Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of House Resolution 465, focusing our attention on the thousands of infants who are abandoned in this country every year. In November of 1996, two college freshmen, Brian Peterson and his girlfriend, Amy Grossberg, were charged in the death of their newborn son, found wrapped in plastic at a Dumpster near a Newark, Delaware motel. In June of 1998, the body of a 6-pound baby boy was found in a trash can at a Smyrna, Delaware car wash. The parents were never found. Today, two Virginia teens are fighting extradition to Delaware where their baby girl was found abandoned on the floor of a portable lavatory on a housing construction site in Bear, Delaware. This is my State of Delaware alone, the size of each of our 435 congressional districts by population. Recently, a writer sorted through 1,000 newspaper articles on infant murders between 1990 and 1999 and found 700 cases in which the mother killed her child. Of course, these were the cases where the murder was committed, the mother was found, and the story was reported in the newspaper. According to child welfare experts, States include infant abandonment with the abandonment of children of other ages in their records, so there are no specific figures on the number of newborns abandoned each year. Therefore, it is fitting that this resolution calls on localities, States, and the Federal Government to keep statistics on the number of infants abandoned in public places each year. With this data, we will have the ability to better assess the scope of this problem and then take steps to address it. In fact, after 13 infants were found abandoned in the Houston area, Texas became the first State to pass a law protecting parents who leave newborns in safe places. In fact, State Representative Geanie Morrison, from Victoria, Texas, who was the sponsor of this legislation breaking the ice on this subject, is here with us in the gallery. Many States, including my State of Delaware, are considering similar legislation designed to reduce the number of infant deaths. For more than a decade, April has been recognized as Child Abuse Prevention Month. During April, public and private agencies, community organizations, volunteers, and concerned citizens unite to highlight the problem of child abuse and to educate the public about how it can be prevented. Therefore, it is only fitting that the House of Representatives pass this resolution to focus the national attention on the problem of infant abandonment. I urge the adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller). (Mr. GARY MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his comments. I never knew I was a mentor until just now, but that is a nice thought too. This legislation, which both gentlemen from New York have worked on, in my judgment, is as good a piece of legislation as we have had on the floor this year for a variety of reasons. One is it is bipartisan. It is a piece of legislation which I think all of us are proud to be able to support and, hopefully, will get a great vote. Secondly, I think we all recognize that homeownership is the key element to stability in most families, and beyond families, a lot of individuals and a lot of others who want to live the American Dream. In this day of plenty it is pretty simple to think well, gee, homeownership is up, I think it is up to 67 percent now, and we do not have to worry about legislation such as this. But when we get behind the scenes and start to look at it, we start to see other problems. For example in U.S. News and World Report there is an article here, In an Age of Plenty a Search for Shelter, and this talks about Minneapolis, as I recall, and they have all kinds of problems with people in lower income circumstances being able to obtain housing. And that is what this bill addresses, and that is what the manager's amendment addresses as well. So I really congratulate those who have worked on this because they have really looked carefully at provisions which are essential to help with these problems. And indeed, when we look at those who are on more fixed-income circumstances, teachers, firefighters, or police officers, these are desirable neighbors in any kind of neighborhood. They are the kind of neighbors we want, but sometimes they do not have the means to acquire a home, and under this bill they would be able to do it. We have gone into various pockets of money which is available at the Federal Government level and said we are going to allow that to help with the acquisition of homes, which is something we should do. We have looked at State and local governments, as well as the Federal Government, and said there are barriers and regulations and we need to deal with those. So many good things have happened. We should support the manager's amendment, we should support the underlying legislation, but we should also continue, I think, the drive that we all have here now, that we feel here today, which is moving ahead with all aspects of looking at our public housing laws and other housing opportunities at the Federal Government level and giving people the opportunity for homeownership. With that, we will introduce all kinds of social improvement in this country. It is for that reason that I am highly supportive of the legislation, and I would encourage everybody to support the manager's amendment and the legislation and, hopefully, we can send it to the Senate and have it signed by the President.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I am in total agreement with this legislation and somewhat in disagreement with what the gentleman from Wisconsin is saying. I, first of all, applaud the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) for what he has done here. He has made us focus on this, not as something which happens if we do not appropriate the money but as an overt action by which we are segregating that money and saying we are now going to retire debt of the United States of America. My judgment is this is something that should have happened a long time ago. Unfortunately, I am not as enthusiastic about the underlying bill, which I think has some problems with it, including the President not making his case to the Congress on parts of it, and parts of it, in my judgment, not being an emergency process and probably better going through the normal appropriations process. But be that as it may, the Toomey effort is perhaps the most important aspect of this overall legislation. By reducing debt we limit our expenditures. Because that money cannot be brought back in some later supplemental appropriations bill to be spent if we reduce that debt now. That is why I think it is important to actually do this, and disagree with the gentleman from Wisconsin with respect to that. And that is what it does. Let us just remember that we are still spending, I think it is about 15 cents per dollar on the interest of the debt of the United States of America. Every time we reduce this debt, we slowly start to reduce that amount of our budget which is spent on interest each year because we had to borrow money. That is a very significant impact in being able to do the spending that we need to do later to help our military, to help those in need, and to help with other programs across the United States of America. For all these reasons the step we are taking here, which I consider to be a precedent, is an extraordinarily important precedent for steps that we can take in the future. And perhaps in the future, when we budget, when we appropriate, when we deal with issues involving finances of the United States of America, we can start by saying how much of the debt can we retire, and then figure out what it is that we have to expend. So for all these reasons I think this is a very beneficial, very precedent-setting piece of legislation. Again, I congratulate the sponsor of it, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and I hope he is the sponsor of 20 more of these in the next few years so we can continue to retire the debt of the country.