Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, my staff and the people of Delaware, I want to extend my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut. I also want Congressman DeLay and his staff as well as the visitors to the Capitol who witnessed this tragedy to know that they are in our thoughts today. Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut were heroes who gave their lives protecting the United States Capitol and those who work here and visit this great building. Words are not able to convey the thanks and respect we owe these two men. I also want to pay tribute to the other Members of the Capitol Hill Police who responded to this terrible tragedy. They too are heroes. Fortunately, they did not have to pay the price that Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson did, but their commitment to their duty and the safety of others was clearly demonstrated on that fateful day. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the members of the Capitol Hill Police Force and our law enforcement officers across the Nation for the service they provide to the people of the United States. Unfortunately, I have attended services like this one today for fallen officers in Delaware. They are never easy but they do remind us of the absolute dedication that every law enforcement officer brings to the job and the very real risk they take every day. Mr. Speaker, our thanks and prayers go to Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. We will always remember them. In their memory, we also thank all the men and women in law enforcement who share the commitment that these two heroes exemplified. Finally, I want to say to the families of John Gibson and J.J. Chestnut, thank you for giving us these two men. We are eternally grateful, and you will remain in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, as a Member of Congress who supports the arts, I believe that the Federal government should remain an important contributor in this area. Critics point to a few controversial grants that the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has made, and I agree that some funding decisions may have been unwise. However, in recent years, the NEA has taken strides to eliminate controversy from the grant process by eliminating ``individual grants'' and ``subgrants.'' In fact, most of the funding from the agency is directed toward the cultural life and diversity of our country--to people of all ages, to people in our inner cities, in our suburbs, and in our rural communities. In Delaware, the NEA provides assistance to the Delaware Division of the Arts and the Delaware Humanities Forum so they may grant funding to the Delaware Symphony Orchestra, the Delaware Theater Company, Opera Delaware and many other community and school activities. When it comes to partnership between private, state, and Federal funding of the arts the NEA sets an outstanding example. According to the agency, one endowment dollar attracts twelve dollars or more from state and regional arts agencies as well as corporations, businesses and individuals. In fact, NEA funded programs generate economic activity through tourism, urban renewal and economic development throughout the nation. According to the NEA, non-profit arts programs contribute an estimated $37 billion to the economy and are responsible for 1.3 million jobs. It is also important to note that most industrial countries have a national budget for the arts and humanities. The United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, France, Germany and Sweden not only have national budgets for the arts, but in most cases, provide more funding for the arts than the United States. Federal support of the NEA opens the door to the arts for all Americans, sets a standard for private and public investment partnerships and generates economic development in our communities. In light of these facts, the Federal government can not neglect its responsibility in continued support of the arts, and I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment to restore NEA funding.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has been, as he indicated and as many have told me, a long- time supporter of child nutrition programs for the entire time he has been in this Congress which has been a number of years now. I think all the country and all the children of the country should appreciate that. I, too, rise in strong support of H.R. 3747, which is known as the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Amendments of 1998. I am pleased to state, as we have seen on the floor today, that this a bipartisan bill worked out over many long hours of negotiations with members on the committee, the nutrition community, and the United States Department of Agriculture. In fact, Shirley Watkins who heads this for the Department of Agriculture, wrote a letter to me saying: I appreciate you and your staff including the Department of Agriculture in the effort to enact an excellent child nutrition program. You have our commitment to work with you to expeditiously complete the enactment process. Thanks for your continued support. Obviously, we would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), and their staffs for working with us to reach this bipartisan agreement on this legislation. When we say bipartisan agreement, it is not quite that simple. I remember the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) being across the table asking me rather hard questions, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and others, as a matter of fact, sort of coming at me with, can we not do more here or there? But it worked out in the long run, and that is what counts, and we appreciate all of their concern. We know we have not addressed everyone's ultimate concerns, but I believe we do have a good bill that will go a long way towards improving our Nation's child nutrition programs by reducing red tape and bureaucracy, fighting and punishing fraud and abuse, giving program providers more flexibility, ensuring our Nation's children have access to healthy meals in school, 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. Of great significance is the fact that we have been able to make these important changes and save money at the same time. This bill would save a total of $69 million over 5 years. While this legislation contained numerous changes to Federal child nutrition programs, I would like to focus on what I consider to be the key provisions of the legislation. The first provision deals with the provision of snacks to children in after-school care programs. I share the concerns of many Members of this body with respect to juvenile crime that occurs between the hours school ends and their parents return home from work. In fact, I just had a round table in Delaware about this just moments before I came down here. Beyond crime, unsupervised youth may be involved in other undesirable behaviors, such as using drugs and alcohol, smoking, or engaging in sexual activities. Parents, schools, and communities throughout the United States are seeking solutions to this problem. Many families would like their children to be involved in structured activities after school, but they simply cannot find affordable options. In response, many schools and communities are setting up after-school programs with an education or enrichment program. H.R. 3874 supports these programs through amendments to two nutrition programs, allowing the provisions of snacks to children in after-school programs. First, it amends the Child and Adult Care Food Program to assist organizations operating in high poverty areas to provide a snack to at- risk children through age 18 who are enrolled in after-school programs. Second, it amends an after-school care program under the School Lunch Act to permit the provision of snacks to children through the age of 18 who are participating in after-school programs with an educational or enrichment purpose. I believe that these changes will contribute to ongoing efforts to reduce juvenile crime and drug and alcohol abuse and prevent teen pregnancy. Another important provision in this legislation recognizes how hard private, nonprofit organizations have worked to overcome their past history of program abuse and operate quality summer food programs to provide meals to low-income children during the summer months when school is not in session. As a result, we lift remaining restrictions on their participation in this program. Finally, we have modified the WIC program to provide greater flexibility to States and local providers in meeting the needs of program participants and to address concerns raised about fraud and abuse. Antifraud provisions contained in this legislation include: disqualifying WIC vendors convicted of trafficking in WIC food instruments or the sale of firearms, ammunition, explosives, or drugs in exchange for WIC food instruments; requiring individuals to be physically present in order to be certified for the WIC program benefits; requiring WIC participants to have income documentation; requiring States to take into consideration the prices stores charge for WIC foods in relation to prices charged by other stores in making vendor selections. It allows States to keep any collections and recoveries of improperly paid benefits for use no later than the Federal fiscal year following recovery. It raises the maximum fine for trafficking and other violations under WIC from $10,000 to $25,000. Mr. Speaker, these are but a few of the highlights of the child nutrition bill we are considering today. This is a good bipartisan bill that will strengthen the child nutrition programs. