Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 3786, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing Security Printing Act of 2004, introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. King). The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to print, under certain conditions, currency and security documents for foreign governments if it is consistent with our foreign policy objectives. Mr. Speaker, while the United States Mint is allowed in law to produce coins for other countries, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, or BEP, as we know it, is not. This prohibition has prevented the BEP from responding to a number of requests or opportunities to help smaller countries strengthen their economies by producing currency or security documents such as stamps or deeds or passports that are difficult to counterfeit. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, if the opportunity is there to impede counterfeiting of this sort and the BEP is prevented by law from taking it, we are all the losers. The bill is essentially in the same language as that which has passed the House by both voice and recorded vote in the past several Congresses after being introduced at the request of both this and the prior administration, Mr. Speaker. Because of the current prohibition in law, we have turned away currency-printing requests from friends such as Kuwait after the first Gulf War and Mexico a couple of years ago when they were redesigning their currency, and we were unable to bid on reprinting the currency of Iraq to remove the image of Saddam after last year's war. Mr. Speaker, many countries lack the resources to produce secure currency or secure passports. Nothing in this legislation prevents a country from choosing a U.S.-based private sector printer; but the history of this sort of printing is that while a private sector printer is bound to be less expensive, the business is not price-sensitive. Typically, when countries turn to a printer outside their own borders, it is to another government printer: the bank of Australia, the Bank of England, or the European Central Bank printers. In my view, the United States Treasury should be on that list as well. Mr. Speaker, this legislation specifies that the BEP could not bid on any printing contract for another government unless it could do the work without interrupting the printing and delivery of U.S. currency and security documents, and unless the Secretary of State certified that the work would be consistent with U.S. foreign policy. Additionally, the BEP must be reimbursed by the client country, so that the work does not cost the U.S. taxpayer and it is not just another form of foreign aid. All costs, including administrative costs, will be passed to the foreign governments and no rogue state or unfriendly nation will receive the benefit of our knowledge and expertise. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this long overdue legislation and permit BEP to print currency, postage, and other security documents for foreign governments. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2993, the ``District of Columbia and United States Territories Circulating Quarter Dollar Program Act,'' introduced February 10 by the gentleman from New York, Mr. King. This legislation will enhance the popular 50-State Quarter program I am proud to have authored, with the addition of a one-year program that will include designs reminiscent of the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands on the reverse of our circulating quarters in the year following the end of the State quarter program in 2008. With passage of this legislation, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories will rightly be included in the historical depictions on the quarter. I support these inclusions for both the historical importance and financial benefit for the United States Treasury. Mr. Speaker, the State quarter program--which reached the halfway mark at the end of December--has dramatically increased general knowledge of the historical contributions of our fifty States. I believe the legislation under consideration today would do the same for the District and the territories. These areas have some of the highest enlistment rates in our armed forces--their commitment continues through today's conflicts and includes the tragic sacrifice of the lives of among others Lance Cpl. Gregory E. MacDonald of the District of Columbia, and Army Pvt. Jonathan I. Falaniko, of Pago Pago, American Samoa. As well, Mr. Speaker, the District and the territories have made many historical, cultural and athletic contributions to our Nation, and this bill we consider today is a great opportunity to recognize them, in artwork on the reverse of the quarters. The one-year program provides more than intangible benefits to the United States. It provides an economic boon to our Nation's Treasury. The success of the State quarter program has been overwhelming. The quarters have become one of the most popular collector's items in the United States and abroad. As of December, the halfway point of the program, Federal revenues had grown by over four billion dollars, representing coins that have been taken out of circulation by collectors. As a result, it is estimated that if the popularity of quarters produced under this legislation follow similar trends, as much as one billion dollars worth of the quarters may be taken out of circulation. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from New York, Mr. King, for introducing this bill, and the gentlewomen from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for her tireless campaign towards its passage. I also commend many others who have urged passage over the past, including the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus, who sponsored a previous version of the legislation, and the gentlewomen from California, Ms. Waters. Of course, I would also like to thank the ranking member of the Subcommittee, the gentlewomen from New York, Mrs. Maloney and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the full committee, Mr. Oxley and Mr. Frank, for their assistance in making this legislation possible. Mr. Speaker, I urge swift passage of H.R. 2993 to recognize the invaluable contributions of the District and the territories. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to start by thanking the gentlewoman from District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her tenaciousness on this. I always favored this concept as soon as I heard about it. But if it was not for her, frankly, pushing everybody, I do not think we would be where we are today. And I say that because we have been there a couple of times before, and she has had to do it again and again. I doubt if there will be a Rose Garden ceremony for the signing of this if it passes, but I intend to come over there and shake your hand if it happens, because you deserve a lot of credit for it. We just have to get the Senate to cooperate. Apropos of comments made earlier by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) on another bill, this is a pretty good day here on the floor, at least this portion of it, as far as the Federal Government is concerned. The BEP hopefully will be able to enter into the business that they can do specifically that the private sector really cannot do as well and perhaps have a chance to add some revenues to the Federal Government as has indicated. This quarter program has already produced $4 billion in money to the Treasury as a result of the keeping of these coins and collecting. The chances are that the young people here are all collecting them. When you go to a classroom, you find that they are all collecting these coins. We still have 5 years to run, hopefully a 6th year to run on this. We hope it will produce, as I indicated earlier, another billion dollars. It is not many programs that actually produce real money, real revenue for the Federal Government. Pursuant to that, without advocating anything, I would say as an extension of this that I have introduced legislation, as you may know, for a Presidential program on the dollar coins, which is also, according to the studies that have been done, has the ability to produce revenue for the Federal Government as a collector's item, with the spouses to be on a gold coin sold at the price of gold which would be about $380 right now as a collector's item. All of these also have the ability to do what this coin has been done and, most importantly, inform not just young people but all of us about our States, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has pointed out, and about our territories, and about our Presidents hopefully. So I think this has all been a very win-win-win situation. We are very appreciative of what this has done. I would encourage all of us to support this legislation, and hopefully this is something that we will get done this year.