Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce eight bills to suspend temporarily the imposition of duties on the importation of certain products I am pleased to introduce six bills to suspend temporarily the imposition of duties on imports of certain chemicals used in the production of pesticides. These chemicals are deltamethrin, diclofop methyl, piperonyl butoxide, resmethrin, thidiazuron and tralomethrin. By temporarily suspending the imposition of duties, these bills would help AgrEvo USA, a company located in Wilmington, Delaware, lower its cost of production and improve its competitiveness in global markets. I am also pleased to introduce a bill to suspend temporarily the imposition of duties on imports of Pigment Red 177. Its full subheading number is 3204.17.0435. This high quality coloring material is imported for sale in the United States by Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation (Pigments Division), a company located in Newport, Delaware. By temporarily suspending the imposition of duties, this bill will reduce significantly the cost of a coloring material that is used in a wide variety of finished products. Finally, I am pleased to introduce a bill to suspend temporarily the imposition of duties on imports of Triflusulfuron Methyl. By temporarily suspending the imposition of duties, this bill will help DuPont, a company located in Wilmington, Delaware, lower its cost of production and improve its competitiveness in global markets. I had the pleasure of introducing a bill to suspend the duty on this same chemical on June 12, 1997 through 1999. Today I introduce a bill to extend the duty suspension through 2000.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me start by saying I agree with virtually everybody who spoke tonight, that this process is not what we would have wanted, those of us who are trying to reform campaign finance. Let me just also say that both parties have had problems. I am not saying whether it is equal or not. Who knows what the circumstances are with respect to campaign finance. I think the whole country knows that. I also am a supporter of Shays-Meehan. I like the freshman bill. I think there is a lot of good things that have happened over in the Senate as well. Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to get to all of those. This is what we have before us, and we have to make a decision tonight on whether or not we are going to vote for this, because this may be the only vote we are going to get. So I did something unusual. I read the bill, and I decided to make up a list of reasons as to why we should support it. And after David Letterman, I did this. This is the top 10 reasons to support it. Let me start with Number 10. This bill removes soft money from the Federal election process. That is extraordinarily important. We have already heard about all the soft money problems. It removes it from the Federal election process. Number 9, the bill contains the core elements of campaign finance reform that Republican and Democratic reformers have agreed upon. Number 8, it keeps foreign money outside of the United States elections. Number 7, it helps States maintain accurate voter registration rolls. Number 6, it adjusts hard money contributions for inflation. Number 5, it strengthens FEC reporting requirements. Number 4, it levels the playing field for candidates running against millionaires. Number 3, it ensures voluntary contributions for members of corporations and unions. And Number 2, it strengthens disclosure requirements for interest groups to prevent them from anonymously financing expensive advertising campaigns. And Number 1, first, a bill that offends Republicans, Democrats, and interest groups alike is worth considering. This bill will cause everyone in the election process some pain, but it is the first step to achieve real campaign finance reform. Madam Speaker, that is what it truly is all about. Most of the public believes that we will never be able to do this. The bottom line is, if we are going to be able to do it, we are going to have to take on our own political parties, all the outside interest groups, and we are going to have to make it tell. The way to do that tonight is to cast a ``yes'' vote on this, start the process, get it over to the Senate, debate this in every way we possibly can; hopefully finish the process so that we, indeed, can be proud at some point with the fact that we have campaign finance reform.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding. This will be very brief. At the request of the administration, this bill was introduced to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury and the Mint to move statutory wording on the State quarters from one place to another as required by design considerations. You will recall, we are going to have 50 State quarter bills in the next 10 years. No statutory wording such as ``In God we trust'' will be removed from the coins or any other statutory wording that is on the coins now. The bill simply grants more freedom for individual States that propose designs of their own choice. It is a noncontroversial, technical bill that has been discussed with the minority. You have no objection. It complements the 50 States Commemorative Coin Program Act of 1997 that was passed and signed into law last year.

