines long, would in any way affect any laws we made here in Washington to restrict the influence of political action committees and so forth. It would allow the States, however, to go farther than anything we decided to do here in Washington. Let me point out that in a State like California, and my colleague here is from California, lives in the State of California, and they have different conditions, different populations, different numbers of Members of Congress, a larger delegation and different demographics, it may be different from Alaska, where there is only one Member of Congress in a huge and rather less populated State, or my home State of New Hampshire. We established campaign spending limits in New Hampshire. I think we were the first in the country to do so after the Buckley-Valeo case in 1972, which outlawed campaign spending limits, and now other States have adopted. Vermont, I think, Arizona, and other States. I think these new laws should apply to Members of Congress as well as State officeholders. They do, in effect, apply in a de facto sense because nobody has challenged these new laws. I think if we were to repeal the Preemption Act, then we would allow the States to have more control over the people they send to Washington and not center all the control of the Federal election process in one place, Washington, DC. It is time we turned that trend around, and I thank the gentlewoman from Washington for yielding to me.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to talk about the Medicare Program in this country and the need to preserve, protect, and strengthen this vital program, and I would like to respond briefly if I could to some comments I have heard the past couple minutes about how this issue is something that was contrived by the Republicans in order to cut taxes and somehow provide benefits to the rich and to the corporate world. I would remind those of you on the other side of the aisle that the Medicare problem is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem because the President has weighed in on this issue and recommended that we do something to preserve this and protect this program, and he thinks that we should reduce the growth of Medicare somewhere in the vicinity of $100 billion. The Republicans want to preserve and protect this program for generations to come and are in the process of coming up with proposals to reduce the future costs of Medicare by roughly $250 billion. The issue, my friends, is not whether we save Medicare, but it is how we do it, and this is a program and a problem that should be addressed in a bipartisan fashion, not with each side squabbling against the other and resorting to bickering. The reason I say that is that yesterday morning, the Medicare Preservation Task Force had a public hearing in Nashua, which is the largest city in my district, and I am proud to say that we have on my Medicare Preservation Task Force a list of very distinguished leaders in New Hampshire in the Medicare and Medicaid State government and so forth, in those professions. Let me name a couple. Judy Lupien, who is a social services director for the Grafton County Nursing Home; Joe Marcille, the president and chief executive officer of Blue Cross-Blue Shield; Forrest McKerley and Dwight Sowerby, who run major nursing homes in the State; Fred Shaw, a lawyer and doctor in Concord; Kathy Sgambati, who is the assistant commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services; Reed Morris, who is a resident, a senior citizen at the Pleasant View Retirement Community; Ginny Blackmer, who is a clinical nurse specialist; and Susan Young, executive director of the Home Health Care Association in New Hampshire; and Kristine Thyng, a senior at St. [[Page H 7555]] Anselm's college; Marie Kirn, executive director of the New Hampshire Hospice Association. This is a group that is dedicated to saving our Medicare Program, and they are not interested in political rhetoric. They want results, and that is what the 104th Congress is going to provide. We heard from three panels: a panel representing doctors and hospital administrators, a hospital representing the State of New Hampshire which has to provide many Medicare and Medicaid services, and last, a panel consisting of seniors, representatives of the AARP and other groups, the United Seniors Association. This is not an issue that we can afford to bicker about on a partisan basis because, as the President's own trustees' appointments to the Medicare trust fund state, The Medicare program is clearly unsustainable in its present form and we strongly recommend that the crisis presented by the financial condition of the Medicare trust funds be urgently addressed on a comprehensive basis, including a review of the program's financing methods, benefit provisions, and delivery mechanisms. That is precisely what my Medicare Preservation Task Force is in the process of addressing, and we heard testimony yesterday from three distinguished panels. We allowed the public half an hour to address the panel with their concerns. In August, we will be putting together a report of recommendations which we will be presenting to the House Ways and Means Committee in September. This is the way the 104th Congress should go about solving the Medicare crisis that will confront this country, because there is not one person in this body that wants to see 33 million senior citizens lose their benefits in the 21st century. I am proud of the Medicare Preservation Task Force. I am proud of the 104th Congress for what it has done to bring this problem to the fore and deal with these tough difficult issues. Let us get together and solve this Medicare crisis now and stop the partisan bickering. On this 30th anniversary of Medicare, let us look to the next 30 years for a program that can be self-sustaining and provide the needed benefits to our seniors that they deserve.

