Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2560) to award congressional gold medals to Jean Brown Trickey, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Melba Patillo Beals, Terrence Roberts, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Thelma Mothershed Wair, Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, and Jefferson Thomas, commonly referred to collectively as the ``Little Rock Nine'' on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, as amended.

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time to manage this legislation be turned over to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), another member of the committee.

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of 2560, the Little Rock Nine Medals and Coin Act. This bill directs the production of nine Congressional Gold Medals on the occasion of 40th anniversary of the integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, by Jean Brown Trickey, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Melba Patillo Beals, Terrence Roberts, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Thelma Mothershed Wair, Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford and Jefferson Thomas, known as the ``Little Rock Nine.'' The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) has worked hard as the House sponsor to obtain 299 co-sponsors for this measure. The rest of the amendment to this bill represents what has become a regular function of reconciling our coin legislation with that of the Senate. It includes the Gerald and Betty Ford Congressional Gold Medal, which had already passed this House by a wide margin but was used as a vehicle by the Senate to transmit their priority coin programs. It accepts these Senate priorities by granting the Robinson Foundation a limited opportunity to make a bulk purchase of authorized but unsold Jackie Robinson commemorative coins. It provides for a study to ensure successful public acceptance of the new one dollar coin. Finally, it enacts the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee recommendation in favor of the bill of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) to commemorate the millennium of Leif Ericsson's voyage of discovery by jointly minting coins with Iceland. I urge the immediate adoption of H.R. 2560. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have until publication of the last edition of the Congressional Record authorized for the second session by the Joint Committee on Printing to revise and extend their remarks and to include brief, related extraneous material on any matter occurring before the adjournment of the second session sine die.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for yielding me this time, and I will try to be brief because of the hour. Mr. Speaker, everything that has been said is so significant. And the Head Start program, the Community Services Block Grant which was heard about, and also the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program which has struggled politically in this body a lot of times, have gone through strong reauthorizations. I just would like to focus on the Head Start provisions of this bill for a couple of reasons for a moment. I believe that educational welfare for our children starts well before they even walk into kindergarten. It obviously starts the day kids are born. And some of the most crucial times are their first experiences in structured settings such as in day care or prekindergarten programs. We are all seeing what is as least viewed as a decline in education in America, at least for some of our students out there today. And I think early intervention is very necessary if we are going to be able to address some of these problems, particularly at the earliest ages. Because that helps, of course, our students attain higher achievements throughout their lives. What happened in this bill, and it was under the guidance of our chairman, is that we have strengthened the education component programs of Head Start. We are supportive to the whole concept of quality. We put more money into that area; into teacher certification and into making absolutely certain that the Head Start programs that we have would be able to upgrade in that circumstance. It was a hard fight. It sounds simple, but it was relatively hard because there is a great force that wants more quantity and does not want us to set money aside for quality. We were able to do that working with both sides of the aisle and working with the Senate in order to achieve what I think is in the greater good for kids of this country. Again, it is a shame that we are debating this bill at 12:55 in the morning as opposed to 2 o'clock in the afternoon. But the bottom line is this is good legislation. It is well thought out. Some excellent staff work went into it, and I hope that we could unanimously endorse it in the House of Representatives and the President could sign it into law soon. Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to be able to stand up today in strong support of the conference report on the Human Services Reauthorization Act and proud to have been able to serve as a conferee on this very important piece of legislation. The bills that came out of both Houses on Head Start, the Community Services Block Grant, and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Programs were very strong and representative of very bipartisan efforts. During conference, we worked diligently to follow through on that bipartisan spirit and deliver a bill that will provide better assistance to some of our nation's neediest citizens. As with most pieces of legislation, I realize we have not been able to meet everyone's needs, but I do believe we have made an excellent compromise that addresses a majority of this body's concerns. Throughout the process, I have been particularly concerned with the Head Start provisions of this bill. As you know, I come to the table with a deep concern for the welfare of our nation's students. I believe that their educational welfare starts well before they walk into kindergarten. It starts the day kids are born and some of the most crucial times are their first experiences in structured settings, such as in day care or pre-kindergarten programs. In the past few years, as policy makers, we have been faced with the reality that our education system isn't working for many of our students. Among all of the