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of this amendment and of this program in general. I have given a lot of thought to this. I would like to discuss sort of the indomitability of the human spirit. I will be the first to say, who knows who is right or wrong in this argument? It has been called the war on the poor. I look at it as an opportunity for the poor, and I do go back to the welfare reform legislation. A lot of the same arguments were made when we discussed welfare reform, that this was going to be a disaster for the poor. It was going to be a failure. I am not here today to say it is an absolute success, but clearly the welfare rolls are down. More importantly is what I have seen personally. What I have seen personally in Delaware are people who have been afforded an opportunity that they never had before. I have been to the classes, I have seen the individuals who are now working, who have a sense of taking care of themselves and their families, and it has worked extraordinarily well. I have done the same thing in housing. I have been in Wilmington, Delaware, in our public housing, and I have been in Rehoboth Beach. We do have public housing there in Delaware, and I have seen what they have done there. Indeed, they have a community service program, exactly the same as we are talking about in this particular piece of legislation, and it has worked. People are helping each other. I have seen in Dover, Delaware, the recognition that we have one of the best housing authorities in the country; and they have encouraged people to become involved with their community and do many of the things that we are talking about here. I do not think it is a wholesale selling out of people in poverty. I think, indeed, it is affording them an opportunity to live in a better housing situation. Who can really defend the housing circumstance we have today which, by the way, goes back to 1937 in terms of what has happened, and not say that we need change? We came together some time ago, about two-thirds of us voted for legislation to make housing better in America. Indeed, it has not gone forward the way I would like to see it go forward. We can question the process. We always seem to question the process. But the bottom line is, it seems to me that today is an opportunity to give this legislation, which I think is so well founded, an opportunity to move forward. My judgment is, we should do this. I think it is in our best interest, and I encourage all Members to support it.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I do rise in support of this rule, particularly that portion of it which provides for the consideration of the amendment by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) to replace the 1937, 1937, United States Housing Act with a House-passed, already-passed version of H.R. 2. H.R. 2 contains many important provisions that would significantly decentralize the public housing system and require greater community involvement from public housing residents. Under the measure, local housing agencies could give residents a choice of paying either 30 percent of their income in rent or paying a flat rent agreed to by the tenant and the housing officials. This would benefit tenants because the rent would not necessarily increase with their income, as occurs now. The bill would also require most unemployed residents of public housing or subsidized rental units to perform at least 8 hours of community service. Additionally, in order to infuse more of the working poor into public housing, the bill would require that no more than 35 percent of new tenants be people who earn 30 percent or less of an area's median income. I would also urge support for three measures I authored which were included in the final version of H.R. 2. First, the bill would reward housing authorities, like those in Delaware, that are innovative and efficient. Secondly, the bill would allow housing authorities to screen out sex offenders who might endanger children living in public housing. And, finally, it allows high-performing housing authorities like the Dover and Delaware State Housing Authorities to use funds from disposition housing, that is, when housing is torn down, to purchase replacement scattered site dwellings. As my colleagues may recall, H.R. 2 passed this Chamber overwhelmingly 293-132 on May 14, 1997. So I have every confidence that this bill will not weigh down the VA-HUD appropriations bill. Furthermore, when Congress has a clear picture of what final reforms will be made to the public housing system, it can make better informed decisions of how much money to appropriate to that program. For all the Members who share the goal of transforming public housing from a way of life into a better life for low-income children and their families, I urge them to support this amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me the time. Let me join the others who have congratulated the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) who I think really spotted a problem. I am sort of embarrassed that I did not see it sooner. I actually did some of this work when I was a lawyer, not for the PMI people but for the consumers. I should have recognized the fact that there was a problem. I often raised the question. We never could get exactly correct answers as to what happened after a period of time. The people did pay this for some time. I think by spotlighting it, he has brought forward all of the concerns of a lot of people of this country. This is not the most major thing that we are going to do in Congress this year, but in terms of being very black and white, this is that. This is something that is absolutely correct to do. It is clear. I do not see how anybody could possibly oppose it. I think that the Homeowners Protection Act is just good common sense protection for homeowners across the United States of America to protect them when they have paid down their private mortgage insurance sufficiently so that there is enough equity in their home, and the various mortgages companies will be protected. I think and I agree with those who have said that this is a valuable service. Without this, quite frankly, a lot of people would not have been able to buy homes. I am not up here to decry PMI or say that it was a bad service or whatever it may be. But the bottom line is that I think often by inattention as much as anything else, people continue to pay this for years and years after they should have stopped. And when you start to add up $30 or $40 a month over a period of time, indeed it becomes a significant sum of money. This indeed is consumer protection. This is why we in Congress should be here, to protect our constituents from problems such as this. This is a problem that is a hidden problem, I think, by and large, but I think it is a problem which is very real nonetheless. For that reason, I think it should go forward. I have often questioned, frankly, whether it should go down to 20 percent or, as we say in this case, perhaps as far as 22 percent before we cut it off, but that seems to be a number which is agreed to by the lending industry and even by those who watch over