Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for this clarification and for his support.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last number of words. We have heard two excellent presentations by my colleagues from the great State of Maryland with respect to the problems of Pfiesteria. Indeed, that is what we are reading about in the national news in the Pocomoke River, perhaps another river in the Maryland area. But Delaware is close by Maryland. As a matter of fact. We have a Delmar and a Marydel, DE. One never knows exactly what State they are in sometimes. I guarantee the fish do not know what State they are in. We have had an outbreak of Pfiesteria in Delaware, sort of identified after the fact in 1987, when I was Governor of the State. We have had some concerns this year in Delaware. And several things have to be done. It has been laid out, I think, by the two gentlemen who have spoken before. I will not take the time of this House to reestablish everything that will be done in this bill. But we do need, as has been indicated, a multistate surveillance system. We do need case control studies and we do need a biological test of human exposure. Here is the basic problem. So far we have been dealing with this issue as States, been dealing with it through our departments of natural resources. That is true in all the States from Delaware down to Florida. There is an expert at North Carolina State University who has helped us a great deal. The bottom line is, there has not been a united, concerted effort to make a difference in fighting the problems of Pfiesteria. We have not necessarily identified what its effects are on human health. We have already heard this is a single cell organism that can manifest itself in a variety of ways, maybe up to 24, some of which are toxic. All of that is not absolute at this point. We do not know what causes this to go from a dormant form to one which is very virulent and which can attack fish and perhaps, in that way, human beings as well. Is it the temperature of the water? Is it nutrients in the water from all manner of sources which might exist, from runoffs or point or nonpoint problems? We just simply do not know that. We need to get the answers to that as well. We do not know what prevention mechanisms should be put into place in our various States and, quite frankly, the place to do this is right here at the Federal Government level where we can coordinate the efforts of all the States. I should point out, it is probably not just a localized problem. It probably could exist in other parts of the country as well. In addition, the research that could be done at the CDC might also help with other waterborne-related diseases or problems dealing with our fish and then our human beings in this country. So for that reason, I would hope that we could universally, all of us in this House of Representatives, come to the support of this very, very important piece of legislation. I am delighted to work with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]); I am delighted to work with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], two true experts on the environment. I think it makes a great difference to those people who reside in our States but I think to all people in America.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would further like to ask the gentleman whether it is the subcommittee's intent that the Department of Labor proceed expeditiously, this year, with site selections, facility rehabilitation, and leasing of suitable sites in areas that are allowable under guidelines spelled out in the committee report, and that through this approach fiscal year 1999 funds could be allocated for operational purposes.

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois is to be commended for his strong support for the Job Corps program. As the gentleman is well aware, Job Corps is our Nation's oldest, largest, and most comprehensive national residential and training program for unemployed, undereducated, and at-risk youth, and has provided almost 2 million disadvantaged youth with needed skills to become productive members of society. In the last program year, 75 percent of all Job Corps students were placed into employment or higher education when they left the program. Mr. Chairman, this legislation provides over $1.2 billion for Job Corps for fiscal year 1998. Through the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois, Job Corps received a $93 million increase from this year's appropriation. In its report, the subcommittee designated $2 million of this funding for the Department of Labor to use, and I quote, ``For serving more at-risk youth through Job Corps, such as constructing satellite centers in proximity to existing high-performing Job Corps centers, particularly in States without Job Corps campuses.'' Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, my home State of Delaware does not have a Job Corps center, despite substantial community support for such a facility and a demonstrated need for the services that it would provide to Delaware's economically disadvantaged youth. Delaware is only a short distance from the Philadelphia Job Corps Center, a center that is considered one of the best in the Nation. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman whether it was the subcommittee's intent, when including this language and these funds in its bill, for the Department of Labor to expend $2 million in fiscal year 1998 for the potential purpose of establishing a satellite of the high- performing Philadelphia Job Corps Center in Delaware.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer-Riggs amendment, and I am very cognizant of the stated concerns of the appropriators. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] spoke earlier, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] spoke to this as well. I think they raise some legitimate points. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could say that I was an expert on the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund. I know a little bit about it, I think, so it is a good program. I am not quite sure why it is getting the significant increase that it is getting here. The charter schools is already getting an increase, and this would take it to an additional $100 million. But I am familiar with the charter schools in my own State. In Delaware, like in other States, we are beginning to innovate and do different things to present a different way of looking at our public schools. Public school choice, for example, has become a very major issue in just about the last 2 or 3 years in my State, and I think it is a good issue. During the campaign last year, I was actually out at schools having an open house and I never saw such parental interest in a school. It was getting into a choice situation. We are beginning to see real changes. Mr. Chairman, charter schools invite that. In Delaware, we have charter schools. They tend to be very varying in the kinds of things they are doing. There are not many of them at this point. We certainly need all the guidance, all the innovation, all the research we can get with respect to charter schools, but it is making teachers and administrators and parents and students sit up and say, gee, do I want my child to go to a school of arts? Do I want my child to go to a business or finance school? Do I want my child to do something perhaps different than what the child might be doing otherwise? Mr. Chairman, the answer in many instances is ``Yes.'' It is breaking the mold. I agree with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], because I think we need to do some of this at the public school level, not just at the private school level. Again, Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of situation in which we have Federal money as an overlay to what is done at the State and local government level, but I believe that the Federal dollars in this have been well spent. My understanding is that the request of the White House was actually for the amount of money that we are taking this up to, or something roughly equivalent to it. So I assume that the Department of Education is fully prepared to be able to handle and manage this increase, if we are able to make this change. So while I have some reluctance to go out of the parameters as set forward by the appropriators, particularly on this very sensitive bill, I think in this instance we would be well-served to help this as the moderate step. Some people are opposed to vouchers to private schools, and I have mixed feelings about that as well. I think for those who are very interested in vouchers, that this is another offshoot, in a sense, to that; a way of bringing innovation and change to our schools. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage their support for this as well.

