Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 46, the ``Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act.'' Our nation's firefighters, enforcement officers, and other emergency services personnel put themselves at risk every day to assure the safety of the general public. Just as our military personnel are recognized for extraordinary acts of valor in the effort to preserve peace abroad, so should our domestic safety officers be recognized for their bravery above and beyond the call of duty. Last year, Members of Congress witnessed an extraordinary act of valor as Capitol Hill police officers gave their lives defending the Halls of Congress from a gunman intent on shooting his way into Congress. It was a potent reminder of the risks every public safety officer face each and every day. I never will forget that sacrifice and by supporting this legislation I hope to draw more attention to sacrifices of the hundreds of thousands of public safety officers that serve our country. In Delaware, I am particularly proud of the work of our firefighters because most of them serve the State voluntarily. Likewise, Delaware's police officers often find themselves squarely in the sights of a criminal's handgun, which prompted me to support legislation to provide all of Delaware's police force with bulletproof vests. Again, I urge every Member to come together and support the ``Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act.'' It symbolizes honor and recognition that is long past due.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 46, the ``Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act.'' Our nation's firefighters, enforcement officers, and other emergency services personnel put themselves at risk every day to assure the safety of the general public. Just as our military personnel are recognized for extraordinary acts of valor in the effort to preserve peace abroad, so should our domestic safety officers be recognized for their bravery above and beyond the call of duty. Last year, Members of Congress witnessed an extraordinary act of valor as Capitol Hill police officers gave their lives defending the Halls of Congress from a gunman intent on shooting his way into Congress. It was a potent reminder of the risks every public safety officer face each and every day. I never will forget that sacrifice and by supporting this legislation I hope to draw more attention to sacrifices of the hundreds of thousands of public safety officers that serve our country. In Delaware, I am particularly proud of the work of our firefighters because most of them serve the state voluntarily. Likewise, Delaware's police officers often find themselves squarely in the sights of a criminal's handgun, which prompted me to support legislation to provide all of Delaware's police force with bulletproof vests. Again, I urge every Member to come together and support the ``Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act.'' It symbolizes honor and recognition that is long past due.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues to introduce a resolution calling on the President and Congress to fully fund the federal government's obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, commonly known as P.L. 94-142. The Act built upon previous legislation to mandate that all States provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to all disabled children by 1978. It also established the federal commitment to provide funding aid at 40% of the average per pupil expenditure to assist with the excess costs of educating students with disabilities. Historically, however, the appropriations for IDEA have not come close to reaching the 40% level. Federal funding has never risen above 12% of the cost. As a result, local schools and States are picking up the tab for an additional 28% above their fair share of special education costs. As a former Governor, I have a unique understanding of special education funding and the tremendous burden this unfunded mandate places on schools. Local school districts spend on average 20 percent of their budgets on special education. Put simply, local schools are expected to pay much more than their fair share. This needs to change. If the federal government fulfilled its special education obligation for local schools, Washington would not have to step in to address issues such as class size reduction and building new school buildings. These decisions could be left up to local school districts who better understand the dynamics and needs of their students. This is precisely why the federal government must fulfill the commitment it made in 1975. In Delaware, for instance, our largest school district, the Christina School District, currently receives $800,000 per year in special education funding. The federal commitment is to pay Christina School District $4.4 million. This means that if we fulfilled our commitment, Christina School District would have an additional $3.3 million to focus on the needs of their students and teachers. The entire State of Delaware, if special education were fully funded, would receive an additional $24.8 million. This is a tremendous amount of money, that is desperately needed by local schools in order to reduce class size, build and modernize schools, and implement technology into education. If the federal government fulfills its commitment to fund 40% of special education costs, States and schools across the nation would have the opportunity to focus their funds on the unique and individualized needs of their schools. The Republican Congress has worked to increase special education funding. Since 1995, IDEA funding has increased by over 85%. This is an increase of approximately $1.4 billion. Congress now needs to garner the support of the President and the Administration to make IDEA funding a priority for our nation's schools.