Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, to authorize extension of permanent normal trade relations [PNTR] to the People's Republic of China [PRC]. I do so because, fundamentally, I believe that extending PNTR to the PRC is in the United States' short- term and long-term national interest. Our economic interests and our democratic values necessitate extending PNTR to the PRC. Extending PNTR to the PRC is in our national interest because extending PNTR is a necessary precondition for United States companies to enjoy the full advantages of China's entry into the World Trade Organization [WTO] and the fruits of thirteen years of difficult bilateral negotiations between the PRC and the United States. For my State of Delaware, this bilateral agreement opens perhaps the most important emerging market to our exports, benefitting key industries and creating export and employment opportunities. Extending PNTR to the PRC would significantly benefit Delaware's key export sectors, including agriculture, poultry, insurance, financial, and chemical products. According to the United States Department of Commerce, Delaware's merchandise export sales to China in 1998 totaled $69 million, up 17 percent from $59 million in 1993, and China ranked as Delaware's 16th largest export destination in 1998. Delaware's exports to China are becoming more diversified, with 1998 exports encompassing 17 different product categories, up from 12 product sectors in 1993. In twelve of these product sectors, exports from Delaware to China more than doubled from 1993 to 1998. I believe those who claim that the PRC will benefit more from receiving PNTR with the United States are mistaken. The United States will greatly benefit from PNTR with China, because currently the United States market is already open to Chinese exports. To join the WTO and receive PNTR, China must make all the concessions--opening its markets, eliminating barriers, and implementing comprehensive trade and investment reforms. As a result, the terms for Chinese WTO membership represent an extraordinary breakthrough for Delaware workers, farmers, and consumers. Delaware clearly will have expanded opportunities to extend its exports to Chinese markets, and ensuring that China adhere to global trade rules is in Delaware's strong interests. Because China has received Normal Trade Relations under United States law annually since 1980, United States tariffs would remain exactly the same if PNTR is approved. In contrast, failure by Congress to extend PNTR would squander 14 years of negotiations, invite the unraveling of China's extensive WTO commitments and shut American companies and farmers out of the world's biggest emergency market for years to come. The stakes involved are high. Trade is much more than the sale of U.S. goods and services. It is also an exchange of ideas, beliefs, and values that changes and enriches all who participate. When we trade with China and bring it into the integrated global trading arena, we are in a strong sense exporting our American democratic values, beliefs and practices. To be sure, there are real hurdles that China faces with our relationship with it, but engaging and enveloping and integrating China into ``the world of trade'' is tremendously important. We realize that implementing the agreements associated with PNTR will be slow and difficult, but Chinese government leaders and economists hope the process of normalizing trade with the United States will help close inefficient state enterprises that employ a great number of Chinese, and help reduce government censorship. Like most Americans, I continue to be concerned that despite the positive influence trade with the United States has had on China's development toward more open, liberalized trade policies, serious human rights, trade, security, and weapons proliferation issues remain. Though sometimes it seems difficult to see how these things have improved, I would observe the following: the number of international religious missions operating openly in China has grown rapidly in recent years. Today, these groups provide educational, humanitarian, medical, and development assistance in communities across China. Despite continued, documented acts of government oppression, people in China nonetheless can worship, participate in communities of faith, and move about the country much more freely today than was even imaginable twenty years ago. Today, people can communicate with each other and the outside world much more easily and with much less government interference through the tools of business and trade: telephones, cell phones, faxes and e-mail. On balance, foreign investment has introduced positive new labor practices into the Chinese workplace, stimulating growing aspirations for labor and human rights among Chinese workers. Nevertheless, we must continue to work to improve human rights and expand freedom in China. I have voted for legislation which overwhelmingly passed the House that voiced my strong disapproval of China's actions and policies. We can and must continue to place pressure on China without punishing American businesses and farmers. I have voted to direct House committees to hold hearings and report appropriate legislation to the House addressing U.S. concerns with China's trade practices, human rights record, military policy, and promotion of weapons proliferation. I do not believe that the annual congressional debate, linking justifiable concern for human rights and religious freedom in China to the threat of unilateral United States trade sanctions has been productive. Some will say, the debate on the problems we have with China will end if we extend PNTR to China. To those I