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking and Financial Services be discharged from further consideration of the bill, (H.R. 3301) to amend chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code, to allow the Secretary of the Treasury greater discretion with regard to the placement of the required inscriptions on quarter dollars issued under the 50 States Commemorative Coin Program, and ask its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity of speaking to this. I think what the gentleman from New York (Chairman Lazio) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) have done on this, as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), I think the work on this has been tremendous. It is strong leadership indeed for a compassionate, imaginative and common sense style reform legislation. Under the current system, about three-quarters of Federal homeless funds are spent on emergency homeless shelters in supportive services. The bill in front of us, H.R. 217, encourages communities to focus HUD homeless funds on affordable housing, which will give homeless persons a chance to become productive members of our society. To a homeless person, permanent housing means safety and security that cannot be found in homeless shelters. Safety and security are important foundations on which a homeless person can rebuild his or her life. For too long, HUD has been the 911 all-purpose agency for homeless issues. In the course of trying to provide services HUD should not be providing, HUD has overcommitted its McKinney Act homeless funds. This unbalanced distribution of funds has left longstanding successful homeless programs without the funds to operate. It has happened in every State to one degree or another, but let me share with Members Delaware's experience. Under the current system, the McKinney homeless funds are distributed through a national competition. As was the case for Delaware in fiscal year 1998, if an applicant fails to meet the cutoff point, the State and all its homeless programs must scrape to find funds to operate that year. The Ministry of Caring is a Delaware nonprofit homeless provider that raises half of its support from private sources and relies on State and Federal funds to provide the remainder. In Delaware the name ``Ministry of Caring'' is synonymous with quality, compassionate housing and services for the homeless. The Mary Mother of Hope House and Samaritan Outreach Program are two homeless programs the Ministry of Caring may have to close this year, because its application fell two points shy of HUD's cutoff in last year's grant competition due to a drafting error over which the Ministry of Caring had no control. While some may think a national competition for grant money distributes homeless funds to the most deserving programs, the fact is that it produces tremendous inefficiencies. Each year, a homeless program faces the dilemma of whether it will receive a lot of Federal funds or none at all. This prevents these programs from engaging in efficient, long-term planning, and encourages them to overstate their need. Furthermore, as was the case with the Ministry of Caring, if HUD spent funds in the past to help build houses for the homeless, its investment and your tax dollars go to waste when there are no funds to operate the program. With H.R. 217, each State is assured a minimal level of funding each year the programs can take into account when planning for the long run. At the same time, H.R. 217 reserves 25 percent of the McKinney funds for a national competition, so those programs which are most deserving can still compete for additional funds. This is just another example of how the Homeless Housing Programs Consolidation and Flexibility Act takes the best features from existing programs, and eliminates wasteful incentives and duplicity in the current system. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House, today, to express my support for S. 927, a bill to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program through FY 2003. Established by Congress in 1966, the National Sea Grant College Program has fostered the wise use, conservation, and management of marine and coastal resources through practical research, graduate student education, and public service. I am proud that the University of Delaware has been a part of Sea Grant since 1976 when it became the 9th institution to join. In particular, the University of Delaware's program conducts research in environmental studies, fisheries, marine biotechnology, marine policy, seafood science, and coastal engineering. Graduates from its program have gone on to make impressive contributions at the National Academy of Sciences, the National Marine Fisheries Service, Boston University School of Medicine, the U.S. State Department, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, and a host of cutting-edge corporations. The National Sea Grant College Program is much more than a research institution. Its staff reaches out to business owners, schoolteachers, and government agencies to provide them with objective information and assistance in addressing coastal problems and developing technology that benefits all of us. For example, the National Sea Grant College Program conducted important research on mosquito-eating fish that help curb disease- carrying mosquito populations naturally. They also developed technology both to recycle crab shells into bandages and animal feed and to harvest pollution-free energy from ocean waves. One of the most important services the National Sea Grant College Program provides is assistance in protecting beaches, roads, buildings and wildlife along our fragile coastlines. The sea Grant Program's research is responsible for developing a novel sand bypass system that protects coastlines from beach erosion. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration has not followed through on the investment this country made in the National Sea Grant College Program. In Delaware, the Administration has commissioned study after study that shows the tremendous need to construct the coastal protection technologies developed by the National Sea Grant College Program, but it refuses to honor its commitment to pay its share of the construction costs. As a result, in the last two weeks, Delaware has suffered tremendous damage in the wake of violent nor'easters. Mr. Speaker, every coastal state can boast the achievements of its Sea Grant College Program and every state benefits from its work. The Senate passed this legislation by unanimous consent and the House passed similar legislation, H.R. 437, last June, by a vote of 422-3. Therefore, please join me in reauthorizing this worthy program.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I have some prepared remarks, but I would just like to focus for my minute on what we are dealing with here, because I am becoming increasingly concerned about what the Federal Government's role in child care should be. I support the intent of this resolution to make sure stay-at-home parents are part of the child care debate, but I am increasingly bothered by the fact that the President will come forward and say that we need to spend an additional $21.5 billion on child care, and we just spent some $22 billion over 5 years in the welfare reform bill. I am concerned that we are putting stay-at-home parents with child care needs up against those that have out-of-home child care needs, and we are going to get into some sort of battle which we are going to escalate higher and higher in terms of the cost of what we are doing. I hope we as a Congress will sit down and not get divided on a political basis in this particular circumstance, but sit down and try to determine what the real child care needs of Americans are, both at home and those who are not in the home, with respect to helping the kids. Keep it within a cost basis that we can manage within our balanced budget and go forward from there. I urge all of us to think carefully about what we promised to deliver, lest we raise expectations unrealistically or throw our balanced budget out the window.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I think we have a tremendous disconnect in the reality of education in America today which concerns me a great deal. And that is that we have studies that show that the ultimate consumers in terms of what happens to the education product, if you want to phrase it that way, the colleges and the workplace all say the kids are just not doing as well as they should, that education is not where it should be. But if we look at polls on how our schools are doing on a local basis, we will find that parents and others say, gee, they are achieving at an 80 percent level or whatever it may be be. We just do not find that to be the right answer out in the workplace. I am one who believes that we need some sort of national comparison. I am not sure if we need a national voluntary test or not, and for that reason I am going to support the legislation. I do not think that this legislation has gained adequate support from families and educators in the States or Congress yet, and the National Assessment Governing Board, on which I actually served for a couple years, has recommended that the test be delayed until 2001. And the administration wants to move it up. Tests cannot be done that rapidly. They are very difficult to do. But having said that, I do not come down on the side of those who say that we need no testing at all. I would hope that in our looking at reauthorization of NAGB and NAEPS later this year that we look seriously at that question. I will tell my colleagues most of the tests that are given now on a national level do not lend themselves to comparisons from one place to another because they are not given in a way so that we can make the comparisons. That is intentional to some degree, and I do not think we are going to learn too much by any studies on tests which exist right now. But I think we have to do something about it. We talk about State standards, for example, as a way of doing this. My State happened to adopt very tough standards, and most of the students did not meet the standards. Then they took a national test and they did pretty well on the national test. There is at least one Southern State in which 80 percent of the kids did extraordinarily well on that State's standards, and they took the national test, and I think fewer than 20 percent of them actually did well on the national test. What does that mean? Does it mean that the Delaware students are better or worse because they did well on the Federal, not well on the State? I do not know. I think we need that comparison. Believe me, now, in my State, we have comparisons school by school, and it has driven education reform tremendously. It appears in our newspapers. They see what it is. Parents are able to make choices now within public schools. It has made a huge difference as far as education is concerned. I think we really have to continue to look at the subject and develop it in every way we possibly can. There are those who I know oppose any kind of national testing, and I would tell them I would hope they would keep their powder dry, continue to look at this subject. I think we understand there are reasons, which range from fears of discrimination or national curriculum or wasting Federal dollars or students' time with yet another test. But there has to be something to improve education. I think part of it is to get into this whole issue of some sort of a comparison, be it testing or whatever it may be. I have heard critics of testing say that one does not fatten a cow by weighing it regularly, and we should not test kids that way. But I will tell Members that this is not testing kids in the same way from one State to another. We have got to be able to make a fair comparison. Right now the State tests do not do it. So let us all try to work together on this. This is a very important issue for the future of this country.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1228) to provide for a 10-year circulating commemorative coin program to commemorate each of the 50 States, and for other purposes.

