Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for their extraordinary work on this particular piece of legislation which I have looked at. I have been in every public school in my State. By the way, I would not advise Members try that unless their State is the size of Delaware. I can tell my colleagues that I have spoken to many, many teachers there, and I have heard them worry about the Federal role as far as education is concerned, which is, as somebody said here, about 7 percent of all of the funding. In Delaware we are already down to 17 pupils per teacher in our classes. We do not need help with the extra teachers. Why we are fighting so hard or why some people on this floor are fighting so hard to make sure we have this exclusive provision in the Martinez substitute for just 100,000 teachers, I do not know. I believe that the best way to do this is what this bill does. It allows the school districts to determine the correct balance between teacher, quality, and class size. This bill allows States like Delaware, school districts all over the United States of America which are in compliance with what has to be done with respect to class size, to improve the quality of the teachers which they have. It combines the best element of Goals 2000 and the Eisenhower program. These are extraordinary programs. This really gives us an opportunity to uplift the quality of teachers across the United States. But if a school district wants to reduce its class size, it can do it. If a State wants to reduce its class size, it can do it. So the legislation, in my judgment, does all that it should do to help with teacher quality, which is of overwhelming importance. It sends the dollars back to the classroom, back to the States, back to the local school districts. It actually promotes innovative teacher reforms, and we have needed this for years, which I think is exceptional. The bill also ensures high quality professional development. I think professional development has been left behind as far as teachers are concerned. It also promotes math and science in the Eisenhower program, which is of overwhelming importance in this country. And of course it consolidates our Federal programs. So this legislation has much to offer, and I would encourage everybody to support it. Hopefully, we will have a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden helping the teachers and the students of America someday.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman again and again congratulate him for the work which he has done on this. Unfortunately, I respectfully rise in opposition to the substitute offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez). I say regretfully because he is a wonderful guy, not because I necessarily agree with him on the policy. Unfortunately, the specific set-aside for class size reduction in the Martinez substitute creates a false choice between the need for more teachers and the need for better teachers. We can do better. The Teacher Empowerment Act maintains our commitment to smaller class size by requiring a portion of funds be used for this purpose, but it also recognizes the different needs of our local school districts by focusing resources on initiatives to improve classroom outcomes for teachers and students alike. In States like Delaware, where I am from, where the average class size in grades K through 3 is 17 students or in other States where further reductions in class size will result in hiring uncertified or unqualified teachers, these funds can be used to provide teacher training in subject areas like math, science, reading, and the language arts. The flexibility in the Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes the fact that students in smaller classes may perform better academically, but that advantage is lost if the teacher is unprepared to teach. The Teacher Empowerment Act allows our teachers to receive the intensive long-term training they need to raise the academic achievement of their students. If the localities are unable to provide professional development, this bill allows the teachers to choose their own high-quality training programs and, in so doing, the Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes the plain truth that a skilled professional can and will raise the academic achievement of the entire classroom, even among our most disadvantaged children, even in classrooms that exceed 18 students. Finally, it is estimated that approximately 40 percent of teachers will become eligible for some type of retirement during the next 5 years. This bill addresses that as well. I would encourage us all to support the underlying bill and to defeat the Martinez amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, 4 years ago, the Delaware State legislature, in cooperation with Governor Carper, created a plan to establish a modern educational technology infrastructure in Delaware public schools to help students develop the skills our world-class work force requires. As a result, Delaware was the first State in the Nation to have network access in every public school classroom. Like Delaware, our Nation's school districts are increasingly investing in technology to improve education, communication, and the flow of information. Between school years 1983 to 1984 and 1995 to 1996, the ratio of students per computer has fallen from 125 to as low as 8 nationally. Yet, at a time when 78 percent of public schools have access to the Internet, only 20 percent of teachers report feeling well prepared to integrate educational