say, the debate will never end, and the pressure will never cease until China demonstrates a commitment to a freer and democratic nation. Indeed, by extending PNTR to China, the pressure on China to address our concerns may prove to be even greater and more consistent. Clearly, the Chinese Government has a long way to go, and the positive developments we seek will no doubt come about gradually. The issue now before the House of Representatives is how to best encourage China to respect international norms of behavior in all areas, and what can the United States government do that will best advance human rights and religious freedom for the people of China. Are conditions more likely to improve through isolation and containment, or through opening trade, investment, and exchange between peoples? The answer is clear to me. I believe the best way to encourage the type of behavior we desire is through policies that promote the rule of law, free trade, economic reform, and democratization in China, for these are the seeds from which democracy can grow. Therefore, I believe the U.S. should continue to pursue our historic and longstanding policy of ``engagement,'' rather than containment, with China, based on the premise that the United States will be best able to influence the growth of democracy and market-oriented policies in China through enhanced diplomatic and trade ties, which over time will hopefully bring improvements in human rights and economic conditions. The Chinese government in much more likely to develop the rule of law and observe international norms of behavior if it is recognized by the U.S. government as an equal, responsible partner within the globalized trading community of nations. History has shown that when people are empowered economically, they also become empowered politically. Economic freedom precipitates political freedom. China's citizens will come to have greater choice about their lifestyles and employment and to enjoy enhanced access to communication and information from the United States. The longer China's trade is governed by the rule of law and is transparent, the quicker they will assimilate into the global system of trade, and raise their standard of living. U.S. private enterprises trading with Chinese private enterprises will help change the status quo between our nations better than any diplomatic agreements we may enter into. As noted earlier, although I am dissatisfied with some of China's recent actions, I am convinced we still need to maintain mechanisms for engagement, and a functioning, bilateral trade relationship provides a framework for helping to restore our long-term interests in China. Human rights must not be violated, and the U.S. will not trade with people who do not provide their own citizens basic human rights and decencies. However, I believe that entering into PNTR is in our national interest, and that not going forward with it would undermine any competitiveness we have with China, while it itself enjoys all the advantages that PNTR provides with every other of the 133 WTO member-nations. China must adopt free and fair trade practices, and we should help facilitate that as much as we can, without sacrificing our values. This legislation includes important authority to allow the Congress to monitor China's compliance with this agreement. This includes a process which would begin with an annual report from the U.S. Trade Representative, followed by hearings on Chinese trade practices. Congressional panels could then instruct our trade representative to investigate any trade violation and pursue a resolution through the WTO, the 135-member body that sets the rules for international trade. Also included in this legislation is the establishment of a congressional-executive commission that would pressure China to improve its record on human rights, labor, and rule of law, providing for enhanced monitoring of China's conduct in areas from trade to human rights, as well as efforts to make labor rights a higher priority in U.S. trade policy. China is at a turning point in its history. A yes vote on normal trade can help propel it forward to greater liberalization and engagement with the West. A no vote will encourage Chinese hard-liners to resist change, and even be perceived in China as a vote for confrontation. It will weaken those who work for change, and strengthen those who oppose it at any cost. Our choice is clear. We can try to push China in the right direction, and gain the benefits, or, we can force them in the wrong direction, and pay a price. But standing for freedom, democracy, human rights, security and peace, we must extend Permanent Normal Trade Relations to the People's Republic of China today.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in very strong support of H.R. 4392, which is the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) are to be commended for the outstanding leadership they have provided for the intelligence community during these difficult times. In a strong decisive and bipartisan sense, they have, I think, been wonderful leaders and supported by a staff which exhibits the exact same characteristics, and those who also serve on it also appreciate it. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, I understand the critical need to invest in and modernize our technical intelligence and intelligence-related systems. Unfortunately, investment in our infrastructure has declined over the years, and we have reached the point where the strains are showing through. Over the past year, news headlines have told us the story over and over again, reminding us of the grave consequences of reduced funding to our intelligence capabilities. Here are a few that made it into the press: Outdated databases at the Defense Intelligence Agency led to the accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy; major computer systems failures at the National Security Agency; and outdated systems at the National Imagery and Mapping Agency reduced the levels of support to key consumers of intelligence. These events are stark indications of the condition of the community's basic infrastructure and testimony to the need for revitalization. This year's Authorization Act begins to address these substantial problems, but we understand providing the country with the capabilities it deserves and needs will take years and will require continued and unwavering support from Congress. Simply fixing today's headline problems of outdated and broken systems does not position our Nation well to manage the diverse challenges of the future. Our President must have sufficient capabilities and tools to support his policies to enable strong leadership and proactive diplomacy and to assure our military maintains a significant advantage over its adversaries, if, and when, needed. In order to continue to provide this country the intelligence required, the intelligence community must modernize its infrastructure, and this year's Authorization Act appropriately supports several community initiatives to address this very important issue. I am also pleased that we have incorporated a provision into this year's act to address an ongoing concern within the National Reconnaissance Office and their launch program. This was the outcome of a number of hearings and briefings in my subcommittee. Specifically, the NRO has a long history of overestimating the costs of launches. Our committee has been challenged to bring about appropriate discipline in this process in the past because of the confusing morass of contracts and relationships used by the NRO. A recently completed NRO Inspectors General report confirmed and intensified our concerns. This provision will improve our ability to hold the NRO accountable for their activities and lead to significant savings for the government and American people. Mr. Chairman, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 is a responsible, reasonable and appropriate request to fund our Nation's national security needs. Our President, our policymakers, our military and the People of the United States deserve nothing less, and I ask the Members of the House to give it their full support.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in total support of the rule which I think allows amendments, some of which I will support, some of which I will not, but really in strong support of the legislation. I have been sitting here listening to this debate and it is sort of like inside baseball only it is inside Congress where we have various Members of Congress standing up and saying, well, this committee is going to have to give up jurisdiction or power to another committee, we have other people getting up and saying that the most likely things to always be reauthorized such as Medicare and veterans benefits and others may be threatened if we do away with this in 10 years, which is nonsense, that is never going to happen. My view is the public really does not care about this. What the public cares about is that we spend their money wisely. The public also cares greatly that we sit down with the President of the United States and that together, even though we are in different parties and have differences of opinion, which we should, that we sit down and we work out a budget process which is fiscally sound and which accommodates the problems that exist in the United States of America. They are not interested in the committee fights. They are not interested in the politics of Congress. They are not interested in the politics of Washington. They are interested in good spending of their money. Believe me, this legislation, this process, budget process reform legislation more than any legislation I have seen since I have been here incorporates, particularly with some of the amendments which are hopefully going to be addressed to it, the aspects of budgeting which would make a huge difference in terms of how we present ourselves to the public by making sure that the money we spend is not just for the district of a particular Member of Congress or committee or whatever it may be but in the best interests of the people of the United States of America. So I applaud all those people who put it together. I would like particularly to address just one aspect of it because I do not have unlimited time, and that is the emergency spending provisions. I have been pushing for this since I arrived in the Congress some 7 or 8 years ago now, because I am a strong believer that we should limit how we spend emergency spending. In 1994, we passed legislation to prevent nonemergency spending from being added to emergency spending bills. That sounded all well and good at the time. I thought it was a good act until I realized you can call anything an emergency here in the House of Representatives. What is the problem with emergency spending? The problem is it is completely unrestricted, it is very open-ended, there is no accountability for it. You do it on requests that come in from various sources, States, in the case of emergencies, military or whatever it may be. There are absolutely no limits. It is not counted against the other money which we have spent. We do not appropriate it. In spite of the fact they do that in virtually every State in this country, we do not do it in the Congress of the United States. This is extra money which is added to the debt that we have in this country. So as a matter of course, I