Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank all of those who worked on this legislation. I am pleased to see almost near harmony with respect to support of this. I cannot imagine anything as important as teaching young people, and even older people for that matter, how to read. It is significant, be it the simple act of being able to read traffic signs or being able just to get around, to reading manuals, to higher education, or the simple pleasures of being able to read a book and to escape to some fantasy as a result of that reading is one of the tremendous necessities and pleasures in the life of anybody in this world, and we want our American citizens to be able to do it. The President, I think, was on the right track to recognize the power and importance of literacy when he announced his literacy initiative, but I think his focus was a little bit misguided in terms of having volunteers, who are certainly a very important component in ascertaining a level of reading in children, but we have to go beyond that, I believe. My office indeed has been involved as volunteers in the Everybody Wins program, where staff go to Tyler Elementary right up the street here and read with their children to whom they are assigned once a week, and it makes a huge difference as far as the kids are concerned. But the problem is more fundamental than trying to get children to like reading. It rests in the fact that many children simply cannot translate the written word into the spoken word. They lack basic decoding and literacy skills. Scarce Federal dollars should be focused on the most basic solution to the literacy problem. For a problem like this, I think teacher training is imperative. Reading teachers need to learn the best methods for teaching reading based on reliable, replicable research. By giving children the basic building blocks of literacy, learning how to sound out the written word, they will be well on their way to becoming literate adults, and that is exactly what this legislation does, as has been described today. Under this bill, States, through reading and literacy programs, will compete for literacy grants to use for innovative, in-service reading programs for classroom teachers and related reading activities based on the best research available, and I cannot think of anything which is better to do. Instilling in our young people the ability to read is absolute. This legislation helps do that, and I am again very thankful for all of those who put it together and hope that we all can support it.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me just first say that support for charter schools which truly are innovative and truly can change education in America is extremely rewarding and well placed, and I would also like to say that I agree with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] with respect to bipartisanship on education matters and for children in general. When is the last time we saw a 6-year-old who thought he was a Republican or a Democrat? We need to help those kids in every way we can. Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] for their exceptional work on this, and Mr. Riggs in particular for the extraordinary work that he has done on this committee to try to advance the causes of education. We need more of this in the Congress of the United States. I think this has been an exemplary piece of legislation, the way it has been managed and handled, and for that reason I hope we can all support it and pass it when the time comes.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Just to start this discussion, Mr. Chairman, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] will be carrying on here shortly, but I am a strong believer in the charter schools. I was not a supporter of the voucher bill that we just voted on, but I am a total believer that if we are going to deal with experimentation and change in our schools, this is the way to do it. I have been in every single school in my State. This is Delaware we are talking about. It is 182 schools. I have not been in one of the charter schools, but I have been in our three charter schools which have started. I think the best way to describe why we should increase this funding authorization from $15 million to $100 million and give them some additional latitude with respect to what they are doing is to say what is happening in these schools. The proof is certainly in the pudding when we see it here. I have been to the charter school at Wilmington, which was sponsored by a consortium of six employers in Delaware and focuses on math and science. It offers the most rigorous academic program in the State, pays teachers based on merit, and emphasizes values and character development. I have seen and heard of the Positive Outcome School in Dover, which targets children who are at risk of failure in school and who have learning difficulties and emotional problems. Ninety percent of students have attention deficit disorder, and 33 percent are learning- disabled. Positive Outcomes has a 1 to 10 teacher-student ratio. Yesterday I went to the East Side Charter School in Wilmington, Delaware. It is run by the Wilmington Housing Authority. Every child in that school is a minority child. Nearly 30 percent of the school's students do reside in public housing. It is a K-through-3 school. It offers an 11-month academic year, a 1-to-15 teacher/student ratio, two full-day kindergarten classes, a strong curriculum in the basic academics. It goes through teacher conflict. It essentially is doing the kinds of things we talk about doing perhaps to give our public schools a better opportunity. This is a great opportunity for those young people in that school. This is a great opportunity for the Congress of the United States to step forward and to do something which will help those students who can go to charter schools, but will also help us see how we can do better in our public schools. That is really what this is all about. It is a relatively simple bill. It is a piece of legislation which I think we should support universally. The President supports it. The National Education Association actually sponsors some charter schools. We would encourage the creation of charter schools by directing funds to those States that allow an increase in the number of schools. We would encourage autonomy over budget and expenditures of charter schools. We reduce the Federal setaside from 10 percent to 5 percent. These are the very kinds of things that we need to do in America if we are truly going to make our public education system better. I look upon this as a great help for the public education system, as well as a great outcome for those students who can avail themselves of the opportunity to attend the charter schools which are in existence now. We are going to double our charter schools in Delaware next year. I hope with this legislation we can do more across the country. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. This is a very interesting bill. It is very conflicted in terms of the usual beliefs that we have here. We basically have private property rights versus local decisionmaking. The Republican Party which sides with local decisionmaking does not in this particular case. I can understand the argument for private property rights, but then to give it to the Federal judiciary, which is not exactly an entity that is supported readily by Republicans, strikes me as being highly unusual. I do not know how they are really qualified to handle these kinds of decisions on a regular, simple appeal at an early process. And that is what this is all about. Could we argue that eventually the appeal could go up to Federal court? It is very unlikely. Now, it is very likely that the Federal court is going to spend about half of its time handling these local property appeals. They are totally ill equipped to do this. It just is not going to work. Do we want to expand the Federal judiciary to do this? We should note that the National Governors Association, as has been stated, 39 State attorneys general, the Judicial Conference of the United States have all come out against this bill. They have serious problems with it and they rightfully should. This amendment is a pretty simple amendment. I support the amendment. Sections 3 and 4 basically are being changed here. It eliminates the direct appeal to the Federal courts on local property decisions, which really, in my judgment, absolutely should be done. But if one exhausts everything, they could still do it. If one is dealing with a Federal agency, they could still do it. So it still leaves the essence of the bill. Yes, I understand the concern. I have a lot of respect for the sponsor of the legislation because I believe there are some private property concerns that need to be addressed out there. But this unfortunately is not the right answer. The bill goes too far. Now that we have had a chance to really study that, I think we need to understand it. The best thing we can do today is to pass the Boehlert amendment, a good amendment which adjusts the bill and makes it correct, and then go on and pass the rest of the legislation at that point. I would urge everybody to look at this carefully. These are significant issues and the burden that we are shifting over to the Federal courts is something we should not do. I encourage support of the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and also for all the work he is doing on this bill. I am a little concerned about the debate which I am hearing today. I am right in the center of Amtrak. Wilmington, DE, is directly between New York City and Washington. We are the ninth most used rail station. I use it personally. We have a lot of employees there. I speak to Mr. Downs on a regular basis, for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect. I think he is doing a wonderful job. I have toured the different facilities there and spoken to the union people. I have been through the whole thing. We have a problem on our hands, and I am not sure we are recognizing that on the floor of the House of Representatives today. And that problem is that there is almost a strike today. It would have started at 12:01 this morning, I believe, if they had not put it off for a week. It could start up 6 days from now. That is a tremendous problem. If we shut down Amtrak, we will have a problem. That did not come up directly because of this but because of a board which the President put together imposing some very high wage increases, which is all well and good, except nobody said how we are going to pay for it. It comes to about $85 million a year, is what it comes to, and we are not sure at this point how that will be paid for. We are not sure at this point what we will do with respect to the capital improvements, which everybody agrees are needed. We did pass $2.3 billion as part of the tax bill in the course of this summer, but we cannot get that released unless we get this authorization done. All these things have to come together and they all have to interlock together in some way or another. And while it is fine that we are debating the labor and liability issues, the bottom line is if we do not pass something pretty soon in the House of Representatives, Amtrak will fail, and then our debate will be about whose fault it was that it failed. We need to come to some resolution of this. We need to make sure the $2.3 billion is released. We need to deal with the strike issues as soon as possible. And by the way, I have serious doubts they can continue commuter travel at the same time that they are going through a strike. This would just clog the whole east coast area. Amtrak is vitally important not just to the east coast but to other parts of this country, but it literally would have an effect that is overwhelming in certain parts of the country, and the congestion on the east coast would be that. But I am bothered beyond all this. I am bothered by the fact we are trying to play catch up with Amtrak. And yet we go to other countries and see videos of other countries on television and we learn about the rail systems which they have, which are vastly superior to what we have in the United States of America. That does not exist in any other area of transportation but in that of rail. And I think we need to address that issue as well. This does have 500 destinations. Amtrak does touch in 45 States. It does provides over 22 million passenger rail trips every year. That is a significant amount of travel in this country, and my judgment is we have to improve it. We have that chance to do it. The chairman has worked hard to get us in that position to do it, and we have to pull together. If indeed there are labor, liability, or other issues that need to be resolved, such as route flexibility or whatever it may be, we need to sit down and try to work that out. But we do not need to defeat this legislation. That would be a serious error. It passed last year by a vote of 406 to 4. Let me tell my colleagues, it is a lot more urgent this year in 1997 than it was in 1996. I would encourage all of us to support this legislation, work out what the differences are and make sure rail travel in America goes forward.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo]. (Mr. MANZULLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I do not rise in opposition. Madam Chairman, this amendment, as has been so fairly stated by its sponsor, prohibits the use of Exim assistance for exports to companies that employ child labor. The majority does not intend to object to the amendment. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] seeks to address a very serious human rights concern that is being examined in a number of fora, including the OECD, as well as by our own Customs Department. Although we have doubts that Eximbank is the appropriate vehicle through which to address this issue, the amendment is certainly a powerful symbol of congressional concerns that inhumane child labor practices should not be tolerated. Having said that, let me register some apprehensions the majority has regarding how the amendment would be implemented. Is there any comprehensive list available to the Bank of companies that employ child labor? Would the amendment apply retrospectively to new transactions only? How would it be enforced? Would foreign buyers of U.S. goods see this as an extraterritorial of U.S. laws? It would be my hope that we would work with the sponsor of the amendment and the minority to iron out these details later in conference with the other body. Having said that, we will not oppose the amendment. And I applaud the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] for his thoughtful initiative.