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Child Support Fairness and Federal Tax Refund Interception Act of 2000.'' This legislation expands the eligibility of one of our most effective means of enforcing child support orders--intercepting the Federal tax refunds of parents delinquent in paying their court-ordered financial support for their children. Under current law, the Federal tax refund offset program operated by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is limited to cases where the child is either a minor or a disabled adult. It goes without saying that a parent who brings a child into this world is responsible for providing for that child's physical needs regardless of any conflict with the child's custodial parent. Last July, I received a letter from Lisa McCave of Wilmington, Delaware. She wanted to know where the justice was in the IRS allowing her husband to collect a $2,426 tax refund when he still owed her nearly $7,000 in back child support just because her son is no longer a minor and is not disabled. Since her son was three, Ms. McCave has had to work two jobs to make up for child support installments that were never paid. She has spent the better part of her time away from work tracking down her former husband, who has often quit his job as soon as his wages were garnished to repay this debt. Now, she is trying to pay off $55,000 in parent loans she incurred to send her son to college. Mr. Speaker, we all know the answer to Lisa McCave's question. Under the current law, there is no justice in limiting the eligibility for this tax intercept program to minors and disabled adults. The good news is that we can correct this injustice. Improving our child support enforcement programs is neither a Republican nor a Democrat issue--it is an issue that should concern all of us. According to recent government statistics, there are approximately 12 million active cases where a child support order requires a noncustodial parent to contribute towards the support of his/her child. Of the $13.7 billion owed pursuant to these orders in 1998, only half have been paid. Similar shortfalls in past years bring the combined delinquency total to $35.3 billion. I am confident we can all agree to fix this injustice in our Federal tax refund offset program and help some of our most needy constituents receive the financial relief they are owed. I would like to clarify for everyone's benefit that this legislation does not create a cause of action for a custodial parent to seek additional child support. The existing program merely helps custodial parents recover debt they are owed for a level of child support that was set by a court after both sides had the opportunity to present their arguments about the proper size of the child support. The Federal tax refund offset program is responsible for retrieving nearly one-third of all back child support collected. The time has come to make it a greater success. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and thank the Ways and Means Committee for its commitment to moving this bill to the House floor for debate in the near future.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I do support the Boehlert-Delahunt amendment to this. I support it in its own right. I support it if it guts the bill. I support it under any conditions because I oppose the bill quite simply. I find this amazing. Maybe the Democrats want to watch the NCAA for a couple of minutes while I talk, because I think I am aiming this mostly at Republicans until I heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). And that is that we are essentially mainstreaming this whole issue of land usage if there is any indication of a taking whatsoever to the Federal courts. Now, we are the party that has complained about lawyers. We are the party that has complained about courts. We are the party that has complained about Federal courts. I do not know what it is like in every other State in the United States of America, but in the State of Delaware, and I think this is probably true of almost all of our States, we have a lot of processes for handling local land-use issues. And there is a good reason for that. These are the people who know what to do with it. It is why they are so opposed to this legislation. They have handled it before. The elected officials there, the appointed officials there have hearings. They have expertise, they have knowledge, they have technical ability to be able to handle the matters which come before them with respect to large land-use planning, zoning decisions, and dealing with land in general. Our constituents, our neighbors have a right to be heard. Are they going to be heard by the Federal court judges who could care less about this issue, who do not want anything to do with this issue, who probably do not have a background in this issue, or do they want to be heard by people like us, their fellow elected officials and the other local people who are there? The answer is simple. They would prefer to have it done at the local level. What we have in place now at the local level with appeals to the State courts and then to the Federal court if indeed some of these violations take place is exactly what it should be. Let me just say this: Just the mere threat of going to the Federal court at some point by a large developer or by a large landowner is probably going to be enough in many cases to upset the apple cart altogether, and that too would be wrong. So it is for all these reasons that all this opposition exists. I hope all of us will listen to that. Vote for the Boehlert-Delahunt amendment and do not vote for this legislation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to my colleagues' attention National TRIO Day, celebrated on the last Saturday of February. The federal TRIO programs, which include Talent Search, Upward Bound, Student Support Services, Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement, Educational Opportunity Centers, Staff Development programs, and GEAR UP, were established to compliment student aid programs and help students overcome class, social and cultural barriers to higher education. As mandated by Congress, two-thirds of the students served must come from families with low incomes where neither parent graduated from college. Today, 2,000 colleges, universities and community agencies sponsor TRIO programs, and more than 780,000 students between the ages of 11 and 27 benefit from these services. In my state of Delaware, there are 15 TRIO programs, including those at Delaware State University, the University of Delaware, and Delaware Technical & Community College. TRIO programs at these schools serve nearly 3,000 Delawareans, and studies show that these students will be more likely to remain in college and earn an undergraduate degree than students from similar backgrounds who did not participate in TRIO. One of the beneficiaries of the Delaware TRIO programs is Jean-Marie Nixon. Ms. Nixon worked in hospitality management until a major industrial accident prevented her from returning to her old job. Ms. Nixon enrolled in classes at Delaware Technical & Community College and, with the help of the TRIO program, she graduated from her program with honors and is now an Instructional Tutor. Access and retention services are absolutely essential to help ensure equal educational opportunity for students like Ms. Nixon. I would like to encourage my colleagues to visit the TRIO programs in their districts and learn for themselves how valuable these programs are to our nation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 6, the ``Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000,'' and I urge that we continue to work toward enactment of bipartisan legislation that includes sensible tax relief and progress on reducing the national debt. Mr. Speaker, I have not been shy in expressing the need for debt reduction. I stand squarely behind conservative economists, such as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, in calling for debt reduction as the highest priority for managing our surplus. I think tax cuts are an important way of providing relief for working Americans, but reducing the debt is also essential for improving the economic well- being of all Americans. Reducing the national debt lowers interest rates on everything from student loans to mortgages to credit cards to business loans. It provides financial relief to a broad range of people without the need for a large bureaucracy at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to administer and enforce the financial relief, as tax cuts require. Relieving the national debt is also a matter of generational equity. I am convinced of the need to give future generations a fresh start in managing this country. Saddling them with more than $5 trillion in national debt handicaps their ability to provide for future needs. The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act also addresses an important equity issue--equal treatment of married couples. Under current law, dual income couples pay a higher share of taxes than single income couples with the same income. In addition, they pay a higher share of taxes than they would if they were both single. The primary reasons are because the 15 percent tax bracket and the standard deduction for married couples is not twice that of single earners. This creates a ``tax penalty'' for dual income married couples, including many working class families where both parents must work to make ends meet. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the average marriage penalty is almost $1400 a year. Between 1969 and 1995, the fraction of working-age couples in which both spouses earned income increased from 48 percent to 72 percent. In Delaware alone, there are 74,120 families that suffer from the marriage tax penalty. Republicans and Democrats alike agree that these statistics cry out for some level of relief. President Clinton proposed a $45 billion relief package. House Democrats proposed a limited $89 billion relief package. House Republicans have proposed a $180 billion tax package that provides relief to more families. Marriage penalty relief was an element of the alternative tax package I introduced in 1999. Working families can benefit from debt reduction in the form of lower mortgage rates and lower interest rates on consumer debt, but they also deserve relief from a tax policy that penalizes married couples who must both work to provide for their family. Both parties should lay aside their rhetoric and budget gimmicks that allow the President to claim he can pay down the entire debt, invest in large new spending programs, provide tax cuts, and still preserve Social Security. Instead, we need to come together, election year or not, and make judicious, common-sense decisions on how we will prudently allocate the surplus among tax relief, debt reduction, and priority programs like defense and education. We cannot make unrealistic promises on tax cuts or spending based on ten year budget projections that could rapidly change. I support H.R. 6 because I recognize that working families deserve relief. H.R. 6 makes a strong statement to budget negotiators that marriage penalty relief must be a priority. It will serve as a good starting point for negotiations that should lead to a fair compromise that includes tax relief, debt reduction, and sensible spending for important programs. I support H.R. 6 and will continue to work to enact effective and fair marriage penalty relief this year.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Joe Pitts to introduce legislation to officially designate White Clay Creek and its tributaries as part of the National Park Service's National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This bill is the culmination of over 30 years of grassroot efforts to bring attention to the unique qualities of White Clay Creek and to build consensus to protect its beauty from the adverse consequences of urban sprawl. White Clay Creek is located in the densely populated area between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Newark, Delaware. Eight million people live within two hours of the watershed. White Clay Creek is worth protecting. There are 38 properties in the watershed that have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the watershed is home to three endangered plant species and 100 more plant species of ``special concern'' to the State of Delaware. With regard to wildlife, the endangered bog turtle is found in the watershed along with 38 ``rare'' animal species on Delaware's list of ``special concern.'' Because the watershed is located in the middle of the Atlantic Flyway, it is the northern boundary for many southern species of birds and the southern boundary for many northern species of birds. In total, there are about 200 bird species in the watershed, including the American Bald Eagle. White Clay Creek serves as a vital source of drinking water for New Castle County, Delaware and Chester County, Pennsylvania. Finally, White Clay Creek watershed is a popular location for fishing (particularly trout fishing), hiking, jogging, swimming, bird-watching, horseback riding, skating, sledding, cross-country skiing, photography, and limited deer hunting. In September 1999, the National Parks Service released its final report, as ordered by Congress in the 1992 amendments to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, recommending the size and scope of the Wild and Scenic designation for White Clay Creek. The study confirmed the beliefs of the citizens living in the watershed that there was popular support for protecting the watershed's natural, historic, and recreational resources. In fact, 89% of the landowners surveyed agreed to support land use regulations and programs to conserve and protect the watershed. At the same time a majority believed that there must be room for planned residential, commercial, and industrial growth. Therefore, a White Clay Creek Task Force of private landowners, river-related organizations, and all levels of government developed the White Clay Creek Management Plan to designate a total of 191 miles, 24 miles as scenic and 167 miles as recreational, of White Clay Creek as suitable for the National Wild and Scenic River System. All fifteen of the local governments in the watershed, including the City of Newark and New Castle County, passed resolutions supporting the management plan. The designated scenic areas flow through the White Clay Creek Preserve, the White Clay Creek State Park, and the Middle Run Natural Area. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to describe exactly what it means and what it does not mean for White Clay Creek to be designated wild and scenic. This bill means that the river receives permanent protection from federally-licensed or assisted water resource projects (dams, diversions, channelization, etc.) that would have a direct and adverse effect on its free-flowing condition or outstanding remarkable resources. It does not mean that existing wastewater treatment plants or potential reservoir sites cannot be expanded to accommodate carefully planned residential, commercial, and industrial growth. New Castle County is actively seeking solutions to water shortage problems, and this bill does not limit options that are in the best interests of the citizens of Delaware. The legislation does not open private lands to public access, nor does it usually affect existing uses of private property. This legislation does not replace the authority of state, county, and municipal governments to regulate land use in the watershed. In fact, there are no federal lands within the watershed and this bill does not authorize federal funds to be used to purchase land. It simply prohibits federal funds from being used to interfere with the free-flowing nature of the river or its unique resources. In doing so, it elevates the status of the river in competing for federal preservation grants. Finally, it mobilizes the states, local governments, and communities in the watershed to work together to preserve this unique, free flowing river. Mr. Speaker, clearly the combination of White Clay Creek watershed's unique features and the strong local support for protecting the watershed justify its designation as a wild and scenic river. I hope the House Resources Committee will make it a priority to hold hearings on this bill. I am confident the Committee will agree that federal funds should not be used to obstruct the free flow or harm the unique resources of White Clay Creek.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 1095, the ``Debt Relief for Poverty Reduction Act of 1999.'' This legislation has strong bipartisan support with over 130 cosponsors. Providing debt relief for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) (ie. countries with debt 220% higher than their annual exports or debt greater than 80% of their GNP), is a crucial form of foreign aid desperately needed by the citizens of these countries. The United States won the Cold War not only through military expenditures, but also through foreign aid to countries that were targeted by pro-communist forces. Many of these countries were, at best, only beginning to evolve toward democracy and some were governed by autocrats who wasted these U.S. funds. Now future generations in these countries are saddled by these overwhelming debts making it difficult to provide for their basic human needs--food, clothing, medicine, and shelter. There is a consensus in the global community and among creditors from all sectors that some relief must be provided if these countries are to be able to meet the basic human needs to their citizens and grow their economies in their future. Whenever debt relief is debated, there is always cause for concern that creditors create a ``moral hazard'' when they forgive the debts of others. The forgiveness of debt can encourage debtors not to pay back interest on loans in the future. However, in this circumstance, it is important to