Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 249) to provide funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children's Protection Act. This legislation authorizes the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and the Missing Children's Assistance Act. It provides an authorization for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and it directs the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the cultural influences on youth violence. Mr. Speaker, this is National Missing Children's Day, and obviously, we have had a great number of hardships in America in recent weeks that all of us want to address. Hopefully, what we are going to do today will in some small part start to address these problems. This legislation authorizes the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act to provide services for the 0.5 million to 1.5 million youth estimated to run away annually. The legislation continues the runaway and homeless youth programs found in current law, including the basic center grants and the transitional living grants. These effective programs protect youth by keeping them off the streets, away from criminal activities and out of desperate circumstances. These programs provide assistance to homeless and other youth who are without adult support so they learn to live independently and become productive adults. This legislation also provides for the continuation of services under the Missing Children's Assistance Act. For instance, this act authorizes grants for research, demonstration projects and service programs in areas such as abduction prevention education. The provision of this bill that I particularly want to focus my colleagues' attention on is its authorization of an appropriation for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children helps families who have a missing child locate that child. Since 1984, the Center has worked with law enforcement on the cases of 67,173 missing children, resulting in the recovery of 46,031 children. In 1998 alone, it assisted in finding 5,835 missing children. The Center works with the families of 80 missing children in my own State of Delaware. The Center services, including its National Missing Child Hotline, are essential to all families of missing children. Recognizing the Center's substantial success rate in recovering missing children and its annual designation as the national clearinghouse for information on missing children, the legislation authorizes a $10 million yearly appropriation for fiscal years 2000 through 2003 for the Center. This authorization ensures that for the next 4 years the Center can focus on providing assistance to families without interruption. Some of my colleagues may remember that I have been working to get this legislation passed since the 105th Congress. I am pleased we are one step closer to completing this effort. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, the Missing Children's Assistance Act and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Youth provide much needed services for missing and runaway youth. Finally, I would like to mention an important study contained in this legislation. As Members may know, my subcommittee has held hearings on the issue of school violence in response to the tragic shootings that have traumatized our Nation's schools. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), an active member of the subcommittee, has crafted legislation to help us obtain information on why students commit such violent acts. A great deal of blame has been spread around, and I believe it is important that we really understand the causal factors that place youth at risk for school violence. Before I conclude, I would like to thank several Members for their assistance on this legislation. I would like to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). I would also like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who will be managing the bill on the opposite side of the aisle, as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), for their hard work on the school violence study. Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation and it deserves the support of the House of Representatives. The Senate has already passed comparable legislation. We would like to pass our legislation and proceed to conference as quickly as possible. It has been far too long that these important programs have been without an authorization. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would just point out a couple of things. One, we have spoken to various parts of this legislation, but I think we all in the House of Representatives need to understand the importance and the components of what we are dealing with here. It first authorizes, as I said in my opening, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and Missing Children's Assistance Act. It also provides an authorization, which we heard about very eloquently from several speakers for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; and it does, as we also heard from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and others, direct the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the cultural influences on youth violence. These things, in and of themselves, may not prevent all the problems of youth in this country, it will not; but it may in some small way start the mending process which we consider to be so important. I would just like to thank all of those who took the time to come to the floor to speak to this today and all the Members of the House, who I believe will be supportive of what we consider to be very significant legislation to help with these problems.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), another distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who has worked hard in the Congress of the United States on the issues of children.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, today the House of Representatives considers an important bill to improve and strengthen U.S. leadership in space exploration. This bill, the ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act'' includes approval of funds for U.S. participation in the International Space Station, funds for aerospace and earth science research and funds for space science programs. These are all important programs and worthy goals. However, I rise to speak in support of an important technology for our future efforts to explore space: funding for research and develop into TransHab technology. TransHab uses inflatable structure technology to package a much larger living and working volume in the equivalent Shuttle cargo size. In theory, the TransHab concept has more volume and radiation shielding when compared with the current Habitation module. TransHab could also serve as a technology demonstration for the human exploration of Mars. The NASA reauthorization bill currently prohibits NASA from making additional expenditures on any inflatable structure intended to replace current models on the International Space Station. However, the bill does leave the possibility for research and development of crew-related inflatable structures in FY01 and FY02. I understand the financial concerns the Committee on Science has expressed regarding funding TransHab technology for the International Space Station. Ideally, I would like to see TransHab technology funded now for the station, but I agree that in a time when Congress is struggling to keep the federal budget balanced, all federal programs should receive scrutiny and careful consideration. However, I think that it is very important that the Committee continue to keep the door open on TransHab funding in the future. Those familiar with TransHab technology believe that this technology validates potential technology for future solar system exploration. TransHab technology could possibly mean a manned-exploration of Mars which could result in a wealth of scientific information previously unavailable. I believe that scientific research is vital to the current and future prosperity of our nation. I think we owe it to ourselves, to our nation, and especially to our children to keep the dream of manned space exploration alive. TransHab technology is an investment in our future. To permanently close the door on such research and development jeopardizes this nation's preeminence in science and technology. In my home state of Delaware, we are fortunate to have ILC Dover, a leader in the aerospace industry and a company that has proven themselves a model for providing aerospace technology in accordance with NASA's new focus: ``better, faster, cheaper.'' ILC Dover has been providing innovative and cost-effective technology since 1947. ILC Dover has helped to provide the technology that put a man on the moon and Pathfinder on Mars, and ILC Dover will continue to help provide technology that will help future space missions in exploring our world. I am very proud of the research and development conducted by ILC Dover, and I am proud of the contributions ILC Dover has made to the U.S. Space Program. There is a strong commerical interest from committed, innovative companies in the aerospace industry such as ILC Dover in helping to develop TransHab technology. I am encouraged that the Committee has left the door open for TransHab research in development in FY01 and FY02, and I look forward to any future Congressional hearings on the issue.