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1375, the ``Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act.'' I commend Chairman Oxley and Subcommittee Chairman Bachus for continuing the Financial Services Committee's efforts to address regulatory relief for our financial institutions. This legislation will address regulatory relief for a number of financial institution systems; banks, savings associations and credit unions. It eases regulatory burden which in turn will improve productivity, ultimately benefiting consumers and small businesses. As Members of Congress it is important for us not to forget our role in oversight of the laws and regulations that we create and address the regulations as needed. We should ensure that the laws and regulations we create follow our original intent and are not overly burdensome. I commend our committee for revisiting the regulatory requirements. It is essential we make sure we have streamlined them for efficiency and not made them overly onerous. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a good bipartisan bill that members of the Financial Services Committee held a number of hearings on. I am pleased today that we have brought this much needed bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this important and very necessary legislation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2004.'' When it is approved, it will create enormous opportunities to educate both children and adults about the history of this country. This legislation is the type we rarely have the opportunity to pass in Congress, and although it is not the goal of the program, it will likely earn the government as much as five billion dollars. In many ways, this legislation is modeled after the wildly successful ``50-State Quarter Program'' which I authored and Congress passed and which at the end of last year reached its halfway point. We all know the story: five quarters a year bear images connected with one of the states, so that over a decade each state will have been honored. We all know how popular the program was: before the state quarter program started, the U.S. Mint was making about 400 million quarters a year, but by the next year it was making about 1.2 billion quarters. The Mint estimates that one person in each household is collecting the quarters and they are collecting a full set. According to the most recent numbers from the Mint, about $4 billion worth of savings has been created for the federal government with an expected $2 billion more through the life of the program. The program I am introducing today adopts the same model, but uses the one-dollar gold coin introduced in 2000. For a number of reasons, that coin never achieved its promise of being a useful niche product for use in vending machines, transit systems and low-dollar-value transactions. This bill seeks to address each of the ills that befell the one-dollar coin. Mr. Speaker, this legislation addresses all of the problems to the circulation of the dollar coin that were identified in an exhaustive General Accounting Office study of a year or so ago. Merchants said the coin wasn't available in useful quantities, and collectors and consumers often had a hard time finding the coin--if they could find it at all. Others said they would use it in commerce, but never got it as change. The cost of counting and handling currency is much higher than the cost of counting and handling change, Mr. Speaker, and for those sectors of the economy that rely on low-dollar-value transactions, or high-volume transactions such as vending machines or transit systems, having a widely available, easily dispensed and accepted one-dollar coin will save money for businesses, which will help keep costs down for consumers. Mr. Speaker, the legislation directs the Mint and the Federal Reserve to work with all aspects of the economy to eliminate the barriers to circulation that seem to have harmed the current one-dollar coin, ranging from making sure that the coin is accepted by vending machines--and that the machines are ``stickered'' to say so--to making sure it is conveniently packaged for retailers and is available in rolled form when it re-circulates through the system, which is not now the case. It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, this program would be accepted by the public. In a 2002 General Accounting Office Report to Congress, it was found 25 percent of respondents would use the dollar coin more for purchases if there was a rotating design similar to the 50 State Quarter Program. Additionally, nearly 50 percent of respondents stated they would collect the new coin if it featured a rotating design. And 69 percent of respondents favored U.S. Presidents as the choice for the new rotating design on the dollar coin. Under the program, the images on the front and back of the coin temporarily would be replaced beginning in 2006 with images of the United States presidents. Four presidents a year would be honored, in the order of their service, with a likeness of the President, his name and dates of service and a number signifying the order in which he served, on the front of the coin. The image on the reverse would be that of the Statue of Liberty, large enough to be dramatic but not so large as to create a so-called ``two-headed'' coin. The date, mint mark and other important mottoes on the coin would go on the edge of the coin, leaving room on the faces for more dramatic artwork, harking back to the so-called Golden Age of American coins at the beginning of the last century. Mr. Speaker, the educational aspects of this program are obvious. We all know George Washington was the first president, but how many can tell the exact dates of his service to the country? How about the dates of service of the famous Civil War general Ulysses S. Grant, who later became president? And how many in this Chamber can name the only President who would end up with two coins in the series because he served twice, in terms separated by another president's term? The bill specifies that the program would end at the point when the next coin issued would have to be for a sitting President, as our founding fathers wisely thought that no sitting president's image should be carried on a coin. At that point the coin would return to the images now carried on it, with the stigma of inadvertently being associated with a failed coin program washed from the rich legacy of Sacagewea. Mr. Speaker, this coin program by itself would be hard to argue with. Teachers will, as they have with the state quarter program, devise lesson plans around it. We will all look at the change in our pocket more closely, and learn more about our country in the process. But that is only half of this legislation. The second title of the bill creates a nearly pure gold investment-grade bullion coin, the same diameter as the dollar coin and of an appropriate weight and thickness, honoring the First Spouses, who have done so much for our country. On the front, as with the Presidential coins, would be the likeness of the spouse, his or her terms of service and the order in which they served. On the reverse would be images emblematic of the spouse's works. In the five instances to date in which Presidents had no spouses while in office--there's the educational part again--the bill calls for the image on the front of the coin to be that of an image of ``Liberty'' as used on a U.S. coin circulating during that President's term, and the reverse of the coin to carry images related to the President's term. These investment-grade coins would be struck in gold that is .9999 percent pure, a purity of gold the Mint never before has used to strike coins. Mr. Speaker, I think using pure gold for the spouse coin is appropriate, and I think it is appropriate that the President and spouse coins can be sold or collected in all sorts of combinations. Additionally, the spouse coins could be sold merely for their intrinsic investment value. Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives the Mint a great opportunity to show off its design and engraving talents and to develop new ones. It gives the Mint the opportunity to package the coins in a variety of ways, and the Mint gets more than a year to prepare to issue the first coin, so they can plan and get it right. As well, it allows for a transitional minting of the current dollar coins, though the demand will mostly be for collectors, so that 2006-dated Sacagewea dollar coins may be sold in large Lewis and Clark-Louisiana Purchase commemorative sets with 2006-dated Thomas Jefferson dollar coins. And with both the increase in dollar coins and the striking of bullion investment-grade coins, it creates jobs in a number of industries. In short, Mr. Speaker, I don't see any downsides to this bill and believe there are so many upsides that it should pass in short order, giving all of us something good, and fun, to talk about when we go back to our constituents. Mr. Speaker, so that the new $1 coin may be introduced into circulation in 2006 and that the Mint will be given adequate time to plan this program to ensure it is a logistic as well as an artistic success, I will be seeking to move the legislation quickly. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and look forward to working with the Financial Services Committee to bring this bill to the House Floor as soon as possible.