Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment number 2.

Mr. CASTLE. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that under ESEA all the things the gentleman is talking about have to be in place by the school year 2000-2001 one. Right now, although 17 schools may be ready for it, right now none have their final assessments in place, a lot of them do not have their standards in place. The gentleman is saying that they cannot have Ed- Flex at all. We are saying Ed-Flex is a relatively simple bill. We have worked with the gentleman and put a lot more accountability in here than was in before, which the GAO report wanted, but now I think the gentleman is extending it to a level that none of us want to live up to. I give the gentleman credit for a good presentation, but I was wondering if we really have to go forward with the amendment. I think this amendment would be counterproductive to those of us, including maybe the gentleman, who are supporting the underlying bill.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CASTLE. The bottom line is that they have to do these things by 2000-2001 anyhow under ESEA, and the gentleman is moving up the time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CASTLE. My only question, Mr. Chairman, and I do not have a problem with anything the gentleman said, and he says it extremely well, I might add, at any age, but I go back to the original question I posed on this particular bill about an hour ago, and I do not know if the gentleman was on the floor, but I pose it again, and if the gentleman does not know the answer, somebody can answer over there at some point. My view is, based on what our knowledge is, that if the Miller amendment passes, that we have only 21 States that have performance standards in place and we have no States that have their final assessments in place, and that means that no States will get education flexibility. That is the problem. It is also true that in the year 2000 and 2001 all these things will be done under ESEA. I do not know how that can be repudiated. That is a fact, not a wandering statement. I would be curious to hear the gentleman's answer or anyone else's.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise, and I guess I rise reluctantly, to oppose this amendment, but in a sense of the bill we are dealing with I cannot be that reluctant. The concept of putting all of these things in place; that is, content standards and performance standards and assessments that are aligned with the performance standards is clearly the way we are supposed to go in this country. I have absolutely no doubts about that whatsoever, and I think we should do it, just as there are other things are being discussed on this floor today about which I also feel good that we should be doing. The question is what should we be doing in the education flexibility bill. Mr. Chairman, I do not know how many people listen to the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and, as my colleagues know, if somebody can repudiate this, hopefully not on my time, but on their time, I would welcome them to do it. But it is my understanding that when we are talking about the final assessments, that there is not one State in the United States at the present time which has its final assessments in and approved by the Secretary. I do understand that the chief State school officers say that there are 17 that are ready to go and they just have not submitted them. Fine. That leaves 33 who are not there, and only 21 States have their performance standards done. Why? The reason is that in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, where this would be a very applicable amendment, in that particular act they do not have to have this completed until the school year 2000-2001, and yet we are taking this education flexibility bill in which we are trying to get States the ability to work with the local school districts to get around some of the Federal bureaucratic things that we have done, and we are getting an amendment like this, which is all of a sudden taking an incredibly overwhelming, almost crushing responsibility of getting these ready a couple years in advance or they will not be eligible for education flexibility. That is a mistake. I mean there is nothing wrong with the amendment. There is nothing wrong with the intent of the amendment. There is nothing wrong with any of the positions that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) or anybody else has taken here today. But it is very wrong to even think about attaching this particular amendment to this bill though it is my hope that maybe the statement has been made and this particular amendment can be withdrawn because it just is so ill fitting with the legislation before us. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have put a great deal of accountability in this bill to the extent that we can. There must be annual reports submitted to Congress. The Secretary has to approve State applications. The Secretary conducts performance reviews of State performance. We have done it at the State level. They must have specific and measurable performance goals required to monitor local waiver recipients annually and hold them accountable for performance. We must provide public notice and opportunity for comment when waivers are approved. We must submit an annual report to the Secretary and States must submit an annual report to the Secretary that summarize the student performance and types of waivers granted and that at the local level local applicants must send specific and measurable performance goals as part of an overall reform effort. They must track the performance of schools and groups of students affected by waivers, and waivers are subject to termination, the performance declines, against objectives for 2 consecutive years. Why did we put that into this particular bill? Because in the GAO report they said there has to be more accountability and more assessment, and so we have started that process here. But we do not leapfrog over to the demands which are in the gentleman from California's amendment which are final assessments which simply are ready and are going to cut most States out of Ed-Flex. This is a killer amendment of killer amendments, as far as I can ascertain, and again I honestly ask somebody to try to rebut what I am saying, if they are able to do that at some point in this discussion. But I thing we are making a mistake even considering this amendment. We are close to the universal agreement that this is a good bill. The only question is what amendments are we going to adopt. This is not one that we should adopt. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 447.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee, who has been so helpful with this legislation. Obviously, I am rising today in strong support of H.R. 800, which is known as the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, which I did cosponsor along with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). I cannot say enough positive things about his efforts as this wound its way through the committees and the amendment process and everything else. Hopefully, we can grasp hands at the end of it in celebration that we have gotten it done. As we all know, there is nothing more important to the future of our country than to ensure that our students receive a challenging and enriching education. Over the years, a top-heavy system of educating our youth has emerged from Washington. Regulations put in at the Federal level have addressed mainstream problems only, overlooking the fact that each and every district in this Nation is different. The only policies that can truly assist the diversities in schools across the country are flexible policies that allow States and schools to mold Federal assistance to meet their individual needs. H.R. 800 will provide this flexibility, while ensuring that States and schools are held accountable for achieving positive results and improved student