Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the accountability provisions in the bill. I also believe that it is crucial that we clearly express our commitment to needy children in the language of the bill. If States include Title I, they must ensure that school districts use those funds to help children with the greatest educational needs.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). I appreciate this. These are assurances with which I was concerned. I appreciate the gentleman's affirmation of where we were with respect to that. I would also point out just listening to this debate, and I am running back and forth to a banking conference at this point, that this is a pilot program that we are talking about. We are talking about an experiment in which we are trying to determine if there is a better methodology of dealing with these programs, of dealing with these disadvantaged students than there has been before. That has worked, as somebody has pointed out, in welfare reform. It has worked in Ed-Flex. Hopefully, it can work in this as well.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment. Let me just start by saying that I respect greatly all of those who have spoken on this particular amendment, and particularly the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the sponsor of this amendment. I have debated this issue with them as well as others in the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and I understand the sincerity of their beliefs in this. Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is some reasoning here that we need to discuss in terms of how we are really helping kids. I am not one of those that is going to stand here and say that Title I has failed all together. God only knows where some of these students might be if it was not for Title I. On the other hand, I do not think that many people in this room can stand up and say that Title I has been a rip-roaring success either. That is not demonstrable one way or another. I believe we should continue Title I. I believe we should try to improve Title I. I think this is an excellent piece of legislation. We worked on it together, and I think that is fine. But this particular point that we are debating right now I think is vitally important to the whole future of Title I and where we are going on this. I do not think we should reinstate the 50 percent school poverty threshold. I think it should go to 40 percent. One could argue it could go to 43 percent or whatever. If it went down to 25 percent, I would be up here opposing it or even 30 percent; but just as I support trying to keep it at the 40 percent level. This is something, by the way, that was agreed to by many members of the committee who are ranking members, who sat down and worked this out, and among staff members, because we thought it was so important. But why is it important? That is what I think we are missing. Does schoolwide work or not? What is schoolwide? Schoolwide is essentially when a school which may have 40 percent or 50 percent, whatever the number may be, who have kids who are economically disadvantaged and at the poverty threshold going to their particular school; and then they then put together programs that will lift the entire school so that everybody will benefit from it, but particularly aimed at trying to help that 40 percent or 50 percent or whatever it may be. This is opposed to having special programs for those who may be educationally disadvantaged as determined by schools in which people are economically disadvantaged. It is my judgment, based on the small evidence that we have seen so far, the schoolwide programs are working. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has already cited two examples of that, both in Maryland and Texas, which really took Ed-Flex very seriously when we gave them that opportunity and came forward and they put together schoolwide programs. Others have done it too by going through the Secretary of Education, and they seem to have worked. Test scores have gone up. In a very data- based way, test scores have actually gone up in those schools which are doing it that way. They are also becoming very popular with principals and teachers. According to the national assessment of Title I, the number of schools which are implementing schoolwide programs has more than tripled from 5,000 to 16,000 since 1995. Usually when programs grow, when there is a choice and programs grow, there is an indication that those who are dealing with the programs, the educators, are making a difference. This does not dilute the amount of dollars that would go to a school, it is just a question of how the dollars are going to be utilized when they get to that school. I think that is important to understand as well in terms of dealing with the program of schoolwide versus the individual instruction, which has taken place before. So for all of these reasons I am strongly supportive of keeping the poverty threshold at 40 percent which will, frankly, enable more schools, if they wish to operate schoolwide programs. It gives principals flexibility and it is, to me, proving to be beneficial. Those are the reasons that I stand forth and argue that we should do this. I would hope that we would all look at this, and I hope frankly this amendment will be defeated, but ultimately I think we all have the same aim and that is to educate all of our children, particularly those in poverty as well as we possibly can. I happen to think that leaving the level at 40 percent is the way to do that, and I hope that I am right, and I hope that we are able to defeat the amendment and eventually we will improve the course of our students. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, the Student Results Act, a bill to authorize a number of special population programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. H.R. 2 renews most importantly the Title I program, our Federal commitment to help our most disadvantaged children achieve equal education opportunity. Since its inception in 1965, Congress has recognized the importance of the Title I program and has sought to strengthen it. Today, the purpose of Title I is to narrow gaps in academic achievement and help all students meet high academic standards. Yet, without clear performance measures and real accountability, Title I will do little to positively impact student achievement. With the help of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee); and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the committee; a lot of very good steps are included in this bill; and for that we should all be thankful. H.R. 2 maintains State content and performance standards; and, for the first time, sets a date certain for the implementation of State student performance assessments. These standards and assessments, which were first established during the 1994 reauthorization, which was another positive step for Title I, will help States and local districts and schools measure the academic progress of its students and identify those schools in need of assistance. H.R. 2 also strengthens existing accountability provisions by requiring States, school districts, and schools to report performance data by separate subgroups of students such as those who are economically disadvantaged and limited-English proficient. By encouraging States to make decisions about academic achievement based on disaggregated data, we eliminate averages, which can mask the shortfalls of certain groups and open the door to improvement for all children. And, in addition, H.R. 2 requires States who choose to participate in the Title I program to widely distribute information on the academic performance to parents and the public through report cards or other means. This change will help parents access the information they need to become a full partner in their child's education. The Student Results Act also ensures that the nearly 75,000 teachers' aides hired with Title I funds are qualified to provide instruction in reading, language arts, and math. Under current law, many of these aides provide direct instruction to our most disadvantaged students and with a minimum of a high school diploma or GED. We freeze the number of teachers' aides that could be hired with Title I funds; and within 3 years, we require all aides to demonstrate the knowledge and ability to assist with instruction based on a local assessment. Finally, H.R. 2 ensures that no student will be forced to attend a failing school. Specifically, it requires schools to notify parents of their ability to transfer to another public or charter school as soon as the home school is identified as one in need of school improvement. In addition, the bill makes the existing choice program viable by allowing States, if they so choose, to use Title I funds for transportation. With new flexibility and new authority to operate school-wide programs, the Student Results Act, when combined with Ed-Flex waivers, makes the Title I program extremely pliable. We challenge all States, school districts, and schools to determine how best to raise the academic standards of all children.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me; and, Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to H.R. 3085, and I disagree somewhat with the tenor of what we have heard here today. The way I look at it, there are two ways to really balance the budget. One is we can take all our spending and try to get it down inside of the revenues which we have for that year. The other way, and that is what Republicans are trying to do, the other way is that we can spend all the money that we have in revenues and then add more money to it. To do that we have to have a tax increase, and that is what the President has chosen to do by a sum of $19 billion. But I have not heard those words escape from his lips since he came in here and made that announcement about what he was doing, nor does the press ever mention that either, that basically the President cannot balance this budget unless he increases the taxes by the $19 billion. In my judgment this is not a gimmick. It just puts it in perspective. If the minority party does not want to embarrass the President, it is simple. They can support what the President's proposal is. If they do not, then in that case they have abandoned what the President's basic budget proposals are. I am glad there is a summit. I think it is incumbent upon the President to call that summit. He has finally done that, and I hope they can go down there and work out the problems, but hopefully without a tax increase. We should defeat this legislation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1875, the ``Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999'' because it contains provisions essential to preserving the reliable body of state case law that guides the governance of internal corporate affairs, most of which is developed by