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the After-School Children's Education Act (ACE Act). My proposal, which does not spend a lot of money, will lead Congress to better information on after-school programs and guide us through a vitally important decision-making process on how to meet the educational needs of students across the nation. There has been a lot of discussion about out-of-school time in recent months, with scientific studies proving what we have always intuitively known about the importance of quality care for young children, and for children in out-of-school time. There is a real threat to many American kids across the nation. Roughly five million children are not supervised after-school. This leaves them at risk of accidents and ripe for undesirable behaviors ranging from smoking and drinking to sexual activity and violent crime. In fact, juvenile crime goes up 300% after 3 p.m. and over half of all juvenile crime occurs between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. This is particularly disturbing given the benefits that can be derived from productive and educationally rewarding activities in after-school hours. After-school programs can be exceptionally beneficial by giving children the chance to interact with their peers and adults in a positive way, to gain or improve new skills, to master educational material, to develop strong bodies, and to foster creativity. In addition, studies have shown that students who attend productive after-school programs make significant academic gains, enjoy school more, feel more safe, and are less likely to participate in delinquent behaviors year found. I believe we need to focus on improving the quality of children's out-of-school time through after-school programs. Studies indicate that 90% of parents want their children in an after-school program, yet less than 30% of schools have one. Amazingly, schools are locked 50% of the time parents are working. Many policy makers are coming to this realization and some have proposed billions of dollars of new spending on after-school programs. I am not convinced that such a large infusion of money is necessary, but I am convinced that up-to-date information on after-school programs is essential. There really is not good information available. The last major study of after-school programs was completed in 1993 by the National Institute of Out-Of-School-Time. The ACE Act will help meet this need with a three prong approach. First, it requires the General Accounting Office to conduct a state-by- state study on after-school programs that will help us understand what programs currently exist and where the gaps are in providing educationally enriching and personally rewarding programs for children. Second, the ACE Act establishes a national clearinghouse of model after-school programs available on the Internet. Finally, it provides $10 million for states to use for activities that improve the quality and availability of after-school programs. As I have witnessed in Delaware, some communities have collaborated to produce high quality after-school programs. For instance, the extended use of school facilities in Delaware has allowed several organizations, such as the Boys and Girls Clubs and the YMCA to successfully integrate after-school programs into schools. The ACE Act encourages continued collaborations so that communities can play a more active role in providing assistance in after-school activities in a number of ways. In all of my discussions with constituents and after-school program specialist, the most troubling issue I have run across is the fact that both after-school program providers and after-school program participants need better access to information. We do not fully understand what programs are available and we should. I hope you will join me and colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support and co-sponsor the After-School Children's Education Act.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I am not a member of the Committee on Appropriations, but as a lot of other Members, I follow the appropriations and budgetary processes very carefully, and just three brief points, if I may: First of all, I was in support of the rule, I am in support of the legislation, and I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the others who worked on this because sometimes in my 6 years here I have seen emergency bills that were, with all due respect, Christmas trees with a lot of decorations on them. A real effort was made here, I think, to look at this carefully and to make it truly an emergency bill. Secondly, I feel we need offsets. I have been in support of this for some time. We just simply cannot continue to balance our budget if we do not offset the expenditures which we make, even if they are emergencies, and, frankly, one could argue the viability of some of the offsets here; I understand that. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has already made that argument. With respect to certain of the issues, I know a little bit about the callable capital situation with the international financial institutions, but the bottom line is I believe that this is an acceptable and allowable offset. Perhaps, as we negotiate with the Senate, we will go through some changes on that, but I really also congratulate the committee on that. They made the effort to do this. A lot of us were concerned about it, and they have come to the realization that while there are going to be emergencies, in many instances we should be able to get offsets for this, and in this case they have done that. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I have been pushing legislation for some time to have a budget for emergencies so we could avoid these problems, so it is built into our budget at the beginning of the year as a rainy day fund approximating what the average of emergency expenditures have been over the last 5 years, which may be in the range of $5 to $6 billion; so, when these issues come up, we would have a methodology for reviewing them, to determine if they are true emergencies, we would already have the money set aside for that, we could apply this against that money. Then we do not get into the arguments about the offsets, the callable capital, the import export or it may be. This is really not a matter before us today. It is not even necessarily an appropriation matter; perhaps it is a budget matter. But I think it is something we should do. But I congratulate all those who worked on this. I think we are taking steps in the right direction, and I am pleased to be in support of it.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for yielding time to me. I am pleased to be able to speak to this briefly. I do rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees. We as House Members have, I think, done the right thing. I think we passed a good piece of legislation. Yes, I know there were some amendments from the other side that they would like to have had put in which were not put in, but essentially I think we have passed a good bill. Let us remember what it was we passed, it was education flexibility. It really had nothing to do with IDEA per se. It had nothing to do with the 100,000 teachers per se. Over in the Senate, they have taken the whole provisions with the $1.2 billion for the reduction of class size, which is really the hiring of more teachers, and they have added a provision to allow IDEA to get involved with that. That may or may not be a good thing to do. It is something which I think should be discussed at the conference. But I do not think we should have this motion to instruct conferees as part of that. I think it may upset the equilibrium enough so we might not even get to the conference on what is a good piece of legislation. I would hope we would remember that. I think this is an instructive discussion we should have in terms of what we should do with respect to the conference. The bottom line is, we have a piece of legislation which was highly popular. We have a piece of legislation reported out of our committee with 33 yes votes and only 9 no votes. We have a piece of legislation which passed the House of Representatives just a week later which received 330 yes votes and only 90 votes against it. We have a piece of legislation which has been approved by each and every Governor of every State in the United States of America. We have a piece of legislation which the Secretary of Education and the President of the United States has said is a good piece of legislation. There are differences between the House version and the Senate version, some of which are not touched in this motion to instruct conferees, which we are going to have to address as well. This is a bipartisan bill. We have a very strong House position with respect to the bill. Quite frankly, I do not think getting involved in a technical motion to instruct conferees, to undermine what they have done in the Senate before we get there, that we can negotiate fairly as a House team, is the way to go. I would encourage each and every one of us, Republicans and Democrats, to stand united in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees so we can go into that conference, get this bill done, and have a real achievement for the greater good of education in the United States of America.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Greenwood, to introduce H.R. 1150, the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act. It is essential that Congress join together to fight and reduce the rising rates of crime, particularly violent crime among children. Our children are our most important resource. They are our future teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, and parents. We need to make sure that we do everything in our power to keep them safe from harm and prevent them from becoming involved in at-risk activities, such as drugs, alcohol abuse, and crime. In 1996 alone, there were over 100,000 arrests of children and youth under the age of 18 for violent crimes. Over 1,000 of those crimes were committed by those under the age of 10 and 6,500 were committed by youths between the ages of 10 and 12. In my home state of Delaware, one out of every five persons arrested in 1996 was a juvenile. The key to lowering these statistics and stopping juvenile crime in its tracks is prevention and that is what we do in the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act. This bill acknowledges that most successful solutions to juvenile crime are developed at the state and local levels by people who understand the unique characteristics of youth in their particular area. H.R. 1150 goes a long way toward providing states and local providers with more flexibility in addressing juvenile crime by reducing burdensome state requirements and streamlining current law. Funds in H.R. 1150 can be used for prevention activities, including for hiring probation officers to monitor youth to ensure they abide by the terms of their probation. The bill also acknowledges that interventions and prevention activities such as educational assistance, job training employment services are effective tools in reducing and preventing juvenile crime. Also included in this bill is the Runaway Homeless Youth Act, which targets prevention as the best means to combat juvenile violent crime. H.R. 1150 authorizes programs to keep youth off the streets and away from criminal activity, so they will never even have the opportunity to become involved in violent crime. The Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act provides the missing link in our efforts to combat juvenile crime. Identical legislation to H.R. 1150 passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 413 to 14 last year. This widely supported legislation can go a long way in providing kids support when they are most in need.