Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, ironically enough, considering the discussion which we have going on today pursuant to a Republican amendment, title X of the Public Health Act, the National Family Planning Program, was enacted in 1970. It was sponsored by then- Congressman George Bush and it was signed into law by then-President Nixon, two good Republicans. The program, as we know, provides grants to public and private nonprofit agencies who support projects which provide a broad range of family planning and reproductive services as well as screening for breast and cervical cancer, sexually transmitted infections, and high blood pressure. It also supports training for providers and information and education programs, and a research program which focuses on family planning service delivery improvements. More than 4.3 million clients were served through a network of over 4,200 centers funded, in part, by the program. Almost 60 percent of the health care providers are operated by State, county, and local health departments. By law, none of the funds provided under the National Family Planning Program may be used for abortions. Today, we have an amendment before us, presented by the gentleman from Oklahoma, which would require parental notification with a 5-day waiting period, or consent. I know all of us would like to think that every teenager out there has a wonderful relationship with loving parents, but the fact of the matter is that many teenagers simply do not. There are young people out there who are afraid of their parents. There are young people out there who do not have parents. There are young people out there who, frankly, have nobody who they can turn to if a circumstance arises in which they need help in the kind of parlance that we are talking about with respect to title X. So there are young people who unfortunately would rush out and have unprotected sex if they knew practicing safe sex would come at the price of having a parent or their parents find out. Studies show, and this is important, that if parental involvement were mandated, 80 percent of teens would no longer seek care at facilities, but fewer than 1 in 100 would discontinue sexual relations. That is an incredible ratio when we consider it. This would, obviously, lead to higher pregnancy rates and more abortions. I know the gentleman from Oklahoma feels very deeply about this issue and cares as much as I do about young people. But his parental notification/consent amendment would effectively drive a stake in the heart of the family planning program and it would encourage even more irresponsible behavior. I understand the desire to get parents involved in their kids' decisions. I could not agree more with that. My amendment does that. It encourages family planning providers to encourage the involvement of parents when teens seek contraception and other family planning services. I think that is a very important step. Mandated parental notification/consent would scare teens into doing something stupid, like having unprotected sex in secret, rather than having their parents find out that they wanted to do the right thing, they wanted to be safe. Leading medical groups, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians, all oppose mandatory parental notification for young people seeking family planning services. I believe that the substitute will do nothing to prevent the victimization of children. First, currently, if evidence of rape, sexual abuse, incest or any other crime is uncovered, title X personnel direct the client to appropriate care providers and notify appropriate legal authorities. It has always been the law that recipients of title X funds are in no way exempt from State-imposed criminal reporting requirements. Our substitute amendment strengthens the Federal role in stopping the sexual predators who prey on minors. Under my amendment, title X grantees must counsel their clients on how to resist and avoid such coercive sexual relationships. This will not only help young people avoid such situations, but it will also help more counselors identify these situations and provide the proper assistance to end them. As I have indicated, we agree on the goal of parental involvement. We all want children to abstain from sexual relations at a young age and feel like they could approach their parents on this and every other subject. We would like to think that they all have good and open relationships, but that is not reality. Reality is that that is not the way it is. And the truth of the matter is that a lot of these kids need help. And if they do not get that help, the problems are going to be a lot greater than if they do get that help. So my judgment is that we need to listen carefully to this debate. I think it should be a full and extensive debate. But we need to understand the import of what the Istook-Manzullo amendment would do. It would lead to a situation in which children are simply going to refuse to go for planning, in which case there is going to be unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am the chairman of a subcommittee on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services called the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy. We deal with the Eximbank as well as the international financial institutions. My 1 minute will not allow me to go into all the different aspects of this, but we are very supportive of this legislation. We are also very supportive of the concept that the United States of America needs to continue to be involved with some of these organizations, including the World Bank, the International Development Association and some of the various development funds which are out there. We think that the International Development Association has become a symbol