different factors that we need to consider, one of them is those first few years and those first experiences kids have in structured settings. Early intervention is essential. We know this. If we can begin to address the needs of students at the earliest ages, then we have a better chance of helping them attain higher levels of achievement throughout life. Along with my colleagues on the conference, I was dedicated to strengthening the current Head Start program so that children are getting the skills they need and are truly prepared for the challenges they will face in school. One of the key reforms in this bill is that we strengthen the education components of the program. Now, the purpose of Head Start is to promote school readiness. Make no mistake about it, this program was deliberately named, these kids need a `head start' in life, and we have attempted to give them that in the conference report. First, we are supportive of and committed to increasing funding for quality. This makes sense. We need to ensure that the programs our kids are attending are truly beneficial and deserving of their time. We need to be confident in the services Head Start is providing and confident that kids are learning while they are enrolled. One of the things we do with the increased funding for quality in the conference report is increase the percentage of teachers who have a degree in early childhood education. This is sheer logic. In fact, I think this is essential. Our kids need and deserve to have skilled teachers with an intimate knowledge of child development. The combination of increasing teacher certification levels and quality funds provided for in the conference report will go a long way toward addressing the failures we see in the system now. As the governing body in this nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that the funds we provide States and locals are spent effectively and efficiently. I believe we have accomplished that in the conference report before the House today. This truly is an important bill, which will affect the future of many, many children and their families and in turn the welfare of our country. Let me also note that this bill reauthorizes the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Community Services Block Grant programs, which I support. While I have not focused my comments on those provisions, I do strongly endorse the work of the conferees on both sections. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the hard fought compromises we reached during conference and vote in favor of passage. This legislation takes several great strides for the benefit of our nation's kids and families.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the responsibilities placed on Congress by the Constitution, I support House Resolution 581 to authorize the Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry to determine whether the actions of the President of the United States require articles of impeachment to be filed against him. It is a sad and somber moment for the Congress and for the country. No one should take any joy in the fact that Congress must examine these issues. The House Judiciary Committee should now conduct its investigation in a fair and expeditious manner. The President should be afforded every opportunity to address each point in the inquiry. There should be no rush to judgement, but there should also be no effort to delay or obstruct the legitimate examination of evidence and witnesses. I do not support an endless investigation, but a short, artificial time limit would encourage delays in responding to legitimate questions that must be answered. It is important to emphasize that this is an inquiry. No determination has been made on the fate of the President. We should have an expeditious and open process in effort to complete this unfortunate, but necessary task as quickly as possible. When the inquiry is complete, the House should make a fair determination based on the facts, the law, and on what is in the best interest of our Nation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding because he knows I am in opposition to this rule, and I am very, very strongly in opposition to it. Let me explain why I am opposed. This has been a very controversial piece of legislation. Labor-HHS has had a lot of different aspects to it, all the way from LIHEAP to summer jobs, and a lot of people have questioned and have wanted to change it one way or another. Probably the most controversial of these items is what we are debating right here which is the amendments with regard to parental notification with respect to contraceptive drugs or devices. As I understand it, and somebody correct me if I am wrong, essentially we are debating this rule and we are going to debate this bill, and then we are going to consider these two amendments, and we are not going to consider the rest of this bill, which is going to end up in the omnibus bill anyhow, so we are essentially down to setting up a mechanism by which we are going to vote on two very difficult amendments, and I happen to be a cosponsor of one of them, with a strong belief that it is the right way to go. This is a heck of a way to legislate. This is a piece of legislation which has waited until little over 24 hours away the time that we are supposed to leave here and that probably would have taken 3 or 4 days on the floor if it had been done correctly, and here we are with a very truncated rule process in order to move forward on it. My judgment is it has little to do with being prochoice or prolife or anything of those things, it is a process question that we have here. I hope that everybody in this Congress will step forward and oppose this rule. This simply is not a good way to do business. It is what happens at the end of sessions such as this, and this is a shining example of the wrong way to proceed. So I would encourage each and every one of us, when the time comes for this vote, to come over here and to vote ``no'' on this rule, end this bill, and let happen what is going to happen, and that is it will be rolled into the omnibus bill and the appropriations which have to be done, hopefully will be done, that way.