Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 168, a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Nation's schools should honor Native Americans for their contributions to American history, culture and education, offered by my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). As we all will recall, our Founding Fathers benefitted greatly from the assistance given to them by Indian tribes early in the establishment of our Nation. Many of the basic principles of democracy in our Constitution can be traced to practices and customs already in use by American Indian tribal governments, including the doctrines of free speech and the separation of powers. In addition, the early explorers relied heavily on Native Americans to help them navigate the New World. Among the most famous of these guides is Sacajewea, who accompanied Lewis and Clark on their expedition to explore and map the West, and who now graces the obverse side of the $1 coin. Native Americans also served with distinction in United States military actions for more than 200 years, beginning with the American Revolution. Specifically, Native Americans fought in the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and World War I. And during World War II, more than 44,000 Native Americans out of a total population of less than 350,000 served in both the European and Pacific theaters of war. In addition, another 40,000 Native Americans left their reservations to work in ordnance depots, factories, and other war industries. The Native Americans' strong sense of patriotism and courage emerged once again during the Vietnam era, when more than 42,000 Native Americans, more than 90 percent of them volunteers, fought in Vietnam. Native American service continues even today with many seeing action in Grenada, Panama, Somalia, and the Persian Gulf, often at rates that exceed the participation of any other single group of Americans. In fact, one out of every four Native American males is a military veteran, and many gave their lives even before they were granted citizenship in 1924. The list of contributions made to our Nation by Native Americans is truly impressive. They are recognized for their contributions as artists, sculptors, scientists and scholars, and their efforts have contributed to our understanding and appreciation of agriculture, medicine, music and art. In addition, many of the words in our language have been borrowed from Native languages, including the names of the rivers, cities and States across our Nation. In my home State of Delaware, the Nanticoke tribe of the eastern United States holds its annual powwow in Millsboro the first weekend after Labor Day, and thousands of people, Indians and others, attend to learn more about the Nanticoke and the Linni-Lenape, among others, who settled the Delaware River Valley from Cape Henlopen, Delaware north to the west side of the lower Hudson Valley in southern New York. As we celebrate the culture and contributions of our Native Americans, we must also recall with great sadness the suffering they endured as a result of past policies and actions. The heritage of the Native Americans is intertwined and forever linked with our own heritage, and it is appropriate to honor it today. Let us now work together with our schools and communities to help protect and support the perpetuation of Native American culture and community and vote ``yes'' on H. Res. 168. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H.R. 124) recognizing the importance of children in the United States and supporting the goals and ideas of American Youth Day.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 124, a resolution which recognizes the importance of children and supports the goals and ideals of American Youth Day, offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), my colleague. In the next 24 hours, 1,439 teens will attempt suicide; 2,795 teenage girls will become pregnant; 15,006 teens will use drugs for the first time; and 3,056 teens will run away. That is within a 1-day period. Without a doubt, teens cope, as we all did, with major physical changes, emotional ups and down, 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 violence and disease, often strike close to home. In this time of growth and uncertainty, I strongly believe that our children need a caring adult to help them resist negative influences and make positive life choices. America's Promise, the Alliance for Youth, is one organization which recognizes the importance of strong, positive relationships between young people and adults. Chaired by Secretary of State Colin Powell, America's Promise is based on five promises designed to help strengthen the character of our children and give them the opportunity to mature into successful and responsible adults. The promises are simple enough. They seek to ensure that every young person has an ongoing relationship with caring adults, but they also attempt to provide every child a safe place to go before and after school, a healthy start into the future, a quality education, and an opportunity to build their neighborhoods and schools through community services. Of course, a warm and caring family atmosphere is the most important factor in helping our young people resist negative influences, but researchers have found that many relationships are needed in a child's life. In fact, recent studies have demonstrated that youth who have relationships with older role models outside the family, such as teachers, coaches and neighbors, can help develop the broad spectrum of personal resources they need to become healthier and more caring adults. Like many States across the Nation, the number of single-parent and two working-parent families in my State of Delaware is increasing. As a result, there is a growing need for mentors and our mentoring programs, in cooperation with organizations like Big Brothers/Big Sisters and local businesses are organizing a campaign to ensure that every child in Delaware who wants a mentor gets a mentor. According to the Delaware youth who participated in these programs, having a mentor means having a trusted friend who cares about them, listens to them. Not surprisingly, children that have mentors or adults involved in their lives are 46 percent less likely to start using drugs, 27 percent less likely to start using alcohol, and 53 percent less likely to skip school. If we are to continue to enjoy unprecedented freedom and prosperity as a Nation, we need to look at our collective future through the eyes of our children, for they will be responsible for navigating the challenges and opportunities of the new century. Only through the encouragement, structure, and caring provided by parents, adults and organizations such as America's Promise can we help our children realize their potential and make the world a better place for us all. Mr. Speaker, this resolution rightly recognizes the importance of our children and the need for all Americans to mark American Youth Day through the formation of new relationships with the young people in their lives. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) for his resolution, and I urge an aye vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), the sponsor of the resolution.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), and wish to thank our earlier speaker, the sponsor of the bill, another gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) if he wishes to say anything further. He made an elegant statement already.

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was inspired by the message of the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) in his own circumstances, having been disabled early in his life. Anybody who is not inspired by Erik's story has never even climbed a hill much less a Mount Everest or Mount McKinley or some of the other mountains. But the stories of both of these gentlemen and what they have achieved while they are a symbol of what those with disabilities are able to achieve in this world today, also I think are a symbol of something else that I have seen certainly in my lifetime; and that is the improvement of opportunities for those who are disabled in America. I am not talking about just the curb cuts and the access to buildings and other facilities and amenities, all of which are of vital significance, and I am proud to say that the Congress of the United States and Washington in general has played a major part in that, but just the awareness of and in our society of what people with disabilities can achieve. At the very highest levels of governance, at the very highest level of corporate governance in athletic pursuits such as we see here, Special Olympics and other circumstances, we have seen so many individuals who have lighted the way for everybody else in terms of what they could do. It is a huge inspiration, not only to others who might indeed have some disabilities, but I think to all of us with the recognition that the great abilities that are there generally make up for and overcome the disability that may have been the root problem to begin with. I think for that we can all be thankful. We often talk about all the negativism out there, how things are worse in the world today. In my judgment, this is one area where things are much better. Erik is truly a hero and should truly be recognized and honored as such, and that is what we do in this resolution. For all these reasons, I believe this resolution is one that is deserving of the support of each of us here in the Congress of the United States. Hopefully sometime we will have an opportunity, after he returns and hugs his wife and child, to be able to meet Erik and to be able to congratulate him personally for all that he has achieved. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 150, a resolution in which we are honoring Erik Weihenmayer for his recent climb to the top of Mount Everest, and underscores the vast potential of individuals with disabilities. Mount Everest, towering 29,028 above sea level, is not only the highest mountain on Earth. The sudden storms, the freezing temperatures, and the brief window of opportunity afforded by the weather conditions make Everest a particularly hostile climbing environment. Although the mountain has been climbed many times since Sir Edmund Hillary first ascended the mountain in 1953, Erik is the first blind man to successfully climb and stand on the summit of Mount Everest. In addition to Mount Everest, Erik has accumulated quite an impressive list of achievements. He has climbed Mount McKinley, the highest point in North America, as well as many other challenging mountains. In fact, with the successful climb of Mount Everest, Erik has climbed the highest peaks on five continents. In the future, he hopes to build on these successes by conquering the highest mountains on all seven continents, a challenge that easily rivals Mount Everest. Besides mountaineering, this former schoolteacher turned motivational speaker is also a sky diver, skier, a long-distance biker, marathoner, a wrestler, a SCUBA diver, and an ice and rock climber. In all, Erik's story is about having the courage to reach for near impossible goals, and in so doing, he helps us to challenge social attitudes and misconceptions about individuals with disabilities. As Erik has said of his recent climb, ``The climb might shatter people's conceptions about blindness, which are often more limiting than the disability itself.'' For all these reasons, I am pleased to draw our attention to Erik's accomplishments. He is an outstanding example of what individuals with disabilities can accomplish. I congratulate Erik Weihenmayer on his incredible climb, and urge my colleagues to join me by voting aye on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 150) expressing the sense of Congress that Erik Weihenmayer's achievement of becoming the first blind person to climb Mount Everest demonstrates the abilities and potential of all blind people and other individuals with disabilities.