specialized courts in my state of Delaware. The depth and quality of this case law gives boards of directors for corporations all over the country the necessary guidance and predictability to move forward with multi-million dollar transactions according to their business judgment without the threat of courts overturning these transactions. On July 22, 1998, the House passed H.R. 1689, the ``Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act'' by a vote of 340 to 83. That bill contained a non-controversial carve out, constructed with technical assistance from the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), for state class actions involving the purchase or sale of securities. Congress and the SEC recognized that the states had a well-developed body of law on the fiduciary duty of directors to disclose information to shareholders in connection with votes and investment actions, such as proxy solicitations, mergers, restructures, exchanges and tender offers. Therefore, there was no need to remove class actions concerning these transactions from state courts to federal courts. As originally drafted, the Class Action Jurisdiction Act failed to provide for this same protection of state expertise. In fact, it would have undone the widely accepted Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act's carve out. Furthermore, because the Class Action Jurisdiction Act federalizes a broader range of class actions, adding the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act carve out would not have been sufficient. Therefore, in cooperation with expert corporate law attorneys from both the plaintiff and defense bars, legal scholars, and Congressman Goodlatte, I drafted an amendment to carve out class actions involving securities and internal corporate governance matters. The amendment was included in the manager's amendment when the bill was marked up in the Judiciary Committee. Some of my colleagues have raised concerns that state corporate law issues should not be the only ones exempted from ``federalization'' under the Class Action Jurisdiction Act. I look forward to the debate on whether other class actions should be exempted. However, it is important to note that what makes corporate law issues unique is that there is no federal corporate law. State incorporation laws act like enabling statutes. That is, there is no law unless case law develops it. Traditionally, this law has been developed at the state level. Delaware, New York, and California particularly have large bodies of well-developed state corporate law. Given the structure of the federal court system with twelve circuit courts of appeal and the limited ability of the Supreme Court to adjudicate conflicts among the circuits, the removal of state courts from the adjudicatory process for class actions involving corporate law issues could add significant uncertainty to the resolution of issues arising under state corporate laws. The SEC recognized this problem in its testimony concerning the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. It stated: Preemption of state duty of disclosure claims raises significant federalism concerns. Many state courts, particularly those in Delaware, have developed expertise and a coherent body of case law which provides guidance to companies and lends predictability to corporate transactions. In addition, the Delaware courts, in particular, are known for their ability to resolve such disputes expeditiously--in days or weeks, rather than months or years. Delay in resolving a dispute over a merger or acquisition could jeopardize completion of a multi-billion-dollar transaction. Broad preemption would diminish the value of this body of precedent and these specialized courts as a means of resolving corporate disputes. Furthermore, a trend has begun to emulate Delaware by creating courts with jurisdiction designed to provide a forum for the resolution of disputes involving business entities with expertise and efficiency. New York and Pennsylvania have created such courts. This reflects a judgment that the coherent articulation and development of state law governing business entities is a goal to be pursued, and one best addressed by the creation of a forum with subject matter expertise in the area. Federalizing class actions involving state corporate law would only serve to fracture the development of the law, rather than leaving it in the hands of a small number of highly specialized and expert jurists, conversant with the history and current trends in the development of the law. Mass tort product liability law is not a highly specialized area of the law requiring adjudication by judges specially trained in the subject matter. The issue of whether or not we federalize mass tort product liability suits does not jeopardize the completion of multi- billion-dollar transactions that can determine if U.S. companies will continue to compete in the global marketplace. Mr. Chairman, I am extremely proud of the corporate law legal expertise that has developed in Delaware. It is just one of many features that makes Delaware a ``Small Wonder.'' Members may have divided opinions on the merits of the overall legislation, but just as there was no controversy over the state corporate law carve out when the House passed the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, there should be no controversy over the need for the corporate law carve out in this bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to