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from California, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher for her comments about the importance of after-school programs. I appreciate and applaud her dedication to this issue. In addition, I welcome this opportunity to work with her to bring this issue to the forefront of the ongoing discussion Congress is having on how best to educate our youth. Indeed, evidence is continually emerging to prove what we have always intuitively known about the importance of out-of-school time for children, their health and well being, and their academic growth. Roughly five million children are unsupervised after school, leaving them at risk of accidents and ripe for undesirable behaviors ranging from smoking and drinking to sexual activity and violent crime. For too many of our children, the hours between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. are spent engaged in delinquent or unproductive behavior. Television happens to be the No. 1 substitute for good after-school programs. Millions of children come home and plop in front of the television set after school, and I venture to guess that many are not watching educational programming. In addition, juvenile crime rates go up 300 percent after 3 p.m. and over half of all juvenile crime occurs between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. This is quite disturbing, given that we know that the hours after school have become absolutely critical in a child's life. After-school programs can be exceptionally beneficial for kids. Good programs can give kids the chance to interact with their peers and adults in a positive way, to gain or improve new skills, to master educational material, to develop strong bodies, or to foster creativity. In addition, studies have shown that students who attend productive after- school programs make significant academic gains, enjoy school more, feel more safe, and are less likely to participate in delinquent behaviors year round. We, as leaders of this Nation, need to focus on improving the quality of children's out-of-school time. I do not necessarily believe we have to spend billions of dollars to accomplish this task, but we should invest ourselves and our time. Up to date information is desperately needed to understand the dynamics, intricacies, strengths, and weaknesses of existing after-school programs. The last major study of after-school programs was completed in 1993 by the National Institute of Out-Of-School Time. This lack of up to date information is what drove me to hold several round table discussions with my constituents last year and to draft the ``After-School Children's Education Act (ACE Act)'' that will initiate a state-by-state study to help us understand what the current culture of after-school programs is, and where the gaps are in providing educationally enriching and personally fulfilling programs for kids. The ACE Act would not spend a lot of money, but it would set a ball in motion that can lead the Congress to better information and better decision making on how to proceed with meeting the needs of our children and families with after-school programs. I am thoroughly convinced that we must carefully focus our attention on children, especially in their earliest years. Children are eager and able to learn, but as they get older habits become ingrained and are harder and harder to break. It is a pleasure to join Congresswoman Tauscher today in emphasizing the importance of after-school programs for the future of our Nation's children and, in return, our nation's future.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. That is 5 minutes total for our speakers?

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to this as sincerely as I possibly can. Sometimes we get awfully tangled up with numbers on this. I respect the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) in so many ways because we have worked together on a lot of different issues. But I am perplexed by Title I. I have watched Title I for many, many years in many capacities in the State of Delaware. Quite frankly, while money goes into the system, I have never seen a measurable output that would tell me that Title I is actually doing better. Now one could argue it is, but it is all anecdotal at this point. We are now seeing under the Ed-Flex legislation, when schools are going to schoolwide projects, which means that they take the whole school and try to have a rising tide with respect to that school, that, all of a sudden, the Title I kids are doing better. I am not going to sit here and tell my colleagues this is the best thing since sliced bread because it is not absolutely proven yet, but it seems to be working. To put a floor on this and to say, if one does not have 35 percent or more poverty, one cannot get a waiver in this case I think would be a mistake. I think we should let the local school district and the schools and the States make the decision as to which way we should go. We have this particular chart, which shows that Ed-Flex boosts student performance, Texas uses flexibility to improve reading scores. It shows statewide scores. Then it shows higher scores for Hispanic Ed-Flex schools, for African-American Ed-Flex schools, and for economically disadvantaged Ed-Flex schools. So we actually can show, we can document improvement in State reading scores in the State of Texas as a result of what they have been able to do with Ed-Flex, with the schoolwide programs, and with the waivers. I spent time in a school in Dover, Delaware, I guess 3 days ago now, and talked to the principal there. We are not an Ed-Flex State, but she is not sure about whether to go to something like a schoolwide program at this point. That is fine. That is her decision. I do not have a problem with that. In Kent County, Maryland, right over here on the Eastern Shore, if you go to Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, you drive through it, a 60 percent poverty school there that utilizes Ed-Flex has the third highest test scores in the Nation. I do not know this, but