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, as you know, Title X of the Public Health Service Act, the National Family Planning Program, sponsored by then- Congressman George Bush, was enacted in 1970. It was signed into law by President Nixon. The program provides grants to public and private non- profit agencies to support projects which provide a broad range of family planning and reproductive services, as well as screening for breast and cervical cancer, sexually-transmitted infections and high blood pressure. Title X also supports training providers, an information and education program, and a research program that focuses on family planning service delivery improvements. The Title X program has provided services to millions of American women, many of whom have no other access to health care services. By law, none of the funds provided may be used for abortions. Today, we are considering a bill that includes a provision requiring parental consent or advanced notification in order for a minor to receive contraceptive drugs or devices. Ideally, we would like all teens to abstain from pre-mature sexual relationships. Ideally, we would like to think that all teenagers have a wonderful relationship with a loving parent. Unfortunately, the reality is that for many, many teens neither is the case. There are young people who are scared to death of their parents. There are young people who do not have parents. And, the unfortunate reality is that there are young people who would rush out and have unprotected sex if they knew practicing safe sex would come at the price of having their parents find out. This is what the mandatory parental consent and advanced parental notification provision does. In many cases such a provision would actually increase the chances of teenagers engaging in unprotected, nondiscriminatory or unsafe sex, thereby increasing the rates of pregnancy, sexually-transmitted diseases, and abortions. 56% of women and 73% of men are sexually active before the age of 18. 86% of teenagers using or seeking Title X services for the first time were already sexually active for nearly a year. In addition, studies show that about 55% of adolescents already inform parents of their use of reproductive health services. For those who do not or cannot discuss family planning with their parents, mandatory parental consent and advanced parental notification are not likely to convince them otherwise. In fact, an overwhelming number of teens who do not involve their parents in such decisions reported that they would not seek clinic care if their parents had to be notified. Let me repeat--they would not seek clinic care. This means that they are left to make decisions on their own, and those decisions will most likely lead to unprotected sex, higher rates of pregnancy and higher rates of abortion. Let me give you an example. In my home state, as scary as this is, there are kids who have reported that they cannot tell their parents about the use of family planning services because they are afraid they will be hurt physically. We also had a case where parents of a 15 year old girl refused to bring her to get family planning services until she was 16 years old and had her drivers license. Well, she turned 16, she got her drivers license and she was already pregnant. If she had the services a year before, she wouldn't be in this predicament. Now, I'm not saying this is the norm. What I am saying is that we need to take situations like this into consideration before we start mandating policies as far reaching as this one. If parents and guardians are unable to help these teenagers, for whatever reason. I believe health professionals should help. I also want to note that the Greenwood/Castle amendment does not in anyway discourage parental involvement. It simply strikes the mandatory parental notification clause and inserts strong language requiring Title X providers to take a strong stand on abstinence, by expressly informing all minors that abstinence is the only certain way to avoid pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV. Our language ensures that all Title X counselors receive training on how to help minors abstain from sexual activity, avoid coercive relationships, and involve their parents in the decision to receive family planning services. We support family involvement, and if we believe that mandating parental consent or notification was in the best interest of teens, than we would support that as well. But, we do not. There are too many facts that demonstrate that mandating parental consent will hurt teens considerably more than it could ever help them. Congressmen Istook and Manzullo will offer a second degree amendment to our amendment inserting the parental consent or notification language back into the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against their amendment and for the Greenwood/Castle amendment. Mandated parental consent or notification would scare teens into doing something stupid--like having unprotected sex in secret rather than having their parents find out that they wanted to be safe and responsible.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Greenwood amendment and in opposition to the Istook amendment. I would like to explain to everybody, this is not pro-life and pro- choice. We need to understand what is going on. Mr. Chairman, 55 percent of all teenagers consult with their parents before they do anything. Eighty-six percent of the teenagers that go into these clinics looking for contraceptive devices or other help are already sexually active. In a perfect world we would have no sexual activity among teenagers, but we do. And when they come in there, they are looking for help, and the help they are getting hopefully will help them prevent STD or pregnancy and abortion. It is my personal view that if we are able to give them the help, even though we may not prefer that they be involved with a sexual activity, but if we give them that help that they are going to in that way be able to prevent getting sexual diseases, prevent pregnancy, and therefore, prevent the abortion. I love the idea of mandatory parental notification. That is the difference between our bills, because everything else is provided for in the Greenwood-Castle bill, except for the mandatory parental notification, but if we do that, we are not going to have these kids go in and get the help they need. Please support the Greenwood bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, they always have been done by the State and local governments, and secondly it seems to me that if the White House is referencing them and wants to get them done and puts up the money in the