think we are taking the wrong steps with respect to how we are handling emergency spending. How do we do this? We basically set forth in this legislation a sum of money equal to a 5-year rolling average, we set up a group which will look at that, will look at the emergencies as they come in, make the decisions, make sure that the appropriations are made through our regular appropriations process, not added to the debt and then they will do the accounting as that money is spent. It is pretty simple, it is a little more complex than that, but it is the way to go. It is a good bill, that is a good measure, it is something we should pass, it is bipartisan, and I hope we get a strong bipartisan vote in favor of the rule and the bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 309, expressing the sense of Congress with regard to in-school personal safety education programs for children. I introduced this resolution along with the founder and chairman of the House missing and exploited children's caucus, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), to help focus our attention on the important issue of child safety. I am sure we have all seen the posters, the fliers and the special news reports on children who have been abducted from their families or who have been otherwise harmed by the adults in their lives. In fact, in 1997, there were more than 84,000 confirmed cases of sexual abuse in the United States, and 90 percent of the children who were under 12 years knew their offender. And, according to the Department of Justice, there were nearly 114,000 nonfamily abductions just last year. I believe that these statistics point to the desperate need for comprehensive, age-appropriate safety programs to reduce the rate of victimization among our children. And because children can learn a great deal in the classroom about basics of personal safety, schools have increasingly become the center of our prevention efforts. Yet according to a recent survey, while nearly every primary and secondary school in the Nation conducts some sort of child safety education program, most programs are inadequate to actually prevent victimization and promote personal safety. For this reason, H. Con. Res. 309 does two things. First, it expresses the sense of Congress that States should encourage their primary and secondary schools to implement child safety curricula so that each child receives instruction that is positive, comprehensive and effective. Second, the resolution recognizes the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's guidelines for programs to reduce child victimization as one of the tools to guide the selection of quality child safety programs. I hold up a copy of this. This is as good and as substantive a document as I have read. I would encourage every office to get hold of a copy of that. As the Nation's preeminent resource for programs and materials to prevent child victimization, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is often asked to endorse specific programs and provide guidance to schools, community groups and individuals who are trying to choose among different child safety programs. Although the National Center does not endorse specific products or programs, they recently completed a comprehensive assessment of available education materials, and they have developed guidelines, as I have already shown, to help parents and educators identify and implement quality child safety programs. Their criteria was developed in collaboration with experts from the fields of education and law enforcement, and they are now supported by a number of organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and many others. I believe their products, the guidelines to reduce child victimization, is one way to help ensure that the child safety programs are locally designed, but that they are also effective in increasing our children's ability to recognize and avoid potentially dangerous situations. In closing, I hope all Members will join with me to support the National Center throughout the month of May and help us picture our lost children home. For these children, school-based safety programs may be too late, but we can take a few moments to view the pictures of missing children on the National Center's web site and return these children to their families' loving embrace. In the meantime, we can pass this resolution and encourage our schools and our educators to obtain the necessary tools to help our children avoid a similar fate. I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) again for his efforts and involvement with child safety issues, and I would encourage the adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. CASTLE

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

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 309) expressing the sense of the Congress with regard to in-school personal safety education programs for children.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution, H. Con. Res. 309.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say in final closing, I cannot thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) enough for his continuing work on this issue, not just this legislation, but he truly has been the stalwart in the task force dealing with an issue which, as he said, is as important to him as anything we are doing in Congress, and I think it is to everybody. Again, I would point out that this is a wonderful pamphlet, it is not a pamphlet, it is a little more than that, for anybody who has read it. It does not advertise any particular program, but it is a guideline for programs to reduce child victimization, a resource for communities when choosing a program to teach personal safety to children. I would encourage everybody to get a copy of this. You can contact any of the offices, I am sure, to get a copy of it. I think it is tremendously helpful to give to your schools back home.