technology into classroom instruction. Educational technology can significantly improve student achievement, but we need to do more than simply place the computer in the classroom. We need to provide our educators with the skills they need to incorporate educational technology into their lesson plans. The Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes the importance of educational technology in our classrooms by encouraging States in school districts to develop and implement professional development programs that train teachers in the use of technology in the classroom. It also encourages the coordination of activities and the integration of funding with programs under title III, ESEA's education technology programs, to provide comprehensive development programs that focus on technology. The Castle-Fletcher amendment simply strengthens the technology language that already exists in the Teacher Empowerment Act. It allows States to provide assistance to local educational agencies and eligible partnerships to develop innovative professional development programs that train teachers to use technology. And it requires, to the extent appropriate, that professional development activities provide training for teachers so that technology and its applications are effectively used in classroom learning. Effective teaching strategies must incorporate educational technology if we are to ensure that all children have the skills they need to compete in their high-tech workplace. I urge an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, let me just congratulate the gentleman from Iowa and the gentleman from New York for the wonderful and extraordinary work they have done on this. I rise in strong support of H.R. 10, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, and I urge my colleagues to seize the opportunity to pass this historic legislation. This legislation is not just years overdue, it is decades overdue. H.R. 10 will allow the marketplace to give American consumers more products and better choices to build a better financial future for them and their families. H.R. 10 will give American banks, insurance companies and insurance firms the opportunity to compete fairly in the international marketplace. We are finally close to achieving the overdue goal of financial modernization. The President is ready to work with us to enact a law. We cannot falter now. This legislation will benefit American families and American business and maintain sound regulation. Seize this great opportunity. Pass H.R. 10. Let us move our financial laws out of the 1930s and into the next century. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 10. It means a better future for our Nation. To say that this legislation is long-overdue is a tremendous understatement. It is not just years overdue. It is decades overdue. Past attempts to pass financial services reform often failed because one industry group or another felt that past bills put them at a disadvantage. While this legislative struggle has been going on, our constituents have been looking for new, efficient 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 in the 1930s and 1950s. Our Nation's banking, securities and insurance laws must be updated to face the challenges of the next century. Over the past three years, Congress has moved ever closer to the goal of legislation that will benefit consumers and fairly balance the divergent interests of banks, insurance companies, insurance agents, and securities firms, as well as the federal and state regulators that oversee these industries. As a member of the House Banking Committee, I have been directly involved in the work to modernize our financial services laws since I came to Congress in 1993. I have to tell you it has been a difficult struggle to balance the competing interests of the banking, securities and insurance industries. The legislation before us today, while not perfect, has finally won the endorsement of all major industry groups. Now is the time to act. We must do this to benefit consumers who need a variety of financial products to help them plan for their economic futures. In addition, we must update these laws to allow our financial services providers to compete effectively in the next century. The most important reason for supporting this legislation is that it will benefit every American seeking to improve their 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. In addition, the bill contains important disclosure and sales standards to protect consumers as they shop for these products. This legislation will help consumers, but it will also benefit the businesses seeking to provide these financial products. It will enable banks, insurance companies and securities firms to affiliate and operate more competitively on a level playing field. It will expand the products that these financial services firms can offer to their customers, while maintaining adequate regulation to preserve the safety and soundness of the system. Madam Chairman, as part of the long deliberations seeking to treat all financial services providers fairly, I have been particularly interested in assuring that national banks are permitted to compete fairly in selling and underwriting insurance products. Bank sales and underwriting of insurance will be good for competition and good for American consumers. To be candid, the provisions in this legislation regarding banking and insurance are not perfect. I am sure representatives of the banking and insurance industries can tell you how they believe