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1228, which includes the language of H.R. 2414, the bill to implement a program to issue quarter dollars over a 10-year period commemorating each of the 50 States. This bill has passed this House in each of the last two Congresses, most recently on September 23, 1997, where it passed on a rollcall vote of 419-6. S. 1228 passed the Senate by unanimous consent last Sunday night, and it has been amended to include language redesigning the $1 coin. This redesign would correct the flaws of the Susan B. Anthony coin by specifying that the new coin be gold in color and have a distinctive edge to distinguish it from the quarter. A difference from the bill that I introduced, H.R. 2637, is that S. 1228 does not specify what image will appear on the $1 coin. Instead, that decision is left to the Secretary of the Treasury. My bill would have had the Statue of Liberty as the image of the face of the coin, gold, smooth edge, Statue of Liberty on the face of the coin, but we are going to leave that decision up, as I said, to the Secretary of the Treasury. I would also at this time like to thank Senator Alphonse D'Amato, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, who was extremely cooperative throughout all of this and was very helpful in bringing all of this legislation to fruition. In the other House, the word ``clad'' was removed from language describing that the new dollar coin should have similar properties as current coinage in circulation. There is nothing in this bill that should be construed as limiting the mint's choice of technology in determining the best, most effective coin to meet the public's need and which is not subject to counterfeiting. There is some urgency to the dollar coin redesign, in that the mint has said that they need 30 months to test alloys and prepare production for the new coin, and there is now only a 30-month supply of the Anthony dollars remaining in storage at current rates of usage and issuance. This legislation leaves the paper $1 note unaffected, to continue to be printed and issued as public demand determines. The legislative package also includes a commemorative coin that authorizes coins to be issued commemorating the centennial of the first flight by the Wright brothers which will be celebrated in 2003. This commemoration has already been approved by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee as required under our coin reform legislation passed last year. It also meets other strictures of those reforms, including mintage limits and retention of surcharge payments until all of the Government's costs are recovered from the program. This bill will reinvigorate our circulating coinage in a responsible, affordable way, serving the best interests of the general public, the national economy and the coin collecting community as well. It will be educational and fun, will promote pride among the States, and it will be a winner financially for the Government. The Mint will earn an estimated $11 million annually, $110 million over the life of the program, from the sale of silver proof sets of the quarter, and a study by the accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand showed that, as with the Bicentennial quarter, the 50-State quarter will be very popular with the public. The study said that fully 75 percent of the 2,000 people surveyed would collect some or all of the coins. Coopers & Lybrand estimated that between 2.6 billion and 5.1 billion dollars' worth of quarters would be taken out of circulation by collectors. Given that the survey excluded people under the age of 18, the entire universe of schoolchildren who might be expected to collect the coins, those figures seem very conservative. Estimates by the General Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Mint of the amount that would be collected are generally consistent with the estimates in the Coopers & Lybrand study. Treasury Secretary Rubin and I are in agreement that the new State design should be dignified. To that end, the legislation authorizing the new quarters stipulates that the Secretary shall not select any frivolous or inappropriate design. The bill also specifies that the Governors of the individual States or such other State officials or group as the State may designate will consult with the Secretary of the Treasury, who will select the final designs. I urge the immediate adoption of S. 1228. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I also will yield back in a moment, but I would just like to say that we of course already miss the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] who is not with us today. He has always been a stalwart over there in support of what we have done, with Sean Peterson, his staff, and others who have helped with him. But the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett] is a very worthy substitute, and there is now an opening for the ranking member of this particular subcommittee. I hope the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett], who is one of our most distinguished members, will consider filling that, and we appreciate his kind words today. We do believe this is good legislation, we do believe the interests are valid in terms of educating children as well as helping with our Treasury and in making American coinage more interesting to all citizens of the United States of America, so we would encourage passage of the legislation.

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

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1505) to make technical and conforming amendments to the Museum and Library Services Act, and for other purposes.