performance. This has been demonstrated by the 12 States that have Ed-Flex authority in current law. The State of Texas has issued 4,000 programmatic and administrative waivers to get Federal assistance in the form they most need it. Students in districts with waivers have outperformed students in districts without waivers. In addition, the scores of educationally disadvantaged students have improved dramatically. Ed-Flex permits local school districts to think outside the box 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, districts can develop a vision of how to use local, State, and Federal resources to more effectively improve student performance, and then make that vision a reality through the Ed-Flex waiver process. All States deserve the flexibility that has enabled current Ed-Flex States to achieve greater rates of success. That is why the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and I have introduced H.R. 800, a bill which takes the cap off the Ed-Flex project in current law, making all States eligible to apply for Ed-Flex. To address concerns raised by the General Accounting Office and some of my colleagues, we have strengthened the accountability requirement to ensure that States integrate Ed-Flex with comprehensive State reform efforts designed to measurably improve student performance. We have also added the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund to the list of programs eligible for waiver. This program did not exist at the time, and therefore was not included in the Ed-Flex legislation authorized in 1994. Finally, in response to concerns that Ed-Flex may dilute funds to high poverty and Title I schools, we placed a limitation on schools that can qualify for title funds with a waiver. While Ed-Flex is an important first step towards giving States the flexibility they need, I should point out that it is a relatively limited program. It only applies to 10 programs, and they cannot be combined with one another. States must continue to meet the underlying purposes of the programs, and it does not allow special education regulations to be waived, either. I am confident that this bill can bring about positive education reform, and by enacting Ed-Flex now, the immediate experiences of the States can help Congress identify the areas of Federal regulatory burden for school districts. We then could address these problems during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The chart which I have here I think is indicative of how significant this legislation is across the United States of America by the people who count; that is, the people who have to educate our young people. The chart says, look who supports Ed-Flex. Here is who supports it: The Democratic Governors Association unanimously support it, the National Education Association supports it, the Republican Governors Association also unanimously supports it, the National Governors Association obviously also unanimously supports it, the American Association of School Administrators. The National School Boards Association, the National Association of State Boards of Education, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Association of American Educators are all supporters of our legislation. We are going to have 23 amendments today. Hopefully we can work out a handful of these amendments. The rest we probably cannot. But I think we have to remember that as good as some of these amendments may sound as they come before us, they largely detract from the issue of flexibility. That is all this bill is. Indeed, there are going to be opportunities both on appropriation bills and in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to take up these issues. I do not expect to deter anybody from presenting their amendments by saying that, but I think they need to understand exactly where it is we are coming from. The people who are from Ed-Flex are for Ed-Flex as it was originally written. That is the way we should pass it. I look forward to the debate. Hopefully by the end of the day we will have passed a very good bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage Members to support S. 447. Although it would be my intention to consider amendments to Impact Aid during the authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act this bill addresses a problem of a more urgent nature. In filing for 1999 Impact Aid funds, the Dodson Public Schools in Dodson, Montana, inadvertently forwarded their original application to the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools and not the Department of Education. The mistake was not discovered until after the filing deadline. For many school districts, the loss of Impact Aid funds would have minor consequences. This is not the case for Dodson Public Schools. Impact Aid provides a third of the funding for the school district. Without these funds, the school could close and 120 children might have to travel great distances to find alternative education. This is a small bill with a large impact. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation, and I believe that the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill) will explain it further.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 447) to deem as timely filed, and process for payment, the applications submitted by the Dodson School Districts for certain Impact Aid payments for fiscal year 1999, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Let me start, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me this time and for the opportunity to debate this bill. I would also like to thank all the staff that has worked very hard on this bill. We have done it under a fairly intense schedule. We are pleased to have it to the floor today. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has eased the way to this in so many ways, and we are very appreciative of that. Of course my fellow cosponsor, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) whose words I listened to very carefully and with which I agree. I am sure the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) probably feels this way, too, but if we debated education every week, I would be happy here and if we cannot bring these issues up today, perhaps we could bring them up some other time. The bottom line is that it is very important to all of us. I have never been one of those who believes that Republicans are totally right in education and Democrats are totally wrong on education. It is my belief that virtually everybody in this Chamber would like to improve the education of our young people in this country. My view is that this piece of legislation, which I think has been a little bit overemphasized as being more complex than it is, this bill of education flexibility, is a relatively simple measure by which we are giving to the States and the local districts the ability to work together so that when some Federal programs come up which have complexities or have administrative problems or paperwork problems, they can step in and make decisions as to how to manage it differently. That is what it is really all about. That is why all 50 governors, remember, two of them are Independents, the rest are Democrats and Republicans, that is why all 50 governors in this country support it as it is. And it is why most of the education groups in this country support it as it is. Now, we have heard discussions today about more teachers. That is a legitimate discussion. We already, by the way, supply a lot of teachers under title I at the Federal level which some people do not realize, but in terms of more teachers, yes, that is a discussion that we should have. I frankly do not think it should be on this bill. It truly is not germane to this simple bill that everybody wants to get passed that really has nothing to do with this in particular. It has something to do with education, sure, and we will do that on an appropriation bill or on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The same thing with title I, to help