Mr. BASS

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

Mr. BASS. Very well. I thank my colleague for his courtesy. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for the acquisition of the Bretton Woods tract and its incorporation into the White Mountain National Forest. Historically, aesthetically, and recreationally, this 480-acre tract is invaluable to New Hampshire's North Country. This expanse is one of the last remaining undeveloped private ownerships that lies within the panorama of the historic Mt. Washington Hotel where the Bretton Woods Treaty was signed 50 years ago. The property contains over 10 miles of trails that provide the area's many visitors with outstanding recreational opportunities, including hiking, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling. The Forest Service has informed me that this tract's acquisition would qualify as an emergency. The land is surrounded on three sides by the national forest. While the land is zoned for development, the owner is ready to sell the parcel to the Forest Service. However, [[Page H 7031]] if an emergency acquisition of this land is not made, the land will be developed for economic reasons. I believe that it would be a serious mistake to allow development of this land located in the midst of the White Mountain National Forest. Mr. Chairman, I include a letter from the Forest Service for the Record, as follows: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Hon. Charles F. Bass, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Bass: The President's FY 1996 Budget included $1,000,000 for land acquisition within the White Mountain National Forest. The funding request is intended to allow for a partial purchase of the Bretton Woods property. We are currently working with the landowners and the Trust for Public Land to complete an appraisal of the property. This property is a priority for acquisition. National Forest System lands about the property on three sides and we believe development is likely if we are unable to purchase. The property would qualify for emergency and inholdings land purchase funding, as currently identified in the Department of Interior and Related Agencies FY 1996 Appropriations bill. However, the current funding level of $7,100,000 is inadequate to meet our emergency acquisition needs, and we are unable to commit how this funding will be utilized. Brent Handley of my staff is available to work with you if you have any additional questions. He can be reached at 205- 0945. Sincerely, Gordon H. Small, for Director of Lands.

Mr. BASS. I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that certain funds will be available in this bill for emergency land acquisitions. These acquisitions include tracts of land which are surrounded by existing national forest land and are imminently threatened by development. It is my further understanding that the Bretton Woods tract in the White Mountain National Forest is the type of acquisition that might qualify for funding. Is this also the understanding of the gentleman from Ohio?

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

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I understand that this amendment is subject to a point of order and I plan to withdraw it shortly. However, I would like to enter into a very brief colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee on Appropriations. Is this acceptable to the gentleman from Ohio?

