Charlie Bass

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall votes 693 and 694, my votes were not recorded. Had I been recorded, I would have voted in the affirmative on both ordering the previous question and adoption of the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2218, to amend the charter school program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; and for consideration of H.R. 1892, to authorize appropriations for FY 2012 for intelligence activities of the U.S. Government, the Community Management Account, and the CIA Retirement System.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I thank the Chairman for recognizing me and making it possible for me to offer this amendment at this point in the bill. This amendment will restore $20 million to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It is offset by a $20 million reduction from the Department of the Interior salaries and expenses. Now, the Department of the Interior salaries and expenses at present are about $250 million, so this would represent roughly a 10 percent reduction in the overhead for the agency. But what do you get for that? You get about an 8 percent increase in the Land and Water Conservation Fund funding. Now, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as has been mentioned by other speakers, was established 46 years ago in 1965. It was designed as a forward-looking program to preserve critical assets in America for all of us to enjoy. When you travel around the world, you don't find countries like America that have large parts of our country preserved for public use. Most of the land in other countries around the world is owned privately or by the government and it is not accessible to the public. The LWCF, through its stateside program, its Forest Legacy Fund, has provided countless acres of protected land for public enjoyment. Now, the fund has, for the last 25 or so years, received most of its funding from offshore oil royalties, and those royalties have averaged anywhere from $7 billion to $18 billion a year. And I have a little table here for the last few years that shows the total royalties and how little amount of money that the Land and Water Conservation Fund takes from these receipts. It is authorized at $900 million. It has been funded of late between $300 million and $500 million. But, my friends, this year it is funded at less than $70 million. We Republicans have set as a goal in our principles to reduce the growth of government and to reduce programs to their January 1, 2008, level. What have we done in this appropriations bill? We have reduced this fund to its 1965 level. I have here another little table that shows the historical funding for the Land and Water Conservation program. There is 1965. We will be lower than that if we don't pass this amendment. I ask you, my friends, for the sake of the 900,000 Americans who visit these lands during the year, of the millions of dollars spent through the outdoor recreation industry, for those opportunities that we may never see again to make critical purchases and easement purchases of assets that are so important to the future of our country, to raise this appropriation from $68 million to $90 million is a small price to pay for what could be done with those funds. We need to continue the program of land conservation, local recreation, and, yes, working forests. And a $68 million appropriation just plain doesn't do it. So on behalf of my cosponsors, I urge you, Mr. Chairman, to support this amendment and make it a part of the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and move to strike the last word.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. A minute or two ago, I was in the Cloakroom and I drew up the Web site for ARPA-E, and it says at the top: ``Disruptive and innovative approaches to technology.'' What a wonderful thought, that a government agency can be disruptive and innovative at the same time. Billions of dollars have been spent on coal, on oil research, on wind and solar, on biomass and conservation and the FreedomCAR. I got involved in the alternative energy business way back in the late seventies when I was a staffer when ERDA was created. We had a real energy crisis in this Nation as we do today. And yet we're really not anywhere nearly as far along this path as we need to be. Now, someone in the Congress, in the Department of Energy, had the good idea of taking all these ideas for research and creating an entity that would be devoted to giving individuals and inventors, people with good ideas, that little spark that they need to turn those ideas into reality. The first time they went out for solicitations, they got some 3,500 to 4,000 short, 7-page letters describing ideas. This is a program that leverages a relatively small amount of research dollars into an enormous potential benefit not only to America but to the world. But within our boundaries here, we have the objective of lessening our dependence on foreign energy, of cleaning up our environment, of creating jobs and new economies for Americans. Given the fact that we have spent literally billions on the research and development in traditional energy resources, all we are asking to do in this amendment is to get the level up to last year, $71 million over the suggested appropriation of $100 million; $71 million. All that to support an agency that, using their own words, provides a fresh look, a flexible, efficient way to find new ideas to solve very serious problems in America. I hope that the Congress will support Mr. Schiff's amendment to add this $71 million to keep this program strong, active, and moving forward because I think it has the potential to do more than any other research program in alternative energy can do today. I urge support of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. As much as it pains me to oppose the position of my good friend from the State of New Jersey, I rise in support of this very worthy amendment and want to thank my friend from New York for his sponsorship of it. As he said, it raises the Weatherization Assistance Program by about $141.3 million, the State Energy Program by $25 million, and the Buildings Technologies Program by $60.5 million, basically to the level funded at the 2011 level. It is offset, as was mentioned, by a reduction of an increase in the Nuclear Security Administration's Weapons Activities, which would make that line item level funded as well. And I believe, as has been said by my friend from Indiana, as well as my friend from New Jersey, that the Weapons Activities Programs are laudable, especially as they relate to the safety and security of our weapons stockpile. But I think level funding the 2011 levels is adequate. When you look at the weatherization programs and what they do, you can't dispute it. Low-income individuals cannot afford to spend money on efficiency. It's just not possible. Yet when they do, it has a positive impact on all sorts of other programs, one of which is LIHEAP. As was mentioned by my friend from New York, these programs pay back on the order of $7, $8, $9, $10, $11 to $1 spent, not only in savings to low-income individuals but also to the Federal Government. This is good for the economy. It puts people to work. It's good for energy efficiency and lessening our dependence on foreign sources of oil, and it does contribute to the long-term national energy goals for this country as I see them. So all that Mr. Tonko and I are looking for is level funding for fiscal year 2011 for both the nuclear weapons program as well as the weatherization program, the State Energy Program, and the Building Technologies Program, which benefit so many people in so many different parts of America. So I urge adoption of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I thank the chairman. I want to discuss some important legislative history of a critical piece of this bill, in particular, sections 102(a) and (b) and how those two sections will work together. I think we can agree that it is important that we set down a definitive legislative history of those sections to ensure clarity in our meaning.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I believe that the chairman is correct. The legislation intends parallelism between the treatment of an inventor's actions under 102(a) and 102(b). In this way, small inventors and others will not accidentally stumble into a bar by their pre-filing actions. Such inventors will still have to be diligent and file within the grace period if they trigger 102(a); but if an inventor triggers 102(a) with respect to an invention, then he or she has inherently also triggered the grace period under 102(b).

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, on June 3, 2011, I was on a leave of absence from the House of Representatives to attend the funeral of former Congressman Peter Frelinghuysen. As a result, I did not have the opportunity to vote on rollcall votes 410, 411, and 412. On rollcall vote 410, providing consideration of H. Res. 292 and H. Con. Res. 51, I would have voted in the affirmative. On rollcall vote 411, declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya, I would have voted in the affirmative. On rollcall vote 412, directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya, I would have voted in the affirmative.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, yesterday America lost a great public servant, a great friend of the State of New Jersey, the father of one of my--if not my best friend in Congress, a friend of my family's, and just a wonderful guy. Mr. Frelinghuysen--as I knew him, Peter Frelinghuysen--served in the Congress, as my friend from New Jersey just mentioned, from 1953 to 1975. He was the second or third oldest former Member of Congress. Now my father, who is 98, is the oldest former Member of Congress. Our families grew up together. We grew up in the spirit of public service, of good friendship, of bipartisanship, and of action. I remember Mr. Frelinghuysen so well as a child, bringing us around here in the Chamber and around Capitol Hill, and even out to amusement parks in the Washington, D.C., area. He was a great father to his five children. But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, he was a great American and a very fine, distinguished Member of Congress. I will miss him. I know his family will miss him. I know the citizens of New Jersey will miss him. He was a great American.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, while I was present for rollcall vote 200 on March 30, 2011, my vote was not recorded. This vote was on H. Res. 186, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 471 to reauthorize the DC opportunity scholarship program. Had my vote been recorded, I would have voted in favor of H. Res. 186.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. For me, this debate is not about whether or not climate change is occurring, nor is it about preventing the congressionally directed policies that Congress should have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and allow us to have a low-carbon producing economy. I, for one, think that climate change is real and a problem that needs to be addressed with practical solutions that have attainable goals to reduce emissions and provide certainty in our economy. I also believe that the Clean Air Act has truly benefited our Nation and should never be weakened--rather, strengthened. However, agencies should not be able to regulate what has not been legislated. Doing so does not solve problems. It creates even more uncertainty as it opens up the agency's rules to countless legal challenges. And I am committed to finding a workable solution to achieve clean air, help address global warming, and preserve the economic competitiveness of the United States in the global marketplace. With my friend, Congressman Matheson of Utah, we offered an amendment during markup that is now in the bill that states that there is established scientific concern over warming of the climate system and Congress should fulfill its role in developing policies to control greenhouse gas emissions. I rise in support of this legislation, but I also support a meaningful solution to the carbon crisis.