disadvantaged students, particularly lower income students. Again, I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for that. The reason I like the ed flex bill is it has probably been the first measure in the 12 States which have done this as a pilot project in which we have seen true measurable improvement in title I outcomes. That has happened in Texas and Maryland. That is a wonderful bottom line that I think that we need to focus on and to make part of the ed flex package as we send it on to the President of the United States. There is an amendment for after-school programs. I am one who is advocating after-school programs, but unfortunately this is not the place for that. So we are dealing with a relatively simple bill. I cannot tell you what happened in the Senate. I mean, it is all tangled up there. It is too bad that it is. We are dealing with a bill which helps the people we want to help, the children of our country, and gives them a greater opportunity in terms of their education. It is and should be a clean, stand-alone education flexibility bill. I was just on a conference call with some governors. They repeated that. They want maximum flexibility. We have 23 amendments. We are going to work out two or three or four of them. But frankly a lot of the others are restrictive in their nature. Instead of introducing flexibility, they are trying to remove areas from flexibility and trying to remove from the local school districts and the States the ability to carry out educating kids as best they can. My view is that while these in some instances are perfectly good, in most cases they do not apply here. I hope we would all pay attention to that. I think the rule is fair. It did give 5 hours to debate all of these amendments, some of which are duplicative, anyhow, and they had to be published in advance. That is fine. We know what they are. I think it is a rule which we should all be able to support. But I do not want this day to be divisive. I want us to go out of here with this bill passed at 6 o'clock tonight or whatever the heck it is going to be, having said together that we did something good for the children of America. That is what this bill is all about. Yes, we will debate all these amendments, but I hope when it is all said and done we will continue to pull together as Republicans and Democrats for the children of the country.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for yielding. I do want to join him in support of what he is trying to do here and what he has been trying to do for many, many years. He deserves a great deal of congratulations on this. The chart that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has next to him, which shows the percentage funded at about 10 percent now, it has been as high as 12 percent, I believe, when it should be 40 percent. It shows that big gap. That big gap basically is an area that should be filled with Federal dollars and if it is, as has been stated here so well, then we would free up the local dollars to do the very things that we are talking about in Washington and that they are talking about at the States and the local school districts, to hire more teachers in order to get smaller classrooms, to fix up our schools, to move in to the world of technology in the fastest and best way possible and to do all the other things we have to do in education. I did see this on a local level. Basically, the Federal Government has come along with the courts and they have stated that all States must provide a free and appropriate education to disabled children. That is a very broad classification. The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and I were just discussing the various cases and some of the expenses we can get into with children with disabilities. Perhaps some of that has not been managed as well as possible but some of it is extraordinarily expensive. We are expecting our State governments and our local school districts to pick up that cost at a tremendous burden, and well beyond what they should be. Well beyond the 60 percent that they were supposed to deal with, and that is a tremendous burden at the State and local level as they look at these particular problems. We have simply failed to do what we have to do, I believe, as a Federal Government. And I am not one who believes we can correct it all at once. In fact, I am not sure what those dollars are. Maybe that is the ultimate advocacy policy. But we are now, with the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, on a trend where we are going up. Unfortunately, the President has not met this in his budgeting requirements from year to year. In order to supplant what they have to do on a Federal basis, with the gentleman's leadership, we are doing that. We have had broad representation here from all over the country and from both political parties there is a great deal of interest in getting this done. There is no better way that the Federal Government could help with the local problems of dealing with running of our schools. There is no issue which is more important than education. Once we get beyond health and welfare and security of our country, we need to deal with the education of our young people. And if we were able to do this, we could indeed give them the opportunity to do all of those things that the President and so many educators talk about. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has hit upon an issue which makes tremendous sense in terms of what we should be doing at the Federal Government level, and for that reason I stand here with him to try to help in this effort to try to do this so that we can help education every way possible. If I could throw in a good word for education flexibility at the same time, because they are not entirely unrelated, education flexibility is going to have a hearing in our committee tomorrow. It is going to have its markup next week in the committee, and hopefully will be on the floor 2 weeks from now. That is a program that all 50 governors have endorsed. All 50 governors do not endorse anything as far as I can see. This may be the first time, as far as I know, in the history of the Governors Association that this has happened. This gives the flexibility to take a lot of Federal programs and be able to make decisions on how to spend money. Full-day kindergarten, pre-kindergarten, whatever it may be. They still have to meet all the commitments and there are all manner of checkbacks to make sure that they are doing their job properly, and the Secretary has to check off, but it enhances their ability to do this. If we were able to supply the money to do this and give them the flexibility to take the existing Federal programs which are out there and be able to tailor it to their own community, those would be two tremendous steps for education. It would take us light years ahead of where we are now. So, we are up to some very good things in the Committee on Education and the Workforce under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania going on right now, and I hope that we are all paying attention to it. I hope that Members over in their offices, everybody in the House, is listening to what we are doing here today, because these are two steps that will take education way ahead of where it has been before from a Federal point of view. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity of speaking today and I congratulate him and I hope that we can get these done as soon as possible.