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1550, the Fire Administration Authorization Act of 1999 because it embodies the proper role the federal government can play in the important area of fire prevention. The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) is charged with reducing the number of fires and fire deaths in the United States. In 1997, the number of fires reached 1.79 million, claimed 4,050 lives, and produced $8.5 billion in damages. Given these large numbers, sometimes the temptation is to forge ahead creating new programs and pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into grants with Federal strings attached despite the expertise and accountability found best at the local level. In my state of Delaware, most of the firefighters are volunteers. They serve as firefighters out of dedication to their communities. In addition, because they are taxpayers in these communities, they make careful, calculated decisions about what investments are really needed in fire prevention. The United States should encourage more of this style of government and less top-down, centralized control. H.R. 1550 resists that temptation and maintains the proper role of the federal government in these affairs. It increases discretionary funding by $96 million to a total of $45.1 million in FY 2000 and $47.5 million in FY 2001 so USFA can improve its service as a research center and clearinghouse of information for state and local governments to draw upon. Furthermore, the bill sets aside $6 million in FY 2000 and $8 million in FY 2001 to train fire crews for anti-terrorism and response activities. This goes beyond the Clinton Administration's budget request. One of the best areas the federal government can play a role in fire prevention, is in helping states respond to terrorist attacks. The federal government is best suited to provide training or anti- terrorism and response activities due to its expertise in national defense, its strong intelligence capabilities, and the often- international character of terrorism. More work may be needed in training our state and local governments to respond to terrorism incidents. H.R. 1550 requires USFA to investigate the need for further counter-terrorism training programs. Last year, Congress passed the Rescue and Emergency Services Prepared for Our Nation's Defense Act. It created a commission to assess our nation's weapons of mass destruction domestic response capabilities. I am anxious to read these reports when they are completed and begin to implement the suggestions in a timely manner. As the world's only superpower, the United States is a big target for terrorist attacks. We must accept the reality that comes with being a world superpower and respond accordingly. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill as a strong common sense, fiscally responsible measure that preserves the principles of federalism that have helped make the United States a world leader. Firefighting will always be predominantly a local responsibility carried out by dedicated members of the community. The federal government should not interfere in this effort, but provide appropriate support to help on national problems such as terrorism. This bill maintains that important balance.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, let me first associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Michigan when he opened this legislation, and with the gentleman from Florida. I am as concerned as they are, and perhaps even more so. I think the process that we have adopted with respect to these so-called emergency spending bills is itself a disaster. Frankly, I think we need to do something about it in a hurry. First of all, we do not, in the Congress of the United States, unlike virtually every State in the country now, have any kind of an emergency spending process by which we set aside money in case there are emergencies. It is ad hoc. You come in here, you declare something to be an emergency, if you can get a majority of your brethren to agree with you, then you can get a vote on it. The problem is, it goes through the Senate and then it goes into conference. What we have seen in recent days in the conference, with behavior from both sides of the aisle, particularly in the Senate, is to try to put everything in it you possibly can. It happens on every single emergency spending bill that goes through here. They become Christmas trees automatically. Everyone tries to put their own particular ornament on that Christmas tree. That process simply must stop. This is a wonderful idea that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has put forward. That is that we will take what passed in the House, we will take what passed in the Senate, and we will cut off everything else. We will just say no more, no mas, that is it, we are not going to do it. I think we should pass it as soon as we possibly can. Just remember, every time we add another dollar here, we are taking a dollar away from helping with the social security problem, because now we cannot retire the debt of the social security with those dollars that we are putting into some of these projects which come along. Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that the caps are a problem. I personally believe there is some spending we need to do in the area of education, particularly defense, and some things that are not being addressed, and we should not try to do it in emergency legislation. These are very good causes, but they should not be part of an emergency spending package, as we have seen here in the House so far. To add these things on is a terrible tragedy. Some of the riders that are being considered are parochial by nature. They are not of an emergency nature. They do not benefit the country generally. There is just absolutely no excuse to include them in legislation such as this other than one is dealing usually with a powerful Senator who one needs in order to get it through. That is a terrible way to do business. So we should change the process. We should certainly pass these instructions that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has put forward. We should stand united that we are going to make absolutely sure that we are putting an end to this, to go about doing what we have the money to do now, balancing our budget, taking care of the problems of Social Security and Medicare, and perhaps even providing for a tax cut, and making sure that our soldiers and sailors and Air Force and all our other military people are provided for, as they should be. It can be done if we sit down and do it together. But do not do it through this emergency bill. Follow these motions to instruct.