of the willingness of the United States to meet its international obligations. We will not be able to effectively advance our reform agenda unless we stay fully involved and keep our payments up to date, which we are attempting to do at this point and which this legislation indeed attempts to do. These are difficult choices. Few Members really wish to in some instances subsidize export promotion or be involved in some of these supports overseas with respect to these areas, but as we go more and more into international trading and an international economy, I feel they are necessary. I hope that all Members would take the time at some point to more fully understand what we are doing. It is relatively limited compared to most countries that offer the same level of support. But for today, I believe the foreign operations appropriations bill is doing just the right thing. Mr. Chairman, I rise to comment on the provisions of this bill regarding the international financial institutions [IFI's] and the Export-Import Bank of the United States [Eximbank]. Both the IFI's and Eximbank are within the authorizing jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, which I chair. For fiscal year 1998, the administration requested the support of the Banking Committee for authorization of U.S. contributions to the 11th replenishment of the International Development Association [IDA]; the 7th replenishment of the All Development Fund [ADF]; the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development [EBRD]; the Inter-American Development Bank [IDB]; the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility of the International Monetary Fund [IMF]; and the New Arrangements to Borrow [NAB], a new multilateral line of credit available to the IMF in the event of a serious threat to the international financial system. In addition, the committee has been requested to reauthorize the Export- Import Bank of the United States for 4 additional years. Specifically, with respect to the international financial institutions, the administration requested authorization of appropriations in the amount of $1.6 billion over 2 years for U.S. contributions to IDA-11; $400 million over 4 years for the U.S. contribution to ADF-7; $285 million over 8 years for the U.S. contribution to the second general capital increase of the EBRD; $76.8 million over 3 years for a scheduled capital subscription to the IDB; $75 million over 10 years for the interest subsidy account of the ESAF facility of the IMP; and approximately $3.4 billion (as valued in special drawing rights) for U.S. participation in the NAB. On May 8, 1997, the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy considered and favorably reported by voice vote to the full Banking Committee H.R. 1488, the International Financial Institution Reform and Authorization Act of 1997. That bill fully authorizes over 2 years the U.S. contribution to the 11th replenishment of IDA, the World Bank facility that provides concessional lending to the world's poorest developing countries. The subcommittee intends to work closely with the Treasury and other interested parties to ensure that the World Bank remains on the reform path and that U.S. taxpayer resources are used effectively. This commitment to ongoing reform is reflected in the policy provisions of H.R. 1488. But the subcommittee also recognized that IDA has become a symbol of the willingness of the United States to meet its international obligations. I believe the United States cannot effectively advance reform or our policy priorities if we remain in arrears to IDA and other multilateral lending institutions. In this regard, I would strongly support efforts to address past due payments to the international financial institutions in a manner consistent both with the overall request, and the assumption of a cap adjustment for exchanges of monetary assets and for international organization arrears as provided for in the budget resolution. Let's get these arrears behind us to ensure that America can effectively lead these institutions in a way that advances our national interests. The regional development banks were all authorized at the fiscal year 1998 appropriations request level, not because of a lack of subcommittee support, but in recognition of existing fiscal constraints. The ESAF was also authorized at the fiscal year 1998 level, although future subcommittee support for the ESAF will depend on the results on an ongoing external review of this facility. The subcommittee also authorized U.S. participation in the NAB. As you know, U.S. participation in the NAB entails no scoring of budgetary outlays. On May 8, 1997, the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy also considered and favorably reported by voice vote to the full Banking Committee H.R. 1370, a bill to reauthorize the U.S. Export-Import Bank through September 30, 2001. That bill was passed by voice vote, as amended, by the full Banking Committee on July 9 of this year. These international issues present Congress with difficult choices. Few Members wish to subsidize export promotion, but the heavy hand of our foreign competitors in trade finance makes continued U.S. support for Eximbank imperative. Likewise, many observers can point to specific failings by the international financial institutions, and the bipartisan agreement on the need for reform suggests that a good deal of the criticism of the IFI's has been at least partially valid. Yet there is also strong bipartisan agreement that the IFI's continue to make an important contribution to economic development and to the stability of the international financial system. On balance, they were serve U.S. international economic as well as foreign policy interests. I would urge my colleagues to give them their support.