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join in the celebration of National TRIO Day. National TRIO Day was designated by concurrent resolution on February 24, 1986, by the 99th Congress. It is celebrated on the last Saturday of February each year as a day of recognition for the federal TRIO program. The TRIO programs, Talent Search, Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math/ Science, Veterans Upward Bound, Student Support Services, Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program and Educational Achievement Centers, were established over 30 years ago to assist low- income students overcome class, social and cultural barriers to higher education. Currently, 2,000 colleges, universities and community agencies sponsor TRIO programs. Over 780,000 low-income students between the ages of 11 and 27 benefit from the services of the TRIO programs. Most of these students come from families in which neither parent graduated from college. These students represent the highest aspirations and best hope for achieving the American dream. By lifting these students out of poverty and into productive and rewarding lives, the Nation is in turn lifted and given hope for a better future. In Delaware, 13 TRIO programs are hosted through the Delaware Technical and Community College, the University of Delaware and Delaware State University. They serve 2,455 Delawareans. Dr. Bertice Berry from Delaware is an excellent example of the success the TRIO program has endured. She was recognized as a TRIO achiever at a national conference. Dr. Berry was the sixth of seven children who grew up in Wilmington, Delaware. In 8th grade she was accepted into the Upward Bound Program at the University of Delaware, where she participated until entering college at Florida State University. Dr. Berry obtained her undergraduate degree, a master's degree in sociology and a Ph.D. in sociology. She has rapidly become one of the most sought-after lecturers on the college speakers' circuit. She has authored two books and speaks regularly across the country. Dr. Berry attributes her success totally to the Upward Bound program. Dr. Berry is just one of many success stories. TRIO graduates can be found in every occupation you can think of: as doctors, lawyers, astronauts, television reporters, actors and even Members of Congress. I am pleased to be able to speak on behalf of the TRIO programs and Dr. Berry. I encourage my colleagues to join me in visiting TRIO programs in your district to learn how valuable these vital programs can be for our Nation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. Teaching children to master skills and knowledge is the key to our nation's future success and economic growth and the surest ticket to a better life for our Nation's citizens. As the House Education Subcommittee Chairman on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families, I offer this legislation--which I began work on in the 105th Congress--as the first item on the Subcommittee's agenda in pursuit of attaining educational excellence for children across the Nation. The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, also known as Ed- Flex, will bring much needed relief to our schools, while boosting the productivity and the academic achievement of students. There is nothing more important to the future of our country than ensuring our students receive a challenging and enriching education. In talking to teachers about our schools, one of the complaints I hear repeatedly is that the Federal Government often weighs in on local school matters in a counterproductive and burdensome way. Often times, regulations put in place at the Federal level--intended to assist local schools in attaining educational excellence--actually have the opposite effect. Instead of strengthening teachers' time in the classroom, some regulations end up taking talented teachers away from students so they can fill out paperwork or assess program spending. Again, the intention of these regulations are good. Everyone wants students to achieve at higher rates and schools to provide better educational opportunities. However, because each school district is structured differently and because each student body has diverse needs, regulations sometimes actually interfere with the schools main focus of educating children. In these instances, we have actually added to the barriers of attaining educational excellence, instead of breaking them down. A `one size fits all solution' rarely works for everyone, and though they provide a framework for schools, they do not cross every `T' or dot every `I'. We can help fill in this gap, however, by supporting education flexibility. Under current law, 12 states are authorized to participate in an enormously popular pilot program known as Ed-Flex. My proposal extends that authority to all states. Under Ed-Flex, states can grant schools waivers of certain federal requirements that, while intending to assist, actually inhibit the school's ability to improve educational opportunities for its students. For example, in Ohio, the program was used to significantly reduce paperwork for schools, school districts, and the state education agency. In addition, the state granted two statewide waivers. Each of these required school districts to describe the specific regulatory barrier, show how the removal of the barrier will benefit students, and describe a plan to evaluate the waiver's effect on teaching and learning. The time saved on completing applications frees up staff time to address more substantive and crucial needs of the students. Texas has successfully used Ed-Flex waiver authority to improve student performance through more than 4,000 programmatic and administrative waivers, such as permitting schools to offer school-wide Title I programs, changing the priorities for professional development activities under the Eisenhower Professional Development program, and reducing paperwork for schools. After only two years of implementation, preliminary statewide results on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills show that districts with waivers outperformed districts without waivers 87 percent to 84 percent in reading and 82.6 percent to 80.2 percent in math. For African-American students, the gains were even bigger. For example, at Westlawn Elementary School in La Marque, Texas, African-American students improved almost 23 percent over their 1996 math test scores with 82 percent of students passing. The statewide average was 64 percent. Maryland, another Ed-Flex state, used its waiver authority to reduce student-teacher ratios for students with the greatest need in math and science from 25 to 1 to 12 to 1. Under the Howard County waiver, the school will provide additional instruction time in reading and math and increase each student's time on task. The State holds schools accountable through performance on the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program. Ed-Flex allows schools to tailor waivers to meet their individual needs. I believe all States should have the opportunity to obtain similar improvements in their regulatory process and, more importantly, in academic achievement. In response to a report released by the General Accounting Office on the Ed-Flex demonstration project, my proposal strengthens accountability in the program by ensuring that states demonstrate that student performance improves through the use of waivers and adds to the list of programs eligible for waiver under Ed-Flex. My proposal also ensures that states do not issue waivers to allow schools to participate in Title I that are more than 5 percent below the average poverty rate--thereby maintaining targeted funding for disadvantaged children. Ed-Flex facilitates a seamless system of services for students because the federal and state programs can be well coordinated. In testimony and reports submitted to Congress by the U.S. Department of Education, states gave examples of how Ed-Flex has given them not only greater flexibility, but also the ability to set even higher expectations for student performance--by asking for a higher level of accountability in exchange for Ed-Flex waivers. In addition, by enacting this legislation now, the immediate experiences of the States can help Congress identify the areas of federal regulatory burden for school districts. We can then address these problems during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Ed-Flex will allow our schools to work more creatively in meeting student needs while ensuring that important Federal education priorities remain in effect.