two outstanding dedicated and caring Delawareans--Mike Vincent, President of the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association (DVFA) and Bonnie Workman, President of the Ladies Auxiliary of the DVFA. On behalf of the citizens of the First State, I would like to honor these two fine individuals for their tireless efforts at the DVFA and the Ladies Auxiliary of the DVFA. Family, friends, volunteer firemen, and members of the Ladies Auxiliary of the DVFA can now take a moment to truly appreciate the hard work and dedication of these fine individuals during their many years of service. This type of dedication is rare among individuals, and I am happy to rise and commend them for it. Delaware fire companies are comprised of outstanding, caring and dedicated men and women who unselfishly, day-after-day, year-after-year give their time and talents to help prevent fires, to battle fires, and to provide emergency medical services for our citizens. In 1999, President Vincent served on the Governor's EMS Improvement Committee and helped pass legislation to facilitate better EMS services for all Delawareans. In addition, President Vincent worked tirelessly for funds to improve training for first response to tragedies caused by weapons of mass destruction. Due to the leadership and commitment of President Vincent and President Workman, Delaware Fire and Emergency services have continued to be a strong and vital part of our community today. I salute Mike and Bonnie for their truly exemplary record of public and community service and most importantly for their dedication to the cause of DVFA and the Ladies Auxiliary of the DVFA. Bonnie's efforts to raise funds for the DVFA scholarships have helped countless students reach their academic goals. Finally, Mike's success in raising the volunteer fire fighter and ladies auxiliary tax credit to $300 will reduce state income tax burdens--the least that can be done for those who risk their lives to protect us. Mike and Bonnie's leadership, teamwork and commitment will find a permanent place in Delaware volunteer fire service history. Mr. Speaker, this week the gavel will fall opening the DVFA and the Ladies Auxiliary of the DVFA 1999 Conference to celebrate the anniversaries of their leadership and service to towns and communities throughout Delaware. it is important that this dedicated organization continue to be able to recruit and to retain young men and women who are committed to public service. As Delaware's Representative in Congress, I am proud to have this opportunity to extend my congratulations and best wishes for a successful conference. The support for the DVFA and the Ladies Auxiliary of the DVFA is strong and the tradition of service is solid. I hope they realize how deeply their efforts are appreciated.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this legislation. It is not quite as simple as it sounds. And it does sound, I believe, good on its face. But the truth of the matter is there are those of us in small States, and I am one of them, there are those that have border districts, which small States automatically have, so I am one of them, as well. And there are those who are from very poor districts throughout this country who have problems raising campaign funds. I am not in that category, as Delaware is a relatively wealthy State. When I first ran four terms ago for the Congress of the United States, I was out-spent by my opponent, not significantly, but I was out-spent. He raised at least 90 percent, probably a lot greater percentage, of his money from outside Delaware. We made a campaign issue out of it. It worked out just fine. And I understood what the process was. He was allowed to raise that money and he could. If we are going to carry this to the nth degree, we really should say that no money should come from outside a particular State. Delaware has 800,000 people. Many of my constituents cross over into Pennsylvania and Delaware on a regular basis and back over. It is almost impossible to distinguish exactly where they are from, and it makes I believe a matter like this very complicated. The Shays bill calls for a study of this, and I believe that we should go with that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding time to me. I would like to thank other people, including the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for the wonderful job he has done throughout this day and evening in dealing with this legislation. I would like to thank the Speaker of the House. Some of us may not have liked the rule originally, but without what he did in allowing it to come to the floor, we would not be here. I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), not necessarily because they may pass this bill tonight, and I hope they will, I support the legislation, but because of the manner in which they have prepared for this and handled this debate. I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), who I think actually has a good piece of legislation here, although maybe not in the right process in terms of how we should do it; and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), obviously, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), and everyone else who sponsored the amendments. Every once in a while there is an enlightening debate. This is one that has been bipartisan. All of us have learned a lot. We have had a chance to listen in on it. For that, I think we should all be thankful. We