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding this time to me, and, Mr. Chairman, I do rise in very strong support for this bill, and I really do commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), our chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), our ranking member, for their efforts and the other members of this committee. They are a pleasure to work with as well as the staff which works so well together in a truly bipartisan sense, and I think that today together we have brought to the floor a good bipartisan bill that continues to work toward rebuilding our intelligence capabilities, and, Mr. Chairman, these capabilities have been seriously and dangerously hollowed out. We have been saying this for 4 years now, and unfortunately there are now stark reminders of the risks we have taken. Mr. Chairman, our chairman has discussed the intelligence issues that contributed to the errors that related to the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Therefore I do not want to dwell on this except to say that I also view this issue as a result of past policies and emphasize collection at the expense of processing and analysis and emphasize tactical intelligence at the expense of strategic intelligence, and I emphasize at the expense because there is an issue of imbalance here. We cannot do one and not the other. If we collect data but do not have the wherewithal to analyze it expertly, the value of the collection is diminished regardless of how much users say it is needed. Tactical intelligence gives a pilot the information that tells him or her when life-threatening missiles may be in the area of operations, but strategic intelligence gives us the data to know the types of missiles in the area in the first place and gives the data that distinguishes an embassy from a storage facility. Put simply, we cannot do one without the other and be successful in protecting our security and reducing the chance of mistakes. But there are other issues that are just as important in this debate that point to the fragility of our intelligence community. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, I face some of the most perplexing and costly problems in front of the committee. I would like to mention two such problems. First is the issue that I mentioned briefly before relating to that imbalance between collection on the one side and processing and analysis on the other. This is an area of great concern to the committee and one that we specifically highlight in this bill. Put simply: We have new imagery collection systems coming down the pike, and the administration has done virtually nothing by way of preparing for the processing and analysis of the images taken. There is supposedly a plan that is under development, but there is no budget for it. Yet experts have privately indicated that the cost over the next 5 or so years could be in the billions. Without this investment in processing and analysis the collected imagery will be almost useless. Without this investment mistakes will continue to be made. There will be more misidentified buildings, especially as we learn from one foreign policy crisis to the next around the globe. In this bill we have not only sent a warning shot to the administration but have also begun an investment, although modest, to try and fix this imbalance between collection and analysis. A second area of concern is the recapitalization of our signals intelligence capabilities. Again put simply, I am afraid that we run the risk of going deaf to the worldwide explosion of communications technologies. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I cannot go into the details in this area, but suffice it to say that there is a very serious issue here, and again we address that issue in this bill. One last area of concern to me is our ability to launch satellites into space. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) mentioned this moments ago. As many of as my colleagues know from reading recent press reports, we are having a crisis of confidence in our launch systems based on a series of failures within the past year. This is an issue that we are looking into now, and we have had a series of discussions with various experts on this particular subject already that will probably go to the hearing stage next. This is an issue that we must continue to look into, but it points to the fact that intelligence resources cannot be taken for granted. Without the proper care and investment in the infrastructure, we place our resources at risk. Mr. Chairman, the concerns that I have addressed are not the only ones we need to address. There are many more, some large, some small. It is clear, however, that a long-term commitment to investment in intelligence is needed. The administration is not doing it, so we have to. The adds proposed in this bill are fairly modest, especially compared to the need, but it is a start. It invests in the recapitalization of our signals intelligence capabilities, it begins the process of investment for processing and analysis, and it provides the guidance and support that the Director of Central Intelligence needs but seems only to be getting from Congress. The bill addresses the most urgent needs that get us going in the process of rebuilding our capabilities. It is a good bill. It works to both balance and invest in our national security future. It is a must, and I ask the Members of the House to give it our full support.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to congratulate the young scholars of Woodbridge High School from Bridgeville who represented my home state of Delaware in the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. They were part of a group of 1200 students from across the country who were in Washington, D.C. from May first to the third to compete in the national finals of this program. These young scholars worked diligently and persistently to reach the national finals and through this program have gained a deeper knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The names of the students are: Derek Bowman, Mike Clendaniel, Lisa Culver, Joy Diogo, Laura Divver, Shawanda Garrison, Krsitine Haring, Cassie Hartzell, Brooke Hearn, Lina Hertzog, Heather Holmes, Jared Judy, Michele Keough, Matt McCoy, Josh Miller, Blake Moore, Andrew Morozowich, Jessica Parkinson, Willie Savage, Crystal Short and Lefeisha Williamson. I would also like to extend my congratulations to their teacher, Barbara Hudson, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the team. The We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young students about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day final competition they participated in consisted of hearings modeled after those in the United States Congress. The students made oral presentations before a panel of adult judges and testified as constitutional experts before a ``congressional committee.'' A panel of adult judges representing various regions of the country and a variety of appropriate professional fields served on the congressional committees. These judges followed up the testimonies with a series of questions designed to test the students' depth of understanding and their ability to apply constitutional knowledge to given situations. The We the People program is administered by the Center for Civic Education, and has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle and high school levels for more than 26.5 million students nationwide. This program has promoted civic competence and responsibility among young students as well as awareness for contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The team from Woodbridge High School conducted research in preparation for the national competition here in Washington, D.C. I congratulate them for their fine work that enabled them to come so far in this competition and to visit our nation's capital.