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 435, the ``Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999''. This bill is one of the most closely scrutinized pieces of legislation that ever comes to the House floor. Numerous agencies review its provisions to make sure they duty suspensions it contains do not prejudice any domestic producers of a good. This pre-legislative scrutiny is the main reason similar omnibus trade bills pass the Congress and are signed by the President without controversy. This legislation is intended to reduce consumers' cost of important products. These include cancer-fighting drugs and organic substances that can substitute for other chemicals which are more harmful to the environment. I am the sponsor of several of the duty suspension provisions in this bill, including Resmethrin, used in an environmentally sensitive home and garden pesticide that controls flying and crawling insects. In addition, I sponsored a duty suspension for Diclofop-methyl, a herbicide for wheat and barley. Unlike many other herbicides, Diclofop-methyl does not need to be tilled into the soil, which promotes soil conservation. Thidiazuron is another useful chemical included in this legislation. It is a defoliant that causes green bolls to drop to the ground enabling cotton pickers to harvest clean whit cotton with a green stain that reduces the value of the crop. It also shed immature bolls which are often the host sites for boll weevil infestation, a major threat to cotton production. Again, it is environmentally superior to other cotton defoliants because it requires less active ingredient than other chemicals to provide the same result. AgrEvo, the Delaware company that manufactures the defoliant, packages it in a water soluble bag in order to reduce exposure of the chemical to the skin of farmers and farm workers who apply it. Also included in a duty suspension for Deltamethrin, an environmentally safer pesticide used to kill fire ants, fleas, roaches, and ticks. Without these duty suspensions, not only would products cost more, but foreign producers of the product who do not have to pay tariffs on their ingredients would have an advantage over American producers. That means hundreds of fewer jobs for Delawareans and thousands of other U.S. citizens. In order to make cancer-fighting drugs more affordable, promote a cleaner environment, and protect American jobs, I encourage every Member to support this bill and move it quickly to the Oval office for President Clinton's signature.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert amendment to H.R. 350. It perfects the important goal of this legislation to require Congress to focus even more closely on the costs that would be imposed on an industry or small business sector if a particular legislative proposal is enacted into law. I strongly support the goal of H.R. 350 and I applaud Mr. Portman and Mr. Condit's hard work on this issue. I voted for the Mandates Information Act in the 105th Congress and I would like to do so again. However, I am not convinced that the bill's provision to allow major legislation to be pulled from the floor after 20 minutes debate on a point of order is needed to protect private industry. I believe the Boehlert amendment would address this problem. First, the Boehlert amendment will allow 20 minutes of additional debate on the cost issue beyond the time for general debate. This is consistent with the stated purpose of the Mandates Information Act. Section 3 of the bill states that its purpose is to provide more complete information about the effects of private mandates and ensure focused deliberation on those effects. It seeks to distinguish between mandates that harm consumers, workers, and small businesses, and mandates that help those groups. Second, there is more accountability with the Boehlert amendment. H.R. 350 would allow any Member to claim the proposed bill would impose $100 million in expense without any independent verification. In contrast, the Boehlert amendment would require CBO, in most cases, to verify that the bill or amendment indeed imposes $100 million in private sector costs. This is something CBO already does and would not gut the bill. Third, the Boehlert amendment prevents the rules of debate in the people's House from being tilted in one direction or the other. It keeps the playing field level. It keeps the debate going. I have heard many assert that the private sector needs this bill to level the playing field with the public sector. After all, we have a law which allows a Member to raise a point of order when Congress is debating legislation that would impose a $50 million mandate on the public sector. Why not give the private sector the same privilege when twice that amount will be imposed on them? Like Mr. Portman and Mr. Condit, I was a strong advocate of limiting the Federal Government's ability to pass on unfunded mandates to State and local governments. Congress and the executive branch too often set standards for Federal programs and then simply passed on their implementation to the States, resulting in a distortion of our Federal system of government. The Federal Government does sometimes place unfair costs on the private sector. This is often done in an effort to correct a problem such as pollution or to protect other aspects of the public's health and safety. The Federal Government can and must do a better job of balancing public health and safety concerns with the costs we impose on business, particularly small business. The Federal Government still finds ways to add multiple layers of bureaucracy and paperwork burdens that no businessman, especially a small businessman, should have to suffer. However, any Member of Congress who has sat through a committee markup on any important business issue knows that virtually every industry and business sector makes its views known forcefully to Congress. Legislation often stalls, sometimes with good reason, because a particular business sector makes the case it is unfair to them. I am not convinced that we need an automatic vote on the floor after only 20 minutes of debate if a business or industry simply asserts it will cost over $100 million, without any demonstrable proof. Congress and Federal agencies must focus their attention on reforming these outdated regulatory schemes and replacing them with ``market based'' regulatory systems--ones that will provide the same public benefit for half the cost. Rather than limiting the process of debate on laws which impact the private sector, Congress must find ways to change industry incentives from avoiding regulation to rewarding companies that are innovative in their control of waste streams. It should start with reforming one of the most costly, slow, and unnecessarily expensive laws on the books-- superfund. Tackling specific problems like superfund is how we can best help give our constituents relief from the unintended consequences of Federal laws, not by forcing legislation to be pulled from the floor after only 20 minutes of debate. In closing, if you believe in more debate, more accountability, a level playing field of debate vote for the Boehlert amendments and then support H.R. 350.