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the World Bank AIDS Marshall Plan Trust Fund Act, H.R. 3519. I have seen first hand the devastation that AIDS has had on Africa, and I firmly believe that the United States and the rest of the developed world must act now to end the suffering and hardship caused by this terrible disease. I cannot overstate my strong belief that H.R. 3519 is desperately needed legislation, and I am proud to be a cosponsor. Quite simply, passing this bill is the right thing to do. When I recently visited Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and South Africa, I was overwhelmed by the impact that AIDS was having, not only on those inflicted with the disease, but also on the thousands of orphans that the disease creates. In some countries, one-fifth to one-third of the children have already been orphaned by the disease. The AIDS epidemic presents us with an unprecedented humanitarian challenge. The numbers for Africa are numbing--more than 23 million adults and children currently infected with the virus and, to date, almost 14 million AIDS-related deaths. Infection rates in some countries are in the 20 to 26 percent range. In light of these statistics, the U.S. Surgeon General warns that AIDS will soon surpass the bubonic plague as the worst epidemic of infectious disease in recorded history. Of the 33.6 million AIDS cases worldwide, 70 percent are in Africa. While I can cite these statistics, it is impossible to find any words to describe the magnitude of the human suffering and what amounts to be the potential destruction of an entire continent, not to mention the harm to those countries beyond Africa's borders. H.R. 3519's call for an international response to the AIDS crisis in Africa is a reasonable step towards making sure that the people who need our help get it. While the United States alone cannot solve the AIDS crisis, it can provide leadership. Only the coordinated response of the developed world provides hope. In this regard, I was especially pleased to see last week that five of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies have agreed to drastically reduce the price that they charge in the world's poor countries. However, it is important to understand that the United States and the developed world will never be able to effectively deal with the pandemic without the cooperation of the governments in the countries affected. Of all of the provisions in H.R. 3519, one of its most important provisions is the one that establishes the priority for making trust fund grants. In directing funds to programs in countries at the most risk, the law will factor in a government's level of commitment to combating the AIDS epidemic in determining whether a program should receive trust fund money. As we have seen in countries such as Uganda and Senegal, active political support at the highest levels of government is essential to making sure the limited funds are not wasted. On this point, I emphasize with what I can only describe at total bewilderment the failure of some African leaders to face the AIDS epidemic. While we can provide financial support, the leadership and will to fight the epidemic must come from within Africa. Funds are too scarce and the magnitude of what we are facing too great to invest in programs that are destined to fail because they lack the necessary internal support. In closing, I want to thank Chairman Leach and Congressman LaFalce for their leadership on this bill. It is desperately needed, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding to me. I, too, rise in support of the legislation before us. I am a strong believer this is something we really should have done a long time ago at the Federal government level. It is something we should make the commitment to do now because we have to make up for lost time, and it really does free up other opportunities with respect to local and State spending. We need to understand that we at the Federal Government level only supply about 6 or 7 percent of all of the funding of education in this country. But every now and then, we mandate something. We have done that with children with disabilities. We have said that we have got to educate. The Supreme Court has come along and said, not only do we have to educate, but we have to provide some health services as well. This is extraordinarily expensive on a local basis; and as a result, we have an obligation, I think, to stand up and to do something about it. So for all these reasons, I rise in support of the legislation and what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) is doing, and hopefully this entire body will speak to it in a positive sense.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I, as a member of the Congressional Fire Service Caucus, honor and pay tribute to a leader in the firefighting community--Joseph Hojnicki of the Minquadale Fire Company. Joseph Hojnicki is an outstanding, dedicated and caring Delawarean with an abundance of accomplishments in this field. On behalf of myself and the citizens of the First State, I would like to honor this outstanding individual and extend to him our congratulations on being chosen Minquadale Fire Company's Member of the Century. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the volunteer fire service in Delaware. It has been my privilege to have had the opportunity on many occasions to speak about this institution on the floor of the House of Representatives. These unselfish men and women provide their communities with essential volunteer public service. The volunteer fire service is as old as our nation. Benjamin Frankin was our first volunteer fire chief. It is tradition in the volunteer fire service for these men and women to not seek praise for what they do as volunteer firefighters. However, it is my privilege to praise Joseph Hojnicki, a man who has devoted the better part of his life to the volunteer fire service. Today, I recognize Joseph Hojnicki of the Minquadale Delaware Fire Company. On Saturday, April 29, during the Seventy-fifth Annual Banquet of the Minquadale Fire Company, Joseph Hojnicki was named Member of the Century. He has provided more than 50 years of service to his community and the State of Delaware. He has done so in a manner that brings great distinction to the Minquadale community. Family, friends and fellow firefighters can now take a moment to truly appreciate the world of difference Joseph Hojnicki has brought to the firefighting community. He has served for many years as Fire Chief and then President of the Minquadale Fire Company. He later earned a statewide reputation in Delaware for his service as President of the New Castle County Volunteer Firemen's Association and the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association. Today, while past the age of seventy, Joseph Hojnicki continues to respond to fire service calls to protect his community. Joseph Hojnicki believes in young people. His firm yet friendly manner has influenced and encouraged young men and women to become involved in the fire service. For many it was an alternative to the street and possibly getting into trouble. Joseph Hojnicki's leadership and guiding hand helped create many fine firefighters and officers while he taught civic responsibility to two generations of Minquadale's youth. Mr. Speaker, with his wife Irene at his side, the Hojnicki family proudly and unselfishly contributes everyday to the quality of life at home in their community and our entire state. As Minquadale celebrates their Diamond Anniversary, I join with them as they honor and pay tribute to a man whom they have called their ``greatest member.'' His selfless commitment to the cause of volunteer firefighters will have a permanent place in Delaware's volunteer fire service history. I am proud to call Joseph Hojnicki my friend.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I fully support H.J. Res. 94, which calls for an amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting passage of tax increases without a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress, except in emergency cases such as a military conflict. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, I have voted for similar legislation in the past, and I remain committed to passing the strongest tax limitation amendment possible. Opponents claim, and will continue to claim, that constitutional amendments on taxing and spending make it harder to operate government as we know it. That is exactly the point--fiscal reality proves to us that we need an instrument, a tool, to control government spending and limit raising taxes. The Federal Government has run deficits for 56 of the last 66 years leading to a $5.4 trillion national debt. This is not a short-termed trend. It points to a fundamental flaw in the political system that makes a constitutional solution both necessary and appropriate. We need to pass H.J. Res. 94 to renew our commitment to fiscal discipline. Otherwise, irresponsible spending and higher federal taxes will continue to own us, cripple our economy and mortgage our children's future. Congress needs the legal and moral authority of a Constitutional amendment making it more difficult to raise taxes. This is not a radical idea as some have suggested. In fact, 14 states have enacted tax limitation measures. Since 1980, the state I represent, Delaware, has required a three-fifths vote to raise any tax. As a result, balanced budgets are the rule, not the exception, in Delaware. Yesterday, the House rejected the $116 billion in new taxes and fees proposed in President Clinton's FY2001 budget by a vote of 420 to 1. I believe that vote represents an endorsement of the idea that higher taxes are not needed when the Federal Government is operating a budget surplus. Today, we need to go the next step and make it more difficult to raise taxes anytime other than during a military emergency. I urge those same 420 members to support this resolution today.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman from California has been extremely positive in terms of her support as well as the support of everybody from that side of the aisle for this legislation. Everybody on this side of the aisle has supported this legislation. It is very simple. It just calls on local governments and States and the Federal Government to keep statistics on the number of infants abandoned in public places each year. We have heard a lot of stories as to why that should happen. It should happen. I would encourage everybody in the House of Representatives to not only support this legislation today but to make sure it is carried out in their home districts as well.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her support. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining on either side.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of the House of Representatives.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 465) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that local, State, and Federal governments should collect and disseminate statistics on the number of newborn babies abandoned in public places.