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. I thank the gentleman, the chairman, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in proud support of the conference committee report. As one of the 72 new Republicans who were elected in November, no group stands more solidly behind change here in Congress. Indeed, as the distinguished gentleman from New York has pointed out, there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. We believe in thoughtful spending. We do not believe in funding it and forgetting it. We believe in fiscal sanity. We believe in a balanced budget, and we believe that the American people sent a clear message to Congress that they want change. That is what we represent here in Congress. I urge adoption of the committee conference report.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois and in favor of the Clinger-Spence- Kasich amendment as it has been originally offered. The Collins amendment strikes three of the four sections in the Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment and waters down the remaining section, section 801. The provisions of the original amendment that we are considering here today are not new. They have been around essentially in their present form since the mid-1980's. As it is, we have debated now the concept of trying to make it possible not only to have competition in procurement but to allow for normal business people like me or anybody else to be involved in the process. The fact is, that the Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment provides flexibility for vendors and buyers. It eliminates delays in procurement, and it reduces the overall cost of a $200 billion procurement system that we have in place today. What the Collins amendment would do would go back 90 or 98 percent of the way to the present system that we have today. I would submit to my colleagues that the arguments that we hear about increased competition are really the results of micromanaging. What happens is that we cannot compete unless we have experts and professionals who know how to deal with the [[Page H5934]] cumbersome and difficult process. Although it may seem like we are loosening up the rules, what we are in effect doing is providing this needed flexibility so that more people can become involved in the process. The fact is that we, the sponsors of the Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment, believe that individuals should have more flexibility to set the rules so that more individuals can compete in the process and that we can reduce the costs and get more vendors involved in the process in the first place. So it is for this reason that I rise in opposition to the Collins amendment and in strong support of the Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kasich amendment. A few weeks ago we passed a resolution, an historic resolution, and I stood before you and said we are now going to have a balanced budget by the year 2002. Yet a few short weeks later, on the second major authorization that this Congress takes up, we now stand here to consider a dramatic expansion in an existing weapons procurement program. Indeed, we are standing here on the threshold of authorizing an additional $553 million to pay for a bomber program that has not been in the existing budget. This budget-busting program has the potential to add over $30 billion to the defense budget. Now, we are going to be dealing over the next 7 years, if we stick with our budget resolution, with a $270 billion defense spending cap, and we are going to have to make some pretty hard choices. I for one have stood forth and made hard choices across the board, and this is a hard choice to make as well. I believe like everyone else we need a strong defense. But if we vote to double the size of the B-2 bomber program today, and this occurs, and we spend an additional $30 billion, we are going to make the process of making choices between the other programs, the F-22, the V-22, the DDG, much, much more difficult. My friends, we ought to establish our strategic priorities now and not vote for $553 million to keep a line warm while we try to decide what our country is going to do in the future. The Committee on National Security should decide what our long-term strategic objectives should be within the $270 billion fixed budget that we have for defense spending, and then make the tough choices now, and not put the long tail off until next year or the year after. I rise in strong support of the Kasich amendment, as a strong proponent of defense spending, responsible defense spending, and a balanced budget by the year 2002.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, when we began this debate yesterday or since we have begun this debate yesterday the debt has risen by $846 million. That is $846 million more that you and I and our children and our grandchildren are going to have to pay. We will see the other side all day long today produce props and photographs of individuals who will be affected by this so-called budget reduction, which is not a reduction unless you live inside the beltway. But I am here today in Congress for these people. Here today are my two children, Lucy and Jonathan. That is what it is all about today, because today is historic. The Republican Budget Committee is going to turn this budget around, and I would like to see the American people judge this Congress not by the harsh rhetoric and the hard choices that we will be making over the next couple of days but by the country and the government that we give to our children and our children's children long after we are gone.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kasich budget. Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting here for the last 4\1/2\ hours listening to this debate, and I took up my pen and pencil and calculated that we have run up an additional debt of $168.89 million since this debate began. That is debt that will be paid by every existing taxpayer and every taxpayer who will come ahead of us. This is unacceptable. Mr. Chairman, on November 8, the American people said that they had had enough of a Congress that holds its head high in arrogance and tells the people of America what they need and what they want and steals money out of their pockets and the pockets of their children to pay for programs, and then today we sit here talking about not whether we have a balanced budget, but how to balance the budget, and we hear the old guard, the keepers of the bureaucracy, the protectors of the old order, talk about the programs that they want to preserve, the programs that they want to protect, the programs that they know have not worked, the programs that have built bureaucracies in this country year after year after year. I am a new Member of Congress, and I have stood by for the last 4 or 5 years and watched these chronic deficits rise year after year. What business do we think we have as Congressmen running these deficits for no reason? There is [[Page H5157]] no war. There is no economic emergency. Even in the 1970's we were given excuses by the President and the majority at that time. It is time, and the American people have told us, to balance this budget and do it now, and that is what the Kasich budget does. My colleagues, let history judge this Congress and its achievements, not on the hard choices that we all have to make, but by what our actions do for our children and our children's children.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the pending legislation, and I do so as a member of the House Budget Committee. I am proud to be a member of this committee for the first time that came up with 180 billion real dollars in spending reduction. And not only that, under the guidance of our chairman, it has come up with a plan which is incorporated into the rule which was passed today that will tie the tax relief to the passage of a balanced budget resolution which will be produced by this committee sometime in the next 2 months. We will not have a tax relief unless we have a balanced budget. I think that is responsible of this Congress, and for those who are concerned about tax cuts versus spending reductions, be assured that we will have a balanced budget by the year 2002, and we will have tax relief as well.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Well, I am sure the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] is aware of the fact that in the course of our committee hearings we heard significant testimony from representatives from the Federal employees who represented that it was difficult to exist in many instances as a Federal employee, and the pension system is a very necessary and important part of a Federal employee's compensation package, which I think is certainly commendable. However, we are also made aware of the fact that the quit rate for Federal employees is zero, technically zero, after 10 years, zero, and it just so happens that the retirement system vesting is 5 years. And we know, if you live an any small town in this country that when the job opening occurs in a Federal position, people in towns and cities across this country fall all over themselves to get these positions, and it seems hard for me to believe, and perhaps you would agree with me, that this is particularly difficult working conditions or tough employee--you know, that the pay and benefits is--would create a situation in which there would be a large supply, but very little demand. It seems to be the opposite of that, and certainly, as I recall, the average pension for Federal employees is over $1,500 a year, and a Social Security recipient receives--excuse me, over $1,500 a month--and the average Social Security recipient receives less than $600 a month. There is certainly a disparity, so I am sure the gentleman from Arizona would agree that it is important to compare apples to apples here in the way the real world--most of America exists in this world, which is in the private sector, working for small businesses where there are no pension plans at all.