distinguish that the debt burden these countries face is so great that it would be impossible for them to repay. This is a form of international bankruptcy for these countries. The international community has recognized that conditions are so bad in these countries that future loans are not likely. Rather, grants are and will continue to be the form of assistance these countries receive. As a strong fiscal conservative, I am cautious of programs that simply throw money at a problem. I believe government programs must be carefully structured to maximize efficiency and minimize waste in solving a problem. As originally drafted, H.R. 1095 contained measures conditioning debt relief on economic reforms in these countries. History has proven time and gain that free market capitalism maximizes efficiency and economic growth better than any other market system. Helping these countries move to a free market capitalism system is its own form of foreign aid in addition to foreign aid grants or debt relief. In fact, teaching foreign countries that the market is the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources is the only form of foreign aid that is truly lasting. Transitioning to a new market system is never easy. Change is always resisted by those empowered by the status quo. If the ``carrot'' of debt relief can be used to overcome the status quo in these countries in order to guide them to lasting relief, then Congress should structure this debt relief program to accomplish this goal. Unfortunately, these economic reform conditions were amended out of the original text during the House Banking Committee Markup. Mr. Speaker, although I continue to support H.R. 1095, it is my intention to support efforts to restore the economic reform conditions before its final passage in the House.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report to H.R. 3194, the FY2000 District of Columbia Appropriations Act. This legislation encompassing the five remaining appropriations bills for fiscal year 2000--the Commerce, Justice and State appropriations bill, the District of Columbia appropriations bill, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, the Interior appropriations bill, and the Labor, Health and Human Services and education appropriations bill--is a good compromise that will address our Nation's domestic and foreign policy priorities while retaining fiscal discipline. While I am concerned with the budget gimmicks that are being used to mask the size of the overall spending in this package, I will support the legislation because I believe that overall, this legislation will maintain a balanced budget and keep us on track toward budget surpluses in the future. This legislation represents an attempt to do something that other Congresses never attempted to do. By resisting the historic temptation to spend the Social Security surplus, we have changed the terms of debate in Washington. Future Congresses will now work to maintain a balanced budget and protect all of the Social Security trust fund surplus. Following the 1994 election, Congress inherited a projected four-year budget deficit of $906 billion. In response, Congress with a Republican majority, worked to limit the growth of Federal spending and the President joined us in the 1997 balanced budget agreement. Limits on the growth of Federal spending and the continued strong performance of our economy helped to produce a net surplus of $63 billion in the Federal budget in fiscal years 1996 through 1999. In fiscal year 1999 the Federal Government enjoyed a $123 billion surplus, and the surplus is growing as we begin fiscal year 2000. Congress has ended the discretionary spending frenzy of the late 1980's and early 1990's and Federal spending is more responsible today. With the goal of protecting the Social Security trust fund surplus, Congress is holding the line on expanding Government programs and is finally starting to pay down the national debt. We are accomplishing these goals while still meeting basic governmental responsibilities such as increasing Medicare payments to our hospitals and nursing homes by approximately $12 billion over five years, increasing funding or education and health care programs, and paying the United States overdue commitments to the United Nations. This legislation meets the basic needs of our country in a responsible manner. To help meet our goal of limiting the growth of Federal spending, his legislation includes a 0.38 percent across-the-board spending reduction which applies to all thirteen annual appropriations bill, saving taxpayers about $1.3 billion. I support this type of ``belt tightening.'' The Federal Government should find savings in every program to demonstrate to our constituents that the Federal Government can cut waste and operate more efficiently. I know from my days as Governor of Delaware that every government agency can and should be required to eliminate unneeded costs. When Republicans became the majority party in Congress in January 1995, we promised to reform and improve our education programs to ensure that they help all children reach their full academic potential--regardless of their economic status or other personal challenges. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, in 1995 spending for elementary and secondary education programs totaled almost $15 billion, with all Department of Education programs funded at $32.3 billion (fiscal year 1995). Since 1995, the House Education Committee, on which I serve, has worked to provide unprecedented accountability and flexibility in the operations of these programs. That effort paved the way for the bill the House of Representatives will consider today. I am pleased to report that this final appropriations bill provides $21 billion for elementary and secondary education programs and $39 billion for all Department of Education Programs--increases of 44 percent and 21 percent over fiscal year 1995 respectively. Most important, this bill provides very generous funding for those programs that help all children receive a quality education. Specifically, it provides $8.7 billion for Title 1, the program that helps educate our most disadvantaged students--an increase of $265 million over fiscal year 1999. In addition, State grants for the education of children with disabilities are increased $700 million over fiscal year 1999, bringing the total to $5.8 billion. While this increase will not fully fund the Federal Government's share for the education of our disabled children, it will increase the per pupil contribution to 13 percent--the highest level in the history of the program. In addition, this bill increases the maximum Pell Grant for low- income college students to $3,300--$175 over fiscal year 1999. Finally, it provides $1.3 billion to help our local schools and school districts reduce class size but also provides the necessary flexibility to ensure that all teachers receive the training they need to impart a high quality education to our children. This legislation also includes important funding for Health and Human Services programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, family support services and health research. As part of our ongoing commitment to double biomedical research in five years, the appropriations bill provides $17.9 billion for the National Institutes of Health. This 15 percent increase over fiscal year 1999 will help ensure progress on all diseases, including diabetes and Alzheimer's. It also provides $3 billion, nearly $264 million more than fiscal year 1999, for disease prevention programs run by the Centers for Disease Control. This funding will help prevent those chronic illnesses that result in death and major disability. Of particular importance to many of Delaware's hospitals, nursing facilities and other providers, this bill also incorporates the budget fixes of the Medicare Refinement Act. This language ensures that America's seniors will continue to receive high quality health care by correcting the funding concerns that inadvertently arose as the result of the Medicare reforms in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I am particularly pleased to note that the annual Medicare rehabilitation therapy caps will be lifted entirely for the next two years. This will ensure that those with multiple ailments can get the treatment they need to fully recover while experts consider a better way to implement payment modifications that address the real needs of rehabilitation patients. I am also pleased to note that this bill increases access to cervical cancer screening through the use of pap smears. By increasing the Medicare reimbursement rate, we ensure that more women will get the