consumers. So indeed I judge that it is good enough for us. The bottom line is that this is good legislation. I hope we would all support it and be proud of a good record. Congratulations again to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I too rise today in support of the Shays- Meehan substitute to H.R. 2183, the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act. The 1996 presidential campaign has made it unmistakably clear that our election system needs to be reformed. In fact, recent studies and polls indicate that the American public is cynical about our current system of campaign finance. Many believe that the size of the donation is directly related to the amount of access to power. Nonetheless, it has been a long and difficult fight to bring an open legitimate campaign finance debate to the House floor. In fact, a couple of months ago the future of campaign finance reform was looking very dim. There was a possibility that a real campaign finance reform debate might not have occurred at all. While the fight to bring in debate to the floor is almost over, the fight to see reform signed into law has just begun. Reformers who want to see changes signed into law must rally around one bill that has the best chance of passing. That bill is a Shays-Meehan substitute which has received strong bipartisan support. I do not have time to go through all the things that it does, but banning soft money, dealing with the whole issue of redefining issue advocacy laws and, of course, leveling the playing field with wealthy candidates are important steps that need to be looked after. This bill is not only supported by bipartisan Members in both the House and the Senate, but also by outside groups who represent the will of the American people in this area. It has been endorsed by 35 nonpartisan interest groups, including Common Cause, Public Citizen and the League of Women Voters. Furthermore, the Shays-Meehan substitute is also supported by the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post, some of our more thoughtful newspapers. As the debate unfolds, my colleagues will see every stop pulled, every method tried and every tactic used by those who oppose real campaign finance reform. One strategy will be to drag out this debate by offering an endless number of amendments until Members lose interest and the public demands that Congress focus on other issues of national priority. Reformers must remember that these tactics are strategies used by those who would defeat campaign finance reform by diverting attention. Support this legislation. It is the only way to go.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, like everyone, I am severely distressed about the complexity of the tax code and the high rate of taxes. As a nation, each year we spend 5.2 billion hours complying with and enforcing the tax code. That is more hours than the Department of Defense spends defending the nation. My first instinct when I hear statistics like this is to tear the tax code up by its roots and replace it with a simplified system. However, the plain facts are that in our complex, hi-tech global economy, such a move would introduce tremendous uncertainty into our markets and threaten the sustained prosperity this nation is enjoying. Unemployment is at its lowest rate in 28 years, 16 million new jobs have been created, and CBO projects that we will have a budget surplus for the first time since 1969. The simple fact is that businesses, families, and charities need to plan. Without a tax code in place, families looking to buy homes based upon the tax advantages of the home mortgage deduction would hold off their purchase thus crippling the housing market. Family health insurance would be threatened because the tax status of employer- provided health benefits would be uncertain. Businesses rely on various tax credits to give them the incentive to invest in research and development, to engage in environmentally sound behavior, and to overcome various market failures. Scraping the tax code invites the return of those market failures and the inefficiencies that accompany them. Charities rely on $80 billion in deductible charitable contributions each year. Churches, synagogues, medical research institutes, colleges, universities, and relief organizations will all face tremendous uncertainty in their annual budgets without the incentive to donate in order to lower taxes. In addition, there is no consensus that terminating the tax code without an alternative is a good idea. It is simply irresponsible for Congress to propose eliminating the tax code without a ready substitute. There are plenty of respected sources who have been advising Congress against this. Chief among them are our own constituents. The Republican National Committee reportedly found that most voters oppose the Act because they believe it will create dangerous economic risks. NFIB may have 500,000 signatures supporting the Act, but there are many more businessmen and there who oppose it. The US Chamber of Commerce polled their members and found significant division on whether the tax code should be terminated and which reform proposal should replace it. The National Association of Manufacturers opposes the Act. The tax directors from the 2,800 largest American corporations have said that ``individuals and businesses--the U.S. economy as a whole--cannot convert to a new system with the ease of flicking a light switch.'' Congress should stay on track with IRS reform and annual manageable tax cuts. Before the July 4th recess, Congress will likely vote to create a taxpayer friendly, accountable IRS. Federal and State governments are passing sensible tax cuts that promote investment and economic growth. This is a much better approach that scraping the code altogether and risk crippling the economy in the process. Let's work toward fundamental reform of the tax code, but do not throw out the tax code before we have a new one in sight.'' When I was a child and wanted to get something my way. I would argue to my mother that everyone else was doing it. She would respond, ``if everyone was jumping off a cliff with darkness below, would you jump just because everyone else was doing it? I would hope that Congress would not risk our economic prosperity by jumping off this cliff into darkness.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I rise in support of H.R. 3156, the bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Nelson Mandela, a man who is the linchpin of stability and democracy in Africa. I use the term advisedly because a linchpin is inserted at the end of a shaft to keep the wheel from coming off. It is an apt metaphor for the role of Mr. Mandela and South Africa at this point in the history of that troubled continent. Subsequent speakers will detail this Nobel Laureate's manifold accomplishments and the international recognition he has received since his release from nearly 30 years' imprisonment on Robben Island. H.R. 3156 complies with Committee on Banking and Financial Services' rules regarding the authorization of gold medals. Although a committee markup was not held, 293 Members are cosponsors. There is no known opposition from Members of Congress or the United States Mint. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the product of the hard work of my esteemed colleague, the gentleman from New York (Amo Houghton). Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and ask unanimous consent that he may be permitted to yield blocks of time to others who may wish to speak to this bill.