Mr. BASS. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to demonstrate, in effect, what term limits is all about, by working example. we have here a group of freshmen, some of us have experience in working in retirement systems in our own home States, others of us have experience in other areas relating to pension systems either in our business or elsewhere. But we come to Washington with a certain set of principles and understandings about finances and how financial retirement systems are supposed to work. As a freshman member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I was proud to be appointed the vice chairman of the Civil Service Committee. One of the first issues we took up in the course of these duties was to look at the Federal retirement system. As my able colleague from Minnesota so perceptibly stated, we have a serious financial problem in this country. But what we have also is a hidden problem, and a very serious hidden problem, in our Federal retirees pension program. As the gentleman from Minnesota pointed out a minute or two ago, this Federal retirees pension program is losing, or the Federal Government is shelling out on a monthly basis $1.6 billion. That is cash being shelled out to pay for Federal retirees. As the gentleman from Minnesota mentioned, this is not to say or to cast aspersions upon any Federal retiree. What we say as freshmen is that something went wrong in this Congress when we were planning for the Federal retirement system, how to run it, and so forth. I do not know of a retirement system that would run $540 billion in deficit and be able to say it works correctly. This is Washington mentality, that is ``inside inside the beltway'' mentality; $19.8 billion a year is 10 percent of our entire operating deficit in this one program alone. Ladies and gentleman, I think we have to look at this program, we have to look at it now. It is not easy working on Federal retirees pension, Social Security, and so forth, because you are affecting good people who put in years of service to their country and deserve a fair pension. But if we do nothing about this, we are going to be talking about significant increases in Federal liability over the coming months. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has proposed, its Subcommittee on Civil Service, one part of the solution is raising the employee contributions to this program across the board by 2.5 percent over a period of 3 years. That would have raised approximately $11.5 billion over 5 years. Bear in mind that we are talking about over $100 billion deficit, probably more than that over 5 years, but we are trying. There has been a lot of controversy associated with this piece of legislation. But we need to understand, whether you are a Federal employee, whether you are a citizen of this country, or whether you are a Member of Congress, that the time has come for us to make priorities and make rational financial decisions about systems in the U.S. Government that are out of whack. This is certainly one of the worst. I might make a couple of references here. Of the $1.5 trillion annual budget that this Government operates, 10 percent of it, or $150 billion a year, goes into Federal salaries and benefits. Now the Federal employees, if we can take a look at another chart here, steady and is projected to do so for the next 30 years. But look what happens to the Treasury Department contribution. It skyrockets. That spells disaster. I would hope that this country will rally behind each and every Member of Congress, especially those of us who are concerned about the long-term financial viability of this Government, about being able to, as has been said over and over again, give to our children a Government that is as good as the Government that we have been experiencing, the way of life we have experienced for the last generation, and you will help us make these difficult decisions to bring programs such as the Federal retirement system that is so dreadfully broken at this point, that will generate--we will have to pay in 30 years over $160 billion a year to fund it--to help us make these corrections now. Otherwise they are going to be 10 times worse in future generations. These are not easy decisions. These are not easy decisions. There is nothing great or wonderful about having to deal with these difficult problems. Nobody is made popular by this. But as freshmen, we Members of Congress feel that the time has come for the rubber to hit the road and for us to get to work in solving these problems.