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped not to have to make this statement today. I love this country and our democratic institutions, which are the strongest and most unique in the world. I have the highest respect for the Office of the President, and I respect the talents and accomplishments of President Clinton, with whom I have worked on a number of important national issues. My respect for much of the President's work makes this decision even more difficult. Yet, based on a careful review of the evidence in the record, watching the Judiciary Committee hearings and listening to the presentations by all sides, I have come to the conclusion that there is clear and convincing evidence that the President's material false statements to a federal grand jury meet the standard for impeachment and I will vote to refer Impeachment Article One to the United States Senate. I intend to vote against Articles Two, Three and Four. This is certainly the most difficult decision I have faced in thirty years of public life. It has been personally agonizing for me and it has also tremendously affected the people of Delaware and our nation. In the last week alone, I have received many thousands of calls, letters and E-mails from people in Delaware on this issue. I have never seen this number of heartfelt comments and this level of intensity in the arguments from people on both sides of any issue. Delawareans have not reacted purely along partisan lines. I have heard from people who describe themselves as ``life long Democrats'' who believe the President should be impeached. I have also heard from Republicans who have urged me to vote against impeachment. Individuals have shared their experiences of having to testify in legal proceedings or their painful discussions with their children about the President's behavior. One man said it was the first time in fifty years that he moved to write to a public official. Their words have further impressed upon me the seriousness of this decision. I delayed my decision as long as possible to review the evidence carefully and also to attempt to find a solution that would be fair and just and would allow us to end the turmoil that has enveloped our nation. No one wants this process to go on any longer than necessary. I still believe that a strong censure and financial penalty could be a solution to bring this matter to a close in the best interest of our nation. Nevertheless, it is clear that the President acted deceitfully in attempting to hide his adulterous sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He made false statements in his deposition before a federal judge in the Paula Jones lawsuit; he made false statements to his staff, his Cabinet and the American people. Finally, he made false statements before a federal grand jury. In short, he lied to all of us. The President's wounds are self-inflicted. One can almost understand his initial effort to hide his sexual affair which was wrong, but certainly not impeachable. However, he continued to weave a fragile pattern of deceit which he allowed to build to the point where he was not only repeating falsehoods to the public, but he continued them before a federal grand jury. It is critical to note that the President's lawyers have not attempted to rebut the essential facts of any of the allegations. The only question that remains is whether the President's lies and other steps to hide his relationship with Miss Lewinsky posed the type of threat that the Founding Fathers envisioned when the provided for impeachment of the President in our Constitution, the greatest democratic document in the world. In reviewing the Articles of Impeachment, I believe that the most troubling issue is in Article One--whether the President made material false statements under oath to a federal grand jury on August 17, 1998. I have reviewed the President's grand jury testimony and the arguments on both sides regarding this issue. The President had months to decide whether to appear before the grand jury and to prepare his testimony, he was permitted to have his attorney present--a privilege no other person would be afforded--and to set a time limit on his testimony. In short, there was little chance the President could be surprised by questions and he was able to ask for breaks to confer with his attorney. So it is especially disturbing that in his testimony, he continued the pattern of false statements and evasions regarding his relationship with Miss Lewinsky and his efforts to conceal it. He did not tell the truth in his grand jury testimony. That is the inescapable fact that troubles so many Americans because it poses a real threat to the credibility of our legal system and raises the question of the President's fitness for office. I have known President Clinton for over a decade. We have worked together on a number of policy issues when we served as governors and since he became President. He is very capable on policy matters. In meetings with the President, I have seen him display an excellent recall of policy details on complex issues. Because I have seen this sharp intellect and memory in other settings, it is difficult for me to believe his statements to the grand jury that he does not recall key events involving his own actions in the Lewinsky matter. It is necessary to conclude that whatever happened prior to his grand jury testimony, the President had the opportunity to set the record straight and tell the truth and he chose not to do it. The evidence supporting Impeachment Articles Two, Three and Four, while showing the President's actions to be morally and legally questionable, is not clear and convincing as required to meet the standard for high crimes and misdemeanors under the Constitution. There are very real and serious doubts regarding the truthfulness and legality of the President's testimony in the Paula Jones deposition, his discussions with Betty Currie and Monica Lewinsky about their potential testimony in legal proceedings, the handling of the gifts the President and Ms. Lewinsky exchanged, and the President's responses to the questions from the Judiciary Committee. However, I believe that the case for these Articles is not strong enough to merit sending them to the Senate for trial. The President may be guilty of wrongdoing in these matters, but he can remain liable for civil and criminal penalties for those actions after he leaves office. This whole episode has been terribly sad for the entire nation. But the unfortunate fact is that the President's own reckless behavior has led us to this point. There were numerous times during the past year when the President could have ended this matter by telling the unvarnished truth, especially before the grand jury. At that time, even some of the President's strongest supporters warned that lying before the grand jury could very well be grounds for impeachment. It was his decision to continue to shade or avoid the truth and rely on questionable definitions to defend his actions. In the end, his answers were not, as he insisted, ``legally accurate.'' I do believe that the Independent Counsel law is flawed and should be reviewed carefully and possibly terminated. This investigation has gone on too long and cost too much. Yet, the President's own denials and refusal to provide answers by invoking executive privilege prolonged the process. Most important, the essential findings of the investigation have not been disputed. I am particularly saddened by these events because I have had a positive working relationship with the President and am proud to have worked with him to enact the 1994 crime bill, the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, the 1997 balanced budget agreement and other positive legislation for the nation. President Clinton is a talented politician and public official. But, I cannot escape the conclusion that the charges against the President in Article One do meet the standard for impeachment in the House of Representatives. Our system of justice was established to insure that every American, including the President, is accountable for their actions. A vote by the House on Articles of Impeachment is only part of the process envisioned by the Constitution. The House determines only whether the President should be, in effect, indicted and then the Senate has the responsibility to try the case. The Senate has the responsibility to consider the charges against the President, and it also has the authority to consider censure as a possible alternative to removing the President from office. It is my hope that in the end, the Senate will make its decision expeditiously and in the best interest of all Americans. This has been the most difficult decision I have ever had to make in my public life. I am