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 House Concurrent Resolution 150.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the wonderful coach himself, for yielding me this time. I also want to particularly thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for putting this work together. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in very strong support of H. Con. Res. 100, a resolution commending the American Football Coaches Association and others for their efforts in helping to recover our Nation's missing, kidnapped, and runaway children. According to recent data, an estimated 3,200 to 4,600 short-term, nonfamily abductions are reported in law enforcement each year. Of these, an estimated 200 to 300 are stereotypical kidnappings where a child is gone overnight, killed, or transported a distance of 50 miles or more. For these reasons, the first 48 hours following the disappearance of a child are the most critical in terms of finding and returning that child safely, and the child's descriptive information, including height, weight, and eye and hair color, and an updated photograph are the most important tools a parent has to bring their missing child home. Far too often, though, the search for missing children is slowed by an incomplete physical description and outdated photographs. For this reason, the American Football Coaches Association, in conjunction with Clear Channel Communications, has proudly sponsored the National Child Identification Program, a community service project which distributes free child ID kits at community events. These child ID kits help ensure that families have updated pictures, fingerprints and a complete physical description of their child in the event of an emergency. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, current photographs and physical descriptions help return 1 out of 7 featured children, often as a result of tips received from members of the public who have recognized the missing child and then notified the authorities. Under the leadership of the American Football Coaches Association, I am especially pleased to report that Delaware State University and many other colleges and universities have handed out millions of child ID kits at college football games and other athletic events across the country. In closing, I want to commend the gentleman for his resolution and, again, commend the American Football Coaches Association and the many others who have made it their mission to help ensure the mission of safety of our children. It is my experience that being prepared for the worst possible scenario and possessing the necessary tools to help prevent a greater tragedy makes a world of difference to parents and children in a time of crisis. For all these reasons, I urge an aye vote on this resolution.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his amendment, and for yielding time to me. One of the chronic complaints we hear about public education is a lack of discipline. In fact, I hear more about that than any other single issue from our public schools today, and the concerns expressed by teachers that they might be sued if they attempt to discipline students. In fact, their concerns are not unfounded. Thirty-one percent of all high schools have faced lawsuits or out-of-court settlements in the past 2 years. Teachers are not only wary of intervening physically in student confrontations, but there are times when teachers have to make judgment calls about disciplining a child whose behavior is distracting rather than dangerous. Some teachers err, frankly, on the side of leniency. The result has been a steady erosion of the teachers' ability to maintain order in the classroom. This addresses this problem by freeing teachers, principals, and school board members from meritless Federal lawsuits when they enforce reasonable rules. The amendment language is very modest and narrowly tailored. The amendment only deals with Federal causes of action that might be brought against teachers or principals who act in a reasonable way to maintain order and discipline in the classroom. There is absolutely no protection for reckless or criminal misconduct. Also, the amendment does not protect teachers when they violate State or local law. For instance, the teacher immunity provided under this amendment would not override State law towards claims such as negligence, assault, or battery as they are governed by State law. I strongly believe school officials must be protected if we are serious about helping them maintain a school environment where teachers can teach and students can learn. I urge an aye vote on the amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant but very strong opposition to this amendment. This legislation as it stands right now with the amendments in it has as much flexibility as one could possibly handle probably for years to come. In addition to the education flexibility that we passed last year, we have great consolidation of a lot of the programs that exist at the Federal level into one block grant-type program. We do have the local Straight A's or the local flexibility, if you will, which allows each district without permission from anybody to transfer up to 50 percent of their funds as long as it is not in title I. They can transfer into title I all of the Federal funds; that is tremendous flexibility. That is the best we can possibly do with respect to that. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) and I had an amendment yesterday which passed which allows 100 school districts to apply to the Secretary to waive statutory requirements and consolidate certain program funds at the local level. This is unprecedented flexibility. The problem with going from 50 percent to 75 percent is that this percentage, the original percentage reflects our shared desire to ensure that the funds that we have remain available to some extent to carry out the program requirements as they are not waived by the flexibility program. Mr. Chairman, I am just afraid if we go above 50 percent, it is going to be impossible to do this. So I believe that with all the flexibility that has been entered into this legislation, and it really truly is unprecedented, that we have gone far enough. I am reluctant to oppose it, because of the distinguished record of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) sponsoring it, but the bottom line is that the flexibility is there, it is what we should do. I would encourage all of us to oppose the amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I think this is an excellent amendment. I think it is important that we understand that this whole legislation and what we do at the Federal Government is basically aimed at helping children who are having problems, who are disadvantaged in some way or another. By disaggregating this information, as this amendment does, we really do that. By making it simpler, as this amendment does, we make sure the parents, schools, and students themselves understand exactly what is expected, what they have achieved, and where we are going in the direction of education. That is what it is all about. Having a rising tide will help all children. I think this amendment does it. I compliment the sponsor of it.