screening they need to identify and treat problems before they become a threat to their health, their fertility or their lives. I am disappointed that the compromise language in this bill does not reflect the Senate position on community health centers and the prospective payment system, as these organizations play an important role in the delivery of health care in Delaware. That said, I believe these changes are an improvement on current law and I hope that we can continue to move legislation to strengthen the delivery of services to our most at-risk populations. This bill also goes a long way toward restoring protections for the environment that were absent when the Interior appropriations conference report passed the House without my support. Seven of the twenty-four anti-environmental riders added by the Senate were stripped and the remaining riders were significantly changed to reduce their threat to the environment. The congressional leadership was responsive to concerns I raised that Congress should not attempt to prevent EPA enforcement action against midwest electric utility companies whose emissions are polluting Delaware's air and water. The judicial system is fully equipped to give these companies their day in court to defend their actions. I am extremely pleased that this proposed rider was not included in the bill. Furthermore, the Interior appropriation bill increases funding for our national parks, our national wildlife refuges, and restoration efforts in the everglades. Finally, the Interior bill contains funding for a program of particular interest to Delaware--the stateside land and water conservation fund, which provides Delaware with funding for its state parks and environmental land acquisition programs. One of the weaknesses of this package is in the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. I opposed this bill when it passed the House because it designated $4 billion in funding to conduct the 2000 census as ``emergency'' spending that is not subject to the annual spending limits. Although an accurate census is important, it is not a true unanticipated emergency like a hurricane. Congress should responsibly budget for this and all future censuses. this budget gimmick led to a 7.8 percent increase in spending on this bill--far too much for a single year increase. Despite this short coming, I am pleased that the bill privided increased spending on anti drug programs, legal aid programs for the poor, and programs to combat violence against women. Another highlight of this bill was its attention to the needs of farmers in the northeast. The bill provides additional funds for farmers affected by natural disasters, such as flood damage from Hurrican Floyd and crop loss from this summer's drought. Furthermore, the bill contains measures to ensure that Delaware's dairy farmers are adequately compensated for the fluid mild they supply to milk processors. Finally, this legislative package contains the Satellite Home Viewer Act which benefit thousands of Delawareans. Legislation has been added to eliminating outdated restrictions on satellite TV companies that prohibit them from carrying local network television stations. Many Delawareans who rely on satellites to receive quality TV reception must watch out-of-State news shows due to their restrictions. This legislation will bring them needed relief and allow them to be better informed about local, state, and regional events. I strongly urge the congressional leadership and the President to institute measures to allow Congress to finish its work on these spending bills earlier in the year to avoid last minute deals that inevitably lead to more spending. Strong budget enforcement mechanisms, such as biennial budgeting and my proposal for a ``rainy day''account for emergency spending, should be considered in the next session. Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect piece of legislation. It contains compromises that were necessary to meet the President's demands and to reach agreement between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Despite these compromises, this legislation maintains our hard-won commitment to fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget. This commitment to fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget. This commitment will help protect the Social Security trust fund and enable the rest of our Government to meet the needs of all Americans in a fiscally responsible manner.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 574, a bill to correct the boundary of the Coastal Barrier Resources System Map in Lewes, Delaware. Back in 1990, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was drawing the boundary for this map, the service inadvertently included the Cape Shores Development and the Barcroft Corporation in the system. The Fish and Wildlife Service had intended to follow the boundary of Cape Henlopen State Park, but followed the wrong line on the map. As a result, this has made it difficult for Barcroft and the homeowners in Cape Shores to obtain affordable flood insurance. This summer, the House passed an identical bill introduced to correct this problem as a subtitle to H.R. 1431, a comprehensive bill to reauthorize the Coast Barrier Resources Act. Due to time constraints, the Senate was not able to pass its own comprehensive reauthorization bill. Therefore, in order to expedite the legislative process and make sure Barcroft Corporation and the residents of Cape Shores can obtain affordable flood insurance before winter storms strike Delaware, it is essential that we pass this legislation before the session ends. I want to thank the Resources Committee Chairman, Don Young; the Resources Fisheries Subcommittee Chairman, Jim Saxton; and their staff for their tremendous efforts on this bill. The citizens of Delaware truly appreciate your assistance not just because it provides relief for Barcroft and Cape Shores, but also because it extends the protection of the Coastal Barrier Resources System to 245 additional acres in Cape Henlopen State Park. I commend your work and urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce several duty suspension and duty reduction bills for materials used in the production of environmentally sensitive herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that improve the quality of our lives. These duty suspension bills lower the cost of producing these products thereby lowering the cost to consumers and helping U.S. industries compete in the global marketplace. When American companies make the active ingredients for these chemicals, there is a proper role for duties to exist. However, when the active ingredients are only made by foreign companies, we needlessly increase costs for American businesses and consumers by imposing duties on their importation. By introducing these bills, I am triggering a careful review of these proposals by the House Ways and Means Committee and the International Trade Commission to make sure there are no domestic producers of these active ingredients so no one will be financially harmed. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to highlight the beneficial uses of the final products these chemicals will produce. KN002 and KL084 are used to make citrus herbicides that are less toxic than many of the existing herbicides on the market. They require sixty percent less application to yield the same weed control result thus minimizing exposure to those who apply the herbicide. IN-N597 is used in the production of a rice herbicide. Like the citrus herbicides, it has environmental advantages over the existing rice herbicides on the market. Azoxystrobin is used in the production of a fungicide often used on golf courses. It also goes by the popular name Heritage, Abound or Quadris. DT-291 is a general fruit and vegetable insecticide. It has the unique ability to kill certain pests while leaving beneficial insects unharmed. Furthermore, DT-291 is well within the margins of safety to mammalian, avian, and aquatic organisms. Finally, Tralkoxydim is used in the production of a postemergence herbicide for wheat and barley. It is also known as Achieve. The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that Achieve is a reduced risk herbicide. It presents negligible health risks to consumers because it is low in toxicity and does not leave detectable residues in cereal grain, straw or hay. Postemergence herbicides also have the advantage of low application rates. The herbicide is only needed if weeds emerge around the wheat. Many other wheat herbicides must be applied ahead of time to prevent weeds from developing regardless of whether they would have emerged naturally. Mr. Speaker, duty suspension bills are one of the most non- controversial, bipartisan legislative initiatives because they are common sense for consumers, for the environment, and for enhancing the competitiveness of our domestic industries. I urge support for these proposals after the appropriate committees and agencies have thoroughly vetted these measures.