I would imagine there are not too many Title I programs across this country which can have documentation such as that. They of course are using the schoolwide projects to carry out what they have to do in order to help these young children. The people who are doing this care a great deal. These are not people who are trying to throw money away. As a matter of fact, in the Ed-Flex bill, one cannot change the money. The money goes to the school district. They get it, and they cannot give it away to another school district. But they can make decisions in their school district, just as Texas has done. Maybe a school that is a little bit higher income can do better than a school that is a little bit lower income, needs more help than a school that is a little bit lower income, and, therefore, adjusts the flow of their funds accordingly in order to accommodate those problems. The governors, the school administrators, the teachers, the State boards of education, the local board of education, and the Chamber of Commerce, among others, have all looked at this and believe that it is a positive step going in the right direction. We also have plenty of accountability in this bill now thanks to some of the discussion today and some of the things we were able to do in committee. Indeed, we can make determinations if these programs are working. But, again, I am trying to discourage any amendments today, tonight, that are going to, in some way, discourage flexibility. Of all the areas that concern me the most, Title I is the one I am most interested in seeing what we can do, to see if we can have documentable improvement of our students in those particular programs. The one thing that I see and which truly has worked is the schoolwide programs which we have talked about here today. By the way, schoolwide waivers and the Title I programs are almost the most sought after in some ways of these various waivers under Ed-Flex as well, because a lot of schools are seeing that opportunity. I personally shy away from arbitrarily putting in some sort of a floor and say, well, if one is below that then one cannot have the schoolwide program. Others might argue, well, if one gets below that level, one is going to have so little money one has to do it for individuals or whatever it may be. I do not necessarily believe that. I believe that educators in America today are beginning to really understand that people in elected office, parents, and people across this country are beginning to demand better education. That is the best thing that has ever happened. The next best thing that has ever happened is the fact that we are taking this long to discuss a bill of this importance on the floor of the House of Representatives. As was said at the very beginning, I hope we do it once a week. I am not sure the staff hopes for that. But I hope we do it once a week so we can improve the education of our children. I would hope, even though I want to help Title I in every way we can, that tomorrow, when we vote on this amendment, that we would defeat the amendment; after we have done that, that we would rally together to pass Ed-Flex. We have had a good debate on the amendments. I understand there is a good chance it will pass in the other body tomorrow. They have worked some things out apparently. The chairman has given strong support for this. This is really an opportunity for us to join together to move education forward.

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. CASTLE. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CASTLE. Just this amendment, and amendments to this amendment, yes. Sorry.

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me restate it, 5 minutes on each side?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes. I would agree to that.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I realize there is a time problem here. We have one or two people who want to speak. Can we have two speakers of 3 minutes, or something of that nature?

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I have no problems with the gentleman's offer, but I have the chairman of the committee standing here. Maybe I should get his wise advice.

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is offered by myself, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the cosponsor, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). This is a relatively simple amendment. I will take very little time to explain it. It pertains to oversight and reporting requirements, as sort of a follow-up on some of the earlier discussions about GAO. It strengthens accountability by clarifying reporting and oversight requirements. It ensures that when States monitor the performance of local waiver recipients, they use all information available to them to hold them accountable for using Ed-Flex to improve students' performance. It clarifies what States must submit to the U.S. Department of Education in their annual Ed-Flex reports. States need only to provide performance data and information about the types and characteristics of the waivers granted. No unnecessary burdensome paperwork requirements, just what Congress needs to evaluate the success of the program and how it is helping reform at the local level. Finally, it will enable Congress to better understand how Ed-Flex waivers are being implemented, a concern raised by the GAO. It requires States to provide an assurance that their data is complete, reliable and accurate, which is in accordance with standard accounting procedures, and it clarifies that the Secretary should report the information they receive to Congress and the general public on an annual basis. Included in this report will be an overall assessment of the impact of Ed-Flex waivers on student performance. That is the heart and soul of what this amendment is.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would ask the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) to please explain.