the provisions can be improved, but the fact of the matter is we have a workable compromise that will protect consumers and allow for improved and fair competition in how insurance is sold and underwritten by banks and their new affiliates. Madam Chairman, on this floor last year, I said to my colleagues that this is historic legislation that has been a longtime in coming. That statement is more true than ever. Overall, H.R. 10 is a well-crafted effort to make our financial services system ready for the 21st century and to meet the needs of American consumers and business. This is our best opportunity in years to bring our financial laws out of the past and into the next century. The Senate has finally passed its own legislation and the President is ready to join us in enacting this legislation. Every American who has a bank account, a mutual fund, or an insurance policy will have new opportunities and choices to help build financial security for their families. I urge my colleagues to take this historic step and pass H.R. 10 today.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the newly elected President General of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, Howard F. Horne, Jr., Ph.D. I am particularly pleased to recognize Dr. Horne because he lives in Delaware and will be leading the SAR into the next millennium. Dr. Horne was born and raised in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. He later moved to Elmira, New York where he developed a fondness and talent for distance running. He enrolled at Pennsylvania State University, where he completed his Bachelors, Masters, and Doctorate in Industrial Relations. He was also a member of several National Championship Track and Cross Country Teams for the University. Dr. Horne enlisted in the army in 1942 and became a Commissioned Officer. He served in World War II and the Korean Conflict in the Counter Intelligence Corps. After completing his degrees at Penn State, Dr. Horne worked for the DuPont Company as a human relations manager. In 1985 Dr. Horne left DuPont to open his own consulting company, Horne Associates. He has previously served as the President of the Chamber of Commerce and the United Way in Waynesboro, Virginia. Dr. Horne has now retired to devote his full attention to SAR. The Delaware chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution recognized his leadership beginning in 1987 when he was elected to two terms as Treasurer and two terms as President. He also served as the Vice President General of the Mid-Atlantic district. At the national level, Dr. Horne was elected to serve nine years on the Executive Committee of the National Society, as well as holding the offices of Registrar General, Treasurer General and Secretary General. He has been a member of numerous committees, and personally recruited and sponsored over sixty members. Dr. Horne was responsible for drafting the Society's membership manual and the chapters' ``how-to'' manual. The National Society has honored him with the Minuteman Award, Patriot Medal, Liberty Medal, Silver Good Citizenship Medal, War Service Medal, Stewart B. McCarty Award, two certificates of Distinguished Service, and Fifteen Certificates of Appreciation. He also received the Distinguished Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, and the Centennial Medal. Dr. Horne is married to Nancy Jean Meyer, and has two sons, Chip and Gary, both of whom are members of SAR. He has three grandchildren, two of whom are members of C.A.R. Dr. Horne has also served as a Deacon and an Elder in the Presbyterian church. I congratulate the Sons of the American Revolution in their outstanding choice of Dr. Howard F. Horne, Jr. as President General. They could not have made a better choice to lead them into the new millennium.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Obviously, I rise in support of the Conyers-Campbell amendment. Let us understand exactly where we are now. The Dingell bill is passed. There is a 24-hour check. Ninety percent of all the people that get the instant background check can buy their guns right away. We are dealing with the 10 percent of people who have been arrested at some time in their lives. We are trying to find out if they have been convicted. Are they felons, or are they not felons? We need time to do that. This basic legislation with the Dingell amendment in it now would apply to weekend gun shows. That is when gun shows take place, and they cannot check it in 24 hours because the courthouses simply are not open. It is not a loophole. It is just a wide open highway that a felon can take advantage of to go and buy guns. We are going to be arming felons if we leave this law the way it is. Why do we not pass the Conyers-Campbell substitute now? It does exactly what the Senate did. It does it correctly. It has been signed off on by virtually every group out there that has looked at the issue of guns, and, in my judgment, in this country it is the way to go. We do not want to arm felons, we want to prevent them from being armed. Let us pass the substitute.