Mr. CASTLE

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I will be relatively brief. Actually, I am one who presented three amendments, which were turned down. But I rise in support of the rule. My concern is, as it has been for some time, and this raises bipartisan hackles, I might add, is the use of the franking privilege. I believe that sometimes it is used in a political context, which concerns me a great deal. And I presented three amendments to address this. But I must say that this Congress and this Committee on Rules, and particularly the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], have really started to address these issues. And for this I have tremendous praise for them. For example, we have gone from a high in 1988 of $113.4 million for frank mail to free mail, which is sometimes used for political reasons, to a low of $30 million in fiscal year 1995. I am convinced, after discussing this with the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, that we are going to try to address even additional areas with respect to this to make sure that our mail is used for the purposes of responding to our constituents and not for mass mail used in a political sense. For that reason, I am here to report that even though my particular amendments, which I do not think we need to discuss now, are not being considered on the floor, the direction is good, the effort is good, the focus is there, Congress is going in the right direction. I just hope we can continue to do this. Mr. Speaker, I am here today because I'd like you to make in order three amendments to the legislative branch appropriations bill. These amendments build upon the progress Congress has made in recent years to reduce the cost to taxpayers of the congressional franking privilege. During the last decade, Congress spent from a high of $113.4 million in fiscal year 1988 to a low of $30 million in fiscal year 1995 on franked mail. This is an impressive reduction. Nevertheless, I believe improvements can still be made, notwithstanding the legitimate need Members have to respond to the inquiries and concerns of their constituents. My first amendment will ban mass mailings during election years up to the general election. 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. During the 104th Congress, the House spent $24.5 million in 1995 and $27 million in 1996. Currently, Members cannot send franked mass mail 90 days before a primary or general election. Since primaries occur on different dates in different States, Members are held to different mass mail standards depending on the dates of their primaries. My amendment will simplify the issue by banning all mass mailings prior to election day in election years. It will prevent House Members facing tough reelection campaigns from tapping into their official office accounts to flood constituents with self-promoting newsletters and mailings. My second amendment addresses a relatively new issue, raised by changes in House rules which permit Members to use their Members Representational Allowance [MRA] to pay for radio advertisements. The cost of these advertisements are not counted against a Members's Official Mail Allowance, even though these radio advertisements are generally substituted for town meeting notices sent by mail. This oversight frees up additional funds for a Member to spend on unsolicited mass mailings. I believe that these advertisements should be counted against a Member's Official Mail Allowance to avoid this substitution affect and my second amendment does this. My third amendment reduces the MRA by $5,674,000, the amount that the Appropriations Committee recommends as an increase in the Official Mail Allowance. This 27 percent increase over fiscal year 1997 funding is completely unjustifiable. Given the excellent work the Appropriations Committee has done in recent years to reduce taxpayer funding of franked mail, I believe this is the wrong approach to take. I know that it is impossible to serve constituents well while spending relatively little on franked mail, because I represent the third largest congressional district in the country, and yet I am consistently among the lowest franked mail spenders. We are diligent, however, at responding to letters and phone calls from constituents, and we have a very organized, computerized system of tracking the mail we receive and send out. The way I accomplish this is by refusing to send my constituents unsolicited newsletters, questionnaires, or postcards using the franked mail privilege. Last year, the Rules Committee made in order two franking disclosure amendments I offered, which were adopted on the floor and have been made permanent. Those were good reforms, and I appreciate your making the amendments in order. I believe that these amendments also make important reforms, and hope you will give them every consideration.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, and I would hope that the chairman would work with me and the authorizers to see that a commonsense solution is found that benefits both the Army Corps, the taxpayers and, most importantly, my constituents. Will the chairman work with me toward this goal?

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank first of all the chairman and the ranking member and all the members of the subcommittee for the excellent work they did under difficult budgetary restraints, and I want to particularly comment favorably upon their treatment of my home State of Delaware. However, I would like to point out a short-term and potentially long-term problem in the small community of St. Georges, DE. As the chairman knows, this Congress has recognized on a number of occasions that the United States has an ongoing legal obligation to provide good and sufficient crossings over many of our Nation's canals with ownership and operation bestowed upon the Army Corps of Engineers. Currently, the Army Corps owns and operates four such crossings over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal in Delaware, including two crossings at St. Georges. The Army Corps has notified the State of Delaware of its plan to close and remove one of those crossings, the St. Georges Bridge, at a cost of $20 million and without any consideration to my constituents or the taxpayers of this country. I believe this plan is shortsighted and is being implemented without congressional consent from either the gentleman's committee or the authorizing committee which has jurisdiction. I believe that there are many cost-efficient alternatives that properly take into account cost, safety, and human need, but I am afraid these alternatives will not be fully considered once the corps moves ahead with their demolition plan. I would therefore ask the chairman, whose committee oversees the Army Corps' spending, if it is his intent to allow the Army Corps to move ahead with a plan for the demolition of St. Georges Bridge without the consent of this body?

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, this Member thanks the distinguished gentleman for his time. Since this issue does affect a great number of my constituents, it could set a dangerous precedent which other Members may face in their districts, so I appreciate the gentleman's clarification.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in very strong support of this amendment. As has been pointed out here today, only 65 of our Nation's 1,600 crops enjoy Federal crop insurance subsidies. Peaches, as was pointed out, watermelon, squash, cucumbers, none of them get these subsidies at all. That is point No. 1. Second, we have all become familiar with the large tobacco settlement. I do not know the exact amount, but it is in excess of $300 billion over a period of time. We are talking around $32 million here for this program that perhaps the tobacco companies would have to step in and do something about. When we hear about the kind of money we are dealing with here, it is evident and clear to everybody in America that we do not need to continue to underwrite the insurance for the tobacco crops. And then, and perhaps most importantly, the public probably wonders what are we doing here? We have all these antismoking advertisements, we have all manner and members of the administration who are out saying we should not smoke, and many of us believe people should not smoke, and on the other hand we are paying people, or at least paying for their crop insurance, for the growth of tobacco. That is a tremendous problem. Tobacco does kill. We need to do something about it. We need to support this amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to fully fund the FDA's tobacco initiative to enforce restrictions on the sale of tobacco to children. Thirty-three States have pledged to work hand in hand with the FDA to ensure that provisions of its tobacco initiative are fully enforced. This amendment is critical to ensuring our Nation's success in reducing youth access to tobacco. Cigarette smoking among high school seniors is at a 17-year high, and smoking among 8th and 10th graders has increased by more than 50 percent since 1991. According to a University of Michigan study, an astonishing 18.6 percent of eighth graders smoke. And they are getting cigarettes from stores--on average, kids are able to buy tobacco products over-the-counter 67 percent of the time. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to stop kids from smoking. Very few adult smokers picked up their habit after age 20. In fact, 9 percent of adult smokers started smoking before age 12, and 90 percent started before age 18. Every day, approximately 3,000 young people begin smoking, and over half of them become addicted. Despite the fact it is against the law in all 50 States to sell cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to minors, kids purchase an estimated $1.26 billion worth of tobacco products each year. The FDA's initiative will make it more difficult for kids to sustain their smoking habit by reducing their access. It will require retailers to conduct ID checks of all tobacco purchasers who appear to be under age 27. This may appear to be a pretty high age for an ID check, but teens--particularly older teens--are notorious for being able to make themselves look older and more sophisticated. There are other important reasons to stop kids from smoking-- including a finding that heavy teen smokers are far more likely than nonsmokers to use heroin or other illegal drugs. Young smokers are also susceptible to a host of other health problems, including decreased physical fitness, respiratory illnesses, early development of artery disease, and reduced lung development. The offset for this amendment, the Crop Insurance Sales Commission program, reimburses private insurance companies for expenses associated with selling and servicing crop insurance policies. The GAO has found many inappropriate expenses included in