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Congressional Gold Medal Program Enhancement Act of 2004.'' Passage of this legislation will ensure that the medals Congress confers will continue to honor truly exceptional achievement. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Congress created the Congressional Gold Medal honor in 1776 to recognize military leaders, and then honored George Washington for his heroic service in the Revolutionary War. Since then, the medal program has evolved to become the highest civilian honor Congress confers, and medals have gone to those who have attained exceptional achievement, including General Douglas MacArthur; General Colin Powell; Mother Teresa; Pope John Paul II; British Prime Ministers Winston Churchill and Tony Blair; Jonas Salk; Robert H. Goddard and Rosa Parks. However, a disturbing trend has started to emerge in which Congress approves numerous medals each year, and in some cases approves medals for groups rather than individuals. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that either of these trends is in the spirit of the gold medal concept. This legislation seeks to clarify guidelines under which the medals may be awarded, and strengthen the honor of the process. Under the new guidelines, Congressional Gold Medals could only be awarded to an individual, not to a group. While there are many groups of people deserving recognition, I believe the medal should be awarded for outstanding, individual achievement. Also under this legislation, no more than two medals could be awarded in any single year. A similar limitation has worked extraordinarily well for the commemorative coin programs struck by the United States Mint: under reform legislation I authored and Congress passed in 1995, only two coin programs may be conducted in any year. This reform improved the commemorative coin honor and similar standards could improve the process for awarding the Congressional Gold Medal. It concerns me, Mr. Speaker, that limiting the number of coin programs a year but having no limitation on Congressional Gold Medals-- we award five or six in some years--could someday devalue the medals. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple piece of legislation with great meaning. It will ensure the future integrity and true honor of the award. It is my goal that each recipient--President, civil rights leader, military hero, inventor, noted healer--who receives a Congressional Gold Medal will remain part of a unique honor, bestowed by the U.S. Congress. Mr. Speaker, few can argue with the idea that these medals are an important indicator of American appreciation and gratitude. To maintain this standard, I will work to move the ``Congressional Gold Medal Program Enhancement Act'' quickly, in order to take effect at the beginning of the next Congress. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and look forward to working with the Financial Services Committee to bring this bill to the House Floor.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 355.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to some very impressive Delaware athletes, the University of Delaware Fighting Blue Hens football team, which on December 19, 2003, beat Colgate University to win the NCAA Division I-AA national championship at Max Finley Stadium in Chattanooga, Tennessee. As I was there, I can tell you it was about 28 degrees and blowing and snowing during the entire game. This was the first national championship for the University of Delaware since 1979 and its very first in Division I-AA. Throughout the season, the Blue Hen team impressed, inspired, and awed Delawareans by their dedication, hard work, and immense talent. In my opinion, this was a perfect ending to an absolutely stellar season, led by head coach K.C. Keller and his fine group of athletes. Each and every person who contributed to this win deserves to be recognized, obviously the coaching staff led by Coach Keller and all the others for their leadership and encouragement of these athletes. And, of course, the players who worked so very hard as a team, inspiring each other to reach the goal they set for themselves. There are so many really great players on the team, so many great coaches, and the same is true of this whole division of I-AA football, and particularly the University of Delaware football team. I know all Delawareans join me, because I know all Delawareans follow this football team and join me in congratulating them on what they have done. The families and friends, who come from as far as California and other places in the country to follow the team, also deserve a tremendous amount of credit. As one who attended practically every home game, the Navy game, when they beat Navy, and a few other games even away, I will tell you that it was a wonderful season of great significance to the people of my small State and to the wonderful University of Delaware. And they won by big scores, Mr. Speaker. It almost looks like a dynasty in the making, by much bigger scores than anything else we have seen in the course of this year. For that reason, we have great hopes for next year and into the future for this great heartwarming experience of the University of Delaware Fighting Blue Hens football team. Mr. Speaker, I urge swift passage of H. Con. Res. 355. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of February 3, 2004, and as the designee of the majority leader, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 355) congratulating the University of Delaware men's football team for winning the National Collegiate Athletic Association I-AA national championship, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee very much for yielding me time and all of those who helped put this together. In a benevolent society, as America is, I think the most important function government can have is the care of those who may be unable to take care of themselves. As we know, with the Community Services Block Grant we are dealing with the very lowest-income part of our population. I doubt if there is a single Member here, either Republican or Democrat, who has not toured or at some point come into contact with probably multiple agencies which are working under this particular grant, and which has made a difference in the lives of people. I certainly have had that great opportunity as I have seen the Meals on Wheels programs and educational programs and helping with housing and helping with job development, and you name it, the various things these agencies do. It is a very clean flow through to these agencies. It is a very clean delivery system as they deal with that particular part of the population who needs help. This is a very important piece of legislation. I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member and everybody else who was involved, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), of course, who is the author of this, for putting together a piece of legislation which both renews what we have been doing and reauthorizes it for the next half dozen years or so but also recognizes that we need to keep an eye on certain things and does that as well. I think this is a very good underlying piece of legislation. I would encourage each and every one of us to support it and also to support these programs out in our communities, which I think makes a great difference in the quality of life for everybody. On the faith-based issue, which is obviously the contentious issue here, I think it is important to understand, for whatever reason, this was done in 1998. If my recollection is correct, it became law under a Democratic President at that time. I have not had anybody say to me ever in my State of Delaware that there is a problem with that. Not once have I ever heard it mentioned, and I have been to these agencies on a number of occasions in the course of the last half dozen years, and I have not heard any examples of that on the floor. Where it is really a problem, where the rubber hits the road, it is a very nice constitutional argument. It belongs in the Committee on the Judiciary, but the bottom line is most of the people who are supplying these services are doing it in a way that benefits everybody, and I would encourage everyone to support the legislation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of House Resolution 492, offered by the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter. This resolution honors the contributions of America's Catholic schools, and their dedication to educating their students and improving their communities. Catholic Schools Week 2004 will be celebrated from January 25-31 with the theme. ``Catholic Schools: A Faith-Filled Future.'' Every year since 1974 Catholic Schools Week has been celebrated and jointly sponsored by the National Catholic Educational Association and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Catholic schools are internationally acclaimed for their academic excellence, but provide students more than a quality academic education. Catholic schools provide a values-infused education that emphasizes moral, intellectual, physical, and social values in America's