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, but I did want to join in the participation of what we have seen here tonight. I am the cochair person of the Congressional Advisory Committee to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. But I think we all should be cochairs of that. I think that is a subject of huge importance to everybody in America today. We still in America have the highest rate of teen pregnancy, higher than some of the Third World countries, in the world, which is pretty amazing when we consider the advances which have been made in American society in so many other ways, because I consider this to be, frankly, a high negative. We are doing better. Our statistics in the last 3 or 4 years indicate that we are starting to go down in the rate of teenage pregnancy. It is a tremendous problem, obviously, because we have a lot of unwed very young mothers with absolutely no income sources whatsoever; with young men out there who do not have a clue about how to do anything about a family, or earn any income or whatever it may be. So it is almost a direct descent into some sort of economic help from the government in the form of welfare or something else. In fact, the statistics are something like that if you graduate from high school and you wait until 20 to get married and you never have a criminal record, the chances are something like 80 percent you will never be in poverty. But if indeed any of those things happen, if you get pregnant early or do not graduate from high school or have a criminal record, the chances are almost overwhelming that you are going to live in poverty at some time during the course of your life. So it is very evident, with perhaps a few exceptions, it is evident that we are all far better off if we indeed wait with respect to the concept of giving birth and getting pregnant. Obviously, I guess we would preach abstinence first. That has a lot of good tones to it in terms of what it means in the sense that you do not have any of the mental concerns of having been sexually involved, and of course you are going to prevent disease because you have not been involved, and obviously no pregnancies are going to take place. But at some point it often goes beyond that with our young people, and they do get involved. At that point we need to talk about planning and contraceptives. I think we have a more open approach. The idea is to avoid pregnancy. By avoiding pregnancy, you avoid all of those problems, and of course avoid the horrible problem of abortion, which is something that is abhorred by practically everybody in the country, whether they are pro- choice or pro-life. So we have to do these things. I see it. I see it in my State of Delaware. I have seen it in Dover High School at a wellness center just last week, last Friday. I talked to four or five kids who are going through programs there to help deal with the subject of pregnancy. They are talking with each other. We have wellness programs in all but one high school in the State of Delaware now that we did not have before. They have sessions in which they can actually get together and begin to talk about these issues. That is why I think we are starting to make an impact with respect to the rate of teen pregnancy in the United States of America, which again is a positive sign. But there are still, as I said, other things that we have to do to continue to build on this recent record of success. So I know a lot of the Members of Congress are vitally interested in this subject, and we thank them for their time and attention on it. Hopefully, the public will weigh in as well. If we do, we can prevent a lot of the hardship, a lot of the problems, a lot of the stress and strain on individuals and families that occur in this country because of teenage pregnancy that takes place across the United States. I think we can do it, and I am pleased to help be a part of this effort.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chair of the House Advisory Panel to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, I would like to recognize May as National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month. According to new data recently released by the U.S. Department of Health and Social Services, both the teen birth rate and the teen pregnancy rate in the United States have shown another decline. And while this is good news, the United States still has the highest rates of teen pregnancy and births in the western industrialized world--53 births out of every 1,000 births is to a teenage girl. More than 4 out of 10 young women become pregnant at least once before they reach the age of 20-- resulting in nearly 1 million births per year. While many government officials would take the fact that the numbers are dropping as good news, I think this is only a small step in the right direction. We need to continue to work toward lowering these numbers. Representative Lowey and I have introduced the Teenage Pregnancy Reduction Act of 1999, legislation to authorize Federal dollars to be used to conduct a study of effective teen pregnancy prevention programs. The study emphasizes determining the factors contributing to the effectiveness of the programs and methods for replicating successful programs in other locations. It also would call for the creation of a clearinghouse to collect, maintain and disseminate information on prevention programs which would develop an effective network of prevention programs. Far too many of our children spend the hours following school unsupervised and engaging in delinquent or unproductive behavior. Studies tell us that unsupervised children are at a significantly higher risk of truancy, stress, receiving poor grades, substance abuse and risk taking behaviors, including engaging in sexual activity. That is why I have introduced my ACE Act--After School Children's Education Act--it is another initiative that will go far in preventing teen pregnancy. This legislation aims to study how after school programs can be expanded and improved to keep our children safe and help them learn between the hours of 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. Helping our communities prevent teen pregnancy is an important mission. Unmarried teenagers who become pregnant face severe emotional, physical, and financial difficulties. The children born to unmarried teenagers will struggle to fulfill the promise given to all human life, and many of them simply will not succeed. Many of them will remain trapped in a cycle of poverty, and unfortunately may become part of our criminal justice system. However, sometimes no matter what we do here in Washington and what parents do at home, kids have the most impact on each other. Young people can be and are positive influences on each other. Parents and other adults can encourage positive peer influence and mitigate negative peer influence. We must do all we can to encourage teens to take advantage of the potential positive influence of peers. Our goal to reduce teen pregnancy is challenging and difficult. But if we work together, we can make a difference.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Arson Awareness Week and to encourage all Americans to join in the crusade against arson. Each year hundreds of lives are lost and billions of dollars of property are damaged by arsonists. In 1997 alone, arsonists killed an estimated 500 Americans and inflicted direct property damage totaling more than two billion dollars. One of every four fires--some 500,000 that occur in the United States each year--result from arson. Arson is the second leading cause of death by fire in the United States, topped only by smoking. Unfortunately, the pain and horror of most arson occurrences are felt in residential communities. Each year, more than 90 percent of all civilian deaths and suspicious structural fires typically occur in homes. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, an especially sobering fact of arson-related incidents is that firefighters lost their lives fighting these intentionally-set fires. There are steps each of us can take to prevent arson. First, owners of facant buildings should secure them to prevent vandals from setting fires for excitement. Second, parents of young children who exhibit a propensity to play with fire can call their local fire departments for a referral to a trained juvenile fire starter intervention program that will assist the child. Third, business and institutional property managers can call their local fire marshall for advice on how to arson- proof their buildings. This is especially important for church leaders who have in recent years seen their places of worship come under attack by arsonists. In my home State of Delaware our State Fire Marshall's office provides the resources to investigate fires, as well as maintaining an excellent Juvenile Fire Setter Intervention Program that helps hundreds of Delaware families each year deal with this very troubling problem. In 1997, the last for which full data is available, those 20 years of age and under accounted for 50 percent of all arson fires in the United States. Of that total, 39.9 percent were committed by youths under the age of 15. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of urgency that I encourage all Americans to be aware and concerned with the burdensome cost that arson inflicts on our society. As Delaware's Congressman and a Member of the Congressional Fire Service Caucus, I strongly urge everyone to contact their local fire officials to learn more about what they can do to extinguish the arsonists' match.