source of the tobacco money and then loses that, they have some obligation to come back and try to help out. I just make a point. I do not want to make a fight of it tonight. It is too late, but I do think we have to recognize that. Let us talk about something that is good, which is this bill, which the gentleman worked on, and I have comments which I will submit when I revise and extend, but I just want to comment that I am very pleased to support this legislation. I truly am pleased with the work that everybody did on it. It could not have happened otherwise. This is not an easy piece of legislation. We have had some tremendous staff work on it. It has been, frankly, a real pleasure to shepherd the bill through the legislative process. It really was a collaborative effort with Republicans and Democrats, with the House and the Senate working on this, and with the U.S. Department of Agriculture which was tremendously helpful on this. This is truly, I think, a strong bipartisan bill. It is the kind of bill we should do at 4:00 in the afternoon so people can see what we can do by working together. I would like to thank those who worked on it, particularly the chairman and certainly the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) who worked so very hard on this, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) who is on the floor here, who worked so very hard on it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) deserves special recognition. He has been a long time supporter of child nutrition programs and it is why it was such a pleasure to vote in conference to name this bill after our distinguished chairman, and so now we have before us the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Authorization Act. While I realize that we have not been able to address everyone's concerns with this bill, although we got close to it, I do believe we have an excellent compromise that will go a long way towards improving our Nation's child nutrition programs by reducing red tape and bureaucracy, finding and punishing fraud and abuse, giving program providers more flexibility, ensuring our Nation's children have access to healthy meals in schools, in child care settings, in after-school programs and during the summer months, and providing low-income pregnant and postpartum women, their infants and young children, access to nutritious foods. Frankly, one of the greatest accomplishments is the fact that we have been able to make these important changes without blowing the caps of our budget. I could go on about what else is in here but I think the people on the floor here tonight are generally familiar with it. I would just like to close by thanking everybody who has worked on this because without that sincere bipartisan effort it is not the kind of bill we would be able to get done.

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and appreciate tremendously his effort in this direction. I do appreciate the work of the minority members on this bill as well as all the staff individuals as well. I would say something to the ranking member before I get into the goodness of this bill, and I mean this very sincerely, because it really has bothered me because the President came here in January and he talked about reducing class size, as the gentleman has indicated, and I think he is committed to that. He talked about rebuilding, revamping schools, which I think he is also committed to, but I think we all need to recall that the funding mechanism that he talked about, that was the tobacco legislation funding which would not be. Ever since it has been very apparent for at least 3 or 4 months that that was not going to pass, there has been no shift into any other kind of funding put forward by the White House or anybody else, and I think we need to recognize that fact. I would like to do these things, too. Maybe the Federal Government should not be doing it but the President should not keep giving the illusion that this can be done because the funding is simply not there.

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

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4364, which will provide some fair and needed relief from unnecessary regulations for many of our banks and other financial institutions. I want to thank Chairman Roukema of the financial institutions subcommittee for putting this bill together and to Chairman Leach of the full committee for helping to bring it to the floor this year. Balancing efforts to remove unnecessary regulations, improve competition and protect consumers is never easy, but I think this bill balances all those important goals and will contribute to strengthening the financial services industry and promote new products for consumers. I would like to comment in particular on sections 222 and 223 of the bill which I believe will promote competition and increase the quality of financial products available to consumers. These sections will lift some outdated restrictions from limited-purpose banks and allow these institutions to offer new products consistent with their charter; cross-market the financial products of their affiliates; offer business credit cards to their customers; and correct problems in a reasonable period of time in consultation with the Federal Reserve. These changes will increase the products available to consumers without unfairly affecting other financial service providers. This is consistent with the intent of the entire bill which seeks to help businesses and consumers while maintaining sound regulation. Again, I want to thank all the members involved for their cooperative efforts on this legislation, and I urge the House to approve H.R. 4364.