tremendously disappointed that while the President has apologized for his actions, he has been unable or unwilling to admit that he lied both in legal proceedings and to the American people. His testimony before the grant jury was false and he repeatedly made statements in public and private that prevented the discovery of the truth. His false grand jury testimony strikes at the heart of what our legal system and form of government are about. I still hope that this matter can be resolved quickly to avoid unnecessary turmoil for the country. While it may not ultimately require that he be removed from office, it does require that the Senate consider a trial on this matter and reach a conclusion. I hope it can be done fairly and quickly and in the best interest of the nation. I hold no malice toward the President and I would far refer to vindicate him of these charges. While the President's actions could result in criminal and civil prosecution, what has truly haunted the President throughout this matter is his repeated failure to tell the truth and that his lies led others to do the same. It is these facts that affect Americans so deeply and that I can not ignore. My unavoidable obligation is to hold the President accountable for this actions as required by the Constitution.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of President Clinton's decision to order U.S. naval and air forces to strike at military and government targets in Iraq in response to Saddam Hussein's latest refusal to allow international arms officials to inspect weapons facilities for biological and chemical weapons. As long as weapons of mass destruction are in Hussein's possession, Iraq poses a deadly threat to security in the already volatile Middle East. In addition, he is capable of wreaking havoc anywhere in the world--including the United States--using only a minimal amount of his chemical/biological stockpile. Let me be clear, allowing Hussein to continue gathering his weapons of mass destruction would have far reaching consequences for the safety of mankind beyond the physical boundaries of the middle east. One only has to see one of the well publicized photos of a field of Kurdish corpses to see an example of the chemical genocide he inflicted on his own people. Hussein has tested the will of America and the world community one too many times, and now he bears full responsibility for his actions. The terms of the agreement that averted a November air strike were clear: comply or face the consequences. However, Hussein continues to engage in a long pattern of games in hiding Iraq's nuclear and biological warfare capabilities. As long as Iraq plans to continue to defy the United Nations and the world community by attempting to continue to develop weapons of mass destruction in the face of international condemnation, the United States must remain vigilant and ready to act. This strike sends a firm message to Hussein that the United States is not going to tolerate his failure to comply with required weapons inspection obligations any longer. The United States, as leader of the world community, must be prepared to act forcefully to end Iraq's defiance, and I firmly support the use of this force to eliminate Iraq's ability to produce weapons that threaten its neighbors. Terrorism is the single greatest threat to the Untied States and its security. We need to stand behind the President's decision when our national security is threatened. The brave men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces deserve our unwavering support and gratitude, and I commend each and everyone one of those brave soldiers carrying out this important mission.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I must reluctantly oppose the omnibus appropriations bill. I do so with disappointment rather than anger, because a lot of hard work went into this giant legislation. But what was necessary to get agreement with the President on this bill undermines our hard-won commitment to fiscal responsibility and could threaten the balanced budget. The omnibus bill increases spending to a level that is not sustainable in future years unless we abandon the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement. There may be arguments for amending the Balanced Budget Act. We have reached a balanced budget much faster than anticipated and perhaps we should revisit the agreement. But not in this manner. This is a backdoor way to avoid the spending limits the President and Congress agreed to only one year ago. Mr. Speaker, we must face facts. This bill is spending the surplus. It is spending the Social Security surplus. This bill will reduce the 1999 surplus by at least $20 billion. The President has been less than candid with the American people. He has said that he wants to save the surplus to save Social Security. What he really means is that he will save whatever is left of the surplus for Social Security after he gets all the additional spending he wants for other programs. He will not use the surplus for tax cuts, perhaps that is the right policy. But he should own up to the fact that he is spending the surplus on other Government programs. The amount available to strengthen Social Security will be reduced by at least $20 billion in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I know that negotiations between a Republican Congress and a Democratic President are never easy. There is no way this could be a perfect bill. I think Chairman Livingston and his subcommittee chairs have tried to get their work done. We also have to face the fact that there are real emergencies that require funding--the drought and income losses facing many American farmers and the damage from hurricanes and floods that affected areas of the Nation this year. However, the President has tried to take advantage of these legitimate emergencies and requested billions more in additional funding for programs that are important, but are not emergencies and should not be funded outside the budget agreement. Putting a bill together to fund the eight remaining appropriations bills is a tremendous task, but frankly not many tough decisions were made in this omnibus bill. Instead, what was decided was to spend more money on everything. The President is the checkout clerk and we are buying our way out of town. The President clearly had the upper hand. He knew that it was the end of the session and Congress must adjourn, so he demanded funding for his priorities that he could not pay for within the budget agreement Congress was up against the wall, and the solution was to spend more money on the President's priorities and also spend more money on congressional priorities. That is no way to govern. We are setting a bad precedent and setting the stage for more increases in spending next year and the year after. Mr. Speaker, I don't deny that much of what is in this bill is worthwhile. There is increased spending for medical research; for education; for anti-drug efforts and to improve readiness in our armed forces. If these things are needed, the President and Congress should tell the American people they are needed now and that we are going to use part of the surplus to pay for them. We should reopen the budget agreement and set new spending caps. But that is not what we are doing. We are designating $20 billion of this new spending as emergency spending to get around the budget caps. Thank goodness the surplus is projected to be at least $80 billion in 1999, because we are spending $20 billion of it right here. The President has not told the American people the full story on what he wants to do with the surplus, but Congress is also to blame by delaying these eight bills until the end of the session and giving the President the opportunity to set up the most expensive exit toll in recent memory. A better alternative to this omnibus bill would be to pass a continuing resolution for fiscal year 1999 that fund these programs at the 1998 levels. We could pass emergency appropriations for the most