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. For years now we have been looking to how to restore civility to the House. Now I know all we have to do is introduce a resolution supporting our teachers and we find the thing that all of us agree upon. I in Delaware have had the privilege of being in every single public school in my State--do not try that if you are in a big State--and almost all the private schools as well. When you spend 1 to 3 hours there, you obviously are going to touch in a lot of classrooms and watch a lot of teachers teaching. There may not be good teachers in our classrooms in Delaware, I cannot say for sure there is, but I have not seen one. I have seen devoted men and women who are trying to care for their kids, sometimes in one-on-one circumstances, other times in larger classroom circumstances. These are individuals who are committed to their task at hand. I am sure it is just as true in every other State in the Nation as it is in the State of Delaware. When you choose teaching, you choose a profession which is of profound importance to every young person in this country and to our society as a whole. We have done, I think, remarkably well in the people that we have been able to attract to the teaching profession and retain in the teaching profession. They truly care about our children. They truly make the effort to teach as well as they possibly can. Like others here, I, too, have memories. Maybe I was not as good a student as some of the others here because not all my memories are as good as I would like them to be, but it is actually some of those more difficult classes where teachers are more demanding that I have the greatest memories now of what they did for me and what they meant to all of us. A quality education, it is the best gift we can possibly give our children, and the teachers are there every step of the way encouraging them, helping them, making sure they are on the road to success. I am sure that the teaching profession may seem like a thankless job at times. We have all heard that expressed, and we have to worry when we see what happened in Littleton, Colorado. That affects all teachers. But as teachers, the teachers of this country really are shaping the future of the country. I am fond of saying to a whole room of elected officials and corporate heads and everything else, that teachers are the most important people in our State, and sometimes people come back and, ``What about my father? He's a teacher.'' But teachers are extraordinarily important, and we should thank them not only today but at all times.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I also rise in support of H. Con. Res. 84, the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Let me tell Members that the meat is there now. The bottom line is that we are obligated by statute to pay 40 percent of the education of those with disabilities in this country. We have unfortunately in this Congress over the years not gotten anywhere near that level. In fact, we are probably about 11 percent right now with about a $14 billion deficit that we have to make up. Some people have gotten up and they have said, and I can understand it and I do not disagree with this, that we cannot do this at the expense of other programs. I will tell my colleagues that we will not do it at the expense of other programs. I am talking about Federal programs. But if we paid that money into the local governments, into the local school districts, then they would be able to free up the money which they presently have to build schools, to hire more teachers and to help with all of the other programs, because they are funding the deficit which we created by mandating that they do this. We have an obligation to educate everybody in America if we possibly can. This legislation would do it. We should pass it.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Teenage Pregnancy Reduction Act of 1999. This legislation is an important commitment on the part of Congress to give local communities the resources they need to operate effective teenage pregnancy programs. More specifically, the bill authorizes $10.5 million in total over three years for HHS to conduct a study of effective teen pregnancy prevention programs, with an emphasis on determining the factors contributing to the effectiveness of the programs, and methods for replicating the programs in other locations. It also authorizes the creation of an information clearinghouse to collect, maintain, and disseminate information on prevention programs; to develop networks of prevention programs; to provide technical assistance and to encourage public media campaigns regarding pregnancy in teenagers. Finally, it authorizes $10 million in total over three years for one- time incentive grants for programs which are found to be effective under HHS's study described earlier, to assist them with the expenses of operating the program. Helping our communities prevent teenage pregnancy is an important mission. The United States has the highest teenage birth rate of industrialized countries, which has far reaching consequences for our Nation's teenage mothers and their children. Unmarried teenagers who become pregnant face severe emotional, physical, and financial difficulties. The children born to unmarried teenagers will struggle to fulfill the promise given to all human life, and many of them simply will not succeed. Many of them will remain trapped in a cycle of poverty, and unfortunately may become part of our criminal justice system. How bad is the problem? In 1960, 15 percent of teen births were out- of-wedlock. In 1970, 30 percent of teen births were out-of-wedlock. In 1980, 48 percent of teen births were out-of-wedlock. In 1990, 68 percent of teen births were out-of-wedlock. In 1993, 72 percent of all teen births were out-of-wedlock. Why do we care about this? For the simple reason that beyond the statistics, this trend has devastating consequences for the young women who become unwed teen parents, and for the children born to them. The report, ``Kids Having Kids,'' by the Robin Hood Foundation quantified some of these consequences. Compared to those who delay childbearing until they are 20 or 21, adolescent mothers: spend 57 percent more time as single parents in their first 13 years; are 50 percent more likely to depend on welfare; are 50 percent less likely to complete high school; and are 24 percent more likely to have more children. Children of adolescents (compared to children of 20- and 21-year- olds) are more likely to be born prematurely and 50 percent more likely to be low-birth weight babies of less than five and a half pounds-- meaning an increased likelihood of infant death, mental retardation or illness, dyslexia, hyperactivity, among others. How can we make a difference? By working in partnership with communities. At the national level, we need to take a clear stand against teenage pregnancy and foster a national discussion--involving national leaders, respected organizations, the media, and states about how religion, culture, and public values influence both teen pregnancy and responses to it. The Congressional Advisory Committee to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, which I co-chair with Congresswoman Lowey, will play an active role in this discussion. At the local level, communities need to develop programs targeted to the characteristics, needs, and values of its families. Communities know what their needs are and what will be most effective with their teenagers, so it is critical that they design and implement the programs, not the federal government. This legislation will assist efforts of communities, and I hope that my colleagues will join me as a cosponsor. Our goal to reduce teen pregnancy is challenging and difficult. But if we work together we CAN make a difference.