reimbursement rates, including funds to cover country club memberships, a $44,000 fishing trip to Canada, and tickets to sporting events-- including $18,000 for a baseball skybox rental. As a remedy, the GAO recommended a $152 million appropriation. Even if this amendment is adopted, the Insurance Sales Commission program will still be funded at $174 million--well above what GAO recommended. Passage of this amendment is critical to reducing teen access to tobacco. The price of our failure to do so will be millions of tobacco- addicted adults, billions of dollars in lost productivity and health care costs, and unmeasurable pain and suffering. Let's cut our losses and support this amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I rise in strong support of the Neumann-Kanjorski amendment. Mr. Chairman, the Federal peanut program is completely antiquated, and only those who believe in Peter Pan could believe that the program works well. Over the last 2 years USDA announced the national peanut quota production level of 100,000 tons below expected demand. What does this mean? USDA basically created an artificial government-induced shortage of peanuts which, in short, means peanut-loving taxpayers get Jiffed; I mean gypped. At a time when we are reviewing every program for savings in order to balance the budget, it is simply nuts to spend taxpayer dollars on a program that refuses to adopt commonsense reforms to achieve real savings. Mr. Chairman, the Neumann-Kanjorski amendment is a positive step toward true reform of the peanut program. I believe it does help to protect consumers from Government price fixing, create a more competitive peanut economy and lower prices on peanut products. I ask all of my colleagues, Republicans, Democrats, crunchy peanut butter lovers and creamy peanut butter lovers, to support the Neumann- Kanjorski amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Nussle] for yielding. With respect to Social Security, it will not be exempted in the bill that we actually presented to the Committee on Rules yesterday. I do not know if it will be in the motion to recommit or if there will be one here today. What it will do, essentially, is start to deal with the debt of Social Security, which is something I think we need to do. We are building a deficit there. We are having a problem not having the trust fund. That is why we are going to have economic problems with Social Security in the future. This will be a great mechanism if we could add it to our bill. We probably will not be able to, but I would love to do that. But it does not exempt it per se.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Nussle] for yielding. I am clear that if we pass the budget enforcement mechanisms here that we are going to have better protection of the programs, such as Social Security, than if we do not. We are facing crises in Social Security sometime in the near future. In this way, we can look at it and we can make corrections if the money is not there. I think this is an improved mechanism in terms of dealing with not just Social Security but all of the entitlement programs, the concerns that have been expressed here today.

Mr. CASTLE. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I do not have any brilliant strategy to come forward with, but I feel very strongly about this piece of legislation, and I, too, would have liked to have seen it amended, and I too am concerned that the rules process did not allow that to happen. I have heard the explanations. But having said that, I regretfully support the rule, regretfully because I think there could have been changes to improve this legislation, and that is what we should have done in the best interests of the American people. But we did not do that. However having said that, I think we also need to move forward with the legislation; and to not support it I think would be a great mistake. Why should we move forward with this legislation? I heard some of the reservations, and I have tremendous support for the Hall of Fame Members of this Congress who have united in opposition to this; but we, the foot soldiers, I think, need to be heard on this as well. And in my judgment, this piece of legislation is a vital cog to the balancing of the budget of the United States in the future. We are going to pass a 5-year balanced budget plan this year, but we are not going to have enforcement mechanisms. And everybody can cite back over 20 years when we have done something similar to that in Congress and we have not been able to balance the budget out in the different years that come up in the 5-year period, and I am afraid it is going to happen again this year. There is a great deal of flexibility in this plan. It is not afraid to address any parts of the budget, be they discretionary or entitlements or the tax cuts. But it basically says that somehow the revenue picture changes or spending number changes, we are going to go back and look at it. And that is all the Congress is requested to do; we have to look at it, and we should do that. That is an absolute responsibility. How can we vote for a balanced budget amendment, how can we vote for a balanced budget but not be willing to enforce it? And that is what Alan Greenspan essentially agrees, it is what Tim Penny and Bill Frenzel have written today in the Washington Post, it is what almost all budget economic experts across this country have stated, and this is not something that a few of us can come up with in a back room. This was something that was put together by experts who believe in this as well. Support this outstanding legislation.