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3156) to present a congressional gold medal to Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me time. I join the gentleman in his strong support for H.R. 3150. Mr. Chairman, I must say that hearing these arguments, we need to understand that when anybody files for bankruptcy, somebody else has to suffer. Generally when you had it up, the entire United States of America suffers. We have heard some facts, but I think we need to repeat some of these facts as well as to what is happening in bankruptcy in the United States today. It is incontrovertible in my mind that we are in a bankruptcy crisis in this country. Personal bankruptcy's have risen 400 percent since 1980. Over 1 million people filed for bankruptcy in 1997, which cost consumers $40 billion in higher prices and interest rates from the debts that was erased. That averages to $400 per household in the United States of America. Some studies estimate that 14 responsible borrowers are needed to support each irresponsible borrower who files for bankruptcy. Those are unbelievable figures in a time of perhaps the greatest economic prosperity in the history of the United States of America. What we have here in this legislation is a very strong first step. This is not an ultimate solution to the bankruptcy problems. There is wide disagreement and too few facts right now for Congress to fashion an omnibus bankruptcy reform act that pinpoints exact causes of bankruptcy, and we do not know what that is. We need to look whether or not it is credit cards, and there may be some evidence of that, or gambling or other debts that caused that. But this legislation allows us to do it and it strengthens the system. First, it establishes a system of data collection in the Federal bankruptcy courts to determine who, when, where, why and how people file for bankruptcy. We absolutely need to have that information and that knowledge. We do not have it today. Second, it forces debtors to receive private credit counseling before filing for bankruptcy and unloading their debts on American consumers. That also is needed. Perhaps people need to be told what they have to do. Third, it forces people who have the ability, the ability to pay for their unsecured debts, to file under Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code and repay their creditors. These are good things. We should do it and support this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998. The facts are incontrovertible that the United States is in a bankruptcy crisis. Personal bankruptcies have risen 400 percent since 1980. Over a million people filed for bankruptcy in 1997 which cost consumers $40 billion in higher prices and interest rates from the debt that was erased. That averages to $400 per household. Some studies estimate that 14 responsible borrowers are needed to support each irresponsible borrower who files for bankruptcy. Congressional oversight of this issue is long past due, and I am pleased to see that the House Judiciary Committee, through the leadership of Representative George Gekas, Chairman Henry Hyde, and Representative Rick Boucher, has reported H.R. 3150 as a strong first step toward addressing the bankruptcy crisis. I say ``strong first step'' because no one should be disillusioned that H.R. 3150 is the ultimate solution to the bankruptcy crisis. There is wide disagreement and too few facts for Congress to fashion a omnibus bankruptcy reform bill that pinpoints the exact causes of bankruptcy. Despite evidence that only 1 percent of credit card holders file for bankruptcy in any given year, some have suggested that credit card companies who overextend credit to irresponsible borrowers are to blame. Others point to casinos and gambling institutions as the principal cause. Still others blame our culture of consumerism and a lack of education about managing money and personal finance. The truth is we do not know the cause, but we know the problem is serious. Herein lies the strength of H.R. 3150. The bill takes the only steps we can all agree on. First, it establishes a system of data collection in the Federal bankruptcy courts to determine who, when, where, why and how people file for bankruptcy. With this data, Congress in the years to come can address the root cause of bankruptcies with wisdom and confidence we do not have today. Second, it forces debtors to receive private credit counseling before filing for bankruptcy and unloading their debts on American consumers. Third, it forces people who have the ability to pay more of their unsecured debts to file under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code and repay their creditors over 5 years according to a court-approved repayment plan. According to the bill's means-testing formula, debtors whose income is greater than 100 percent of the national median family income must develop a plan to repay their unsecured creditors if they have the ability to pay at least 20 percent of their unsecured debt and have more than $50 in their pocket each month after paying their secured debts (car payments, home mortgage, etc.), priority debts (alimony, child support, back taxes, etc.), living expenses. A recent Consumers League Poll reports that 76 percent of Americans believe that individuals should not be allowed to erase all their debts if they are able to repay a portion of what they owe. With such a groundswell of support from the American people the choice is simple. A vote against H.R. 3150 is a vote for irresponsible debtors and a vote against the 14 responsible consumers needed to pay for each bankruptcy filed. I urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 3150.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) the representative of the Committee on Rules here, the gentleman who yielded to me. Because I think they did the right thing, and they have done something which I think all of us in this House should embrace who believe that we should have an open rule process for this in. I have heard that there are supposed to be 500 amendments on this, and it is going to be a very difficult task to straighten out what we should be voting on and what we should not be voting on. But the bottom line is that the leadership and the Committee on Rules in particular heard the message here, and they have done a wonderful job, and I think they deserve the heartfelt thanks of all of us who have been campaigning for campaign finance reform in some way or another here in the last couple of years. There are a lot of good bills which are here. I think the Freshman bill is a particularly good bill. I also happen to favor Meehan/Shays. I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has done a much more exceptional job on campaign finance reform than anyone has given him credit for. But I would caution each and every one of us as we enter into this fray I guess after we come back from the Memorial Day break that it is going to be very difficult to hold intact the concept of a majority for a particular bill that will be campaign finance reform and perhaps even more difficult to hold together a majority for the particular bill that one cares about. And yet, in my judgment, there have been enough abuses, some maybe perfectly legal, as a matter of fact, and some perhaps even illegal, that the time has come in the United States of America when we all should look in the mirror. I have a hunch that there is enough blame to go around from one political party or the other and perhaps from one candidate to another as we look across America. And I must say that most candidates live well within the rules, but there have been a lot of abuses and the time has come for us in the Congress of the United States to really focus on this issue. So it is my hope as we stand here tonight that, first of all, we do adopt this rule. That is, ultimately, very, very important. And I hope we adopt it by a large majority. And that, secondly, we pay attention to this debate. And then, hopefully, when it is all said and done, we will have campaign finance reform in America.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for H.R. 2829, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act. This is much needed legislation to help protect our law enforcement officers as they work to make our communities safe. The threats facing our police officers have grown more complex and dangerous. Policemen who put their lives on the line every day too often find themselves in the sights of criminal who have high powered automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Violent criminals have too often used these weapons against law enforcement officers. We need to give ``the good guys,'' our law enforcement professionals, every means of protection against criminals. This problem is so severe that the federal government should support state and local efforts to provide more protection to our police men and women. That is the purpose of this legislation. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act authorizes the Bureau of Justice Assistance to make $25 million in grants to states or local governments to purchase bulletproof vests for use by law enforcement officers. These grants are matched by state and local governments, unless it would produce a financial hardship on the community. Additionally, it gives preferential treatment considerations to applications from jurisdictions that have the greatest need for such funding, a mandatory policy for using bulletproof vests, or a violent crime rate above the national average. Since 1980, 1,182 police officers have been killed by firearms. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 42 percent of those officers could have survived if they had been wearing bulletproof vests. Today, 25 percent of state and local law enforcement officers do not have access to a single bulletproof vest. That is 150,000 police officers who every day are 14 times more likely to die if they are hit by a bullet. The statistics are shocking and the public policy is uncontrovertible. Please join me in supporting final passage of H.R. 2829. Thank you.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I, too, like most of the other speakers here, rise in support of the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the modernization of financial institutions across the United States of America. I think this is very, very important to do. I will submit a fuller statement for the Record, but I would just like to take the little bit of time I have, to first of all, thank all those who put this together, there is too many to mention in 2 minutes, and to state that the most important reason for supporting this legislation that I can find and I hope others can find is that it will benefit every American seeking to improve their family's financial security by saving and investing more. This legislation will help them achieve that goal by making more savings and investment products available in one-stop shopping at competitive prices. In addition, the bill contains important disclosure and sales standards that protect consumers as they shop for these products. The legislation will help consumers, but it will also benefit the businesses seeking to provide these financial products. It will enable banks, insurance companies, and securities firms to affiliate and operate more competitively, which is good for all of us on a level playing field. It will expand the products that these financial services can offer to their customers while maintaining adequate regulation to preserve the safety and soundness of the system. That is what it is all about. We needed to find a piece of legislation after 60 years, and Glass- Steagall was questioned almost on the day it passed, I might add, but we needed to find something which we had proper regulation, good capital requirements, the fire walls that we are concerned about in order to move it forward. In my judgment, this piece of legislation does that. H.R. 10 meets those standards. I am supportive of a number of the amendments which are going to come up, because I feel it should be tilted a little bit one way or the other, as others may feel, too. But in the long run, I intend to support this legislation regardless of how these amendments may come out. I must say I have a sense of deja vu about all this. My State went through this in the 1980s. We liberalized our banking laws a great deal. Our banks were among the first in the country which were allowed to do a number of things that are being talked about in this legislation when the States were allowed to regulate it. I cannot tell my colleagues how well it has worked. We have regulated well. We have been careful about what they could do. We have made sure the capital requirements were high. Delaware has prospered mightily as a part of all of this. I would also say that there are many banks who are opposed to this legislation, and I think we will find in the long run, when we are through in the House and the Senate, that they will be pleased. So support the legislation. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 10, the Financial Services Competition Act. This legislation is long-overdue to modernize our Nation's banking, securities and insurance laws. While the bill before us is not perfect, it does represent a fair compromise on important issues. As is the case with any compromise, not every group is happy. Banking is very important to my State of Delaware and our banks are split over the bill. I will support several of the key amendments to the bill, in an effort to improve some provisions, but regardless of what happens on those amendments, I believe this legislation is a step forward and should be passed today. As a member of the House Banking Committee, I have been directly involved in the work to modernize our financial services laws since I came to Congress in 1993. It has been a difficult struggle to update our laws to keep pace with and manage what is happening in the market place, while seeking to balance the competing interests of the banking, securities and insurance industries. Now is the time to act. We must do this to benefit consumers who need a variety of financial products to help them plan for their economic futures. In addition, we must update these laws to allow our financial services providers to compete effectively in the next century. The most important reason for supporting this legislation is that it will benefit every American seeking to improve their family's financial security by saving and investing more. This legislation will help them achieve that goal by making more savings and investment products available in one-stop shopping at competitive prices. In addition, the bill contains important disclosure and sales standards to protect consumers as they shop for these products. This legislation will help consumers, but it will also benefit the businesses seeking to provide these financial products. It will enable banks, insurance companies and securities firms to affiliate and operate more competitively on a level playing field. It will expand the products that these financial services firms can offer to their customers, while maintaining adequate regulation to preserve the safety and soundness of the system. Madam Chairman, as part of the long deliberations seeking to treat all financial services providers fairly, I have been particularly interested in assuring that national banks are permitted to compete fairly in selling and underwriting insurance products. Bank sales and underwriting of insurance will be good for competition and good for American consumers. To be candid, in my view the provisions in this legislation regarding banking and insurance are not perfect. I believe the language that was contained in the Banking Committee's version of H.R. 10 is superior. The improved compromise language is adequate in protecting the right of national banks to participate in the insurance business, but it has been asserted that section 104 could leave some chance that a State could attempt to treat banks less fairly than other providers of insurance. We should continue to work to further clarify this provision in a potential conference on the bill before it becomes law. I am committed to working toward that goal. Finally, Madam Chairman, I say to my colleagues that this is historic legislation that has been a long-time in coming and it has been an extremely difficult effort to balance all the competing interests affected by H.R. 10. As I noted, I am not entirely happy with every provision in this bill, and I will work to improve those provisions before it becomes law. But overall, H.R. 10 is a well-crafted effort to make our financial services system ready for the 21st century and to meet the needs of American consumers and business. I urge my colleagues to keep this effort alive and pass H.R. 10 today.