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce very much for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I also thank all those who worked on this legislation, particularly the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) who did so much good work on it. Just a few months ago, reports of school violence dominated the national media and focused our attention on the small suburban communities of Springfield, Paducah, Edinboro, Littleton and Jonesboro. In the wake of these tragedies, men, women, and children across the country joined together and called upon their elected officials to help stem the tide of violence in their schools and their communities. What followed was a rush of legislation, from guns and video games to parental involvement and school prayer. Everything was on the table. After much discussion, we came to understand that no one approach would have prevented the episodic violence in these schools. Eventually, cooler heads prevailed, and we realized that a balanced approach, one that incorporated the best ideas of each of these proposals, was our greatest hope to ensure that our schools would never again be a place of death and violence. As part of this effort, I am pleased to rise in strong support of the juvenile crime prevention amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. This amendment is a product of extensive negotiations between Members on both sides of the aisle, and I am pleased that it comes to the floor with bipartisan support, thanks in large part, as I already mentioned, to the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). This amendment acknowledges that most successful solutions to juvenile crime are developed at the State and local levels by people who understand the unique qualities of the youth in their neighborhood. I believe it goes a long way toward providing State and localities the necessary flexibility to address the problems associated with juvenile crime in their communities. This amendment also acknowledges that intervention and prevention, such as educational assistance, job training, and employment services programs, are effective tools in reducing and preventing juvenile crime. In this era of dual-income families, roughly 5 million kids return to an empty house when the school day ends. It is not surprising, then, that juvenile crime increases by 300 percent after 3 p.m. Those that are not engaged in delinquent behavior are sitting, in many cases, in front of the television, the baby-sitter of choice for millions of latchkey kids. Recent studies have confirmed what we have intuitively known about after-school programs. These programs, such as the athletic or mentoring programs offered by the YMCA and Boys' and Girls' Clubs of America, give our most at-risk children a positive alternative to television, drugs, alcohol, sexual activity and crime. There is no doubt about the importance of these programs. But our after-school providers and participants need better access to information about the current range of programs and industry ``best practices.'' For this reason, I am especially pleased that the Goodling amendment incorporates my language to require the GAO to undertake a study to help us better understand the values of after-school programs and the barriers to providing these important services. In addition, the Goodling amendment underscores the importance of these programs by allowing the States to use prevention funds to extend the reach of our after-school programs. As we all know, even children who enjoy the advantages of caring parents and good schools can just as easily go astray as those that who are disadvantaged. For all of those reasons, I urge all of us in this House to support this amendment for the benefit of all the children in our country.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Our purpose tonight is not to restrict any law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Our purpose tonight is to make laws requiring background checks for purchasing firearms to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and unsupervised young people. There is absolutely no reason that purchases at gun shows should be treated differently than purchases at a store. There should be a background check. This background check should allow adequate time to ensure that someone with a felony conviction is not permitted to purchase a gun. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) pointed out, the National Instant Check System reveals those individuals who may have a felony arrest. The next step is to check local court records to determine if that person has a criminal conviction. That check may take 2 or 3 days. That is a short time to wait to help ensure that a violent felon does not walk away from a gun show with a lethal weapon. The Dingell amendment will not accomplish any of those goals. It does not adequately define a gun show. It will not allow adequate background checks at gun shows. It will do little to close the gaping loophole in current laws that give criminals the incentive to purchase guns at gun shows. We need reasonable and effective background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The Dingell amendment comes up short. Oppose the Dingell amendment and support the McCarthy-Roukema amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and for all she has done. Let me just try to run through this, what I have tried to glean from this discussion. Ninety percent or so of the people that go in to buy a gun will go through the instant background check, and they will be cleared right away. That is probably everybody in this room. That probably leaves 10 percent. What do we know about those 10 percent? Those 10 percent probably have some kind of an arrest on their record. That is what shows up at that instant check. Now, what do we know after that? We do not know anything after that if we assume the Dingell amendment which has just passed, which is a 24-hour period, but they may be convicted