really have to know what we are doing here. We have to be very careful. There is nothing in my mind that is objectionable at all in the Thomas substitute, but it is just that, it is a substitute. It means that it is the end of Shays-Meehan. We have been voting all night to protect Shays-Meehan, because it is important that we get it passed. We have to remember that when we cast this vote. We could easily go back and pick up the Thomas substitute. We could have done it as an amendment, as a matter of fact, if the Committee on Rules had allowed it, and certainly could do it in the future. We have heard a lot of different presentations here tonight. I do not know what the influence of money really is, but I do get frankly quite concerned when I read that large corporations and large labor unions and people of various interests with legislation before this body are all of a sudden giving to the parties amounts of money that are in excess of $100,000, $200,000, even in some cases $300,000. It has to make everybody stop and think, they are giving it for some reason. It is not because they are necessarily interested in charity, they are interested in their own bottom line. I think this body is made up of people of full ethics, people who are good people, but I think we have to make this change. I would encourage each and every one of us to support Shays-Meehan. I think it will pass the Senate and will become the law of this country.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we have heard the arguments here. We do not have a very long time to discuss this tonight. We only have 10 minutes. The bottom line is, I think there are some serious questions about this. I have raised some about the small State problem that I have, the border districts where the people you really know, such as in a Kansas City situation, for example, right up in the border between two different States, those districts which are extraordinarily poor, represented often by minorities which need some help with respect to these circumstances. Let me just point out what is in the Shays-Meehan bill, because I think before everybody votes, they should understand this, and that is simply this. It establishes a bipartisan commission to study the impact of such concerns, and I think it goes a long way toward addressing the problem of campaign finance reform. This is what we need to do. I think that the gentleman from California's amendment raises a serious question, something perhaps we should consider, but I do not think we are ready to vote on it at this particular time and make it part of the law of the United States of America. I think, indeed, it is something that we should continue to look at and should continue to discuss, make some sort of professional determination if it is possible; if so, what it should be. For now, this amendment should be defeated and the Shays-Meehan bill should be passed.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the rule and I do rise in support of Shays-Meehan and in opposition to the amendments. There has been a lot of fussing over the rule here today. I do not think there is anything unexpected there. That is what the majority of the majority parties wants, to have a certain limited circumstance. I think, in fact, the Committee on Rules and the leadership deserves credit for letting us vote on this at all; and because there has been so much attention paid to it, I think we all know exactly what we have to do on the individual votes under this particular rule so I do not think that is a problem. I hope that all of us will support it. I hope everybody will consider very carefully what we are doing here. It should concern every one of us that there are corporations, there are labor unions, there are organizations out there which are contributing to the political parties in soft money a quarter million and more, perhaps something less than that. And if anyone believes they are doing it because they believe in good government, I would tell them to look at the underlying legislation that those groups are interested in. The bottom line is that I think we need to do something about it. I am for individual contributions. I am for complete disclosure of all contributions and all expenditures which are made. I think we have to limit the special issue groups so that is obviously not in order. And I think Shays-Meehan would do it, and I would encourage all of us to do it.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support tax relief for all Americans. As Governor of Delaware, I reduced income taxes three times. As Delaware's representative in Congress, I supported the significant tax relief for families and businesses in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I hope to have the opportunity to vote for significant, broad- based tax relief in 1999. However, in the past each time I signed or voted for legislation to reduce taxes I worked to ensure it was as part of a comprehensive balanced budget plan. Unfortunately, this legislation, at a cost of $792 billion over ten years--80% of the projected budget surplus--does not allow for a complete plan to preserve the surplus and a balanced budget. When this legislation was considered by the House, I proposed an alternative tax relief plan that would have provided $514 billion in tax relief. My proposal would preserve $482 billion of the projected surplus for debt reduction, emergencies and other needs. Unfortunately, the House was not permitted to vote on that alternative. I hope when Congress and the President finish staking out political positions on this issue, we can come together in the fall and reach a comprehensive agreement that provides for solid tax relief and sets aside funds for debt reduction, potential emergencies and a realistic plan to fund defense, education, Medicare and other important priorities over the next ten years. The size of this tax legislation is the most serious issue. The bill would commit $792 billion of a projected $996 ten-year surplus to tax reduction. It just does not make sense to commit 80% of a surplus we have not yet achieved to one purpose. It leaves very little margin for error. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified just last week that ten-year economic projections are not reliable. The surplus will grow to $996 billion only if the economy remains strong and if there are no other changes in tax or spending policy. If we spend more or have less revenue, interest payments on the debt will be larger and the surplus will be smaller. If we commit $792 billion to tax reductions, virtually all of the rest of the $996 surplus will be needed to pay higher interest costs on the debt. If we experience an economic downturn, these surpluses could easily turn to deficits. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which made these predictions stated that they could vary by as much as $100 billion in any year. The assumptions necessary for a $792 billion tax cut leave no room for the unplanned, but almost certain expenses like natural disasters and other emergencies. Over the past ten years, emergencies have averaged at least $8 billion per year. It is a fact: hurricanes, floods, droughts and military emergencies happen virtually every year. This year, Congress has already spent $15 billion in emergency funds for Kosovo. Just yesterday, the Senate passed a $7.4 billion emergency disaster relief package for farmers. Delaware and virtually every state in the eastern U.S. is suffering from one of the worse droughts of the century. The billions in emergency aid now in the Senate will almost certainly be followed by the need for more drought assistance. Those funds will come straight from the surplus. There will be emergencies every year and those likely costs must be factored into our calculations of what size tax cut is possible. Furthermore, while Medicare is currently fundamentally sound, there are growing problems in the area of home health care, HMO's and rural and teaching hospitals. Correcting those problems may require additional funds. Finally, important programs like defense, education, and veterans must be adequately funded. The size of this tax legislation is based on completely unrealistic assumptions that domestic programs can be drastically reduced. Congress is already avoiding those cuts this year. We can and should limit spending, but cuts of 10 percent or more are just not realistic. My second concern is the need for debt reduction. The federal debt is $5.6 trillion and requires 15 percent of the annual federal budget to service. If we do not take the opportunity to pay down this debt during strong economic times, then when will we? Tax relief is important, but it should be balanced with the need to begin to pay down at least some of the $5.6 trillion federal debt. Committing 80 percent of the projected surplus to tax reductions, simply does not allow enough of the surplus for debt reduction. I was pleased to be involved in the negotiations that produced the amendment to condition the phase-in of the broad-based tax relief provisions on reducing the debt. This ``tax cut trigger'' is a positive addition to the bill, but it does not go far enough. Billions in tax relief to businesses will go forward regardless of whether we are meeting our debt payment goals. More of the projected surplus should be reserved to pay down the debt. When I talk to people in Delaware, they almost always tell me that should be our top priority because they know everyone benefits from lower interest rates on their own debt, including credit card and mortgage rates. In fact, a 1 percent drop in interest rates saves Americans $200-$250 billion in mortgage costs. That is real middle class financial relief. We can and should provide tax relief to all taxpayers, but we must balance tax relief with debt reduction, future emergencies, national defense, health care and education and the need to protect against an economic downturn. The tax alternatives proposed by House Democrats and President Clinton are not adequate. We can provide more than $250-$300 billion in tax relief to working Americans without jeopardizing other priorities. Clearly the President must become actively engaged to achieve a true compromise. I cannot support his legislation today because it does not balance tax relief with the need to reduce the national debt and a realistic cushion for the inevitable emergencies and other budget problems that will occur over the next ten years. When Congress returns in September, I hope we can engage in serious negotiations with the President that utilizes the good proposals for broad-based tax relief in this legislation but at a more affordable level. I look forward to working with all members of Congress and the Administration to ultimately produce legislation to give every American significant tax relief.