young people. In turn these schools produce students strongly dedicated to their faith, values, families, and communities. There are currently over 2.6 million students enrolled in 8,000 Catholic schools across this Nation. In my home State of Delaware, over 30 Catholic schools provide an excellent education to over 15,000 students. These schools serve children from all incomes and backgrounds. In addition, Catholic school students come from many different races, religions, and ethnicities. In this school year, about 26 percent of Catholic school students are from minority backgrounds and about 14 percent are not Catholic. I appreciate the great work being done by the Catholic schools, their administrators and teachers as well as their parents and volunteers. I commend my colleague from Louisiana for introducing this resolution and urge my colleagues to support it. Archmere Academy, Claymont Christ Our King School, Wilmington Corpus Christi School, Wilmington Holy Angels Elementary School, Newark Holy Cross School, Dover Holy Rosary Elementary School, Claymont Holy Spirit Elementary School, New Castle Immaculate Heart Of Mary School, Wilmington Mother of Divine Grace Mother Seton School Our Lady Of Fatima School, New Castle Our Lady of Grace Kindergarten, Newark Padua Academy, Wilmington Sacred Heart Academy Saint Ann Elementary School, Wilmington Saint Anthony Of Padua School, Wilmington Saint Catherine Of Siena School, Wilmington Saint Edmond's Academy School, Wilmington Saint Elizabeth Elementary School, Wilmington Saint Elizabeth High School, Wilmington Saint Hedwig Elementary School, Wilmington Saint Helena Elementary School, Wilmington Saint John Bosco's Academy Saint John The Beloved School, Wilmington Saint Joseph's Academy Saint Marks High School, Wilmington Saint Mary Magdalen School, Wilmington Saint Matthew Elementary School, Wilmington Saint Paul Elementary School, Wilmington Saint Peter School, New Castle Saint Peters Cathedral School, Wilmington Saints Peter and Paul School of Easton Saint Thomas More Academy, Magnolia Saint Thomas The Apostle School, Wilmington Saint Vincent's Academy Salesianum School, Wilmington Ursuline Academy of Wilmington Windermere Place

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 491, legislation recognizing the importance of mentoring. This resolution, introduced by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), reminds us all of the important role that caring adults play in the lives of our Nation's youth, and I thank the gentleman for his work in Congress--as well as his work with his own mentoring organization, ``TeamMates of Nebraska''--on this important issue. Today's teens cope with major physical changes, emotional ups and downs, peer pressures and a changing identity, but they are also confronted by a more complex and impersonal society where drugs and alcohol are easily available and tragedies, such as AIDS and violence, strike too close to home. In this time of growth and uncertainty, our children need positive role models, or mentors, in their lives. Simply, a mentor is an adult who, along with parents, provides young people with support, counsel, and friendship. Most important, mentors are people who care. And, for many children, that makes all the difference. According to recent research, children with mentors are 46 percent less likely to begin using illegal drugs, 52 percent less likely to skip school, and 33 percent less likely to get into fights. In addition, children with mentors reported greater confidence in their performance at school and better relationships with their families. Despite these positive outcomes, too many children who need a mentor do not have one. In my state of Delaware alone, an estimated 10,000 young people could benefit from a positive, supportive relationship with an adult, but approximately 7,000 are currently served. It is therefore appropriate that January is National Mentoring Month, a time in which we encourage caring adults to reach out to the children and youth in their communities. As part of that effort, I want to recognize the many businesses, churches and community groups that partner with our schools to provide mentors to children in need as well as the informal mentoring relationships that exist between teachers, coaches and neighbors. I also want to recognize those who lend their expertise or contribute financially to mentoring organizations. Their support is as important as volunteering to become a mentor. Again, I thank the gentleman for his resolution and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the recent accomplishments of ILC Dover Inc., located in Frederica, Delaware. ILC Dover has long been a partner in this country's space exploration efforts. From manufacturing space suits for the Apollo mission's to the moon to creating the air bag landing systems for the recent Mars rover's Spirit and Opportunity, the later of which is scheduled to land on the opposite side of Mars this weekend. I as well as the 400 employees at ILC will be watching closely as the company's technology delivers Opportunity safely to the surface of Mars. As NASA's vision continues to change over time, ILC Dover has adapted their technologies to meet the challenges of these new missions. ILC's landing bags work much like your everyday passenger air bag in a car. The system surrounded and protected the rover Spirit as it bounced 30 times before resting on the surface of Mars. These unmanned probes will scour the red planet's surface in an effort to discover any previous existence of life. These air bag systems were enhanced from those that ILC made for the earlier Pathfinder mission to Mars. ILC is very excited by the President's recent announcement that he plans to send Americans to Mars by establishing a permanent space station on the moon. ILC Dover has already begun testing their newest space suit, the ``I-suit'', which could be warn by those astronauts who will build the moon base. ILC has stated that they expect these suits would perform better, would cost less, and would be more comfortable, allowing crewmembers to perform their duties for longer periods of time. The company also manufactures products to meet the emerging homeland security, defense, and environmental challenges that our country faces. For example, they have begun production and sales of the Scape hood, a mask that protects civilian wearers from nuclear, biological and chemical warfare agents. The company currently manufactures the M40 gas masks donned by the U.S. Army. The federal government, state and local municipalities, and the corporate community have invested in their Vapor Guard product. These soft material covers are designed to contain odors and emissions within wastewater treatment tanks. These are just a few of the emerging technologies that the company is focused on. As part of the successful Mars Exploration Rover program, I would also like to acknowledge the important work of Alliant Tech Systems Inc. (ATK). ATK, based in Edina, Minnesota, is a $2.2 billion aerospace and defense company with strong positions in propulsion, composite structures, munitions, precision capabilities and civil and sporting ammunition. I will be touring their Elkton, Maryland, facility and will see first hand how ATK is partnering with NASA. The Elkton facility, which employs close to 100 Delawareans, is working on NASA's Mars Exploration Rover as well, the orbital space plane and other NASA missions. Specifically, ATK constructed the gas generators that inflated ILC Dover's airbags to cushion the rover's landings, as well as the rocket motors that slowed their decent. Besides their NASA work, ATK is also partnering with the Department of Defense to create Kinetic Energy Interceptor missile defense programs and is also part of a Department of Homeland Security team with United Air Lines that has been tasked to submit designs for an electro optic missile warning systems for commercial airplanes. These forward thinking companies continue to assert themselves as major players in our nation's research and development, especially our search of the next frontier. I congratulate them on their achievements and wish them continued success.