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I have some serious concerns with the potential environmental and economic ramifications of the project authorized to deepen the Delaware River ship channel from 40 to 45 feet. I had prepared a number of amendments to address some of these concerns, but I have agreed to withhold them with the assurance from the chairman that we will address these concerns by working together as the process moves forward. It is essential that as this project moves forward, it does so in an environmentally and economically sound manner. First, let met state that I am concerned with the environmental consequences that the project may have on the State of Delaware. I have heard from many of my constituents and there remains many unanswered questions that the Army Corps of Engineers has yet to address to Delaware's satisfaction. I am concerned with the authority clarified in this bill to allow the local sponsor--the Delaware River Port Authority--to operate a revenue generating dredge spoil disposal operation that is designed to import dredge spoils--that could be contaminated--and dump them at sites along the Delaware River. The Army Corps of Engineers requires a permit for this disposal with checks and balances to prevent environmentally unsafe disposal of the dredge spoils. Even so, it would be a great comfort to me to know that the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) has approved the details because there are many different ways to dispose of dredge spoils, each with a different degree of environmental protection. The method chosen needs to meet Delaware's standards because Delawareans living near these sites are the most at risk. Furthermore, I want to make absolutely certain that the Coastal Zone Management consistency provisions apply to Federal activities relating to the Delaware River channel deepening project. DNREC has given its approval conditioned upon a list of requirements being met, however this conditional approval is not final approval as some have suggested in public meetings. The Army Corps of Engineers has given me assurances that they are fully aware they must meet the growing list of requirements before consistency approval from Delaware is effective. Third, while this project has been authorized since 1992, last week, just prior to committee consideration of this bill, section 347 was included in this bill to relocate a portion of the channel along the Camden area. It is my understanding that this portion has been relocated to deeper water that will not require any dredging or disruption of the existing soils. In fact, this shift in the channel will make the project less expensive for the taxpayer because the Army Corps of Engineers will not have to dredge there. This is an encouraging development, but there should be more public notice for stakeholders and efforts made to inform the congressional delegations involved about changes to the project as originally authorized. Madam Chairman, I also have concerns about the economic risks of this project to the American taxpayer. According to the Army Corps of Engineers benefit-cost analysis, over 80 percent of the benefits have been attributed to six oil facilities along the river channel. However, none of the benefitting oil companies have directly indicated outright support for the project. Although they are not legally required to commit to spending their own capital dollars to deepen their own berths to take advantage of a deeper channel, it seems prudent for Congress or the Army Corps of Engineers to seek assurances that they will make those expenditures before $300 million in taxpayer funds are committed to building the channel. In light of these financial concerns, it seems particularly important that Congress reinforce the intent of Congress in 1992 when the project was first authorized. Report 102-842 accompanying the Water Resource Development Act of 1992 states on page 12: Committee comments.--The Committee believes that the non- Federal cost of the channel deepening should be funded by water transportation users, not surface transportation users. The Committee urges the Delaware River Port Authority to make every effort to ensure that the non-Federal cost of the project is borne by water transportation users. There has been some discussion of bridge toll receipts being raised to help fund the non-Federal cost--$100 million. Although report language is not binding, raising bridge tolls would appear to violate the committee's intent. Before the Delaware River Port Authority raises bridge tolls, at a minimum it should demonstrate its efforts to raise the funds from water transportation users. We must make sure that those projects Congress chooses to finance give Americans a sufficient return both on their tax dollar investment and their investment of natural resources. I look forward to continuing to address these fiscal and environmental concerns.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers legislation regarding U.S. policy toward the crisis in Yugoslavia. Under our Constitution, Congress has an important responsibility to be involved in the conduct of foreign policy, and this is no exception. Today, I will vote for H.R. 1569 and S. Con. Res. 21 and against H. Con. Res. 82 and H. Con. Res. 44. There are four issues that the House of Representatives must decide today: whether the United States should declare war on Yugoslavia; whether the United States should withdraw its forces from the NATO led strikes; whether Congress must pass legislation to approve any ground troops that may be deployed by the President; and whether the President has the support of the Congress to continue to participate in the NATO led air campaign. These are not easy or simple decisions. H. Con. Res. 82 would require the President to remove U.S. military forces currently participating in Operation Allied Force. The other proposal, H. Con. Res. 44, would declare a state of war between the United States and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I intend to oppose both of these proposals. Passage of either bill would have severe consequences for United States foreign policy. Withdrawing U.S. troops participating in Operation Allied Force would hand Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic a victory and a signal that he was free to continue the policies of ethnic cleansing and genocide. In addition, withdrawing troops would destroy hopes for a positive outcome of current air strikes against Serbia. Finally, the withdraw of U.S. troops may break apart the NATO alliance. Withdrawal of troops could cause Milosevic to question our resolve to achieve the objective of a multi-ethnic, democratic Kovoso in which all can live in peace and security. Conversely, declaring war would have equally devastating consequences. The situation in Kosovo, though extremely serious, has not developed to the point that the United States as a sovereign country should declare war. Declaring war carries legal consequences that include the nationalization of factories for wartime production, as well as foreign policy consequences such as the military involvement from other countries such as Russia. The United States has only voted to declare war 11 times in its history, and none since World War II. The United States should continue its participation in the NATO led effort, but at this time, there is no compelling reason why we, as a sovereign nation, should independently declare war on Yugoslavia. I do intend to support H.R. 1569, which would prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the Defense Department for deploying U.S. ground forces in Yugoslavia unless the deployment is authorized by law. This prohibition does not apply to ground missions that deal specifically with rescuing U.S. military personnel or personnel of another NATO country participating in the mission. Normally, I do not advocate limiting the President's options in his conduct of U.S. foreign policy, and I do have some concerns about this legislation. For example, requiring Congressional approval of ground troops by law could be misinterpreted by both Milosevic and our Allies as a potential step back from the solidarity expressed at the NATO summit. In addition, there could be practical problems in carrying out the intent of this legislation because there are some U.S. ground troops already in the region as part of peacekeeping forces. However, the question of enaging U.S. ground troops in combat in Kosovo is so serious that Congress must take an active role in making that decision. Unfortunately, in initiating the air campaign, the Administration left the impression that it would be over in a matter of days and that Milosevic would immediately capitulate. Initiating the use of ground troops is an even more serious decision and there must be full consultation with Congress if that decision has to be made. While the potential use of ground forces cannot be completely ruled out, the best scenario would be that a NATO ground force--predominantly made up of European-NATO forces--would escort