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support title III of the welfare- to-work program and the expansion of eligibility amendment thereto. The welfare-to-work program was established in 1997 as a separate funding stream to States and localities to provide targeted assistance to moving the hardest to employ welfare recipients to work and self- sufficiency. But what we have found is that the welfare-to-work program, while well-developed, requires greater flexibility in order to serve a greater population of the hardest to place welfare recipients. To date, States have only spent $283 million of the total $3 billion available, but face multiple barriers to expanding their ability to serve more clients. In Delaware, although $2.7 million was available this year, only $4,000 has been spent, with only about 40 clients being served. By relaxing the criteria as we are doing today, perhaps up to 1,000 others could be served. Mr. Chairman, I do not ordinarily complain about a lack of State funding on Federal assistance, but in this case, there is a large population of hard to place recipients that otherwise could greatly benefit from relaxed eligibility criteria and more flexibility in who may be served under the program. States like Delaware are clearly having difficulty in finding welfare recipients who qualify for assistance under this program. The transitional assistance to needy families funds have the flexibility to serve a greater population. Now it is time to expand the welfare-to- work eligibility criteria, thereby allowing us to spread the safety net and package services in a more seamless way. By expanding the eligibility criteria for the welfare-to-work program, we retain, we dedicate, and strengthen the Federal commitment to serving the hardest to place welfare recipients. Not until adequate resources are targeted to the welfare-to-work recipients in a more realistic way and these recipients are helped off of welfare can we truly say that the historic Welfare Reform Act was a complete and unmitigated success. Expanding the eligibility of welfare-to-work recipients is an excellent idea whose time has come. I am proud to support the expansion of eligibility for the hardest to serve welfare recipients.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for yielding to me, and I thank him for the tremendous work that he does for this country, something that is probably not recognized by many people any place in the country other than people in the intelligence community because of the closed nature of what we do. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) also is a superb individual in that committee who has helped so much with the intelligence responsibilities of the country. I would like to also thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) who just spoke, who is the ranking member on the subcommittee which I do chair, which is the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence. I also rise in full support of this conference report for the fiscal year 2000 intelligence authorization. As chair of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, I would like to highlight a few major points of committee emphasis over the past year in areas of technical and tactical intelligence. We spent a great deal of time investigating the Chinese embassy bombing. As a subcommittee, we looked at satellite launch failures and intelligence support for military operations. There has been considerable emphasis on the requirements for future satellites and on associated production issues, and a lot of investigation and questions focused on revitalization of our Signals Intelligence capability at the National Security Agency. I am keenly aware of the vital contributions of space-based assets to the United States national security, and there clearly is a future. From diplomacy to precision strikes, our assets in space are essential for confident planning and execution of policy. Continuity in satellite operations hinges on another critical program, space launch. Therefore, the large number of recent launch failures became an issue of intense concern for me personally. Several ongoing investigations are examining reasons for the failures. There is no doubt that the issue is being taken seriously and that very competent government and industry personnel are working to identify and to resolve problems. However, because the cost of each failure can be so enormous, we must strive for the right balance of independent assessments. The committee will continue to scrutinize the launch issues and exercise its oversight duties. Depending on the results of ongoing studies, I am considering a legislative provision mandating review by an independent panel. In our hearings on support for the military, a predominant theme was the continued imbalance between collection and other intelligence assets. For years, the committee has stressed the need for better planning and financing of intelligence processing, analysis and dissemination. This year we are insisting that our future imagery satellite capabilities be at least roughly balanced with ground capabilities. Signals intelligence has also suffered from gaps in what we call ``end to end'' capability, as well as from enormous leaps in target technology. For several years, the committee has insisted that changes are needed at the National Security Agency in order to modernize our SIGINT capabilities and improve efficiency. The committee is most gratified that the new director of NSA, Lieutenant General Mike Hayden, agreed to conduct unrestrained studies of the need for reform, using both an internal and an external team. These studies were just completed. Both endorsed previous committee findings identifying systemic obstacles to efficiency and change. The difficult part, sorting and implementing solutions proposed by the teams, soon begins. General Hayden has our strong support for decisive action that will, by nature, be controversial. We will not rest easy until SIGINT is once again healthy.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, I also rise in strong support of the rule and the conference report on S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Institutions Modernization Act of 1999. This is a long-awaited final step in a decades-long effort to update our financial services laws. I urge my colleagues to seize the opportunity to pass this historic legislation, which will benefit individual Americans and help keep our economy strong. This legislation accomplishes a number of important goals that will provide better financial services for millions of Americans and make the American financial services industry more competitive. First, it will eliminate outdated regulations that hinder competition. More competition will give consumers more choices to save and earn money on their investments. Second, the bill will provide sound regulation, balance, and flexibility for businesses. Banks will be able to choose the type of structure that is best for them. This will allow companies to do so but in a cost-effective manner and way, and produce the new product at lower cost that we want for the financial security of our citizens. Third, the bill allows new competition without endangering small banks. A big commercial company will not be able to buy a savings and loan and engage in unfair competition against a small, local bank. Fourth, this legislation contains important new standards to protect the financial privacy of American consumers. Financial services providers will have to protect consumer information and inform consumers about how this information is used. Finally, this legislation continues the commitment for banks to meet the needs of low-income Americans through the Community Reinvestment Act. CRA standards are maintained while giving some relief to small banks with excellent community lending records. It is time for the financial services laws of our country to catch up with the needs of the American people. This legislation will benefit every American seeking to improve his or her family's financial security by saving and investing more. Let us move our Nation into the next century. I urge passage of the rule and the conference report. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on S. 900, the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. This is the long-awaited final step in the decades-long effort to update our financial services laws. I urge my colleagues to seize the opportunity to pass this historic legislation which will benefit individual Americans and help keep our economy strong. As we have heard many times, Congress has been trying to update the Glass-Steagall Act since the 1930's and the Bank Holding Company Act since the 1950's. Previous attempts to pass financial services reform often failed because one financial industry or another felt that past bills put them at a disadvantage. I have seen several of those attempts fail in the six and a half years I have been in Congress. That struggle is finally over. The banking industry, the securities industry and the insurance industry agree that we must modernize these laws to improve competition and meet the changing needs of consumers. Madam Speaker, this legislation accomplishes a number of important goals that will provide better financial services for millions of Americans and make American businesses in the financial services industry more competitive. First, it will eliminate outdated regulations that hinder competition. Banks, insurance companies and securities firms will be able to affiliate and offer new banking, investment and insurance products to American consumers. Competition will enable consumers to choose new ways to save and earn money on their investments that go beyond the products that are available today. The Treasury Department has estimated that this new competition could save Americans billions of dollars. These new business affiliations will be regulated in a streamlined manner to protect American consumers and taxpayers. Second, the bill will provide sound regulation with flexibility for businesses. Banks will be able to choose the type of structure that is best for how they want to do business, but activities such as real estate development, insurance underwriting and merchant banking will have to be conducted in a separate affiliate to insure complete financial safety and soundness. There will be balanced regulation of these businesses by the Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury. This will allow companies to do business in a cost- effective manner and help produce the new products at lower cost that we want for the financial security of every American who wants to purchase them. Third, the bill allows new competition without endangering small institutions. We are protecting small banks from potential unfair competition by ending a loophole that allows commercial firms to own a savings and loan institution. This compromise on the unitary thrift charter issue will allow commercial companies which now own a savings and loan to retain them, but in the future, only financial companies will be permitted to purchase these institutions. In other words, a big commercial company will not be able to come into a small town by buying a savings and loan and engage in unfair competition against a small local bank. This will help prevent possible conflicts of interest and potential unfair competition. Fourth, this legislation contains important new standards to protect the financial privacy of American consumers. Financial service providers will have to protect consumer information; they will have to clearly tell their customers what their privacy policies are; and, consumers will have the right to choose not to have any information shared with unaffiliated third parties. Also, this legislation will not replace any additional privacy protections in any state. It will also make it a federal crime for unethical individuals to attempt to gain private financial information through deceptive tactics. These standards are an important step in protecting the basic financial privacy of all consumers. And finally, this legislation continues the commitment for banks and new financial service holding companies to meet the needs of everyone in the community through the Community Reinvestment Act. CRA standards are maintained without increasing the regulatory burden, particularly for small banks. Republicans and Democrats alike should be proud we are continuing this commitment in a manner that is fair to communities and financial services businesses. It is time for the financial services laws of our country to catch up with the needs of the American people. Our constituents have been looking for new and affordable products to give their families financial security. We are long past the days when people were satisfied with a simple savings account or life insurance policy. Most Americans want to maximize their earnings and to find products that will give them the best return. The financial services marketplace has been struggling to meet consumers needs within a regulatory structure that was created sixty years ago. The changes in this legislation will ultimately benefit every American seeking to improve his or her family's financial security by saving and investing more. This legislation will help them achieve that goal by making more savings and investment products available in one- stop shopping at competitive prices. As a member of the banking committee, I have often been frustrated by the long days and seemingly endless hours of negotiation that have gone into this legislation, but I strongly believe that those long hours of work have produced a piece of legislation that will help carry our nation's economy into the next century. It will help produce good products, more choices and hopefully lower prices for Americans, and it will help our nation's financial services business grow and compete successfully into the future. Madam Speaker, we owe Chairmen Jim Leach and Tom Bliley our thanks for persevering through tough negotiations on the myriad of issues in this bill and to our colleague Senator Gramm for pushing this bill to completion in the Senate. This bill also has a true bipartisan imprint and the contributions of Congressmen LaFalce and Dingell should be recognized. The time is now to bring American financial services into the twenty- first century. This legislation achieves that goal and I urge the house to take the final step by passing this conference report today.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to say, I do not like opposing an amendment sponsored by people who I think are genuinely interested in education and children. But I think in this case, the intent of what is in the legislation is right and is the direction to go.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. Most of these points have been made. Title I, I think, is very, very important. And I think covering as many children as we can within some degree of reason is very, very important. We are making significant changes in this legislation, most of which, if not all of which, I happen to believe are positive and I think things that we should do. One of the key things that was worked out, and it has already been stressed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, but was worked out with the key Members from the other side, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the ranking members over there, was the increase which is included here, and I stress that that is an increase which is included here, the good faith increases to $8.35 billion from $7.7 billion. I am doing this math in my head, so hopefully it is correct. But I think that is about a 9 percent increase in the authorization. That is a 1-year increase in authorization. In this amendment, we are dealing with an increase which is about a 25 percent increase, and I am not sure that they could even put that into place, much less be able to sustain it. But from an economic point of view, there are many things we have to do in education. We have to deal with IDEA, we have to deal with all the other programs involved in the ESEA, and there are many other things we have to do in general. I just do not think this is a responsible step. I think it is disappointing that we have not taken the stand of the bipartisan leadership of this community on that and endorsed the new and higher figure which they recommended. Hopefully we can defeat this amendment and go ahead and pass the bill and there will be an increase and we will be able to help those kids who are disadvantaged more than we do now.