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), the sponsor of the amendment, for yielding the time to me. Mr. Chairman, I join in support of it. Before I speak to that, I would like to point out something which is very important. We are actually talking about an amendment to something else that was really created by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), who is here on the floor right now, and various others, which is something called local Straight A's, which we have never had before. I think it is very important that all of us understand what we are dealing with here, because I think local Straight A's was actually an ingenious concept to really introduce flexibility in the use of Federal dollars with respect to State and local governments which so many of us have talked about for so long. First of all, it is open to all districts and States, local flexibility. Secondly, it is automatic flexibility. You can do it, you do not have to get approval. You just go about doing it. You can transfer up to 50 percent of the funds in any of the various Federal programs with the exception of title I. Money can only be transferred into title I, and you still must meet the program requirements. You can transfer up to 50 percent of the money and it coexists with other proposals, such as education flexibility. It is something that virtually all of us in the committee, once it was shaped, agreed upon as something which is a vast improvement to what we have now. I would hope that all of us in this Congress would understand that and would support it. Mr. Chairman, turning to the program at hand, which is, for lack of a better term, superlocal flexibility, this is an extension beyond that. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) has very carefully thought this out and deserves a lot of credit for it. And my colleagues heard the description of it here. But there are certain things we need to understand. First of all, this is a pilot program which can only apply to 100 districts in 50 States, no more than two per State across our country. So we are not dealing with all the States. Second, this program, unlike the local flexibility, would be subject to the approval of the Secretary. So you would have to enter into an agreement with the Secretary in order to make sure that you are carrying out your educational purposes correctly. Next, the school district would have to make adequate, clear progress or they cannot apply for this. So they would have to be able to demonstrate that. It does include a variety of programs, the Teachers Program in title II; the title IV(A), block grant; the title V (A), safe and drug free schools; the technology programs and certain of the bilingual programs. But the title I accountability remains and is still part of the underlying concepts of what every school district has to do. The schools must meet the general purposes of the program. I believe, because of the limitation on it, it is a pilot program, because of the Secretarial approval, because title I is still protected, that giving this extension to those schools who feel they can go this far, and I am not sure there are that many who feel they can, but up to these 100 districts is worthwhile. I happen to believe in pilot programs when I think it can extend the good purpose of what we are trying to do in education. I believe that is a concept that is embodied in the super-local flexibility program which we have here before us. Remember, no school has to participate. So I would encourage everyone to look at it to consider supporting it, hopefully supporting it, and joining in giving us more flexibility as we give more money back to the State and local education areas.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his kind introduction, and I thank everyone who worked on this bill; of course, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), but also including the staff. They have done tremendous work here. This week, the House takes the next step toward the enactment of H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, our best effort to navigate the philosophical differences between our parties and realize our shared vision of a better future for all children. Prior to 1965, many poor and minority students were denied access to a quality education. In effect, this country had a two-tiered educational system, one with low expectations for poor and minority students and high expectations for others. Then Washington got involved. Now, after 35 years and more than $130 billion of well-intentioned Washington spending, we have yet to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers. We have allowed ourselves to believe that some children are simply beyond our reach. As a result, this Nation has suffered. Today, with the consideration of H.R. 1, we have rededicated ourselves to the notion that all children can learn, and we begin the reforms to ensure that no child is limited by a high school education that does not provide him or her with the necessary skills to read and write well. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 fundamentally changes our system of education to enhance accountability and focus on student achievement. It increases flexibility, expands options for parents, and ensures that all reforms are tested by scientific research. Specifically, H.R. 1 builds on the 1994 authorization, focusing on what will be taught and what should be learned at the State and local levels, and it asks schools to demonstrate their ability to drive student results by measuring how well or poorly students perform from one year to the next in reading and math. Although the bill is careful to preserve a State's ability to design or select its own standards and assessments, the data required by H.R. 1 will help parents, teachers, and other school personnel intervene as soon as a student begins to falter, not after several years of failure. This is essential. As Lisa Graham Keegan, superintendent of Arizona Public Schools, testified before my subcommittee, these tests are not a punishment for students, teachers, or even the school, they are assessment tools. Without them, we simply cannot measure progress and we cannot have accountability. Yet, some have raised concerns about the tests in their own States. To the extent there are problems such as low standards and cheating, they should be addressed. That said, I firmly believe that these concerns should not call into question the need to measure progress. I hope we will focus on our attention on how best to use these tests to enhance student achievement. H.R. 1 also requires each State to sample students in fourth and eighth grade with the National Assessment for Education Progress, or another independent test of the State's choosing, to confirm the results of the State's assessments. Since the standards and assessments are developed at the State level, I believe a national measure is critical to help the public monitor the quality of standards and assessments in various States. Currently, NAEP is the only test that will allow comparison between States and student groups, and is the best barometer of student achievement. Most Members of Congress use NAEP data to demonstrate our Nation's education failures. While I feel the need to preserve the balance of the agreement, I hope to work with my colleagues to better inform them about NAEP and to ensure that we do not inadvertently promote low standards students with other independent assessments. Let me state unequivocally that any effort to strike or weaken the test provisions of the H.R. 1 would play into the hands of the keepers of the status quo, effectively preserving a failed system that does not ask if children are learning. A vote against testing would strike at the heart of President Bush's accountability system. I urge all Members to oppose any such amendment. H.R. 1 also seeks to address the current lack of accountability for education failure. For our public schools, wherein 90 percent of our children are educated, we provide Federal dollars and technical support as soon as they begin to fail. Yet, after time and assistance, H.R. 1 recognizes that some schools, by virtue of mismanagement or chronic neglect, have not only failed to increase student achievement but have actually retarded educational progress. For these schools, we require a substantial restructuring. More importantly, we give the children a chance to learn by allowing them to immediately transfer to another, better-performing public or charter school. In addition, we allow students to take their share of Title I dollars to a private entity for tutoring or remediation services to ensure that they get the help that they need. Finally, H.R. 1 grants new flexibility to States and local school districts, and vests additional power in the hands of practitioners, not bureaucrats. I urge everyone to support this legislation and to oppose the testing amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and I thank the President of the United States because they have come up with a plan which might finally change education and improve education opportunities for kids in our country. One of the sponsors of this bill, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), has said earlier the rule will allow us to vote on amendments which will restore the President's plan. This will gut the President's plan. This amendment would absolutely gut, go to the very heart of what the President is trying to do. For 35 years, we in the Federal Government have tried, with a lot of money, to help kids, particularly lower-income kids, because that is the obligation which we have assumed, to be able to be educated better. It is fairly flat-lined, as far as that improvement is concerned, and we have to do something different in order to do this. To do that, we do need to have the standards and the assessments, and part of the assessments is the testing. And that is something we absolutely need to go forward with. Annual testing will produce more accurate and timely disaggregated data to determine not just overall progress, but progress in narrowing the stubbornly persistent achievement gap between all students. Tests do put pressure on children to perform. We all understand that. We went through it. But I also believe it is important to identify academic weaknesses early. This allows teachers and parents to intervene in a timely manner. That has not happened before. After all, we are not focusing on input, such as books or paperwork, but the result, real student learning, and that is what education is all about. Without annual tests, student achievement data will not be comparable from year to year, the value added by a school or teacher will be hard to calculate, and the State-wide reporting of results, including results by race and income, will be unworkable. The entire system of accountability will be undermined. If we are serious about education reform, we need to know the unvarnished facts about where our children stand against standards, and we need to help diagnose problems and design remedies to improve student achievement. While nothing will give us an ironclad guarantee for success, one thing is certain, more of the same will guarantee more of the same failure. And that is exactly what the Hoekstra-Frank amendment gives us. We all should oppose this amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2001.'' This legislation removes a barrier which has prevented some organizations from donating surplus fire fighting equipment to needy volunteer fire departments. Under current law, the threat of civil liability has caused some organizations to destroy fire equipment, rather than donating it to volunteer, rural and other financially-strapped departments. We know that every day, across the United States, firefighters respond to calls for help. We are grateful that these brave men and women work to save our lives and protect our homes and businesses. We presume that these firefighters work in departments which have the latest and best firefighting and protective equipment. What we must recognize is that there are an estimated 30,000 firefighters who risk their lives daily due to a lack of basic Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). In both rural and urban fire departments, limited