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I also join in support of the conference report for H.R. 3694, the intelligence authorization bill, and give due credit to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) who worked so very hard on this to do such a wonderful job. United States policymakers must have the most comprehensive, responsive and timely strategic perspective on major global changes. To help provide this perspective, we rely on our intelligence agencies to collect, sort, and analyze information from all over the world. When this bill was originally before the House in May, I expressed concerns about the capability of the intelligence community to tackle specialized financial issues like economic analysis and tracking illicit money laundering. As global financial markets grow and intertwine, timely economic intelligence in tracking the flow of laundered money becomes increasingly important to the United States national security. Support for economic intelligence was downgraded earlier this decade, but the need for stronger support in this area was driven home by the degree to which the Asian financial crisis caught our government flat- footed. If we are to rely on the United States intelligence community to provide this kind of support, it is essential that we provide them with the resources necessary to do the job. Also essential to our efforts to fight increasingly sophisticated international organized crime operations and narcotics traffickers is our ability to track the flow of money. With the right tools and support, the intelligence community can provide key insights into these areas to support our law enforcement agencies. And I would add that an ability to follow the money is vital to our efforts to unravel the complex web of Usama Bin Ladin's international terrorist connections. The members and staff of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have followed these issues closely this year, and I am satisfied that this conference report makes some headway in addressing these critical needs. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to ten percent of the Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998. This massive 481 page document that rolls almost 100 bills into one package is ninety percent perfect. It makes needed technical corrections to the 1996 Omnibus National Parks Act, makes important adjustments to park boundaries, designates desirable land as heritage and historic areas, and reauthorizes the Historic Preservation Fund. The bill even establishes the transcontinental American Discovery Trail which ends in Cape Henlopen State Park in my State of Delaware. However, ten percent of this bill needs to be separated out and addressed on an individual basis. That ten percent includes some of the following measures: Opens areas proposed or being managed as wilderness to possible development, including the Everglades National Park which Congress has spent millions of dollars to restore; Hands over title and operation of some western water projects to private interests without requiring them to pay full value for the project. This year, the House passed the Salton Sea Reclamation Act with a price tax of almost one-third of the Bureau of Reclamation's annual budget. There is a long list of other reclamation projects seeking funding. Why then would we want to sell existing projects at less than their fair market value? it is not fiscally responsible especially in a year where the President wants to spend the Social Security Surplus on ``emergency'' spending; Waives environmental review procedures for a proposed road that cuts through one of the richest wetlands on the Pacific Coast of North America, as well as a migratory bird nesting area, and salmon spawning grounds. The value of this road may well outweigh these environmental concerns, but we should not blindly authorize the road easement without stopping to study its full environmental impact and plotting a course that minimizes the environmental harm. That is simply poor management. Ninety percent of this bill could have been one of the shining stars in the 105th Congress' environmental record. Instead, due to the controversial ten percent it will either die in this chamber, never be considered in the Senate, or be vetoed at the President's desk. We have precious few days left in the legislative session and many of us need to return to our districts and debate serious national issues with political opponents. Let us not be the only institution to pass an unsignable law that has not been thoroughly examined by the committee process, and ten percent of which bypasses or degrades the world-class environmental protections we have established in this country.

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in reluctant, but strong, opposition to this legislation. It is this simple. We are down to the last few days of this session of the Congress, we are going to go out of session in 3 days or so, and in this time we are going to find a lot of legislation which comes forward which has not gone through the entire committee process, sometimes not even the subcommittee process, and it is too bad in this case, because this is a very good piece of legislation, if we just took certain portions of it. Somebody said as much as 90 percent of it is actually very good, and frankly, I would not be opposed to that at all. But the bottom line is that there is enough in it to bring it down that the Senate will probably not act on it. The White House will probably veto it if it came there. It has not gone through committee, and it has certain flaws in it which I think are fundamental in terms of protecting the environment of this country. It would remove areas from wilderness protection that should not be removed from wilderness protection; it would set new and weaker guidelines for such wilderness protection; it would waive normal environmental reviews for a road across world-famous salmon streams; it would create new barriers to the creation of discovery trails, something which is very important; and it would create new incentives to cut trees in national forests and transfer Federal property in a manner that endangers the environment and cheats taxpayers. The time has come to get a good environmental agenda that we can all agree on. Unfortunately, this bill does not quite reach it. I urge opposition to the bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 4579, the ``Taxpayer Relief Act of 1998.'' I support many of the tax cut proposals in this legislation, but I believe it is premature and not wise fiscal policy to pass a tax cut of this size that counts on unrealized future budget surpluses rather than traditional spending reductions to pay for its cost. Instead, we should try to craft a more manageable bill that does not jeopardize the great strides we have made in restoring good fiscal policies in Washington. It has only been a year since we passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which set us on course to balancing the federal budget and also contained a major tax cut that was fully paid for by savings in other programs. We are reaching our goal of a balanced budget this