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. I will yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, I assume that is also true. However I will say that clearly both of those should have assumed this. These are matters which we knew were coming, and they should have been assumed in both of those particular projections. I do not know why they were not. To me that is an error.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Let me just start by saying that I think the chairman of the subcommittee does a wonderful job with a very difficult task. I believe that the gentleman and the gentlewoman who have been handling the census issues have done well, also. I am not an expert on that. I really do not even want to discuss or debate that. I agree that it has to be done. I do agree with the gentleman from California who just spoke. My view is that if this amendment passes, within 3 hours the subcommittee will have met again and probably straightened out this problem in some way or another. I think it is fallacious to stand here and say that the census is not going to be done because this particular amendment does pass. But we are not here really to discuss that. In my judgment we are here to discuss the budgetary aspects of this and why are we declaring a census which has been called for since 1789 in this country to be an emergency. The bottom line answer is, it is not an emergency, it is not unforeseen, it is not unanticipated, it fails every definition of ``emergency'' we have ever had here in the Congress of the United States. My judgment is that we just have to stop the rampant abuse that has been going on in recent years of calling everything an emergency to avoid the problems of the budget and to avoid the problems of the caps that we are all so familiar with here on the floor of the House of Representatives. It is just not honest budgeting. It is just something which makes no sense back home. The argument was already made about some of the emergency spending, but just look at this. In 1999, we designated $34 billion as emergency spending here in the House of Representatives and in the Congress of the United States. If we look at the CBO numbers, and this argument has already been made, but CBO reported $14 billion in on-budget surplus for the year 2000. CBO says we might actually have a $3 billion deficit now. How did they get there? They count $3 billion of spending for administrative expenses for Social Security Administration, other spending on defense, nondefense and transportation discretionary spending which will be $14 billion higher than CBO assumed for 2000 in its current baseline. There is not, as has been suggested here, an on-budget surplus. What does that mean? That means again we are going to have to borrow from Social Security in order to fund this particular census situation, and indeed I think that is something that we simply do not want to do. What are we coming on to? I believe over in the Senate they are putting together about a $7 billion package for more emergency spending. Indeed, if this bill passes, we are going to have that much more emergency spending, all of which comes out of the overall money which is there. We have just done a tax cut here. We have had a lot of references to $996 billion over the next 10 years. Every time we spend one of these emergency spending bills, we take it away from that $996 billion in terms of determining where we are going to go. This is just not realistic budgeting. It is just not something that we should be doing in the Congress of the United States. We should face up to the people of the United States and say that we are spending the money properly and in order and in a way one can understand, or that we are breaking the caps, or we should reduce it as some would want to do. That, in my judgment, is what we should do.

Mr. CASTLE. No, it is not true. Sorry.

Mr. CASTLE. I do not know the answer to that.

Mr. CASTLE. I assume it did, or the gentleman from Kentucky would not be asking that question.

Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, I do not agree at all with what the gentleman has just stated, and I do not think he is at fault in this at all. But I believe those who did those allocations, I believe the leadership in looking at this in overlooking this problem of dealing with this 3.5 billion to $4.5 billion made a serious error. I think that is where the problem is. We should correct it now. We should start by passing this amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support tax relief for all Americans. I support and believe we will enact broad-based tax relief legislation this year. I have been actively involved in negotiations on the current tax relief legislation before the House, H.R. 2488, the Financial Freedom Act. During these negotiations, I have stressed three concerns. First, is the size of the proposed tax cut. Is it too large in relation to the total projected surplus? Second, is the need to reduce the federal debt. Does this legislation allow us to pay down the federal debt? Third, is fairness. Does the bill provide tax relief fairly to all taxpayers? First, the size of the tax bill is a serious issue. The bill would commit $792 billion of the projected $996 ten-year surplus to tax reduction. I am concerned that it is unwise to commit 80% of the projected ten-year budget surplus to one purpose. It leaves very little margin for error. The surplus will be $996 billion if the economy remains strong and if there are no other changes in tax or spending policy. If there are