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1505, the Museum and Library Services Technical and Conforming Amendments of 1997, and ask for their approval. The legislation before us today will make technical and conforming amendments to the Museum and Library Services Act in order to improve the ability of the Institute of Museum and Library Services to foster and expand our Nation's access to high quality museums and libraries. Specifically, S. 1505 will give the director of the IMLS the authority to waive certain civil service hiring and pay provisions to allow the institute more flexibility in hiring museum and library professionals to oversee the programs administered by the institute. The director needs this authority now in order to hire qualified deputy directors for the institute. However, this authority is not open-ended. This legislation specifically limits the director's ability to waive these hiring and pay provisions for not more than 20 percent of the institute's employees. In addition, the legislation as drafted limits the pay of these individuals to not more than the equivalent of a GS-15, currently $75,935 to $98,714. In addition, this legislation will allow special libraries to receive funding under the act if the State in which they are located deems them eligible. Special libraries are those owned by institutions such as hospitals or private corporations. It was never the intent of the authorizing legislation to exclude these libraries as eligible institutions, and this legislation simply clarifies that understanding. These amendments will also provide for a modest increase of one- quarter of 1 percent of funds appropriated to serve native Americans, clarify that individual Indian tribes may receive library funds provided under the act, and clarify that organizations providing services to native Hawaiians qualify for funding as native Americans. To ensure that State library agencies do not receive any reduction in funding, the one-quarter of 1 percent increase in funding for native Americans is offset by a corresponding reduction in the amount available to the institute for national leadership grants. Finally, this legislation will clarify the State maintenance of effort provisions contained in the Museum and Library Services Act so that State reductions and library funding result in proportional reductions in Federal library funds to the State. This change is in keeping with the original agreements made when the act was negotiated, and it is needed because some are interpreting the current maintenance of effort provisions as requiring a dollar-for-dollar reduction rather than a straight proportional reduction. Madam Speaker, the Museum and Library Services Technical and Conforming Amendments of 1997 are needed now in order to improve the ability of the Institute of Museum and Library Services to foster quality museum and library programs for all Americans. This legislation is budget-neutral. It has already been passed in identical form in the other body. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, before I yield back, I would just like to make a couple of comments, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I would like to thank and congratulate the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], who has been a wonderful individual to work with on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. He is knowledgeable, he is reasonable, which we are not always here, and he is a positive force for education in this country, and that is so vitally needed in this Congress, and we do thank him for all he has done. I also thank all of the staff people. This is a committee which does not get a lot of recognition, but in my judgment has as good staffing as any committee in the entire Congress. They work extraordinarily hard on both sides of the aisle to put together what I think is legislation in the best interests of the young people of our country, and for that we should be thankful. They are the ones who helped put together this legislation, which is technical but which is needed, and for that reason we hope that all will support it. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I congratulate all who had anything to do with putting this together, particularly the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] Just 24 hours ago, it was very dark as far as the future of Amtrak was concerned, and a lot of us were pleading to sit down and see if this could be worked out. A lot of individuals undertook to do that, and that is in the best interests of this country. We have resolved the problems of the labor issues, the problems of the legal liability issues, the problems of the board issues that were so important. Hopefully now, with the release of the capital improvement money as well as what we are doing in this reauthorization, Amtrak can become self-sufficient once and for all by the year 2002. We must improve passenger rail service. We are at the heart of it in Wilmington, DE. It is of vital importance to us. Our Governor is very involved, is on this board. But I think we have an obligation to make passenger rail service in the United States of America as great as our highway system is, our air system, which is the greatest in the world. It is going to take a lot of work to do it, but we have set the stage so that that can be done. So everybody that had anything to do with the resolution of this, I thank my colleagues and the country thanks to you, and we will see the benefit that will come from it.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. I have run over here, so I am a little out of breath, but I am delighted to be able to be here. I did hear some of the debate. I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] is also on his way. I think it is very important that we focus on the problems of Amtrak. I am not going to get into the debate of the nitty-gritty of what has happened in the Senate, where it is now versus where the House might go under the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. But before we leave in the next 24 or 48 hours, I hope that each and every one of us will understand that the future of rail passenger transportation in the United States of America is at hand. If we are not able to resolve the problems which exist now, we run the distinct risk of potential failure of Amtrak and the end of rail service as we know it now, or at least a worsening of the problem. I do not know, frankly, if it would go into bankruptcy. We hear these things. I have looked at the Senate version of this. I have spent the last couple of days reading this carefully. I have made some discoveries which I think should enlighten us in the House. One is that they have an Amtrak reform council, which I believe is acceptable to virtually everybody involved in this, which would give large control to the House and to the Senate as sort of a super board overlooking the board of directors which would help decide the direction of Amtrak. And, most importantly, we would have access to all the information which is needed. It would provide us the information we need to make the very, very important decisions in the financing and the future of Amtrak. That is crucial. We are about to yield $2.3 billion in capital improvements as well as operating expenses. We need to have that information. The Amtrak reform council does that. I think it is important that we focus on that. In addition, I think some of the suggestions which are being made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] are very sound