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise on this amendment because I am somewhat uncertain as to whether we should go forward with it or not. Perhaps the chairman can help me with some of this. Let me just say a couple of things up front. I am a total believer that in the United States of America today that we do have a problem in terms of lack of basic knowledge in the area of science, I am talking about people like me and others who were mediocre science students and not just the people of the stature of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) who are among the eminent scientists in America today. I think we should all have a greater and broader knowledge than we do. In my heart, my feeling is that something like this is a good idea, developing science and math which are somewhat related in many instances which is something we need to do, particularly when compared to other countries. So for all of those reasons, I have a lot of sympathy for what we are dealing with here, and that is why we have supported initiatives under the Teacher Empowerment Act which the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) sponsored which highlights the need for the natural focus in the area of science and particularly having teachers who are prepared to teach, which is a major problem in both science and math. We have too many people teaching those subjects who really are unprepared.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, let me just start by saying a couple things. Let me say first, I do not now disagree with a lot of what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) said in terms of these programs and what they do, and I think we all need to realize that as we debate this legislation. I am the one who introduced an amendment at the Committee on Rules to reduce this from a full 50-State program to a 12-State pilot program, of which six of those 12 States would be able to do Title I as well as the other aspects of ESEA. Title I is determined for economically disadvantaged students, and then it helps those who are academically disadvantaged. That is the program that concerns me a lot. I was very worried about even doing anything with respect to a pilot on that particular program. After some negotiation and resolution, we made it a pilot program for 10 States, all of which could basically take all the parameters of the Straight A's Act and be able to do that. They would be selected by the Secretary of Education. I think it is important to understand what a pilot program is, because I have not been the greatest supporter of the Straight A's program from the beginning; and going to even supporting a pilot program has not been that easy for me. But a pilot program for me, essentially, in this reauthorization would be under a 5-year time limit. The various States, and there have been 10 or even more governors who have asked for this by the way, would have to put together a plan and present it to the Secretary of Education in a competitive sense; and then the Secretary of Education would make a determination as to which States would be able to go into the pilot program and there could be no more than 10 States. What are they going to look for in that particular plan? The plan must help disadvantaged children. And there is an accountability measure to all of this which we do not have now in some of these programs, which I am going to talk about in a minute; and it must show how they are closing the gap between those who are disadvantaged presently served under various ESEA programs, Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs, and the other students who are there, something which does not happen today. Now, what do we have today? Why should we even consider making any changes whatsoever or why should we take a chance on that? Because I consider it to be nothing more, really, than taking a chance. Well, under the ESEA, we have first and, I guess, foremost the Title I program. That should be familiar to everybody in this chamber. Everybody just voted on that. Most, as a matter of fact a large majority, voted to what I think was a major improvement in Title I just an hour or so ago right here on this floor. That is the aid to disadvantaged students. At least that is how it is determined from an economic point of view. Then when it goes down to the schools, it takes care of those who are academically disadvantaged who may or may not be the exact same population. But it includes other things. Part B, for example, of Title I is the Even Start Family Literacy Program. We have a Migrant Education Program in part C. We have a Neglected and Delinquent Children in part D. We have an Eisenhower Professional Development to help develop teachers as part of this, too. We have education technology. We have safe and drug- free schools, and the D.A.R.E. program, I believe, comes under that part of it. We have the Innovative Education Block Grant, which a lot of States obviously like. We have Class Size Reduction. We have Comprehensive School Reform. We have the Emergency Immigrant Education. We have a Title III of Goals 2000, and a Perkins Vocational Technical Training. And we have the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. What we do not have here, by the way, is IDEA. That has been excluded from what we are dealing with here. Now, obviously, if one knows anything about the Federal role in education, these are all programs which basically help targeted parts of our population who need perhaps special help. The economically disadvantaged, the immigrants, the people who are having language problems in our country, for example. For the most part, those are the kinds of individuals who are being helped by this program. The question then arises, have we really helped these kids? And we have not really measured that very well. We certainly had the programs in place. People are getting paid. People have taken the floor here today and said that Title I simply has not worked. I do not agree with that. I think Title I has actually helped a number of kids. Do I think Title I can work better? My colleagues better believe I think Title I can work better. Do I think these other programs could work better? I absolutely believe that each program on here could work better. So this is a deal where the Federal Government creates a program, hands the money and the outlines of the program down to the State and then down to the local school districts and the local schools, and they have to carry it out; and some place betwixt and between, something sometimes falls through the cracks and it does not work that well. So a number of people got up and they said, we need to do it differently. We can do it differently. Give us that opportunity to do it differently. And they came and they came with this amendment. Well, I think the Straight A's bill to have all 50 States do this at their option personally went too far. That is my own view of it. And I believe that we needed to make some changes, and that is why I introduced the amendment and we worked down to the 10 States that we have now. Now, in addition to that, I am also concerned about the disadvantaged, as well, because I do not want them to fall through the cracks in this. I think these governors and these States are going to be able to put together programs that are going to help move some of these people. And if they can, God love them if they can do that. We will have an improved education situation for our kids. We can all learn from that. And that is what pilot programs are all about. I am later going to have a colloquy with the chairman of the committee; and it is going to state, In addition, the amendment assures that if a State includes Title I, part A aid to disadvantaged students in its performance agreement, it must ensure that the school districts continue to allocate funds to address the educational needs of disadvantaged students. I want to make sure that language is part of the Record. I wanted it to be part of the bill, but for technical reasons it did not work out. I want it to be part of the Record here. I think if we do all these things, we are taking a chance. Maybe it is a chance that some people do not want to take, and maybe they will vote against it for that reason. But I think it is a chance that is at least worth trying. I do not think any great harm will be done if it did not work for one reason or another. Because of all the accountability that is in there, I think it will work. So, for that reason, I am supportive of the rule.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I would like to start by asking him if it is true that States may include part A of Title I in their performance agreement under Straight A's? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin knows, I believe it is crucial that if States include Title I, they should ensure school districts use those funds to meet the educational needs of disadvantaged students.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, so the intent of Straight A's is to require States to improve academic achievement and narrow achievement gaps between students.