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

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, this amendment prohibits Exim financing of exports to Russia if Russia transfers two sea-launched cruise missile systems to China, which is obviously a worthwhile goal. The background to the gentleman's amendment is a concern with China's international security policy, particularly with the perception that Beijing is believed to be focused on obtaining a greater power projection capability, in part through an enhanced naval capability. In addition, sales to China of advanced missile technology from Russia poses concerns for United States policymakers, as it does this gentleman, in part because of the potential for retransfer to buyers of Chinese supplies. In this context, the gentleman has raised a very serious issue and the committee will not oppose his amendment. Having said that, let me just highlight a number of concerns that will have to be addressed at some point later as the legislative process wends its way through here. It is very broad in scope. It would impose an automatic shutoff of all Exim financing to Russia if the transfer occurs. The cutoff would apply to any transaction involving a Russian interest, whether or not the export is to Russia or involves a project in Russia. By contrast, other United States nonproliferation legislation more narrowly targets foreign persons, including individuals and entities responsible for the arms transfer. The amendment, in its current form, also provides no waiver authority or discretionary flexibility to the executive branch. In addition, the committee is notified that the Department of State is opposed to the amendment, noting that current law does not proscribe or sanction arms transfer by third countries to the PRC. Nevertheless, the committee will not object to the amendment from the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules and, hopefully, we can work through what may or may not be problems as stated here. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I do not rise in opposition but, if there is no Member in opposition, I ask unanimous consent to control the time.

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo]. (Mr. MANZULLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I would like to make a couple points. First is, this is the Eximbank, not OPIC. Exim is not financing the Three Gorges project in China because of environmental concerns. Mr. Harmon, talking about small businesses and their involvement in this, says the small business programs at Eximbank will be decimated by the Rohrabacher amendments. He is the head of Eximbank. Exim has worked diligently over the last 4 years to simplify its small business programs. It has $2.4 billion in small business exports. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce].

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce].

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake].

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I agree with voting against it.

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I am in firm opposition to this amendment. I know it means well, but we do not have time to go through that. But essentially it would severely damage U.S. exports to developing economies, developing markets, and post-Communist foreign countries by prohibiting Exim financing for the purchasing of U.S. goods and services to any foreign buyer that is at least 50 percent owned by a foreign government or military. It is ill-conceived, and frankly it is counterproductive. It guts Eximbank's ability to effectively support U.S. exporters and their workers, our workers, throughout much of the world. It is plainly contrary to the national interests and the economic well-being of American workers. It is opposed by the Department of State, which has starkly warned that the amendment could do great damage to U.S. commercial interests. It is opposed by the Department of Treasury, which points out that most buyers in the developing world are public sector entities. It is just a fact. A prohibition on sales to such entities will put Eximbank out of business and cede export sales to our competitors. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has come out in strong opposition to this particular amendment, while at the same time strongly supporting H.R. 1370, the Export-Import Bank. The National Association of Manufacturers states that the Rohrabacher amendments would reduce U.S. exports or public works projects in every region of the country, and block U.S. exports to government-owned customers. These amendments would hand over billions of dollars of contracts to our major competitors in Germany, Japan, and France, among others. According to Exim, had this amendment been in effect since 1987, it would have cost the United States $8.7 billion in aircraft sales alone. It would directly jeopardize more than $11 billion in future aircraft sales. Why would it wound us so much? Very simply, it would cut off Exim financing for the export of U.S. goods and services to any public sector economy anywhere around the world, period. For example, if a United States company is competing on a public power project in South Africa against a Japanese firm being financed by JEXIM, Japan's export credit agency, this amendment would concede that sale to the Japanese. That is why we need a strong Eximbank, to level the playing field for American exporters and their workers. Let us be clear about the effects of this amendment. It would penalize U.S. businesses and their workers trying to compete and win in the global marketplace. It would lose billions in U.S. export sales. It would lose hundreds of thousands of good, high-paying American jobs. The amendment misperceives the purpose of Exim. It operates on commercial principles to support U.S. exporters. It operates as a lender of last resort. It finances the purchase of U.S. exports by foreign buyers at market rates. It does not subsidize foreign governments or militaries. A vote for this amendment is a vote to impose sanctions on United States businesses and United States workers because it prohibits Exim from assisting United States exports to the fastest growing emerging markets of virtually every continent around the world: Argentina, Brazil, Central Asia, Chile, India, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and the Ukraine. A vote for this amendment is tantamount to closing down the Eximbank. I would encourage all of us to rise in opposition to this amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on the two Rohrabacher amendments be extended to 20 minutes from the 10 minutes allocated from the rule, to be equally divided between the proponents and opponents. We have discussed this, and it is in everyone's interest to do this.

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

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake].