Charlie Bass

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. The entire New Hampshire delegation shall be heard from today on this issue. I want to praise the gentleman from the First Congressional District of New Hampshire for introducing this bill which dedicates this Post Office in Derry. Let me reminisce for a second, if I could, about Alan Shepard who was true, truly a hero. I remember back in the early 1960s when my dad was in Congress representing the second district and a member of the Space Committee, now, what the Committee on Science calls the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, whatever its newest name is, probably the issue of sending a man to the moon was clearly one of our major national goals. Alan Shepard who was the first American to go into space, although he did not orbit the earth, he went up and came down, about an 18-minute flight, was a true American hero. There had not been one in reality since Charles Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic Ocean in 1927. So Alan Shepard, for this young school child, I was in the third grade at the time, was an enormous event for us and for everybody in New Hampshire. Alan Shepard, everybody who is in my generation will remember the movie that every school child saw of Alan Shepard. What he did as the first astronaut in space was truly heroic. Nobody knew whether a human being could really survive in this tiny little space capsule. And Alan Shepard did it, and he went on to have a long and distinguished career in NASA. As a true New Hampshire native, I think it is fitting that this post office facility be dedicated to him in his original hometown.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleagues from Oklahoma and Maine. Prescription drugs are playing an increasing role in health care, and thereby account for a growing share of health care costs. To help address this trend, I have supported legislation to make health insurance, including employer-provided and Medicare managed care plans, which often provide special coverage for prescription medication, more affordable, accessible, and fair. But a particular problem with prescription drug costs is foreign price controls. Countries like Canada maintain artificially low drug prices, contributing to higher prices in America's free market as companies seek to recoup costs for research and development, which in turn benefits all countries. Simply establishing price controls in America would seriously risk such life-saving and life-improving innovation. Instead, we must focus on ways to break down foreign price controls and create a broader free market in prescription drugs. A first step would be to remove existing barriers to trade while maintaining safety and quality controls. For example, I am a cosponsor of the Drug Import Fairness Act, H.R. 3240, which would remove unwarranted red tape from legal prescription imports from other countries under current reporting requirements. I also recently cosponsored the International Prescription Drug Parity Act, H.R. 1885, which would revise reporting requirements better to facilitate imports from FDA-certified facilities abroad while continuing to protect safety and quality standards. This amendment is a step in the same direction, and I hope that Congress will continue to examine additional steps to open up free trade in prescription drugs while maintaining safety and quality standards.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this pending amendment which would do more than any single action to lower the prices in this country for prescription medications.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the pending amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make five points. Number one, the wildlife methods of predator control are ineffective and wasteful. From 1983 to 1993, the amount of money that has been spent on this program has gone up by 71 percent, kills have gone up by 30 percent, and there is no significant reduction in the predator population. Number two. Taxpayers should not be responsible for subsidizing predator control. As my friend from Oregon said when he spoke, not one word in this amendment would in any way impact a rancher's ability to shoot or control livestock on his or her property. All it says is that the taxpayers of this country are not going to subsidize gunning of predators on these ranches out in the West. Thirdly, the Wildlife Services methods for predator control are inhumane. All we have to do is see footage of films of these helicopters and aircraft speeding low across the range with people with guns shooting indiscriminately from one end to the other. It is inhumane and it is dangerous. My colleagues will hear and see the same posters that we have seen for years now, getting a little bit dog-eared, of the wolf chasing the little white sheep. They are gruesome pictures. What they do not show are the seven humans who have been killed in aviation accidents associated with gunning these animals down. These individuals ride in these helicopters and aircraft with their rifles shooting from the aircraft, which by the way, is a violation of FAA regulations. I guess the fourth point is that alternative methods of predator control do exist. They do exist. We do not have to support a program where we take taxpayers' funds and use them to kill animals in a program that has never really worked, and all it really constitutes in the end is a subsidy to large western ranchers. I urge support of the pending amendment.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this amendment. This is not, obviously, the first time this has come up. Mr. Chairman, 238 Members of this institution have supported this amendment in the past and my friend from California (Mr. Royce), in fact, was the sponsor of it, I think, in the last Congress. When we introduce an amendment to an appropriations bill to try to exercise some fiscal responsibility, reduce a line item that we may not particularly support, it is nice to think that after that amendment passes, the money does not disappear into some other program or some other spending item, and that, in fact, can go to debt reduction which I consider to be on equal footing with controlling the size of the budget, providing meaningful tax relief to working Americans, saving Social Security. These are all important objectives, and it would be nice to be able to pass this amendment and have it in law so that when Members of Congress propose reductions in appropriations, that those reductions do not have to be offset by some other spending increase in some other part of the budget. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for his courage in offering this amendment, and I hope that all of the 328 members who have supported this amendment in the past will stand up and do so again. It is good budgeting.

Mr. BASS

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

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

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have before my colleagues now is an amendment that they are going to be able to vote on, an amendment that will increase funding for special education by $200 million. Now, we have heard plenty of arguments today and also last week about how important it is to fully fund special education. Well, here is our chance to up funding in this appropriation from $500 million to $700 million. Where does the offset come from? It comes from a program called GEAR UP. Now, GEAR UP is a new program that was started in 1998, and its purpose is to encourage children at a young age to pursue a college education. However, similar programs already exist. The Talent Search program in TRIO provides grants to schools and academic institutions and so forth to provide counseling for young people wanting to go on to college. The Upward Bound Program in TRIO provides similar services. Let me read to my colleagues what the Oakland, California Chronicle had to say as recently as June 3 about GEAR UP: ``Consultants hired to provide college preparatory programs for thousands of Oakland middle school students paid themselves but spent only a fraction of the money meant for the children,'' the Chronicle has learned. ``Two of the consultants were fired, and the third resigned when Federal education officials overseeing the 5-year $14 million grant became suspicious. According to documents and sources familiar with the case, the beleaguered Oakland School District had $2.8 million to spend in the school year, the first year of the program, to help 3,500 seventh graders through their graduation in 2005. But by April, those in charge of the grant had budgeted just $439,000 mainly on their own salaries, benefits, and travel. ``The students who were supposed to benefit from the grant saw just $157,000 of that money in the form of a chess club, computer lab, and some math workshops, according to the records.'' Now, this is a new program. I point out that the TRIO programs in this budget are receiving a $35 million increase above the President's request, which is $115 million above last year. My friends, let us add $200 million to special education. Let us do it by reducing funding for a program that has questionable results and is already funded, in essence; its functions are in the TRIO program. Let us, please, support my amendment.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given 30 additional seconds.

Mr. BASS. That is fine with me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I respect and admire my friend from Tennessee's passion about this issue. I also appreciate the fact that he has not dwelt with the phony theme issue of tax relief. There is a difference here in priorities. I believe that funding of special education provides broader funding for more people. I certainly agree that it might be a good idea in some school districts for sixth, seventh, and eighth graders to receive counseling preparatory to college. But I also feel that providing services for developmentally disabled students is a higher priority for me. That is essentially a difference that we have between the two of us. The fact of the matter is by providing more funding for special education, we free up local funds so that local school boards in his district or mine can provide counseling if they want to for sixth, seventh, and eighth graders to prepare themselves for college. Mr. Chairman, I support my amendment. I think, as the gentleman from Tennessee has pointed out, it is a question of priorities. I think this GEAR UP program is a troubled program. It is a new program. The TRIO program already funds it. I urge support of my amendment.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I simply say that I believe the $200 million more for special education will have an impact in every school district in this country, every family in this country, every school board, every teacher, and most importantly every student who is coded and part of the IDEA program. Now, this is an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats, as the old saying says, to put their money where their mouth is and vote for a significant increase in special education funding. I would only point out that the operations undertaken by the GEAR UP program are already done by the TRIO program, not at as young an age but already done by the TRIO program, already covered by the TRIO program, and the TRIO program is receiving a $115 million increase over last year's appropriation. So it is not as if we are ignoring this important priority of preparing students in disadvantaged areas for college so that they get an equal chance to go on to higher education. This is a good amendment. It will increase funding for special education. I urge the Congress to adopt this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by thanking the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), chairman of the subcommittee, for his attention and his patience and, frankly, his extraordinary wisdom concerning the issues that all of us are concerned about here, most notably with this amendment, the issue of special education IDEA funding. Now, this is the first of two amendments I plan to offer during the course of debate on this appropriation. Now, the bill before my colleagues, as we have previously discussed, raises special ed funding by $500 million from $5 billion to $5.5 billion a year. This amendment that I offer here now will increase that funding further by $1 billion for a total increase of $1.5 billion in the next fiscal year. Now, at a subsequent time later on this evening, I intend to offer another amendment that will increase special education funding by an additional $200 million. It is my understanding that the gentleman from Wisconsin, (Mr. Ryan) plans to offer another amendment that will further increase this program by an additional $300 million, bringing the total funding for special education up to $2 billion, which is the amount that we agreed to try to attain in the resolution that we passed a couple of weeks ago. The net effect of this amendment will be to bring the total funding for special education up to $6.9 billion. This amendment increases funding for this critical program to $6.5 billion, which would be a 16.5 percent total of the total cost of the program. Now, I am not going to spend more than 30 seconds reviewing the need for this important program. All of us in this body share the need to adequately address the issues of IDEA and education for those who are less fortunate than all of us here in this body this evening. As one who has been committed to attaining as much funding for this program as possible, I would like to see full funding of special education, the full amount, $15 billion a year. But I also understand the limitations under which we operate in this body, and I want to support this appropriation; but I want to support it with the maximum amount of funding that I can possibly find for this important program. Now, there are 14 other programs that my amendment targets for reallocation in order to increase funding for special education. Not one of these programs, not one of these programs that I ever targeted for reductions would be reduced below the spending level for the fiscal year we are in today. Some of them would still have significant increases. I want to see us reach our goal of full funding of special education. I am proud of the fact that since I have been in Congress we have increased special education funding from about $2.3 billion, and, hopefully, after this amendment passes, up to $6.5 billion, or 16.5 percent of the total amount we need to provide in this body. I just want to urge my colleagues to join me in passing this amendment, understanding that these funds will free up money on the local level for other programs, for property tax relief, for classroom construction, for hiring of teachers. It is a good amendment, its time has come, and I urge the Congress to adopt it.

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

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

Mr. BASS. I respect the gentleman's concern about this, and I would only point out that we have time and time again in this body said that special education is, if not our very highest priority, it is certainly at the very top of the list. And I would only point out that at least five of these programs that the gentleman mentioned still have increases in them, and not one of them, not one of them is cut from the level of spending from last year. I agree with the gentleman, it is not an easy job to propose an amendment like this, but I think special education is important enough to me that it deserves to be funded at a $2 billion increase.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, today I honor the ``We the People'' team from Milford High School in Milford, New Hampshire. These outstanding young students recently won an award at the ``We the People'' national finals held in Washington, D.C. As you may know, the ``We the People'' mock hearings test student knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. The Milford students were recognized for their expertise on the following subject: How Did the Values and Principles Embodied in the Constitution Shape American Institutions and Practices? The dozen Sophomores, Juniors, and Seniors competed against 50 other classes from throughout the nation. The team demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the fundamental ideals and values of American constitutional government. I had the privilege to serve as a judge for this year's state competition to come to Washington for the national competition. It was apparent to me then that the Milford High School students had the knowledge, team-work, and enthusiasm necessary to successfully compete against 50 other classes from throughout the nation. These students can be proud of their award winning performance. I was honored to have the team visit me here on Capitol Hill during their trip to Washington for the national competition. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the following students for their performance at the national ``We the People'' competition: Adam Berger, Jon Butt, Jenn Catherine, Vanessa Chretien, Mike Gott, Keith Holt, Pam Murphy, David Norway, Mike Parisi, Abby Parker, Pete Phillips, and Ashley Standbridge.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognize several small businesses and small business leaders from my home state of New Hampshire. As we all know, small businesses in the United States serve as the backbone of our economy, accounting for more than ninety-nine percent of America's employers and employing fifty- three percent of America's workforce. The role of small businesses, especially in New Hampshire, is essential in strengthening our economy, expanding opportunities for employers and employees, and providing goods and services that are second to none. This year, several individuals and businesses from New Hampshire have been recognized by the U.S. Small Business Administration for their exemplary contributions to the state. At the annual ``New Hampshire's Salute to Small Business'' dinner and awards ceremony, the following individuals and businesses will be honored for their overall promotion of small business and for their individual successes during the past year: Joseph C. Leddy, CEO of Work Opportunities Unlimited, Inc., in Stratham, will be presented with the New Hampshire Small Business Person of the Year Award; Carolyn Martin, of the Keene Sentinel, will be presented with the New Hampshire Small Business Journalist of the Year Award; The Belknap County Economic Development Council, in Laconia, will be presented with the New Hampshire Small Business Financial Services Advocate of the Year Award; Eileen Kennedy, of the Telegraph, in Nashua, will be presented with the New Hampshire Small Business Women in Business Advocate of the Year Award; and Secure Care Products, Inc., in Concord, will be presented with the New Hampshire Small Business Exporter of the Year Award. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased that Joseph, Carolyn, the Belknap County Economic Development Council, Eileen, and Secure Care Products have been recognized for their contributions to small business in New Hampshire. As a small business owner myself, I clearly understand how necessary small business is to our economy, our community, and, most important, to our way of life. New Hampshire is indeed fortunate to have individuals and businesses of this exceptional caliber as members of the small business community. I hope that the House will join me in extending our congratulations to this year's small business award recipients.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognize Wireless Safety Week 2000, which is held the week leading into Memorial Day Weekend (May 22-28, 2000). Wireless carriers and hardware manufacturers have sponsored this initiative every year since 1990 to focus attention on the benefits of responsible cell phone use. During Wireless Safety Week 2000, the wireless industry reminds customers and consumers that safety is the most important call they will ever make. More than 90 million people in the United States today take advantage of the convenience, value and safety of wireless phones. One of these 90 million is Ms. Amy Sparks, of Bethlehem, New Hampshire. Ms. Sparks used her wireless phone twice in one week to call for emergency assistance. While on her way from school, she witnessed a car accident and immediately called emergency services and offered road- side assistance to those involved. Two days later, Amy again witnessed an accident. Once more she called emergency assistance and stayed with the drivers until help arrived on the scene. That Amy is a Good Samaritan and heroine is evident. GN Netcom has been an integral part of the Nashua, New Hampshire community since 1995, and employs over 250 highly-skilled employees. This company has grown over the last 13 years to become the world leader in cordless/wireless headset solutions. P. Michael Fairweather, President and CEO of GN Netcom, has long been active in helping to educate consumers on their need to use their wireless phones safely and responsibly. The entire wireless industry deserves credit for its strong effort to educate the American public of the responsibility each of us has when using a wireless phone while driving. In closing, I wish to commend Amy Sparks for her quick and admirable actions, and all GN Netcom employees for their efforts to save lives, stop crime, summon assistance, and make their communities a better place to live.