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roukema amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call the attention of the House to the work of Marisa Erdman of Millsboro, DE. Marisa is Delaware's State winner of the Veterans of Foreign War's Voice of Democracy script writing contest and has been named a national winner and recipient of a $1,000 scholarship award from the VFW. I congratulate Marisa, her family, and VFW Post 7422 in Millsboro, DE for sponsoring this excellent program. As my colleagues know, the VFW has sponsored the Voice of Democracy Competition for 51 years to promote patriotic and civic responsibility among our young people and to help them attend college through the scholarship awards. The competition requires students to write and record a 3 to 5 minute essay on a patriotic theme. This year, over 93,000 secondary school students participated in the contest on the theme: ``My Voice in our Democracy.'' I am very proud to share with the House, Marisa's excellent essay on the need for young people to be involved in their community, to gain knowledge, and to use their experience as a voice in our democracy. Again, congratulations to Marisa, the Erdman family, and the members of the VFW Post 7422 for their fine work. ``My Voice in Our Democracy''--1997-1998 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Competition (By Marisa Erdman) The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California, which was once the world's largest bridge, attracts hundreds of thousands of West Coast tourists annually. Each day, millions of travelers cross the Kanmon Bridge between the Japanese islands of Hunshu and Kyushu. With a length of 4,626 feet, the Humber Bridge in eastern England is the longest single span bridge in the world. What do these three famous bridges have in common? They are all suspension bridges in which towers holding long steel cables support the roadway. And although the towers serve as the main structures, it is the bridge's many individual cables that provide the strength needed to sustain the weight crossing the bridge. A democracy, such as that of our United States, because of its design is much like a suspension bridge. Democracy serves at the backbone of our nation's strength supporting the weight of natural disaster, economic recession, war, and change. Our forefathers crossed from the shore of oppression and tyranny into the promise land of choice and freedom. The principles and spirit of democracy are the towers serving as the basis for all other ideas that branch from our government. The individuals who comprise and fuel our government with their voices and insights serve as the cables that lift our great nation. Without several of its cables, a bridge will stand and function, however it will not prove as sturdy and may eventually collapse. Just as a democracy without the contribution of all its voices will still run, it will not be a true representation of the wants and needs of the people. But how can I make my one individual voice heard? Because of my young age, I often feel that I am unable to play an important role in our democracy. But like many people, I keep the spirit of democracy alive by being active in my community. Millions of teenagers like myself volunteer in programs such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters and participate in food drives, benefit walks, and charity fundraisers in an effort to help those in need. By being involved in organizations such as the Student Government Association and by furthering my education, I can familiarize myself with the workings, ideas, and functions of our government. Through actions such as this, I have begun to keep the spirit of our democracy alive and thriving by dedicating my time, energy, and ideas. In the future, I can make my individual voice heard by supporting the principles of our democracy in louder ways. I can support the plans and ideas of politicians by casting my vote for the candidate I feel will best satisfy my needs. Above and beyond that, I have the opportunity to represent my fellow citizens by serving on community councils or by holding political office. Like the millions of Americans who have bravely risked their lives far and away to keep the bridge of democracy standing, I also have the opportunity to defend my country by serving in the military. I can help keep the principles of our democracy alive through my talents, skills, and actions for the betterment of my community and our great nation. Through knowledge and contribution, I have become an effective cable in the bridge of our democracy that will allow our great society to cross into the future . . . and my voice in our democracy will be heard.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong support of H.R. 3694, the intelligence authorization bill, and I offer my congratulations to the ranking member and to the chairman of this committee, both of whom are extraordinarily dedicated to this and, I think, do a wonderful job in performing this function. Mr. Chairman, I do share the chairman's concerns about the current state of the intelligence community, and I do fully support his recommendations within this legislation for finding its deficiencies. Like my chairman, I believe that we must invest sufficient resources toward the development of the intelligence community's all-source analytical infrastructure. United States policymakers must have the most comprehensive, responsive and timely strategic perspective on major global changes. During the Cold War, the wide-ranging nature of the Soviet threat simplified the analytical tasks faced by the intelligence community. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the unpredictability of emerging global challenges such as those of Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia and Iraq, requires the development of a national analytical capability that can provide policymakers with sufficient warning and with a range of policy options. The failure of the Clinton administration's efforts to contain Saddam Hussein may, in part, reflect the inadequacy of our government's analysis of Iraqi internal dynamics, as well as gaps in our understanding of Iraq's policies and economy. Like other rogue states, Iraq demands a rigorous and aggressive analytical posture on the part of our intelligence community. We must do a better job of analyzing trends within such hard targets. As a member of both the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I am quite aware of the intelligence community's role and performance in analyzing significant global economic trends for policymakers, as well as its efforts to respond to the emerging threat of global organized crime. I must confess that I have heard that the intelligence community may not be as capable of assessing global economic trends as a number of private sector firms. Economic and banking specialists and such government entities as the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the U.S. Trade Representative's Office, have not been shy in criticizing the value of the community's economic intelligence reporting. While some of this criticism may not be justified, I believe that a prudent approach would be to initiate some sort of interagency review process to evaluate the quality and relevance of the community's economic intelligence reporting. In response to emerging national security threats, such as money laundering by global criminal organizations, efforts should be made to clarify the respective roles of the intelligence community and law enforcement agencies. The nature and scope of the threat posed to our national security by money laundering groups is apparently large, but not well defined. Numerous U.S. agencies have some responsibility for monitoring and responding to the global money-laundering threat, but no single agency takes the lead in tracking illicit financial flows and tracking down major launderers. I believe we can do it here. I urge members to support H.R. 3964.