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I thank my colleague from Ohio for such a wonderful introduction. I want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the members of the committee for all their hard work. Cutting programs to zero in the middle of a fiscal year may be good legislative policy, but it isn't really all that practical. We need to address the future size and scope of government in the normal, regular order of the appropriations process. The LaTourette amendment makes us meet our spending reduction goals, but does it in a way that is simple and is fair and is effective and is practical. I support the LaTourette amendment because I think it is ``the'' vehicle that will actually do what we want to do, which is to cut spending now and then get on with the regular appropriations process, in which we can give these agencies the kind of oversight they need so that we will make the right decisions. So I urge the support and adoption of the LaTourette amendment.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Madam Chairman, my amendment very simply adds $50 million to the Low Energy Assistance Program, otherwise known as LIHEAP. Winters in the Northeast and elsewhere in America are long and hard, and especially this year it has been difficult. It has been a tough year. In January we saw more or less twice the average amount of snow. Temperatures have been well below average in some parts of the country; and there are similar stories not only in New Hampshire, but elsewhere in the Northeast and around the Nation. The problem with reducing the contingency fund in the Low Income Energy Assistance Plan is we are in the middle of the winter right now, and what my amendment does is add $50 million to ensure that we have adequate resources to make it through March and into April. The amendment also reduces the substance abuse and mental health services by an equivalent amount, but that is only about 1 percent of the total funding for that line item. Let me point out that what this amendment will do is ensure that low- income individuals in America have the necessary resources in order to ensure that they have adequate heat throughout the rest of the year. This is a difficult process that we are going through here, and I recognize there are trade-offs; but this is a very small change in a safety net that provides an enormous resource very quickly. We can debate the rest of the Low Income Energy Assistance Plan later in the year. What this $50 million increase does is make it possible to get through the winter. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I thank the chairman for recognizing me. And I have great respect for my colleague from California and all the hard work that he has done now for generations, practically on this issue. I would point out that from the late seventies through all of the eighties, special education was funded at 1, 2, 3, 4 percent. And it wasn't until 1995, 1996, 1997--actually '96, '97, '98, '99, into the 2000s that funding for special education began to increase significantly under the Republican-controlled Congress. President Clinton's own Education Secretary said on a number of different occasions that full funding of special education had to take a second place to the new programs that the administration was offering at the time, which was school construction, school improvement, and these other programs that my friend, the maker of the amendment, was proposing to reduce in order to fund special education. I have felt for many years that IDEA funding should be the top priority for education funding in the Congress, and I am pleased that we have this amendment that will restore funding to the same level that it was in fiscal year 2010. I would certainly like to have it higher than that, but under the circumstances I believe that this is a good and justifiable improvement. It is especially important and it is different from SIP and teacher quality grants because we make the rules, when it comes to special education, here at the Federal level, and the school districts put out their individual service plans for students, which they have to pay for. So without this amendment and with a cut in funding for special education, it is a direct dollar-for- dollar cost shift to every school district in America. So this is an amendment that is good. It should be bipartisan, and we should all support its passage so that we can get special education funding back to FY10 levels. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Speaker, this health care reform bill was a bad bill passed at the wrong moment. It is, in my opinion, one of the major reasons why we face such economic uncertainty in this country. Businesses don't know what it will cost to hire somebody. Businesses don't know what's coming down. Employers don't know what the world is going to be like. And consumers feel the same way. Now, in the course of this debate, we've talked about the issue of preexisting conditions and how the Republicans are not going to allow for preexisting conditions to be included in their alternative. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Republicans have consistently offered proposals to give individuals with preexisting conditions medical access to affordable health care coverage; but we will do it in a way that will be predictable, it will be fair, it will be competitive, it will save costs, it will make health care transparent, and it will keep premiums down. We have an opportunity now to make changes that should have been made from the very beginning.