pressing needs of the farmers, other natural disasters and possible Bosnia operations at less than half the cost of the $20 billion in this bill. If more spending is needed for other priorities such as the year 2000 problem or Bosnia operation, there should be a legitimate effort to offset that spending with other reductions in lower priority programs. I helped put together a list of possible offsets. They were not perfect, but they did offer some options. we should come back next year and craft a new budget agreement that saves Social Security, and then recognizes whatever is left of the revised surplus and uses that for a balanced plan of debt reduction, spending on other priorities like education, and affordable, fair tax reductions. In addition, we should make emergency spending part of the budget and set aside funds each year for emergencies. A budget reserve account or rainy day fund is a better way to fund emergencies we know will occur each year. This legislation is necessary to fund our government, but let's not pretend that it is a great victory. It is a bad compromise that relies totally on the surplus to hide an increase in spending that violates the budget agreement. It may be necessary to avoid a stalemate that causes a government shutdown, but it is no great policy victory. We have taken the first step down the slippery slope back toward irresponsible spending. I hope we learn a less from this flawed process, return to sound budget practices and protect the balanced budget.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1560) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the bicentennial of the Lewis & Clark Expedition, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment, with an amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the memory of Louis Redding, Esq., a pioneer of the civil rights movement who died earlier this month at the age of 96. Louis Redding's legal efforts changed the very fabric of our society. He played a key role in the historic Brown versus Board of Education case, which held that the underlying principle behind racial segregation, separate but equal, was unconstitutional. Louis Redding's life had a particularly profound impact in Delaware. After graduating from Brown University and Harvard Law School, Louis Redding was admitted to the Delaware Bar in 1929 as the State's first black lawyer. Despite tremendous hatred and numerous death threats, he went on to integrate the University of Delaware. In 1961, Redding won a U.S. Supreme Court case that ended segregation at Wilmington's Eagle Coffee Shoppe. Historians debate among themselves whether history is made by courageous individuals or broader social forces. I believe underlying social forces create opportunities for courageous individuals to seize. There is no doubt that Louis Redding was one of those rare individuals who clung to his principles and carried Delaware on his shoulders to a new level of social understanding and mutual respect. Delaware and the nation are without Louis Redding today, but the memories of his strong leadership, moral courage, integrity, and devotion to the equality of mankind will live on in our hearts and be an example to follow.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 3972, a bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit the Interior Secretary from charging state and local government agencies for certain uses of the sand, gravel, and shell resources of the outer continental shelf. For too long, Congress has treated outer continental sand resources differently than other minerals under federal control. While land-based oil and gas royalties are shared with states and off-shore oil and gas royalties are shared with state critical habitat land acquisition programs, royalties from off-shore sand resources are not shared with the states. In fact, coastal states are taxed for using these resources, which adds to the already expensive task of beach restoration. This bill is a compromise. It does not ask the federal government to share royalties from the sale of sand and gravel. Instead, it treats state and local governments the same as the federal government treats itself by exempting them from burden of the sand tax. In addition to the fairness this restores to the coastal states dependent on sand resources to replenish their beaches, this bill enhances environmental protections in our coastal waters. Under the current system, states are not charged for sand mined within three miles of their shores. This creates an incentive to find sand resources within the three mile zone. However, years of industrialization has made some sand unfit for beach restoration use. Furthermore, fragile aquatic ecosystems can be disrupted if sand is removed from these critical areas. Although state environmental agencies are careful to study the environmental impact of their shore protection operations, financial interests and the need for environmental protection are sure to clash in the long run. This bill will give state environmental protection agencies a broader tax-free area to find suitable sand deposits for much needed shore protection projects, while maintaining the health of fragile ecosystems. Last year, Virginia Beach had to pay over $200,000 in taxes for 1.1 million cubic yards of sand from the outer continental shelf. In fact, because they could not afford the increased cost, they had to scale back the shore protection project. This project will now have a shorter useful life and will require the local government to replace the project earlier than planned at a much higher cost. In the past, before the sand tax was imposed in 1997, environmental officials in my state of Delaware authorized mining of sand beyond the three mile zone. It is only a matter of time before environmental concerns will force them back to the outer continental shelf. Without this bill, Rehoboth Beach, Dewey Beach, Bethany Beach, Lewes Beach, and Broadkill Beach shore protection projects will all have to be scaled back to accommodate the federal government's sand tax. The federal government does not charge its own agencies for using outer continental sand and royalties for other mineral resources are shared with the states. At the very least, we should agree not to charge state and local governments a tax for using outer continental sand and gravel. Vote for this bill. It is a vote for fairness to the states and sound environmental policy.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H. Res. 597, Expressing the Sense of the House regarding the death of Mr. Matthew Shepard. Last week, Matthew Shepard, a student at the University of Wyoming, was lured off campus by two young men, driven to a remote location, bludgeoned with the butt of a gun, burned, and strapped to a fence to die. There is strong evidence that his attackers were motivated because Matthew Shepard was gay. Unfortunately, Matthew Shepard's death is not an isolated incident. It is the latest in a series of brutally violent crimes committed against people for no other reason than the color of their skin, their sexual orientation or their religion. In April 1994, two African- American men murdered a white man in Lubbock, Texas. The killers later admitted that they had set out to find a white victim. In 1997, an African-American man in Virginia was soaked in gasoline, burned alive, and then beheaded. It was later discovered that he was targeted because he was black. Earlier this year, James Byrd, a disabled black man in Texas, was lured into a pickup truck and driven to a remote location where he was beaten unconscious, chained to the truck, and dragged around until he was beheaded. I look forward to the upcoming debate on expanding the Hate Crimes legislation to include acts of violence against people based upon their sexual orientation. Matthew Shepard's death should focus our attention on and spur us to complete a careful analysis of this issue. Today, Matthew Shepard is to be remembered. His friends and family are in our prayers.