refuges back to Kosovo after the Yugoslav forces voluntarily withdraw or they are forced to withdraw as a result of the NATO air campaign. The ramifications of the use of ground forces must be fully studied and debated by Congress and conveyed to the American people. Regardless of what steps are necessary and what measures are passed by the House of Representatives today, I would urge the president to make sure he prepares the American people for any role he may ask of our military personnel. Finally, I also intend to support S. Con. Res. 21 which authorizes the president to conduct military air operations and missile strikes against Yugoslavia. The United States must continue to work to insure that our NATO allies do their part and that our burden does not grow disproportionately. At the same time, we cannot escape the fact that we are the world's only real superpower and thus the only nation that has certain military, logistical and humanitarian capabilities. Each day brings more grim statistics regarding the treatment of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Since February of 1998, Milosevic has used force to kill more than 2,000 ethnic Albanians and has displaced at least 400,000. Since NATO's air campaign began, Milosevic has escalated his violence against ethnic Albanians and they have been killed and tortured and driven from their homes and families. The United States, as a member of NATO, has a responsibility to step in to try to stop the killing of innocent civilians. In our Constitution, the Founding Fathers envisioned full consultation by the President with Congress whenever the U.S. would send troops into a conflict. It is never easy to ask American men and women to leave their family and friends to risk their lives to protect the peace of another country. When the President decides to send U.S. troops into harm's way, he should seek the full backing of Congress and the American public. I am pleased that we have been given this chance to debate the situation in Kosovo today.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 148, offered by the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), but with profound sorrow for the loss the community of Littleton has endured over the last 7 days. The horrible tragedy at Columbine High School has left an indelible mark in our hearts and heads, and I want to take this opportunity to express my deep sorrow for the students, for the families and for the friends affected by these grave acts of violence. The thoughts and prayers of every American are with the citizens of Littleton, Colorado, and the families and friends of the victims of school violence endured in other parts of the Nation. I also offer my sympathy to the gentleman from that area who lives so close to it. I am sure he has been through a very difficult time as well. Mr. Speaker, today I join this body in initiating a search for answers. We cannot take away the events of April 20. We cannot reclaim the lives that were taken or the hope that was lost. We cannot take away the fear that has been instilled in students, parents and teachers across the Nation, but we can search for answers, and we can take steps to make our society safer and smarter, and, in turn, less vulnerable to any reoccurrence of this tragedy. In searching for answers, however, we must be careful to resist the temptation to pin our hopes on a quick fix. There is no easy solution and there is no single solution. We must face the fact that we have a society-wide problem. We have to look at every aspect of how our society functions to find solutions to this violence. We must look at the images our children are exposed to in daily life, through movies, television, music videos, video games and on the Internet. We must look at gun control and the access children have to firearms. We must look at parents and their responsibility to be involved in the lives of their children. We must look at teacher training and school counseling to ensure that school personnel can identify and deflate problematic behavior. We must look at prevention and education in the earliest years of a child's life, and we must look at accountability and reforming troubled youth. Violence is not a simple problem that we can expect our schools to solve alone. We have a societal problem, and it will take the work of schools, families, communities and every level of government together to find ways to reach alienated children and to find ways to prevent the tragic violence that was displayed in Littleton, Colorado. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am working to ensure that Congress contributes to finding solutions to school violence and to making our society safer and smarter. Again, I want to offer my heartfelt sympathy to the families and friends of the 15 individuals who died last Tuesday at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. My thoughts are with you and will remain with you as we seek to rebuild our society.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to a hero in the firefighting community. E. James (Jim) Monihan. Jim Monihan is an outstanding, dedicated, and caring Delawarean with an abundance of accomplishments in this field. On behalf of the citizens of the First State, I would like to honor this outstanding individual and extend to him our congratulations on receiving the National Volunteer Fire Council's Mason Lankford Fire Service Leadership Award. Family, friends and fellow firefighters can now take a moment to truly appreciate the contributions Jim Monihan has brought to the firefighting community. Since moving to Lewes, DE, in 1963, he has proven his ability to advance the quality of fire and emergency services throughout the country. This dedication to public service is rare among individuals. As President of the Lewes Fire Department, Jim arranged the purchase of nearly $250,000 in fire apparatus. He also chaired every committee within the department and served as the in- house ambulance instructor of 10 years. He later earned a statewide reputation in Delaware for his service as president and 1st vice president of the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association. These local accomplishments were just the first steps for Jim along his road to success. His next advancement was to become the chairman of the National Volunteer Fire Council. During his tenure he orchestrated the growth of the NVFC from 18 states with 130 associate members to 44 delegate States with over 1,500 associate members. For the first time the NVFC received over $500,000 in Federal grants to help volunteer fire services nationwide. Since retiring as chairman of the NVFC, Jim has committed himself to being the legislative chairman for the NVFC to help devise their policy priorities. Known for his expertise and excellence in his field, Jim has been asked to provide testimony for numerous congressional committees in support of such issues ranging from the environment to fire prevention. In addition, Jim has served on the Broad of Visitors for the National Fire Academy and has chaired the Joint Council of National Fire Service Organizations. Currently, Jim serves as the USA Director to the Federation of World Volunteer Firefighters, which helps to unite fire service personnel from over 100 countries. Showing his continued dedication and commitment to his community, Jim still leads the local Junior Firefighter Club activities and still responds to calls today. Mr. Speaker, I salute E. James (Jim) Monihan for implementing many of the important policies and procedures that help guide fire personnel worldwide today. His selfless commitment to the cause of volunteer firefighters will have a permanent place in Delaware's volunteer fire service history. The example Jim has set for volunteer firemen is one we hope all future volunteer firemen will strive to emulate. His dedication to the development of fire departments, volunteer and emergency services is truly commendable. As Delaware's Congressman, I would like to personally thank him for a tremendous job well done and for 40 years of exemplary service.