Mr. BASS. Those of us who have been involved in the private sector, as we have, I was intrigued by a comment that the gentleman made. Certainly Federal employees are good employees, and they do important jobs and do the work of the Government. But I heard you say, and I think you should repeat it for everyone's benefit, that most small businesses do not have any pensions at all. You have your IRA, you have whatever you can save, and you do not know whether you are going to have a job next Monday, let alone next year.

Mr. BASS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, of course you know, coming from the frugal State of New Hampshire, that we have a constitutional amendment that prohibits our State employees retirement system from operating with any unfunded liability whatsoever. It is not a law, it is a constitutional amendment. We also have an independent board that governs the employer-employee contribution, the investment policies and so forth, of our State retiree system, and the result has been that we have never had a problem that even approaches--we never had any problem with an unfunded liability. $1.6 billion a month, as the gentleman from New Hampshire well knows, is just about what the State of New Hampshire receives from the Federal Government in an entire year for every service that the State gets: Medicaid, food stamps, highway and bridge repair, everything. Yet this program, this Federal retirement program, is costing the taxpayers of this country more in a month than our home State of New Hampshire gets in a whole year from the Federal Government.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, as we well know, on the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service we listened to a number of days of testimony, mostly from Federal retirement groups. It is amazing to me that we are not in a position and we are not willing at this point to all get together, retirees, Federal employees, and Members of Congress, to address these issues together. We are not going to call a system that taxes the Federal Government on a monthly basis to the tune of $1.6 billion, we are not going to say that that system is fixed. We have to work together, Federal employees, everybody who receives a retirement check, and because one day, as we say from those charts, when the cost of this programs reaches $160 billion a year, Uncle Sam just is not going to be there to pay it. Who is going to pay the price for that in the end? It is going to be all of us. It is going to be the Federal employees, Federal employees who are entering the work force now. They are going to be the ones that will not get a retirement check, because we will not have the money to pay for it. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Civil Service for taking on this issue. It is a difficult issue. I's sure we all have both retirees and Federal employees in our districts who do not like to hear this kind of thing. However, believe me, we are working for the future of each and every person who is paying into the system now and who will benefit from it in the future.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Budget yesterday heard from Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, and when he was asked by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget why it is important that we balance the budget, he said, and I quote ``I would say * * * in the short run * * * that there would be some strain leading to a period in which I think their,'' meaning the people of this country, ``real incomes and purchasing power would significantly improve, and I think the concern, which I find very distressing, that most Americans believe that their children will live at a standard of living less than they currently enjoy, that that probability would be eliminated and that they would look forward to their children doing better than they.'' Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk this morning about children and the welfare of children. If we really care about the future of the children in this country, in whose millions of little hands the future of this country will lie, then we will move as a body to balance our budget, and balance it by the year 2002. This is spoken by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. If there was ever a need to move forward, the time is now.