year, but that is no reason to turn on the spending and tax cut faucets. Yes, Americans would like to have another tax cut, but I think my constituents in Delaware and most Americans place a higher priority on reducing the national debt and enacting a long-term plan to preserve Social Security. Maintaining our focus on fiscal discipline is the best way we can meet these goals. This year's unified budget surplus of $63 billion, the first since 1969, is the product of strong Republican leadership on fiscal matters, and a healthy economy. We have placed limits on government spending and the 1997 tax cuts were fully paid for. That is, for every dollar of tax cuts, we reduced spending by a like amount. If we abandon our fiscal restraint now, we could quickly lose this year's surplus or any anticipated surplus if the economy suddenly weakens. While that may be unlikely, the Congressional Budget Office recently released a report stating that a recession similar to the economic problems of the early 1990's could eliminate any budget surplus and result in a unified budget deficit of $50 billion in two years. The recent volatility of world financial markets and economic declines in Japan and Russia is cause for caution, and could threaten to stunt our own economic growth. A sudden recession could cloud our budget forecast immediately. It is also important to point out that we do not yet have a true surplus in the federal budget without counting the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund. In fact, without using Social Security tax receipts, we would have a $37 billion deficit this year, not a $63 billion surplus. While I applaud the goal of H.R. 4579 to save 90 percent of the budget surplus over the next five years for Social Security, the fact of the matter is that until we have a long-term plan in place to preserve and protect Social Security, the budget surplus should be held in reserve for Social Security and paying down the debt which complement each other and strengthen our economy. Simply put, we just do not know how much the transition costs will be to fully ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security. The only correct policy is to first and foremost preserve and protect Social Security, no pass tax cut that are not paid for. Frankly, I am concerned that the recent good news about projected budget surpluses may be causing people in both parties to lose their commitment to fiscal restraint. The President claims to want to preserve every penny of the surplus for Social Security, while at the same time he has been increasing his requests for ``emergency'' spending for operations in Bosnia, embassy upgrades, and to pay for the government's Year 2000 computer improvements. This emergency spending could subtract $20 billion from this year's surplus of $63 billion. The Administration is far too willing to designate all new spending as an emergency, while paying lip service to protecting the surplus for Social Security. The President is not being candid with the American people, but adding a large tax cut to this emergency spending just does not make sense. I have heard many of my colleagues argue that they are justified in passing tax cuts out of a surplus that includes the Social Security surplus because during the 40 years Democrats controlled Congress, they spent that same surplus on other government programs. Republicans argue that it is better to get the money out of Washington before Congress and the President spend it. We should certainly try to return every dollar we can to the taxpaying Americans who earned it. Last year, Republicans delivered a $95 billion tax cut and balanced the budget because we worked hard to find the offsets in a bloated Federal Budget. This same leadership and fiscal discipline is needed to continue to grow our economy, deliver larger tax cuts, and save Social Security into the next century. I have heard many of my other colleagues argue that the unified surplus is the result of increases in revenues from income taxes, not increases in revenues from the FICA (Social Security) tax. This is true in part, but it does not follow that we have a surplus without counting the Social Security surplus. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, without counting the Social Security surplus, we will have a $137 billion deficit over the next five years. Obviously, cutting $80 billion in taxes over the next five years without finding offsets does diminish the amount that will go into the Social Security Trust Fund in the future and could make a long-term solution to preserving Social Security more difficult. I do not believe the citizens of Delaware, who understand they must balance their family budgets and are counting on the Federal government to honor its commitment to restore the Social Security Trust Fund to long-term actuarial soundness, would want a tax cut before we address the future of Social Security. Many of the tax provisions in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1998 accelerate the tax cuts initially approved in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Delawareans are wise and responsible people. They understand that good things come to those who wait and that there must be an accounting at the end of the day. I believe they have the discipline to balance the need for tax cuts with the need to restore soundness to the Social Security Trust Fund and to maintain a balanced federal budget. I am proud to represent them and I believe we should reconsider this legislation and develop a revised bill that provides for affordable tax cuts that meet a higher standard of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the contributions, hard work and dedication of a fine, outstanding and caring group of individuals in my home State of Delaware: The Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association (DVFA). On the behalf of the citizens of the First State, I would like to thank them for their vital and dynamic service to our community. This weekend, in Dover, volunteer firefighters from Delaware will gather to recognize and celebrate their seventy-eight years unselfish service and notable leadership to our state. This type of dedication and commitment to serving the public is very rare among individuals. For many years, dedicated and caring men and women have been trained to help prevent or battle fires and perform countless hours of emergency medical services