budgets make it difficult to purchase more than fuel and minimum maintenance. There is not enough money to buy new equipment. At the same time, certain industries are constantly improving and updating the fire protection equipment to take advantage of new, state-of-the-art innovation. Sometimes, the surplus equipment may be almost new or has never been used to put out a single fire. Sadly, the threat of civil liability causes many organizations to destroy, rather than donate, millions of dollars of quality fire equipment. Not only do volunteer fire departments provide an indispensable service, some estimates indicate that the nearly 800,000 volunteer firefighters nationwide save state and local governments $36.8 billion a year. While volunteering to fight fires, these same, selfless individuals are asked to raise funds to pay for new equipment. Bake sales, pot luck dinners, and raffles consume valuable time that could be better spent training to respond to emergencies. All this, while surplus equipment is being destroyed. In states that have removed liability barriers, such as Texas, volunteer fire companies have received millions of dollars in quality fire fighting equipment. The generosity and good will of private entities donating surplus fire equipment to volunteer fire companies are well received by the firefighters and the communities. The donated fire equipment will undergo a safety inspection by the fire company to make sure firefighters and the public are safe. We can help solve this problem. Congress can respond to the needs of volunteer fire companies by removing civil liability barriers. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and look forward to working with the Judiciary Committee to bring this bill to the House Floor. This bill accomplishes this by raising the current liability standard from negligence to gross negligence.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me this time. And I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) who worked so hard on this. It was a pleasure working with him. And I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). I also thank the Members on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), whose interest in education is great, as well as gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and many others. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a good bill. I believe that President Bush deserves a tremendous amount of credit for his emphasis in terms of what he is doing in education. I will be the first to say if any one of us out of 435 had prepared this particular rule, we would have prepared it differently. This rule is a compromise rule, taking 135 amendments or so and trying to determine how we could best represent the interest of various Republican and Democrat parties in terms of bringing it to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I personally oppose a number of things in the rule. I would have liked to have seen them out of the rule. I think there are people who would have liked to see things in the rule that are not in the rule. I understand some of the opposition to it and I will oppose, as vehemently as any Member, certain aspects of this particular rule. Mr. Speaker, just to cite one, the amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) dealing with assessments absolutely guts the basic bill, and it is one that I would have a great deal of trouble with. But this is a rule. It is something that we have to move forward with. It is my determination that we should pass the rule, go on to the debate on the various amendments, and let them fall where they may. Mr. Speaker, why is this a good bill? It is a good bill because it is the first major piece of legislation in decades in this country, perhaps since the creation of the Department of Education, which essentially reevaluates the role of the Federal Government and makes a determination that we have to start at a very young age, particularly with kids in lower-income circumstances, and teach them how to read by the end of second grade. And in grades 3 through 8, we have to pay attention to how kids are doing. That is what the testing is all about, in order to give them the opportunity to determine if they are not doing as well as they should, and then providing for that opportunity. We do have some consolidation into block grants to give flexibility. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) was very helpful in creating local flexibility so that various people who are running the local districts could make decisions in terms of how to expend money at the local level. This gives the greatest flexibility of any legislation ever coming out of Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, essentially what the President and others have done, and this is a very bipartisan bill, is that they have sat down and made the decision that the ultimate goal here is to help kids with their education and where they are going. So even if you do not agree with everything that is allowed for in the rule, as I do not, I would still urge people to support the rule.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, on April 21-23, 2001 more than 1200 students from across the United States will be in Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. I am proud to announce that the class from Cape Henlopen High School from Lewes will represent the state of Delaware in this national event. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals and through their experience have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. I would like to recognize the participating students from Cape Henlopen High School: Matt Beebe, Caroline Boving, Kristin Cannatelli, Cassandra Class, Khara Conlon, Lauren Cooper, Laura Dillon, Megan Kee, Hillary Lord, Alieda Lynch, Chrissy Mulligan, Andrew Olenderski, Neeru Peri, Joe Pritchett, Heather Sweard, Sarah Sprague, Megan Sterling, Charli Tabler, and Erin Williams. I would also like to recognize their teacher, Jerry Peden, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the class. The class from Cape Henlopen High School is currently conducting research and preparing for the upcoming national competition in Washington, D.C. I wish them, and Mr. Peden, the very best of luck; they are all fine representatives of the First State.