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I do rise in support of his amendment. I have a lot of sympathy with what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) is trying to do, and I have a lot of sympathy for those who played sports through high school and college. I did a little bit. I was not very good, but it was a great thing to do. I have listened to what others have said, but I do not know why we are getting involved with this and, hopefully, we can work it out some other way. I do not think this should be in our legislation, and I think the Roemer amendment should pass. For example, what if a college changes its academic courses? Do they have to give 4 years' notice of that, if someone is majoring in something? What if a college like mine becomes coeducational in the middle of it all? Is that something we should have to give notice for? My college got rid of fraternities. Believe me, fraternities were big deals at Hamilton College when I went there, and that was a major change, but nobody had to give notice then. A lot of things happen in colleges, and I do not think that we should be out there interfering with their right to govern themselves. As a matter of fact, I would think that would be a Republican principle that we would want to follow; that we should simply let them make their own decisions. I have read the language of this, which is part of the Student Right to Know Act, and it states: ``A statement of any reduction that may or is likely to occur during the ensuing 4 academic years and the number of athletes that will be permitted to participate in any collegiate sport or in the financial resources that the institution will make available to any such sport and the reasons for any such reduction.'' That is a tremendous burden and requirement to place on our colleges. I happen to think it goes too far. The gentleman from Illinois and I have talked about this. I have heard from the University of Delaware president. Used to be president of the University of Kentucky. And David Roselle writes and says, It is demeaning for the Congress of the United States to be mucking about in the management of intercollegiate athletics. I happen to totally agree with that particular statement. Why are we getting involved in micromanaging decisions at the college and university level? Do we not have better things to do here in this Congress? And then he went on to make the point, Schools simply do not know, and neither does the Congress, what forces will come into play in the next 4 years that would make program reductions on campus both necessary and appropriate. Again, I could not agree more with that particular point. It absolutely hits the nail on the head. Four years is a long time. I think for all these reasons, while the intent is good, this is not good to have in this legislation. We ought to take it out and we should pass the Roemer amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I have concerns about a provision included in H.R. 6 which eliminates all federal funding for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. I've been aware of the Board's efforts for many years. I was Governor of Delaware when the National Governors Association called for the Board's creation in the late 1980s. I've worked with representatives of major Delaware corporations such as DuPont, who strongly support the Board's mission. And the State of Delaware, like many other states, is actively supporting the Board's objectives by providing funds to help teachers sit for Board certification, and by providing merit pay to teachers who achieve certification. There is broad and bipartisan support for the mission and the work of NBPTS from major stakeholders in education policy: ;the governors, business, the school boards, principals, and teachers. I submit for the record a letter in support of federal funding for NBPTS, signed by several Republican and Democrat governors. While questions have been raised about federal funding for the National Board, I believe it is possible to achieve a compromise that sets a time limit on federal funding, but allows the important work on teacher certification to be completed. I intend to work to resolve this issue in conference. April 21, 1998. Hon. William F. Goodling, Chairman, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing you today to tell you of our support for the important work of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. As Governors, each of us believes that one of our highest priorities is to make our system of education the very best it can be and that a vitally important factor in achieving this is to improve the quality of the teaching that takes place in our classrooms. We support the voluntary process of National Board Certification because it provides us with a tool for achieving this goal. Each of us has crafted a plan to use the high and rigorous standards and assessments of the National Board in our states and we look forward to soon having the full system available to all of our teachers. We applaud the United States Congress for providing resources for the research that launched and continues to support full development of the voluntary National Board system. For a little over six years, this research and development program has proceeded with the help of federal dollars and with accountability to the Congress. We look to you for continued support of the federal funding for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards at the level requested by the President for FY 1999. Sincerely, James B. Hunt, Jr.; Gary Locke; Lawton Chiles; Thomas R. Carper; George V. Voinovich; Marc Racicot; Terry E. Branstad; and Tommy G. Thompson.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and for his erstwhile and good work on this bill, as well as a lot of other Members who worked so hard on this. I, too, as I have heard everybody else tonight, rise in support of H.R. 6. There are a number of good reasons to support this bill but, since I only have a few minutes, I will focus on provisions to make college more affordable. While the bill includes a new low student loan interest rate and increases assistance to disadvantaged students, these provisions will not be of much help if tuition rates continue to increase, thus requiring students to take on more debt or minimizing the value of grant aid. By the way, tuition has increased more than any other commodity in this country in the last 20 years or so. To bring some subtle downward pressure on tuition rates, this bill includes an amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and myself based on the recommendations of the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education. The bill includes provisions requiring the Department of Education to review regulations regarding student financial assistance every 2 years and where possible repeal, consolidate or simplify those regulations. It also provides Federal support for innovative projects addressing issues of productivity, efficiency, quality, improvement and cost control. And it requires GAO to issue a yearly report to Congress on various college cost factors and tuition increases. But one of the most important provisions requires the Secretary of Education to work with colleges to develop a clear set of standards for reporting college costs and prices. Right now terms mean different things in different places, and it is not possible to compare costs at one school to costs at another. For example, what is encompassed under the term ``research''? What is encompassed under the term ``building and facilities''? Everyone needs to be on the same page before institutions can voluntarily report on their costs in a meaningful way. Once this occurs, then families will be able to make comparisons. They will have a clear sense of what their college tuition buys them, what schools spend their money on, what their financial priorities are. This valuable information could guide consumer choices and, more importantly, could guide institutions' spending choices. For this reason as well as the others mentioned by my colleagues, I urge Members to give this legislation their hearty support.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I fully support H.J. Res. 111, which calls for an amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting passage of tax increases without a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress, except in emergency cases such as military conflict. I have voted for it in the past, am a cosponsor, and am committed to passing the strongest tax limitation amendment possible. Opponents claim, and will continue to claim, that constitutional amendments on taxing and spending make it harder to operate government as we know it. That is exactly the point--fiscal reality proves to us that we need an instrument, a tool, to control government spending and limit raising taxes. The Federal Government has run deficits for over 25 years in a row, and for 56 of the last 64 years. This is not a short-termed trend, and points to a fundamental flaw in the political system that makes a constitutional solution both necessary and appropriate. Last year, Congress passed the historic Balanced Budget Agreement as a first step toward fiscal discipline. However, only nine months later, Congress is already breaking the transportation spending caps by $34 billion inviting criticism that fiscal discipline was just a fad for Congress. We need to pass H.J. Res. 111 to renew our commitment to fiscal discipline. Otherwise, irresponsible spending and higher federal taxes will continue to own us, cripple our economy and mortgage our children's future. Congress needs the legal and moral authority of a Constitutional amendment making it more difficult to raise taxes. This Congress cannot afford to alienate our constituents by failing to pass this crucial legislation. I urge my colleagues to join us in restoring fiscal responsibility to this institution today, not tomorrow, and not next year.