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Medicare Prescription Drug Conference Report, and thank all the Conferees for their dedication to providing relief for our seniors. This landmark legislation updates Medicare and finally brings the program into the 21st Century by modernizing the program and providing a prescription drug benefit. While not perfect, this bill presents us with an historic opportunity of providing 40 million Medicare beneficiaries with relief in the face of rising prescription drug costs. Every member of this body has identified health care reform as a top priority and now we have the opportunity to make progress. The reality is clear--every year we postpone this debate and fail to compromise on a Medicare and prescription drug bill, while the burden of drug costs on seniors continues to increase. In 1965 when the Medicare program first began, the average senior's spending for prescription drugs was $65 a year. In 2002, overall spending had risen to $2,149--a 35-fold increase. The average retail prescription price increased more than three times the rate of inflation from 1998 to 2000. Over 60 percent of seniors spend more than 1,000 per year on prescription drugs and of those seniors, 17 percent spend more than $5,000. And with 80 percent of retirees using a prescription drug every day, the expense for many is out of reach. These statistics clearly show the transition of patients relying mostly on hospitals and physician for their health care needs to patients relying more on prescription drugs as measures for health treatment and prevention. The bill aims to make prescription drugs more affordable and more accessible by creating a voluntary prescription drug benefit. For the first time, since the creation of the Medicare Program, seniors, no matter where they live, will be able to receive financial assistance to help pay for these drugs, which are becoming increasingly integral to disease prevention, management and treatment. Seniors can keep whatever drug coverage they have now, choose a private plan or stay in the traditional Medicare program. Once the benefits is in place, Medicare will pay 75 percent of seniors' drug costs up to $2,250 per year, with a $250 deductible and a monthly premium of $35. With the CBO estimate indicating that the average senior will spend $1,891 on drugs in 2006, I think most seniors will find this to be a strong improvement. Importantly, this legislation provides the most generous benefit to the lowest income seniors. These seniors do not pay a premium, nor do they have a deductible and there will not be gaps in coverage for the drug benefit. This bill also takes strong steps towards preparing Medicare for future challenges, such as being equipped to meet the needs of retiring baby boomers. We offer new preventatives measures including an initial physical and certain preventative benefits such as diabetes and cholestrol screening as well as chronic care disease management. These common sense reforms are long over due--who can believe that Medicare was not covering an initial physical for our seniors? Encouraging beneficiaries to participate in preventive and early detection programs can not only improve their immediate health, but has potential to save billions in future healthcare costs. Another key component of this legislation are incentives for employers to retain and enhance retiree coverage. During the debate in both the House and Senate a significant amount of time focused on employer-based coverage. With increasing costs of health care as a whole, it is logical that employers are looking for a way to reduce their overhead. Most likely, retirees who tend to be more costly than younger, healthier workers, are targeted for cost cutting measures. These are concerns that provisions would be included in this legislation to allow employers to drop coverage based on age, but fortunately, due to the work of many, that did not happen. One-third of all Medicare beneficiaries currently have prescription drug coverage through their former employers. Retirees want to keep that coverage and frankly, I believe they should be able to make that choice for themselves. This legislation provides a percentage subsidy to employers who maintain coverage for their retirees, which also saves Medicare money. Specifically the legislation will provide a federal subsidy to employers equal to 28 percent of drug spending by their retirees between $250 and $5,000. This applies not only to private companies, but also to state governments, and unions, like teachers unions, which often have very generous retiree packages. Of course, this is not a fail-safe solution. The higher costs associated with retiree health care coverage is an expensive matter for most corporations, unions and other providers. But, we hope that these incentives will help curtail the problem. Importantly, this legislation also contains numerous provisions intended to speed the entry of generic drugs into the market by preventing multiple 30-month stays by brand drugs and incentives for generic manufacturers to challenge weak or inappropriately listed patents. Generic drugs often provide consumers with a low cost alternative and I hope that the medical community will continue to make efforts to inform patients about the availability of generic drug options. We also address the reoccurring problem of physician fee cuts by increasing reimbursements by 1.5 percent instead of earlier proposals to cut them by 4.5 percent. I have spoken to a lot of doctors in Delaware who said these cuts were likely to put them out of business. With the rising cost of malpractice premiums compounded by cuts in reimbursements, some physicians may have already been forced to close their doors, which clearly impacts all of us. However, this is only a temporary fix. We must now move forward to fix this physician fee formula that was laid out in the Balanced Budget Act so doctors are not strung along year in and year out worrying about this potential cut. I hope to work with my colleagues to ensure this formula is fixed in the coming years. This legislation is not perfect and no one here today will tell you that it is. One of the major issues missing from this bill is a good faith provision allowing the reimportation of prescription drugs. Despite the overwhelming support in the House for true reimportation, this bill simply encourages the status quo by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify the safety of these drugs coming from Canada. Essentially this is the current law of the land, yet we do not see pharmacists and wholesalers importing drugs from Canada and passing those savings on to consumers. Seniors will be forced to continue the bus trips to Canada and mayors and governors will continue to negotiate agreements with Canada, until we truly address our prescription drug costs. This bill does include a study to research the major safety and trade issues regarding reimportation, and I hope it will be conducted in good faith and in a timely manner so we can return to this important discussion. I also have serious concerns about premium support and forcing Medicare to directly compete with private insurance plans because I believe it can lead to higher costs for those seniors who choose to stay in Medicare. While I believe the demonstration language in this legislation is far less disconcerting than a full premium support provision, I will continue to monitor this closely. In the end, we cannot undermine the basic tenets of the Medicare program, which has a history of providing an equal benefit no matter where seniors live. Varying premiums within and among states is surely not the message we want to send our seniors. Hopefully this demonstration program will yield positive results that drive costs down--only time will tell. I will work to ensure that Medicare is viable and that seniors who choose to stay in Medicare are protected. I commit myself and I hope others will join me, in continuing to address the rising cost of health care, prescription drugs and the rising ranks of the uninsured. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, an estimated 15.2 percent of the population or 43.6 million people were without health insurance coverage during the entire year of 2002, up from 14.6 percent in 2001. That is an increase of 2.4 million people. What's even more disconcerting is the percentage of people who are employed but lack health care coverage. That number dropped from 62.6 percent to 61.3 percent. However, these are clear and challenging issues that we must address in the upcoming session. Despite these and other concerns I have, I am supporting this legislation because I believe it provides desperately needed relief to Americans suffering from their overwhelming health care costs. American seniors have waited long enough for this assistance and I encourage my colleagues to provide them with the immediate relief in this bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2420, the ``Mutual Funds Integrity and Fee Transparency Act of 2003.'' I commend Chairman Oxley and Subcommittee Chairman Baker for continuing your work in protecting American investors and I am proud to play a role in addressing the problems in the mutual fund industry. Hearings in the Financial Services Committee have enabled us to address a number of ongoing reforms that are necessary for the mutual fund industry to increase transparency for investors. From these hearings we have also learned of additional problems within the mutual fund industry that have only recently come to light such as improper trading practices. We have improved this legislation by incorporating all of the issues and I am proud of the legislation we passed out of committee with strong bipartisan support. The average American family chooses to invest in mutual funds. I want to make clear what is at stake. Two decades ago, only 6 percent of American households had mutual fund shares valued at $134 billion. Today, half of all American families have $7 trillion at stake. Mutual funds represent about 10 percent of the total financial assets of the U.S. population. The