for our citizens. For these reasons and many more, I believe Delaware's volunteer fire and emergency medical personnel are the best in the country. Mr. Speaker, during the last year, Donald W. Knight has served as president of the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association. Like those who have preceded him in this capacity he has provided leadership and vision to the Delaware volunteer fire and emergency medical service community. Under his tenure, President Knight successfully led the DVFA efforts to establish improved training standards for Emergency Medical Service Volunteers. Additionally, he advocated statewide training for emergency responders on potential incidents of terrorism and improved services to the sixty member companies of the DVFA. Upon completion of his term this weekend, President Knight assumes his new role as Delaware State Fire Prevention Commissioner. I have every confidence that he will provide the Delaware State Fire Prevention Commission with the same diligent and hands on leadership that benefitted the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association so well over the past year. As the gavel falls to open the 78th annual DVFA Conference celebration, I extend my sincere congratulations and appreciation not only as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, but as a former Governor who values the leadership, teamwork and dedication the DVFA has given to the people of the First State. I hope you all realize how deeply your efforts are appreciated.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to commend and pay tribute to the Ladies Auxiliary of the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association. This weekend, the Ladies' Auxiliary will gather to observe its 61 years of service to the community of Delaware. The Auxiliary encompassed many of the fire companies in Delaware and pledged their combined efforts to help the firemen of Delaware as well as those whose homes had been damaged by fire. The ladies have assisted with efforts that included contributions to burn centers, food and clothing to burn victims as well as financial support. Throughout their long and distinguished history of volunteerism, the members of the ladies Auxiliary assisted the Red Cross by sending Christmas packages to soldiers during the war years. Retiring to peacetime, the Auxiliary focused on fund raising to assist local fire companies. During fires and emergency services calls, tired firefighters have come to rely on the meals and beverages provided by the ladies auxiliary. Mr. Speaker, when the Ladies Auxiliary opens their 61st meeting in Dover, they will do so under the gavel of retiring President Barbara Metheny. Under President Metheny's leadership, the Ladies Auxiliary organized various fund raising efforts to benefit several worthy causes that included a special relief effort targeted for the Concord Alabama Fire Department that had been devastated by the tornado. As a member of the Hartly Ladies Auxiliary and the past President Kent County Ladies Auxiliary, President Metheny's service to the fire community has been exemplary and I salute her and the entire Metheny family for their commitment and dedication to the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association. I wish them many more years of success as they continue to assist volunteer fire and emergency services throughout Delaware.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, today the House is voting on H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. I will support this legislation today, but I believe that the legislation must be improved in a number of key areas before it can become law. I would like to take this opportunity to explain the reservations I have regarding the bill in its current form. If these issues are not addressed, I will not support the bill if it is returned by the Senate for a final vote this year. First, let me say that I support the goal of this legislation. We must work to ensure that all federal education assistance directly benefits our children. These funds should not be wasted on unnecessary bureaucracy. However, achieving this goal is not simple. I am very interested in finding ways to streamline federal programs and bring more efficiency to the Federal Government's role in education. I do not support the status quo and I do not believe that what we have now is working. The concept of Dollars to the Classroom gives us a new option for making changes that may benefit students in the country. I have struggled for some time in trying to determine if this legislation will achieve its intended goals. I have supported moving the bill through the legislative process while working with Committee staff and other Members to resolve my initial concerns. After a lot of careful thought, and after reviewing analysis from many different sources, I think the fundamental concept of Dollars to the Classroom is worth advancing while we work to answer key questions before it can become law. This may not occur this year and probably should not. There is not much time left in this session for the Senate to pass the bill and to work out all remaining issues. This bill establishes the principle that more federal dollars must directly benefit our children. We should now work to ensure the legislation achieves this principle. It may be best to address these issues comprehensively next year when Congress must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As I noted, there are several unanswered questions raised by the legislation. One that must be answered is exactly how much money is going to go to the states and local districts. We have a number of estimates, but we don't have hard numbers. My view is that additional work must be done to understand how current levels of funding will be changed by the Dollars to the Classroom Act. To help you understand my concern, I have attached two charts, both prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The first chart raises some questions. It takes the Fiscal Year 1998 funding level and compares it to the amounts a state would receive if the money was put into this block grant. You'll notice there are differences in how much money each state gets. I was elected to represent the people of Delaware, and when I see a chart from CRS, the nonpartisan research agency for the Congress, saying that the State of Delaware could lose 13.2% of its education