Mr. CASTLE

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have been concerned about this issue for some time as a Governor. When I became Governor of Delaware, we had the highest infant mortality rate of any State in the country. This is a State that is reasonably wealthy. I am the cochairman, with the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], of the Congressional Advisory Panel for the National Campaign to Reduce Teen Pregnancy. It is a tremendous concern. One point that I just want to discuss here tonight is the correlation that we are hearing between the advent of family planning and the increase in teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, and sex in general, in this country. I just do not happen to believe that. Mr. Chairman, I do not have the percentages, quite frankly, of how many people actually go to these clinics. But I imagine it is a very small percentage of young teenagers who are involved in sex or who become pregnant in any way whatsoever. But obviously with permissiveness in society across the board, with a greater disregard of marriage than we have had heretofore, we have some tremendous societal problems that we have to address. Mr. Chairman, so to say that these two are directly related to each other I think is really going too far. And when you think about that and realize what is the best way to deal with our poorest children, because basically the title X clinics are for poor children, they charge fees if you have income above a certain level. It is for our poor children, a lot of whom have family problems. Do we want to encourage the kids to go in there and get advice and help? And the answer is yes. We want to do everything we can to get the kids in the door, to get the advice of these counselors and the help of these counselors. It is that simple. Again, Mr. Chairman, I cannot stress enough how much I believe in the faith and the intent of those on the other side of this particular issue. But I believe with all my heart that the way we are going to help teenagers the most, the way we are going to help them with respect to dealing with this problem, is to make this an inviting and a warm circumstance. The best way to do that is to pass the Castle-Porter amendment which will address the issue that way. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Houghton]. (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim the few seconds that are left. I believe in the case of responsible parents in most instances we are going to find those children are never going to go to any of these clinics or receive that advice, they are going to go to their parents or get help otherwise. In certain circumstances that could happen, but for the most part it is in more troubled circumstances. We are going to see this child reach out for help. That is my belief. I think it is documented. I admit that I have not seen a lot of studies on it, but I think by common sense we can reach that conclusion.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. I would just like to make a point. I thought the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] made a very good point. He said he does not question anyone's motives and I certainly do not either. This has been a fair debate. I certainly do not even begin to question anyone's motives. But he raised the issue, and I think this is at the heart of it. How can we best help kids today? We may be talking about kids from good families but for some reason have a tremendous fear of talking to their parents about this at all. We may be talking in many instances about kids who have troubled circumstances in one way or another or are afraid to talk to parents. Do we want them in a situation in which they get no professional guidance whatsoever with respect to what they might do sexually for the remainder of their lives? Or do we want them to get some sort of guidance? We have to understand that in the State clinics, which I have seen, and I assume in Planned Parenthood and other places, that the advice that I have seen is generally one of counseling, of trying to persuade kids to practice abstinence, to get away from sex in every way possible, and any kind of a device or whatever is always something that is only done at the end and that is the way it should be, and I think often these kids need counseling and help, to talk to their parents, to talk to guidance counselors in school or whatever it may be. I wonder what a kid would think. Would a kid go to a clinic if indeed that clinic has some sort of a notification provision? Admittedly, the notification provision is for the supplying of certain equipment in this circumstance and not just counseling, or would it go to a circumstance where the child, he or she, would feel welcome and could get some help? I would judge that that child is much, much more likely to go to a clinic in this circumstance. And I think most parents, even though they would rather be notified themselves and be the ones giving the guidance, they would probably rather have them have good advice and counseling than have nothing whatsoever. For those reasons, I still believe strongly that the provisions in the Castle-Porter amendment are the ones which should prevail but are also the ones that are in the best interests of the young people of this country.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I have been reading over the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] as to when a provider can provide contraceptive drugs or devices. It says if the minor is emancipated under applicable State laws, which is redundant as far as I can see; if the minor has the written consent of a custodial parent or custodial legal guardian, which is where that language came in; if a court of competent jurisdiction has directed that the minor receive the drugs or devices. I cannot imagine a minor going to court, a 14-, 15-, 16-year- old going to court. And then the key provision, and in fairness to them it says the provider has given actual written notice to a custodial parent or a custodial legal guardian notifying the parent or legal guardian of the intent to provide the drugs or devices at least 5 business days before providing the drugs or devices. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to put themselves in the mind of a child. It could be a 16-year-old child or a 15-year-old child, whatever it may be. The studies show us that this child has been having sexual activity for a period of 1 year. This is a child almost inevitably that has not told the parents. This child has stated he or she will go on having sexual activity and they want some sort of protective devices, contraceptives or whatever they may be, and they go to Planned Parenthood, or they go to some sort of an outlet of a State, or whatever it may be. At that outlet they are counseled. Mr. Chairman, by our legislation we would encourage family participation in the decision of the minors. It provides counseling to minors on how to resist attempts to coerce minors into engaging in sexual activities, and that is how it should be. Frankly, that same child is simply not going to get into a situation in which it has to have written notice sent to a custodial parent. That is not going to happen. That means that that child is not going to receive any counseling whatsoever. The child is not going to receive any encouragement to see his or her family. The child is not going to receive any counseling with respect to coercion by an older person, such as the Illinois case, in the chances of sexually transmitted diseases, the chances of pregnancy occurring out of wedlock and the consequences of that become much greater as a result of this legislation. It is a simple matter. We have to think this out very carefully. I do not have a single question in my mind about the authenticity of the feelings of the individuals involved, but I think they have reached the wrong conclusion and they have set up more difficulty than they have provided relief for. So I believe we should support the Castle-Porter amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the arguments. I, frankly, think some of them are sensationalized, probably some are factually correct. But the truth of the matter is that we are pretty united in our goals here tonight. There are some 4.3 million individuals who go to these clinics for help in some way or another. We all, all of us, want to help our kids. There is nobody here who does not want to do that. We all would like to have parental involvement. I think the question is correct, is there always parental involvement? Generally, we are dealing with cases in which parents and kids cannot talk or identify with each other in any way whatsoever. You have to put these two amendments on a scale and you have to determine what is best for our children, how best to help our kids and families. What should we do? If you put down the Castle-Porter amendment, you will see that a child can go to a clinic and receive counseling, and be told that abstinence comes first, and be told that they should not be involved in sex in any way whatsoever. They will be encouraged to speak to their parents. That clinic will deal with abusive or illegal relationships when they know about it, and they did not know about the one in Chicago, by the way. There will be a place to turn to for help and advice. They may be willing to go in and get that help, although I still suspect there are a lot of children who will not even bother to go in there at all, but at least we have someplace for them to go. If we have a circumstance in which we are saying you have to have parental notification before they get there, that may be a fine law, but the consequences are that that number of children who would go to the clinic for help is going to diminish greatly. And when it diminishes, you are inviting the problems that come with it, which involve greater sexual activity, no discussion with parents whatsoever, it discourages responsible behavior, and it could result in more unintended pregnancies, and it could result in more abortions, which, of course, always follow from unintended pregnancies. Nobody intends that and people can reach different conclusions as far as that is concerned, but I do not know how one can really with clear logic look at this and not realize the conclusion that you probably are talking about unintended pregnancies and possible abortions, and that is not helping kids the way we want to help kids in the United States of America. Mr. Chairman, family planning is extremely important to make absolutely sure that we are bringing home the interests of all of those kids who just otherwise will not receive help, and the effect of the Istook amendment is to cut that off altogether. The effect of the Castle-Porter amendment is as it should be. By the way, it has always been the law that recipients of title X funds are in no way exempt from State-imposed criminal reporting requirements. They have to do that. We strengthen the Federal role in stopping sexual predators who prey on children. They must counsel their clients on how to resist and avoid such coercive sexual relationships. As I have already indicated, it involves counseling, it involves urging them to talk to their parents, it involves dealing with the abusive relationships, and it involves a place where they may have some comfort in going to and not getting advice on the street. That is what it is all about. We need to help our kids in every way we can. We have a tremendous problem in this country. Quite frankly, you cannot blame all teenage sex or pregnancy or maybe even any of it on family planning. It is a result of other social permissiveness that has come across this country, and I think we have to deal with it as best we can. The only way to deal with it tonight, and the best way for this House to deal with it tonight, is to vote for the Castle-Porter substitute.