felons is what we know. But we will not know that for sure under this particular legislation, because most gun shows take place on the weekend, and the people who want to buy the guns are going to go in there, if they are convicted felons, on a Friday night or a Saturday. We have, in a way, sort of concocted a felon holiday, if you will; a period of time where, for a little bit in the beginning of the weekend, so they can get the gun and get out before the 24 hours is over, and they can go in and purchase a gun. Why can they do that? Because the courts are not open. The courts are certainly not open in Georgetown, Dover, or New Castle County, Delaware. That is the problem. I think we need to pass the McCarthy bill, really close the loopholes so that the felons will not have guns. Vote for the McCarthy-Roukema amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment, particularly that portion that pertains to the subject the gentleman from Georgia moments ago was talking about, the failures of the Titan 4-A and 4-B rockets and/or their upper stages, resulting in the loss of valuable military and intelligence satellites. This is $3 billion we have lost in these satellites, and we are counting with respect to that. As a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and as chairman of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, I also have jurisdiction over this matter from the intelligence perspective, and we have had meetings with the Air Force and other personnel concerning this, including the companies involved in the failures. And there are investigations under way from the executive branch's perspective. But the national security interests and billions in costs required that appropriate committees in Congress, we believe, received detailed reports on failures as well as the reforms being implemented to prevent future failures. As my colleagues can see, the amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress and the President on factors involved in these failures and what systemic and management reforms are being implemented to minimize future failures. This oversight is not only desired, but required by us in the Congress to appropriate funds for these launches. This amendment's requirements, we think, are prudent, and we thank the committee for considering them.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding, and I do rise in strong support of his amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, which would require the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress annually regarding the counterintelligence and security practices at our national laboratories. I will not belabor this too much, because a lot of what I would say would be repetitious of what the gentleman from Indiana has already stated; but as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I do have a distinct interest, as I think we all do, but perhaps it is a little more focused on the intelligence committee in safeguarding our national labs, especially considering the recent release of the details of the Cox-Dicks report regarding United States national security and the People's Republic of China. The facts obviously are still emerging, the consequences of that are still emerging, and efforts are being made to address it, but I think we have come to the conclusion that something needs to be done on a longer term regular basis, if my colleagues will, is what this amendment is all about, requiring the Secretary of Energy to issue an annual report on certain matters related to counterintelligence and security, in those particular labs. So I am strongly supportive of this. I think we need to remain ever vigilant on this. We need to learn from the past, and we need to make sure that whatever it is that we do to cure these things will be continued into the future, and in my judgment some sort of annual review is exactly what is needed, and so for that reason I strongly support this amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, it is not, and I say this respectfully--I do not want to pick a political fight today particularly--it is not just on this side of the aisle. For example, the OMB director, Mr. Lew, has said he is going to slam Republicans today for deep, unwarranted cuts in funding, yet he will insist that the GOP resist the temptation to raise the budget caps this year. That is probably a strategy that maybe your side of the aisle will use as well. The bottom line is it involves all of us. If we are going to resolve this problem, it involves all of us. Yes, I think my side of the aisle should be involved, they should go down to the White House, too, but we should all be talking about this.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct. I think that her subcommittee did fine. I have a problem with the allocations.

Mr. CASTLE. To suggest that the President of the United States should not be involved in the resolution of the spending of the United States, including the budget allocations, as well as all other decisions which are being made on Social Security and Medicare and tax cuts and whatever else we do, is to presume that the President is powerless. And this President is not powerless. The White House is a major player in this. It is simply not just the prerogative of the majority here or even a majority and a minority together here. It is something that should be worked out with everybody sitting down to try to make a difference. I say that constructively. I do not say it in a political sense. I say it entirely constructively.