number of funds have grown from less than 500 mutual funds in 1980 to approximately 8,000 mutual funds today. It concerns me that the scandals we have learned of in recent weeks may only be the tip of the iceberg. This should be a wake up call to both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the industry that change is needed. Mutual funds are a $7 trillion industry and with more than 50 percent of the American public invested in mutual funds there is the potential for investors to be hurt more so by these recent revelations than even the World Com and Enron scandals. I am not downplaying the problems that were in play there but I feel this issue is further reaching and could impact a greater number of investors in the long run. Some in the industry have stated market timing was an open practice, furthermore, some funds have even stated they participated in market timing on a limited level with clients to allow controversial trading as a way to control the improper practice. This bothers me. Favoritism to big investors and violating ethical and legal codes rob the average investor who depends on their investments for costs such as education and retirement. There is a lot at stake and the reforms addressed in this legislation will help prevent future investor betrayals. This bill addresses the recent market scandals and makes additional necessary reforms to the mutual fund industry, and I would like to highlight just a few. First, to address recent scandals in the mutual fund industry, the manager's amendment will explicitly ban sort term trading by fund insiders and permit funds to charge more than the current maximum 2 percent redemption fee to discourage all market timers. Second, to prevent market timing trades, made possible by stale pricing, the manager's amendment directs the SEC to clarify rules regarding mutual funds' obligation to apply fair value pricing. Third, the manager's amendment also addresses late trading. Late trading is not only an improper advantage for large fund investors, it is illegal. Late trading has allowed some big fund investors to take advantage of the current day's price on orders to buy or sell shares placed after the close of the New York markets, when proper procedure would be to carry out the orders at the following day's price. Some have likened this practice to ``betting today on yesterday's horse race.'' The manager's amendment directs the SEC to issue rules to prevent late trading without disadvantaging those investors who use financial intermediaries such as broker-dealers and 401(k) and pension plan administrators to purchase fund shares. Fourth, this legislation rightly increases the requirement of independent board members from one-half to two-thirds of total board membership and strengthens independence qualifications. A greater number of independent directors will increase protections of investors' interest against those of directors whose interests are tied to the success of their funds' advisers. Fifth, the bill requires disclosure of brokers' conflicts of interest where they are paid incentives to promote particular funds so that investors can weigh sales incentives. Finally, I am concerned about fees that mutual fund investors face. I understand that mutual fund companies feel there is a need for certain fees, but these fees must be transparent to investors. In many cases investors choose ``no-load'' funds for their no fee structure, but hidden fees such as 12-(b)-1 fees are often charged. I am pleased this legislation would prohibit a fund from advertising as a ``no-load'' fund if in fact the 12-(b)-1 fee is charged. Furthermore, in an effort to enhance transparency of fees, the bill requires that mutual funds disclose fees, in dollar amounts, on a hypothetical $1,000 investment, and further requires that this information not be buried in a prospectus. Mr. Speaker, the House Financial Services Committee and Congress acted in the wake of the Enron and World Com scandals to protect investors. Today we are again being called on to protect the average American investor and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this important and very necessary legislation.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, not just for yielding to me, but for the great work that he and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) have done on this and also the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). I think it truly has been a team effort for both parties getting together to try to address the problem. Maybe we are not as far as I would like to be, as perhaps some others would like to be, but I think we started to move in the right direction. For that I am very pleased. Mr. Speaker, I will submit a statement here that supports H.R. 2420 and goes through the details of some of the reasons for that. But I would like to take my time before us today just to discuss what I consider to be the breadth and extent of this problem and what we have to do. It is very interesting because 2 decades ago only 6 percent of American households had mutual funds, and the total was supposedly $134 billion. Today one-half of all American families are involved in mutual funds in some way or another, probably do not even know they are. They are in their 401(k) plans or another retirement plan or something of that nature. It involves $7 trillion of money. This, of all these issues we have talked about, probably involves more Americans in a financial sense than anything else we ever had before our committee or before the Congress of the United States of America. It represents 10 percent of all the financial assets of the United States of America. To suggest that this is not overwhelmingly important, in my judgment, would be wrong. It is amazing to me that just 6 months ago the mutual fund industry was making statements as they were looking at the banking industry and the corporate problems and everything else that they are the only ones with an unblemished record. Nobody knew. Nobody at the State level, nobody at the Federal level knew what was going on. And while we can talk about the SEC now, I would like to know where the SEC was a year ago, 3 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, or whatever it may be, why was somebody not looking at some of these problems, which are relatively self-evident when you really examine it closely if you understand the details of how mutual funds work. I would hope that those kinds of people have been working at the SEC under Republicans and Democrats. And I am afraid to say that has not been the case so far. And, frankly, I think we all need to be critical of that. Should we move quickly on this? And I understand what Mr. Greenspan and Secretary Snow and others have said about, well, we need to take our time. Well, I do not disagree completely because you want to do it correctly; but on the other hand I think we need to move as quickly as possible. There has been a recognized problem, and we need to do something about it. And quite frankly, I am delighted that this bill is on the floor today and our leaders have come forward and said we need to move forward. Maybe they will do something somewhat differently in the Senate, but hopefully they will do something and hopefully we will have something which we can hold out to the American public as evidence that we are moving in the right direction as far as mutual funds are concerned. On the old issue of who should regulate, where we should be, I give credit to the States. I think they have done a wonderful job, particularly in New York and Massachusetts, and perhaps other States in coming forward and revealing some the problems. Frankly, I am not sure where the SEC would be today, I am not sure where we would be today if that had not happened. Yes, there are jurisdictional issues, but for the most part I think they deserve a great deal of credit as far as all of that is concerned. The SEC, according to Stephen Cutler, has examined the records of 88 of these mutual funds, and they found problems with a great percentage of them. And they have found in the case of 30 percent of them that they have had market-timing problems. Virtually half of these funds have had problems one way or another in the area in which we are trying to deal. That just shows me how rapidly we have to move and what we have to do. So I give credit to everybody for the hearings, for the legislation, and what we are doing today because, frankly, I think you are going to start to see some changes. I think a lot of it is going to be because of this legislation which we are considering today and all that has led up to it. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2420, the ``Mutual Funds Integrity and Fee Transparency Act of 2003.'' I commend Chairman Oxley and Subcommittee Chairman Baker for continuing your work in protecting American investors and I am proud to play a role in addressing the problems in the mutual fund industry. Hearings in the Financial Services Committee have enabled us to address a number of ongoing reforms that are necessary for the mutual fund industry to increase transparency for investors. From these hearings we have also learned of additional problems within the mutual fund industry that have only recently come to light such as improper trading practices. We have improved this legislation by incorporating all of the issues and I am proud of the legislation we passed out of committee with strong bipartisan support. The average American family chooses to invest in mutual funds. I want to make clear what is at stake. Two decades ago, only 6 percent of American households had mutual fund shares valued at $134 billion. Today, half of all American families have $7 trillion at stake. Mutual funds represent about 10 percent of the total financial assets of the U.S. population. The number of funds have grown from less than 500 mutual funds in 1980 to approximately 8,000 mutual funds today. Just 6 months ago the mutual fund industry was boasting of its unblemished record. It concerns me that the scandals we have learned of in recent weeks may only be the tip of the iceberg. This should be a wake-up call to both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the industry that change is needed. Mutual funds are a $7 trillion industry, and with more than 50 percent of the American public invested in mutual funds there is the potential for investors to be hurt more so by these recent revelations than even the WorldCom and Enron scandals. I am not downplaying the problems that were in play there, but I feel this issue is further-reaching and could impact a greater number of investors in the long run. Some in the industry have stated market timing was an open practice; furthermore, some funds have even stated they participated in market timing on a limited level with clients to allow controversial trading as a way to control the improper practice. This bothers me. Favoritism to big investors and violating ethical and legal codes rob the average investor who depends on their investments for costs such as education and retirement. There is a lot at stake, and the reforms addressed in this legislation will help prevent future investor betrayals. This bill addresses the recent market scandals and makes additional necessary reforms to the mutual fund industry, and I would like to highlight just a few. First, to address recent scandals in the mutual fund industry, the manager's amendment will explicitly ban short-term trading by fund insiders and permit funds to charge more than the current maximum 2 percent redemption fee to discourage all market timers. Second, to prevent market timing trades, made possible by stale pricing, the manager's amendment directs the SEC to clarify rules regarding mutual funds' obligation to apply fair value pricing. Third, the manager' amendment also addresses late trading. Late trading is not only an improper advantage for large fund investors, it is illegal. Late trading has allowed some big fund investors to take advantage of the current day's price on orders to buy or sell shares placed after the close of the New York markets, when proper procedure would be to carry out the orders at the following day's price. Some have likened this practice to ``betting today on yesterday's horse race.'' The manager's amendment directs the SEC to issue rules to prevent late trading without disadvantaging those investors who use financial intermediaries such as broker-dealers and 401(k) and pension plan administrators to purchase fund shares. Fourth, this legislation rightly increases the requirement of independent board members from one-half to two-thirds of total board membership and strengthens independence qualifications. A greater number of independent directors will increase protections of investors' interests against those of directors whose interests are tied to the success of their funds' advisers. Fifth, the bill requires disclosure of brokers' conflicts of interest where they are paid incentives to promote particular funds, so that investors can weigh sales incentives. Finally, I am concerned about fees that mutual fund investors face. I understand that mutual fund companies feel there is a need for certain fees, but these fees must be transparent to investors. In many cases investors choose ``no-load'' funds for their no-fee structure, but hidden fees such as 12-(b)-1 fees are often charged. I am pleased this legislation would prohibit a fund from advertising as a ``no-load'' fund if in fact the 12-(b)-1 fee is charged. Furthermore, in an effort to enhance transparency of fees, the bill requires that mutual funds disclose fees, in dollar amounts, on a hypothetical $1,000 investment, and further requires that this information not be buried in a prospectus. Mr. Speaker, the House Financial Services Committee and Congress acted in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals to protect investors. Today we are again being called on to protect the average American investor, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this important and very necessary legislation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Kildee Motion which recognizes what the House, and Chairman Regula, have done to increase funding for our student financial assistance programs. It is my hope that the conference report will sustain these increases and that this Congress will maintain our consistent support for higher education. The vital programs at hand increase access to higher education and help to make college more affordable for students and parents across the country. While student aid is key these increases are not the sole solution to the crisis we are facing in American institutions of higher learning. Statistics show college tuition has been increasing well beyond the cost of living, causing students to graduate with incredible debt. For example, over the past 10 years, after adjusting for inflation, average tuition and fees at both public and private 4-year colleges and universities rose 38 percent. This is an extraordinary problem, a problem that I am dedicated to understanding and addressing. I have always argued that increased funding must be accompanied by fundamental reforms. It is incumbent upon us, as legislators, to make every effort to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent carefully and effectively. Increasing federal spending will never eliminate all barriers to higher learning, as the pace of tuition is growing too fast. The Committee on Education and the Workforce is in the process of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act and I am confident we will do all that we can to tackle rising tuition and fees in a meaningful manner. In my opinion, one way we can begin combating rising costs is by empowering parents and students with information. Imposing more transparency into the process will require schools to answer to the consumer about the where their money is going, the choices that school is making, as well as their efforts to contain costs. In essence it becomes a team effort where the winners are the student. I believe in a balance of adequate education funding and fiscal constraint. Considering our current domestic and international responsibilities, I believe the House Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act represents a delicate balance between increased funding for all federal education programs and fiscal restraint. I supported these levels when they passed the House in July and I support them again today.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report on the National Defense Authorization Act. It was a pleasure to serve as an outside conferee to H.R. 1588 for education provisions that will benefit our nation's military, schools and students across the world. In addition to Impact Aid, H.R. 1588 provides additional assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) that benefit dependents of members of the Armed Services and Department of Defense civilian employees. $30 million is authorized to be used as general revenue by LEAs that are impacted by the presence of military installations. Every Member recognizes the importance of funding for special education. H.R. 1588 recognizes that the Department of Defense also has a role in helping school districts provide these necessary services. The conference report makes available $5 million from the Department of Defense's budget to help school districts provide special education services to children with severe disabilities who have a parent who is on active duty in the uniformed services or who is a foreign military officer. Now more than ever our military families rely on Department of Defense schools overseas. H.R. 1588 expands the eligibility for space- available, tuition-free attendance at Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DODDS) overseas to the dependents of mobilized reservists who are called to active duty and whose overseas tour is voluntarily or involuntarily extended beyond one year. Current admissions policy permits the dependents of reservists called to active duty from an overseas location to enroll in DODDS on a space-available, tuition-free basis, but denies such admission to reservists mobilized from the continental United States. As the number of reservists deployed overseas continues to increase, it is imperative that we recognize the needs of these men and women as well as the educational needs of their children. Finally, today's Conference Report recognizes the future needs of our military. H.R. 1588 enables the Secretary of Defense to develop a more comprehensive and attractive array of educational programs in science, mathematics and engineering. Educational programs in technical fields will help to train the next generation of scientists, engineers, and technical entrepreneurs, all of whom may contribute to the future technological superiority of our military forces. Congress and the American people support our brave military for their commitment and their sacrifice. The recent war in Iraq shows the importance of preparation and equipment for our military as they work to defend freedom and liberty across the globe. In addition to these vital education provisions, the Conference Report to be passed today will provide the necessary resources and training for our troops at home and abroad.