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, the congressional franking privilege combines two of the American people's worst pet peeves--one being the fact that Congress is perceived to enjoy perks and privileges unavailable to average citizens. The second is junk mail. American mailboxes are flooded with junk mail, and some of that is unsolicited mass mail from their Representative here in Congress. Members have a legitimate need to respond to the inquiries and concerns of their constituents, and the franking privilege facilities this. I think the public understands this, and supports this use of their tax dollars. Unsolicited mass mail from Members, however, is another story. In recent years, Congress has done an excellent job cutting back the taxpayer funding of franked mail. Fiscal year 1997's level of funding was 40 percent lower than 1996's level of funding--a very impressive reduction. Furthermore, Members are prohibited from sending mailings 90 days within the general election. But there is still room for improvement. We need to codify the reforms we've made in statute, and keep moving forward down the road to complete reform. For example, the volume of outgoing franked mail continues to outpace the volume of incoming mail. In 1995, the House sent out four times more mail than it received. If the House had responded only to letters it received, franked mail costs would have been only $12.4 million, saving $18.6 million or 60 percent from actual mail costs. In addition, use of the frank increases cyclically during every election year. During the 103d Congress, the House spent $24 million in 1993, and $42 million in 1994. The 104th Congress has narrowed this gap in total spending, but the irresistible temptation for individual Members facing tough re-election campaigns to use their franking perk extensively in election years remains. That is why I am introducing this bill today to further improve our franked mail system. It creates a separate account to fund mass mail, and bans transfers of funds into the mass mail account. It bans mass mailings in election years. It tightens the definition of mass mailings to include mailings over 250 pieces, excluding solicited responses and town meeting notices. And it statutorily reduces the funding for franked mail to a maximum level equivalent to the one mailing per address. By making statutory changes, this bill will make sure that future Congresses don't get off track and undermine the franking reforms we've made in recent years. I hope many of my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this important piece of legislation. Franked Mail Reform--Section-by-Section Summary Section 2--Official Mass Mailing Allowance (1) Create a separate account to fund mass mail. Currently, mass mail is funded out of the same account as constituent response mail. Under the bill, expenditures on mass mail would be identified under a new and separate Official Mass Mail Account. (2) Limit the funds available for mass mail. The bill limits funding of mass mail to no more than \1/2\ of the total mail allowance. Funding of the Official Mass Mail Account could not exceed funding of the Official Mail Account. (3 & 4) Ban transfers of funds into the Official Mass Mail Account. (5) Ban mass mailings in election years. Mass mail would not be allowed in election years until after the general election. This prohibition does not include direct response mail, federal publications, town meeting notices, communications with the media, and correspondence with other Members of Congress, Federal, State or local government officials. It also does not include mailings which relate to an emergency or disaster declared by the President, as long as the mailing is sent within 60 days and the mailing relates solely to the emergency or disaster. (6) Commission Approval mass mailings. Require the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards to approve mass mail. (7) Public Disclosure of Member expenditures. Require the quarterly Report of the Clerk to include the cost and number of mass mailings sent by each Member of the House. The current Report documents total spending on franked mail only. Public inspection of mass mailings. Require the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards to make available to the public for inspection and photocopying samples of mass mail, town meeting notices, and unsolicited mail in excess of 50 pieces. Recent rules changes have allowed watchdog groups and other citizens greater access than in the past, and allow photocopies to be made, but this should be put into statute. (8) Strengthen definition of mass mailing. The definition of mass mail would include mailings over 250 pieces, excluding solicited responses, federal publications, town meeting notices, communications to other Members of Congress, Federal, State or local government officials, and news releases to the media. An exemption is also provided for a single follow-up to any direct responses, if it is made before the end of the Congress in which the direct response was made, and occurs within six weeks after any significant congressional action. Under current law, mailings are defined as 500 pieces or more, which allows members to mail thousands of letters in up to 499 piece bundles of mail within days of an election. Clarify definition of town meeting notice. A town meeting notice relates solely to a notice, 5\1/2\ x 8 or smaller, of the time and place at which a Member or Members' staff will be available to meet with constituents regarding legislative issues or problems with federal programs. The notice cannot include more than 3 references to the Member, and cannot include a picture, sketch, or other likeness of the Member. Section 3--Provisions Relating to the Members' Official Mail Allowance (a) Reduce the funding available for franked mail to a maximum level equivalent to one mailing per address. The total of the funding allowed for the Official Mail Account and the Official Mass Mail Account would be equivalent to a level of 1 first class mailing per district address each year. Funding of the Official Mail Account would be limited to a level of \1/2\ the district addresses at first class rates (the Mass Mail Account could be funded at a level no greater than the Official Mail Account). (b) Ban transfers of funds into the Official Mass Mail Account. The bill would prohibit transfers of funds into the Official Mass Mail Account. Funds could be transferred out of the Official Mass Mail Account into the Official Mail Account. Section 4--Effective Date The bill would take effect the first session of Congress after the date of enactment.