changes, interest payments on the debt will be larger and the surplus will be smaller. If we commit $972 billion to tax reductions, virtually all of the rest of the $996 surplus will be needed to pay higher interest costs on the debt. That leaves no room for unplanned, but very likely expenses like natural disasters and other emergencies. Over the past ten years, emergencies have averaged at least $8 billion per year. That pattern indicates likely future emergencies will reduce the projected surplus by at least $80 billion. This year, we have already spent $15 billion in emergency funds for Kosovo and domestic emergencies require additional emergency aid later this year. We need to factor these likely needs into our calculations. While Medicare is currently fundamentally sound, there are growing problems in the area of home health care, HMO's and rural and teaching hospitals. Correcting those problems may require additional funds. Finally, important programs like education, veterans and the environment must be adequately funded. We cannot assume that these programs will be unrealistically reduced when estimating the surplus. The cost of the current House tax bill also grows rapidly in the second ten years. Some estimates are that it could be almost $3 trillion after 2009. That will occur just as the baby boom generation begins to retire and the Social Security surplus begins to decline. It is clearly unwise to risk the on-budget surplus at the same time Social Security and Medicare will be experiencing increased pressure to meet the needs of millions of new retirees. My second concern is the need for debt reduction. The federal debt is $5.6 trillion and requires 15 percent of the annual federal budget to service. If we do not take the opportunity to pay down this debt during strong economic times, then when will we? Tax relief is important, but it should be balanced with the need to begin to pay down at least some of the $5.6 trillion federal debt. Committing 80 percent of the projected surplus to tax reductions, simply does not allow enough of the surplus for debt reduction. I was pleased to be involved in the negotiations that produced the amendment to condition the phase in of the 10 percent across the board tax reduction on reducing interest payments on the debt. If we are not reducing the debt, up to $375 billion of the tax reduction would be postponed. This is a positive addition to the bill, but it does not affect billions in tax relief to businesses which would go forward regardless of whether we are meeting our debt payment goals. I believe that more of the projected surplus should be reserved to pay down the debt. My constituents tell me that should be our top priority because they know everyone benefits from lower interest rates on their own debt, including credit card and mortgage rates. In fact, a one percent drop in interest rates saves Americans $200-$250 billion in mortgage costs. That is real middle class financial relief. My final concern is whether this is the most fair tax bill we could produce. The bill does contain broad-based tax relief and that is to be applauded, but I believe the bill drafted in the Senate is superior because it provides more tax relief for lower and middle income families, encourages saving and provides more relief from the marriage penalty. I believe the reduction in the 15 percent bracket benefits taxpayers of all incomes, particularly those of more moderate incomes, more fairly than the 10 percent across the board cut in the House bill. We can and should provide tax relief to all taxpayers, but in trying to balance tax relief with debt reduction, potential emergencies, other government programs, and the need to protect against a sudden drop in the economy, it is not necessary to include all the provisions in the House bill at this time. For example, Congress with my support, recently enacted significant capital gains and estate tax relief in 1997. I think those provisions in the current bill could be scaled back as we try to provide more of the surplus for debt reduction and other needs. I proposed a broad-based tax relief alternative that would provide $514 billion in tax relief over ten years and reserve $482 billion of the projected surplus for debt reduction or other needs. My alternative included broad-based relief more targeted to middle and low income earners by reducing the 15 percent tax bracket to 14 percent. In addition, my plan reduced the marriage penalty, provided tax credits for child and dependent care. It provided more responsible estate tax relief, health care, pension, and small business tax relief. While the House was not permitted to vote on my alternative, I think this plan is more reflective of what can actually be enacted into law this year. I believe the tax alternatives proposed by House Democrats and the Administration are not adequate. We can provide more than $250 billion in tax relief to working Americans without jeopardizing other priorities. Clearly the President and Congressional Democrats will have to improve their proposals to achieve a true compromise. While I could not support the legislation before the House today, I look forward to working with all Members of Congress and the Administration to ultimately produce legislation to give every American significant tax relief.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), a strong supporter of education and member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.