funding, it concerns me greatly. Now, I am not going to argue that these numbers are perfect, they are estimates. However, they raise the legitimate question that some states may receive less funding in total under this legislation. The second chart that I have attached, is a comparison of how much the Local Education Agencies would get, using Fiscal Year 1998 numbers, before and after the block grant. This chart is more encouraging. Delaware wins by a slight percentage and most districts do not lose, but again there is variation in these numbers. I have been assured by the Chairman that he will work with me to ensure that Delaware is treated fairly in this legislation. We need to sit down and look at this data and understand how funds are going to flow so that we can't be absolutely sure that any change in funds is truly for the benefit of our children. I want more dollars in the classroom, but I will not support final passage of this legislation unless I am convinced that it will benefit the children and schools in Delaware. In addition to the funding process, we should review the 31 programs included in the block grant to be sent to school districts to ensure that no important aspect of the specific programs will be lost. Let me give you an example. The Comprehensive School Reform program involves a very important--in fact crucial--research component. States and locals do not have the capacity to do research and disseminate research like we do at the national level. They simply don't have the capacity. Does this mean that we want to sacrifice the research being done in this program? I think we need to consider that as part of the process of evaluating this proposal and we have not done that. The same principle applies for the Eisenhower Professional Development program and possibly other programs included in this block grant. The fact that some of these programs contain research and national components indicates that we must review them more closely to ensure we retain aspects that help improve education for our children. The final area that I want to address is the accountability measures included in this proposal. They have been improved, but need to be further strengthened. We need to ensure that the accountability measures are very strong. Let me give you an example. Yesterday, Congressman Roemer and I introduced a bill to expand the Ed-Flex demonstration projects to all 50 states. This makes sense to me. Our bill is based on a strong program currently available to only 12 states. Ed-Flex allows states to waive burdensome regulations that interfere with the schools' main purpose--to improve academic achievement. This is flexibility, but it is flexibility with accountability. In order to be eligible a state has to have approved content standards, performance measures and assessments. In addition, to be eligible for an extension of a waiver, schools have to establish procedures for increasing the percentage of teachers in the state who have demonstrated subject matter knowledge and pedagogical skill necessary to provide effective instruction in content areas, while decreasing the percentage of teachers without such knowledge in high poverty schools. This is accountability in combination with flexibility. I encourage my colleagues to join Mr. Roemer and I in encouraging responsible flexibility. I strongly support the goal of making every federal education program more effective. Every dollar we spend should benefit our schoolchildren as directly as possible. The Dollars to the Classroom bill is a reasonable start. It is not perfect and this legislation must be further refined to ensure that it meets its intended goal. I will work to improve the bill if it receives further consideration this year, but I believe the best strategy would be to address all federal K-12 programs in the context of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1999. I look forward to actively participating in that effort.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of S. 2073, the reauthorization of the Missing and Exploited Children and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Acts. This substitute includes H.R. 1818, the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act, which passed the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on which I serve. This bill also contains and incorporates a very important provision that I sponsored that provides the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children with funds to serve as the Nation's primary resource center for child protection. For more than 13 years, the National Center, a private nonprofit organization established by Congress in 1984, has been instrumental in locating and recovering missing children and preventing child abductions, molestations and sexual exploitations. The National Center is a vital resource for families and the approximately 17,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States in the search for missing children and the quest for child protection. The Center has worked for clearinghouses in all 50 States in locating over 35,000 children and preventing child abductions, molestations and sexual exploitations. One of the National Center's success stories hit very close to my home. Last year it assisted local authorities in the recovery of two missing Delawarians who were located in Florida. This bipartisan legislation also provides us with a balanced approach to addressing juvenile crime and endorses a concept of holding juveniles accountable for their crimes while also providing for prevention programs that can help young people turn their lives around. Mr. Speaker, by adequately funding the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, we can solidify our resources, hone our message, and assure every family and every law enforcement agency that we are committed to long-term child protection. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation so we can move it to conference with the Senate soon.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his continuing and abiding interest in this subject. I think it is of great importance to the people of the United States of America. What Lewis and Clark did is extraordinary, particularly at the time in which they did it, and I think we should all recognize that. This piece of legislation, I think, goes a long ways towards doing that.

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