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it would be disingenuous, and plain false, for anyone to suggest that this Congress has not been dedicated to the needs of our nation's special education students. In the past year we have recognized the importance reform has on the program when we reauthorized IDEA. Rather than to throw money at IDEA this body passed a reauthorization bill that will enhance efficiencies ultimately resulting in increased services for special education students. In the past year we have also voted to increase funding for IDEA, at a record level. There should be no doubt that this Congress is consistently focused on the needs of these students. In the past eight years we have more than tripled funding for special education. In 1975 the Congress said it would pay 40 percent of the per pupil cost to educate special education students. We are making great strides toward meeting the 40-percent goal. Since 1996 we have increased this contribution from 7.3 percent to almost 20 percent this year. We all deserve to be proud of this and we all should be dedicated to continuing this progress. Having said that, we must not forget that we have also seen historic increases in funding for all of our education programs. Last week we passed a motion to support funding increases for programs under the No Child Left Behind Act and today we could potentially be taking those away. Look at the big picture. For fiscal year 2004, with the guidance of Chairman Regula, this House is continuing our efforts in providing unprecedented increases for No Child Left Behind, Head Start, Higher Education and especially IDEA. This year's $1 billion increase for IDEA represents the single largest dollar increases in the bill and one of the largest funding increases for IDEA ever. This Congress and this Administration are without a doubt dedicated to all students. I have always prioritized adequate funding for education programs as well as fiscal conservatism. Given other expenses we have across the country and the world, I believe the House Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act represents a delicate balance between increased funding for federal education programs and fiscal restraint. I encourage Members, on both sides of the aisle, to take an unbiased and honest look at what we are doing for students, and particularly our special education students.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, we all have heard the impressive statistics regarding the education funding increases that this Congress and Administration have provided over the past two years. No one can legitimately refute the fact that each year we provide historic increases that are necessary for states and schools across the country. As someone who worked closely with the Administration and the Committee when Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, I have remained committed to following its implementation as well as the funding levels. I have always argued that we should make fundamental reforms to our federal programs before throwing money at them. No Child Left Behind is inciting those reforms and states, school districts, teachers, students and parents across the country are answering the call. I think we all can agree that change is difficult and that No Child Left Behind reflects that. It is forcing all of us, as a nation, to have an important dialogue about education. A discussion that is being followed by action and dedication to success. It is for these reasons that I believe we are justified in continuing to push for and appropriate increased funding for our education programs. The people on the ground deserve it. I have always prioritized adequate funding for education programs as well as fiscal conservatism. Given other expenses we have across the country and the world, I believe the House Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act represents a delicate balance between increased funding for federal education programs and fiscal restraint. I support the motion to instruct, however, because all of these education programs deserve to have the highest funding levels possible. Any additional available funding should go to our students.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support bipartisan legislation that extends certain child nutrition provisions through March 31 of 2004. This extension is vital to ensure that low-income children have access to safe and nutritious food in school, after school, and during the summer months. Members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce in the House and of the Committee on Agriculture in the Senate are busy preparing legislation to reauthorize and improve all the child nutrition programs included in the Child Nutrition and the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch acts. Included in these acts are: the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, WIC, and the Child and Adult Care Food, After School Snack, and Summer Food Service Programs. These programs are a critical part of our Nation's effort to ensure that needy children in America do not go hungry. I have been pleased with the progress made in preparing a reauthorization bill for introduction. Despite our progress, however, committee members do not want to draft such important legislation in haste and so need additional time to ensure that any changes to the current law best serve the interests of the children whom these programs are intended to reach. The extensions included in this legislation can assure us that millions of needy children will not lose access to meals and snacks that are needed for their healthy growth and development and academic success in school. Millions of children, including many whose mothers and fathers serve in America's armed services, rely on these programs each day. Without this legislation, many children who reside with their parents in privatized military housing would lose the benefit of free or reduced- price school meals. In Delaware, approximately 250 children will benefit from this extension, and up to 100,000 children nationwide. Taking these subsidies from children when many of their mothers and fathers are fighting for our Nation's security at home and abroad would have a devastating effect on these families. This legislation also would continue the availability of healthy meals and snacks to low-income children enrolled in for-profit child care centers. Additionally, this legislation would allow schools, churches, and community organizations to operate Summer Food Service Program sites and in 14 States to continue special pilot programs that reduce paperwork and thereby increase the number of disadvantaged children who receive free meals and snacks during the summer months. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few reasons why H.R. 3232 should be approved today with unanimous support. The child nutrition provisions that would be extended through this legislation benefit America's most vulnerable children. It is our duty as lawmakers to ensure that these at-risk children and their families can continue to receive the benefits for which they have been deemed eligible until the Congress can complete its work on legislation reauthorizing both the Child Nutrition Act and the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. I conclude by asking my fellow colleagues to please join me in support of H.R. 3232. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3232.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently to the speakers here today. We are all concerned about getting the reauthorization of these programs done correctly, and that is going to take some final work, but all of us, I am sure, are in total agreement of the significance and importance of the programs, and, hopefully, when all is said and done, in 6 months we will be able to do that. For now, it is essential that we pass H.R. 3232.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3232) to reauthorize certain school lunch and child nutrition programs for fiscal year 2004, as amended.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.