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Delahunt-Boehlert amendment. Let me say first, I believe judicial activism is a problem. I believe some judges overstep their judicial bounds. I believe some judges exercise poor judgment in formulating judicial plans forcing states and localities to comply with state and federal laws. I believe in lowering taxes. I believe in H.J. Res. 111, the Tax Limitation Amendment, which sadly was voted down yesterday. I believe judges should not be able to direct states and localities to raise taxes. The Delahunt-Boehlert Amendment does not change this aspect of H.R. 1252. I believe the government and private citizens should be treated equally before the law. H.R. 1252 exempts states and local governments from complying with judicial orders that ``necessarily require'' raising taxes no matter how egregiously the government violated the law. A private citizen who violates those same laws has to pay the penalty. Just about every federal law, whether its an environmental law, a civil rights law or a labor law carries penalties with it that could ``necessarily require'' a government violator to raise taxes to pay for. If Congress thinks those penalties are too high, then lets lower them, but lets not give states free reign to violate either their own laws or federal laws just because the penalty may be costly. The Delahunt-Boehlert amendment strikes this ``necessarily require'' clause because state and federal laws must be enforced whether the violator is a state, locality, or private citizen. I urge you to support the Delahunt-Boehlert amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. This is a good amendment. Let me use an analogy. Take a hot summer day and there is a picnic and there are sandwiches and potato chips and cookies there. And somebody comes along with ice tea, and it is 95 degrees out and that ice tea looks awfully good, and they fill your glass. That is absolutely wonderful. But they make a mistake and they fill it too much, and it spills on the sandwiches and on the potato chips and the cookies, and it ruins them. That is what is happening here. This is good legislation. This is good ISTEA. To the extent that this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to their great credit, put together a formula and put together the numbers that we handled in the budget agreement, they did a wonderful job. But they went too far. They went too far by about $26 billion. What this amendment is doing is saying let us wait for 2 months so we can see how much money we are really going to have to be able to spend on transportation, which we all agree should be done. We have heard all manner of examples all afternoon of how we should spend money on transportation. That is absolutely correct. But the bottom line is that the glass has overflowed here and we have $26 billion too much in it. I just spoke a moment ago on the demonstration projects. I think that is poor public policy. Beyond that, we are looking at that additional money. Where is it going to come from? We are about to vote blindly for a piece of legislation in which we are not at all sure what the offsets are. Let me remind Members of what we just went through with about $2.5 billion, which we could not find offsets. What are we going to go through on $26 billion? Who is going to suffer on that? As I stated earlier, will education suffer? Will the environment suffer? Will housing suffer? Will defense suffer? Will the balanced budget suffer? Any of these things could suffer. The Spratt amendment makes all the sense in the world. The 2-month month delay will not hurt anything, and it will let us do what is the most important thing we are going to do this year, balance our budget. Support the Spratt amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support of the Graham amendment. I believe that what we have here is a violation of the Balanced Budget Agreement. I think the committee, by the way, did a good job on this legislation. They just went too far. They went about $26 billion too far, and that is money which we do not presently have. About $18 billion of that can be found in these special demonstration projects. I disagree with the Chairman on this. I believe the special demonstration projects are wrong. I believe they are pork. I believe these decisions should be made by the States and by the officials who live in the States, who are qualified to make decisions about where their highways should go. How are we going to pay for this? I ask Members to ask themselves that before they support this legislation. We are going to pay for it because education is going to suffer, defense is going to suffer, housing may suffer, the environment may suffer. Maybe we will not balance the budget. Alan Greenspan will tell us that interest rates will go up 2 percent if we do not get a balanced budget. I think these are extraordinarily important issues. I hope before anybody here votes, whether they have demonstration projects or not, they will consider the enormity of what we are doing. This has just gone too far, and it is too bad, because an extraordinary amount of good work was done here. However, the bottom line is, all of us should unite to support this amendment and take this $18 billion off the table.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me the time; and I rise in what I would call tepid support of the rule here. I believe that what we are going through could be prevented, and I think we need to start discussing this on the floor of the House of Representatives. We may have a balanced budget this year, I think CBO says by perhaps $8 billion. But in the 5 years, now my sixth year, that I have been in this Congress, every year we have wrestled at least once, if not more than once, with the emergency appropriations process; and the question is, do we offset it or not offset it? And now that we are starting to balance the budget, we are starting to offset it. If we do not offset it, all of a sudden we have spending out there which has just been added to the debt in the past and now may take away from the surplus in the future. If we do offset it, what are we going to offset it with? There lies an entirely different fight, which we will get into later when we get to the bill itself. But the bottom line is there is a way of avoiding this. I have introduced legislation to this effect which is of a particular consequence because it is budget mechanisms we need to look at. A budget reserve account would do this. They do it in virtually every State and city and county government now. They have an emergency set- aside so that if they run into problems such as these very real emergencies, and they are going to happen, then they are able to pay for it out of that amount of money, which is built into the budget to begin with, and we prevent all this. Do we not all want to prevent this? Can anybody possibly enjoy what we are going through here? It is very simple. We look back over a period of 10 years. It comes out to about $5 billion or $6 billion a year. We already have the White House preparing another emergency request right now which would fall into this. If there are large exceptions, such as a war, whatever it may be, obviously, we would have to waive the act in that circumstance and treat it in a different sense. But for the average expenditure, the average emergency which comes along, it could fit into that. And then, instead of talking about set-asides and how we are going to pay for it, that amount of money would already be put into our budget. It makes all the sense in the world. And, yes, there is a jolt when we initially do it; but the bottom line is this is less than 1 percent of the entire budget amount that we appropriate each year. There is simply no reason why we are not able to do it. It is called a rainy day fund in some States. I think we should call it a budget reserve account. I believe we should do it. I believe we should do it rapidly so that we can prevent these incredible struggles, which are very counterproductive to what we are doing in Congress.