Mr. CASTLE. I do understand your question. Reclaiming my time, I am going to try to answer your question. The system of budgeting in this country in general has failed in many ways. I believe that the emergency appropriations, in which the White House was very involved, was a series of expenditures beyond what we should have done, cutting into what could have been used for Social Security and what could have been used for other spending. I believe that the omnibus bill that passed at the end of last year, and the President is involved in that, I am not saying it disrespectfully but the President is involved in that, was a bill which went well beyond any dollars that we should have spent in the course of the year because the President wanted to spend more. I am cognizant of the fact that the President is going to want to spend more in my judgment by the end of this year. As I said, sometime in October or November, that is going to happen. The executive branch is always involved in decisions such as this. It is a political war going on. The White House is saying, ``Don't break the budget caps.'' And the House and the Senate are saying, ``Well, we're not going to break the budget caps.'' But we are coming up with a methodology that is ultimately going to lead to that happening and it is going to have to happen at the end of the year. I do not think that is proper. I am not excusing what we are doing here, but I am also not going to say that the White House is not involved.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that her subcommittee has done just fine based on the allocations which are there. My problem is that I do not think we can live with the budget caps which are there and get everything in that we are ultimately going to have to do in the course of this year. You might be able to pass your particular appropriation bill, but, as I said, I think there are at least five and probably more than five, maybe six or seven which simply are not going to pass with these caps. You happen to be sort of in the upper end of that if you really look at it. You are not as high as Defense and a couple of others but you are in the top four or five. Therefore, you are probably in the best circumstance in terms of what you can do. But if you look down through these, VA-HUD and a series of others, Labor-HHS in particular and Interior and some others simply are not going to make it in this circumstance. We are going to come to the end, then it will all get rolled together, we will do it in the form of an emergency bill, taking money away from Social Security and other spending we could do; or we will roll it together in some sort of omnibus bill at the end of the year as we did last year with all kinds of extraneous spending. Unfortunately, you suffer the brunt of the conclusions of people like me and maybe some others who approach you from a different point of view. But because of that we need to express ourselves and try to get the attention of people all over Washington to try to pull this together and come up with some resolution of the matter.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I may, I just wanted to come to the floor to discuss all of this because I have some views on this that may be a little bit different than what we have heard. I support the particular amendment, as I have a number of these amendments, with respect to reductions. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the chairman of the committee and for the work that the staff has done. I think they have actually worked hard on this. But I have a huge problem with the way that we are managing the finances of the country today. I am not talking about just here in the House. I am not talking about the House and the Senate. I am talking about the House, the Senate, and the White House and the President of the United States. It is my judgment that there are sufficient revenues on hand today to do virtually everything that I have heard the people think needs to be done; that is, to help rescue the Social Security and/or Medicare systems; to make our expenditures proper, particularly in the areas of defense and education and other areas that we agree need a great deal of help, as well as agriculture, I might add; to live well within a balanced budget circumstance, and probably frankly to be able to have a tax cut. But somehow we have gotten tied into the 302(a) allocation and the 302(b) allocations. Everyone is unwilling to talk about doing anything different. Nobody is willing to get together to sit down and say, ``What are we going to do?'' I can tell you exactly what we are going to do. We might pass this particular bill and a number of the other appropriations bills, but we are going to end up with at least five of these bills, and maybe six or seven of them. We are going to have a train crash, and the train crash is going to be the same as the train crash we have had almost every year since I have been here. Sometime along about November, we are going to be in a circumstance in which we are not able to get the others passed. We are going to get into an omnibus situation, we are then going to break the budget caps, we are probably going to spend about $50 billion more than we should have spent otherwise because we did not sit down now and plan how we are going to manage the revenues and the budget of the United States. A lot has happened in the last 2 years since we came to the balanced agreement. There are a lot more revenues on the table now. I believe that I am fiscally conservative, as are many Members here, but I also believe that we have to make decisions which are astute and which make some sense. I think the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma is making some very good points here, not just individually on each of the amendments which he is presenting but on the basic concept of what we are doing. For that reason, I think that we have to start to think outside of the box on the finances of the United States. I intend to take this up directly with the President, at least in the form of a letter, as well as with our leadership, to stress some of these points and to suggest that we are going down a road that we are not going to be able to complete and we are going to be casting votes here throughout the summer on a series of appropriations bills that are going to end up being very different when it comes to November. In a way it is a shame that somebody as distinguished as the present chairman is sort of at the brunt of the feelings of some of us who do not think the proper decisions are being made. It is very simple. Why wait until the end, when virtually everybody agrees that probably we are going to break out of these budget caps and the allocations will probably change in some way or another? Why can we not get together now? Why can we not get together with the White House, which has a major voice in this, sit down and make the decisions and go from there? That is what the people of the country want. They want our country managed well from a financial point of view and in a basically conservative way so that we are able to move forward. That is what I would like to do.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. CASTLE. That is correct.

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) who is not only from Colorado, but has been through a difficult 5 weeks living in the shadow of Columbine High School.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 249.