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) not only for yielding but for the excellent input and value the assistance that he gave to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and to myself in getting this bill to the place where it is today. We appreciate that tremendously. I do rise today in absolute full support of the conference report to H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. I cannot thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) enough. He was there through thick and thin. We went through about 8 or 9 months of this. We thought we were going to get it done last year. We were not able to do so. We were able to come back and get it done this year. And I think this is a day of great hope for both the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and myself and I think for all of us in Congress and the school kids across the country. I would also like to acknowledge particularly the help of my Governor, who is both my predecessor and successor because he is now the Governor of Delaware, Tom Carper. His pushing for this was tremendously helpful amongst all the governors, as well. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and I introduced this legislation because we believe it will provide schools and their students with the tools to improve academic achievement. It allows local school districts to think outside the box, which is something we needed forever, in order to design a system that is truly focused on improving student performance. Instead of having to plan a specific project around a set of separate and conflicting program requirements, which is so often the case now, now the districts will be able to develop a vision of how to use local, State, and Federal resources to more effectively improve student performance and to make that vision a reality. This will extend education flexibility to all 50 States. We all need to understand that 12 of our States have it now. They have used it extraordinarily well. They have shown dramatic improvement in certain areas. Now all of our States are going to be able to use it, which we think is of vital importance, as well. We have measurably improved current law by increasing that flexibility and making more programs eligible for Ed-Flex waivers. In fact, one of the things in the conference was the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, and that is I think an important step as well. Under the conference agreement, States are required to submit clear educational objectives and locals are required to set specific and measurable objectives. So while the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) apparently is not going to support it, a lot of what he had to say I think ended up being incorporated, not as far as he wanted to go of course, in what we are doing. And in that way I think his position on this was constructive, as well. We have also improved current law by providing protections for Title I schools and students. Now, this is important, because Title I is a program that all of us should be legitimately concerned about. It is a program which basically is aimed at those school districts which have more children in poverty than others. And for the first time in a demonstrable way under Ed-Flex, particularly in Maryland and Texas, we are seeing test scores from Title I schools which are actually showing dramatic improvement for those students who are poorer students in those schools, because of things they were able to put together through the Ed-Flex program. That is something that has been un-demonstrated over all the years with all the monies put into Title I. So it is a tremendous help for that reason. I hope my colleagues will consider that when they come to the floor to vote on this particular piece of legislation. The Senate, as we know, prohibited waivers to the requirement that school districts must allocate funds to schools with more than 75 percent poverty first, and in the rank order. And we said in the House provision, we had a different measure in the conference report that basically retained both of these measures, which provides a lot of protections to people in the Title I programs. Now, who supports this bill? And this is important I think for all of us to consider. It was reported out of committee in March here in the House by a vote of 33-9. It was passed in the House by a vote of 330 yeas to 90 nays, both parties voting in the majority for it. It was passed in the Senate by a vote of 98 yeas to 1 nay. Last week it was reported out of conference by voice vote. It has the support of every single governor in this country. And as a former governor, I can attest to the fact that getting all 50 governors to agree to anything is a miracle. In addition, it has received support from the administration and other education organizations around the country. It is a good strong bill that each and every one of us can proudly support because it supports schools and students, it loosens the reins of the Federal Government, and allows for creativity in student learning. Ed-Flex will help our Nation's schools, and I hope we will all support it. I would like to close, Mr. Speaker, this probably will not help with the problems directly in Littleton, Colorado, and I do not even want to connect it to that. But since we are discussing education on the floor, my own grief in this situation and sorrow for the people out there is something that I should state and that everybody in this country feels. I do not know if the problem is with our ability to obtain guns, it is with our families, it is with the perhaps lack of help needed in school to help the children who seem to have troubles, or it is a societal problem at large with all the activities we read about, cults and everything else. So there are no easy answers. But I, for one, believe we need a national discussion on this issue; and I hope, if there is anything possibly good that could ever come out of a tragedy like that, it is that we have that discussion. I appreciate the time that the chairman has yielded me. I would ask for my colleagues' support for the Ed-Flex legislation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce to introduce a resolution urging Congress and the President to increase funding for the Pell Grant Program and existing Campus-Based Aid Programs. The Pell Grant Program was first authorized in 1972 in the Higher Education Act Amendments.It has become the largest need-based federal higher education scholarship program and is considered the foundation for all federal student aid. The purpose of the Pell Grant Program is to assist students from low income families who would not otherwise be financially able to attend a postsecondary institution by providing grants to students to pay the costs of attending the college of their choice. In the late 1970s, the Pell Grant Program covered 75 percent of the average cost of attending a public 4-year college. By the late 1990s, however, it has only covered 36 percent of the cost of attending a public 4-year college. Families across the country are concerned about the rising cost of a college education, and for children from low income families, the cost of college continues to be an overwhelming factor in their decision not to attend. Children from high income families are almost twice as likely to enroll in college as compared with children from low income families. This is particularly noteworthy given the fact that higher education promotes economic opportunity for individuals and economic competitiveness for our nation. The Pell Grant Programs and Campus- Based Aid Programs help to begin to fill the cost gaps that will, in turn, encourage students from low income families to attend college. Over the past few years, I have been pleased to support an increase in the Pell Grant maximum. Last year, under the Higher Education Amendments, the Committee on Education and the Workforce increased the authorization to a maximum grant level of $4,500 for 1999-2000, with annual increases of least $300 thereafter. However, the maximum Pell Grant appropriated has historically not kept pace with inflation and when college tuition increases are factored in, the buying power of the Pell Grant has been significantly reduced. Providing access to higher education for students across the nation is vitally important, and while I believe that colleges have the primary responsibility of ensuring that rate increases are fair and reasonable, I also believe that the Federal Government should assist students when postsecondary education is out of their reach. I am pleased to join with my colleagues today who believe that need based grant aid for low-income students must be our number one priority in higher education funding.