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand here before you in support of S. 4001. As my good friend and colleague from Vermont mentioned a minute or two ago, this is the culmination of a very tortuous negotiation process that has taken place over a period of years. I am very pleased to be able to culminate this process in this fashion as the last bill that I, as the Representative of the Second Congressional District, will be speaking in favor of and supporting on the floor of the House, and probably his last bill as he heads over to represent his great State of Vermont in the U.S. Senate, and I offer him my congratulations. This is a very significant piece of legislation for New Hampshire and the White Mountain National Forest. It will set aside 34,000 acres in wilderness designated lands, as we said before, in the Sandwich Range and Wild River areas of northern New Hampshire. It is, as was said, the culmination of 5 years of planning on the part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the USDA staff that are on the ground in the area, the stakeholders in the region, including the towns, environmental groups, State reps and State legislators. It is the culmination of an open process in which many, many different points of view were brought into consideration, and this plan was developed. This is the legislative initiative that implements that plan, and I fully support it. The White Mountain National Forest was established in 1911 through the Weeks Act. It is the most visited national forest in the country. I believe, although I don't recall the exact number right now, but over 5 million people frequent this national forest. We have two ski areas that exist in it. It is a great source of recreation, but it is also a very diverse ecosystem, and I think that the plan that we have here before us today represents a reasonable compromise between the need to preserve key wilderness areas for future generations and the need to recognize that a national forest is also an economic engine and is part of the economy for the region and a critical part of that economy. So by including the designations in the State of Vermont, New Hampshire and Vermont are working together, because indeed their forests and our forests are very close to one another. In a bipartisan fashion, with the support of both Governors and the whole delegation to implement this plan, the impact of this designation will not be felt just this year and next year but forever. So I just want to say that, as my last bill on the floor of the House, I think it is as important a bill as I have ever had because its impact will last long after I am gone and everybody else that is here today. So I want to thank, in closing, all of those who have helped on the House side and on the Senate side to bring this wonderful jewel to New Hampshire and preserving 34,000 acres of the White Mountain National Forest for eternity.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand and appreciate my friend from Texas's interest in making sure that people are identified at the border. But, quite honestly, this amendment is far, far too restrictive. I cannot imagine what the impact of this amendment would be on commerce between Canada and the United States. The 49th parallel is the longest undefended border in the world. The trade that goes on between Canada and the United States is amongst the freest in the world. I would point out that my home State of New Hampshire trades almost $2 billion a year with Canada. The State of Texas trades over $17 billion a year, and 370,000 jobs in the State of Texas are supported by Canadian industry. I can't imagine, Mr. Chairman, what would happen in Michigan or in the Detroit area with the auto manufacturers if all these people that go back and forth between Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit had to get passports. Now, the government has worked, with the support of the Judiciary Committee here, on a plan to provide a pass that would be cheap, it would be counterfeit proof, and the Federal Government will issue it. It will be somewhat like a driver's license. I understand my friend's concern about the fact that driver's license and other forms of ID are not universal and are easy to counterfeit, but we are working on a plan that will provide this kind of identification without having to go through the cumbersome expense and time required to get a U.S. passport. The passage of this amendment would have serious implications for our relationship with Canada. I appreciate the gentleman's concern with Mexico to the south, but this amendment, in its restrictive nature, will really limit the economy. It would be devastating to the United States. It would be devastating to the lifestyles of people who are used to going back and forth over the border. It would be devastating to the tourism industry along the Canadian border. It would be devastating to trade. I urge that this amendment not be accepted. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, as I said a moment ago, this amendment is far too restrictive. We have all sorts of different programs that are under development right now, the NEXUS card, the SENTRI system and the PASS card, as I mentioned a minute or two ago. If this amendment were to pass, all those programs would be for naught. The passport is indeed as secure a document as you can get, but time has passed since passports were developed in their present form, some 40 or 50 years ago. There is modern technology that can provide American workers and tourists and citizens the proper identification at a much lower cost and make it possible for them to get back and forth across the border more quickly than they would and less expensively than they would with a passport. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, because the impact of it would be devastating for the economy of the United States. It would be devastating for the relations that we have with our neighbor to the north, which are amongst the best in the world. I met with seven members of the Canadian Parliament yesterday, and they brought up this very issue, that they were concerned about the restrictions that might be placed upon American travel to the north. So I hope this amendment is not successful, despite the fact that I respect my friend from Texas' good intentions. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.