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time, to rise in support of permanent normal trade relations with China. Passage of this agreement helps us, not them. They have agreed to lower tariffs on agricultural produce by over 50 percent, industrial tariffs from 24.6 percent a couple of years ago down to 9.4 percent, and most importantly, provide access to telecommunications, insurance, banking, and information technology markets. Although I do recognize the benefits of U.S. engagement with China, I also understand our concerns about labor conditions, human rights and national security. After all, I serve on the Committee on Intelligence. But if the goal is to promote constructive change in China, we had best be at the table. Because if we do not pass normal trade relations with China and they do join the WTO, these decisions about making long- term changes internally in China will go to the Pacific Rim countries like Japan and Korea and to the Europeans. Mr. Speaker, this is a good, sound policy, not only for the issues of democracy, human rights, but it is also good for trade and for the economy of our Nation.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, as a member of both the Budget and Intelligence committees, I have been especially sensitive to what we call top line issues--how much money is available overall, and whether it is generally adequate. Pressures to keep down the allocations for defense have also had an adverse ``trickle down'' effect on intelligence, since intelligence is funded within the defense top line. For the last decade, intelligence lost a large part of its buying power, after absorbing reductions both indirectly from inflation and directly from budget resolutions. In this regard, we recently suffered several particularly bad years. The administration's request this year increased somewhat, providing partial relief from the decline. Striving to remain within established financial boundaries, the committee gave the national intelligence agencies only slightly more than the request. The service portion of the budget, where we share jurisdiction with Armed Services, enjoyed greater increases. This willingness to sacrifice a share of the hard- pressed military budget acknowledges the heavy service dependence on tactical intelligence, and the need to improve it. The situation among the national agencies is also problematic. Most of them have been squeezed for a decade and are showing the effects. Personnel numbers have been reduced significantly, but even if reductions continue, it is a struggle to keep personnel costs at the same budget percentage, because the costs per individual are climbing steeply. Personnel are used mainly to process and report the large amounts of collected information; but there are many fewer available to do this, even as much more data pours in from sensors that must become increasingly sophisticated in order to keep up with the targets. As a result, this ``downstream'' part of the business, and our overall efficiency, are suffering greatly. Among the major intelligence agencies, the National Security Agency is particularly hard pressed, since targets and their communications, radar and telemetry technology have been changing at a dramatic pace. NSA requires nearly complete re-tooling to catch up and keep up, but this costs a lot of money. NSA's budget has been in steady decline. On the imagery side, the struggle to pay for exploitation and dissemination of the large volume of imagery required especially by military customers is pretty well know. This is another ``downstream'' problem exacerbated by declining numbers of human photo-interpreters. Five years ago, the House Intelligence Committee warned the administration that we must find a way to make our satellite collectors much less expensive, or the NRO would take a growing portion of the declining intelligence budget, and we be unable to use effectively what they collect. We lost that budget battle. However, it is now clear that our predictions were accurate. And the situation is getting even worse because of cost overruns in NRO programs. We realize that everyone wants a ``peace dividend'' that shifts money from national security programs to domestic priorities. We want one ourselves. However, the breakup of empires historically is accompanied by regional confusion and conflict such as we witness today. Continued U.S. involvement in regional stabilization efforts comes at a price, often a high price. In addition, the breadth and unacceptability of terrorism, narcotics trafficking, proliferation and other cross-border challenges present unique challenges at this particular time. We are striving to make the Intelligence Community more efficient. We have done this within agencies and are suggesting a few precedent- shattering initiatives that cross agency boundaries, in both the communications and analyst areas. But there is only so much we can do, especially within the patchwork of compromises that makes up the congressional process. In several important areas, we are in trouble.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding 2 minutes to me. I rise in strong support of the amendment to create biennial budgets and appropriations. I would point out that passage of such an amendment will remove the bulk of budgeting and appropriations from election years. It increases government efficiency and encourages more responsive spending. It increases the time and quality of oversight and authorizing legislation. It provides budget stability for the States, many of which were forced to abandon their own biennial budgets because of their growing dependence on annual Federal appropriations. Indeed, by passing biennial budgeting and appropriations, we would be getting back in sync with the States and we would most likely see a reversal in the trend that was brought up by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). Indeed, this bill is supported by the President, both candidates for President, House and Senate leaders, the Committee on Appropriations chairman in the House and the Senate Committee on the Budget chairman. For once, we have a truly bipartisan amendment to move this Congress forward into the 21st century so that we can be a body that works on real legislative proposals rather than being totally reactive and being totally controlled by the appropriations process. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues like omnibus spending bills every year, if they like spending late nights until 1:00 and 2:00 in the morning, if they like turning the appropriations process ultimately over to two or three people, out of the hands of even the appropriators, if they like the system that we have now, which is clearly broken, then they will not support this amendment. But if they believe that we can run Congress better, that we can be a Congress that is bold enough to step forward and change fundamentally its process, then they will support the Dreier amendment.