suggestions and ones we should also look at. I hope we would be able to sit down with the Senate and perhaps resolve some of the differences that exist there. I think, for example, giving up some of the voting rights of the stock owned by the Government is something which may make some sense with respect to how we run Amtrak. When we look at the actual board and look at the difference between the Senate and House proposals, it is not that overwhelming. My view is this: We should have the best people possible on that board who are not politically motivated or answering to anybody who can run Amtrak. If I had my druthers, frankly, I would go out and pick the seven best managers of businesses I could find and put them on that board and let them run it. But I would hope we could come up with something that would allow us to have the best board possible. The bottom line is, I hope we do not get in a position of passing a bill or recommitting a bill over the objections of the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure without resolution of this with the Senate. I would hope in the next 24 hours we could sit down with the Senate and the House together and try to work out some compromise on which everybody can agree, so we can thwart and avoid the problem of an impasse here in Congress in which we do not go forward with Amtrak. We could wait perhaps, and perhaps there would not be economic failure, but if that happens, when the waiting game begins in Congress, it tends to go on and on. This is the moment, I think, for us to all act. I would hope that all parties involved in this could pay close attention to the details involved, we could resolve it, we could go forward and make Amtrak a better passenger rail carrier, and we could indeed be able to, at some point a decade or two later, look at this as a dark period in the life of passenger rail traffic but understand that we have now fixed it and we now have made America's passenger rail service the best in the world, not just in this country. We are not going to do it unless we sit down and talk to one another. I think we should continue to move forward, and I am glad the rule is moving forward, but I think we should work towards a final resolution of this.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would, too, like to thank all the great staff. I mentioned Sean Peterson before, but Jamie McCormick and John Lopez of our staff, they all did really a wonderful job on that. I would like to thank all those who spoke tonight who are very thoughtful, from the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] on down. These are people who have thought a lot about this, and do, I think, a wonderful job of handling these difficult and complex issues. Mr. Speaker, obviously, in final words for our friend, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Floyd Flake, I thought it was just me for a while who thought he was an exceptional individual to work with, and then I began to realize that a lot of people in this House thought that. I missed the tribute on the floor. I got there when he was actually speaking. I came back to my office from actually being down and meeting on this particular bill. I realized later what everybody said about him. I guess we always say nice things about each other, but I do not know of anyone in this House who is truly more respected, liked and admired than the gentleman from New York, Mr. Floyd Flake. He has done an exceptional job, not just in this subcommittee, but in general, and it is with a great amount of sadness that, while it may not be, we still have a coin bill coming along, but it may be the last bill we are going to handle, and I would like to add my homage to what everybody has said about him. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake]. I hope that whoever his successor is in the position as ranking member approaches it with at least 50 percent of the spirit he has for what we do and we will be well served. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. Let me just say that he is a wonderful individual to work with on these issues, a man that truly understands international financing, as well as international relations, and it made a big difference on this legislation, and we appreciate it.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], another gentleman who has a strong understanding of international finance and the importance of it to America. (Mr. Bereuter asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this important bipartisan legislation reauthorizes the Export-Import Bank of the United States, Eximbank, for an additional 4 years. Reauthorizing Exim is critical to supporting America's ability to export and will help ensure that American businesses and American workers are able to compete and win against subsidized foreign competition in today's global market. This common-sense legislation is good for America; it advances the national interests, helps reduce the trade deficit, and enhances our export competitiveness. Briefly, the conference report provides for the following: First, a 4-year extension of the bank's authority through September 30, 2001; second, an extension of tied-aid authority; third, an extension of the authority for providing financing for the export of nonlethal defense articles; fourth, a clarification of the President's authority to deny bank financing based on national interest concerns; fifth, creation of an Assistant General Counsel for Administration; sixth, authorization for the establishment of an Advisory Committee to assist the bank in facilitating U.S. exports to sub-Saharan Africa; seventh, a requirement that two labor representatives be appointed to the Bank's Advisory Committee; eighth, a requirement that the bank's chairman design an outreach program for companies that have never used its services; ninth, identification of child labor as a human right which can serve as a basis for a Presidential determination to deny applications for credit based on national interest concerns; and, tenth, the denial of export financing for sales to the Russian Government or military if that country transfers SS-N-22 missile systems to China, the President determines that such action represents a significant and imminent threat to the security of the United States, and the President also requests the Bank to cease that export financing. At this time, I would like to extend my deep appreciation to all of the members of the conference committee and others who have worked so hard in support of Exim, beginning with the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], as well as the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo]. In particular, I would like to express my gratitude for the extraordinary help and cooperation of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], not only on this legislation, but for the extraordinarily productive partnership we have shared in serving together on the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy. It has been a privilege for me to serve with the gentleman on this subcommittee. Frankly, I cannot imagine how we are going to manage without the gentleman, or his first rate chief of staff Shawn Peterson. We will miss them both. In closing, I believe this is a noncontroversial conference report. It deserves enthusiastic bipartisan support. I urge its immediate adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1026) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States. (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of November 7, 1997, at page H10210.)