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the bill (H.R. 2003) to reform the budget process and enforce the bipartisan balanced budget agreement of 1997, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 15 minutes of the time in support of the legislation be yielded to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have had some discussion of this legislation already in the rule discussion, and we will have additional discussion here. But there are those of us in this Congress, and I hope it is a large majority of the Congress, who feel very strongly that if we are indeed ever going to balance the budget of the United States of America, we have to do more than just pass something which is going to balance the budget in 5 years. Remember, there will be two elections to Congress in the interim period, as well as an election of the President of the United States during that time. There will have been changes, economic variables that will come into play. It is very possible we will never get to a balanced budget. We believe strongly that we should have a budget enforcement mechanism. We have worked extremely hard in order to put together a piece of legislation which would do that. I should say this is not something that was drafted by those of us who will speak to it today. This was worked on and drafted by budget experts across the United States of America. It has been reviewed by a lot of people. It simply has several provisions in it which we will be expanding on, but it says that we have to look forward and look back each year to ascertain where we are with respect to the different aspects of the budget itself, the different components that make up our budget in mandatory and discretionary spending, as well as in the tax cuts which are going into place. And if indeed they fall out of line and do not add up to the numbers, as in the budget reconciliation which we will have this year, then we, the Congress, can either do nothing, in which case there will be self-enacting mechanisms to bring it back into line, or we can step forward and act. I think the stepping forward and acting is a more likely consequence of this, and it is a reason that those who might say this could impact future tax cuts or Social Security in my judgment just completely overlook the fact that Congress is not going to allow that to happen. The bottom line is that this would be, I think, the ultimate way it would be worked out. We would come back as a Congress and look at it. We simply have to do this. We have to have a method. We have to have a mechanism. It is like buying a car. We need a guarantee or warranty on that car. It is what we expect in this day and age. What is going to happen to the engine and the tires and the body of the car, down the line? We feel the same way about the budget. This is bipartisan. It has been worked on by Members who care a great deal about it. In my judgment, anyone who believes in a balanced budget in this body, of the 435 Members of us, those of us who voted for those balanced budgets in the past, those who voted for constitutional guarantees of a balanced budget, should be supportive of this legislation. So it is for all of these reasons that I would encourage each and every one of us to follow this argument carefully, to not go for the scare tactics that may be put forward, and to make sure we cast an affirmative vote when it is all said and done. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard the scare tactics they talked about earlier. We heard about Social Security and maybe there will not be increases in Social Security. We heard about possible cuts in the veterans' programs. We heard that tax reductions will not go into place. What has happened because of what Congress has done over many decades now? We have had this tremendous deficit adding to the debt of the United States. About 16 percent of the cost of the budget goes to pay the interest on the debt of the United States of America. We have had tax increases because of that. We have to make changes. We need the budget enforcement. The budget enforcement bill provides that if there is a problem in terms of getting to where we need to be over those 5 years that we, the Congress, can waive the caps, that we, the Congress, can make programmatic changes, all of which we would do to protect Social Security or the veterans or the tax reductions; or we could do nothing and by sequestration it would be resolved. I do not think that is going to happen. I think these are scare tactics. I believe that, if we believe that we should balance the budget of the United States of America, that we have to do more than just say that, we have to have a budget enforcement mechanism; and that is what this legislation is. Vote ``yes'' today.

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

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] for yielding this time to me, and I do congratulate Chairman Goodling and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] and the staff of this committee, which is rapidly becoming the committee that seems to work out very difficult legislation and bring it to the floor with a minimum amount of opposition and really do something to improve education in America, and I do rise in very strong support of this legislation. We have to remember that about 75 percent of our Nation's youth does not receive a 4-year college degree, and in order to ensure that that percentage of our population is going to thrive in today's economy, in my judgment it is imperative they receive a quality high school education, meaning relevant skills and strong academics, whether they are bound for college, the military, further training, or go directly into the work force. In the past, vocational-technical education policy encouraged the development of specific occupational programs in areas such as trade and industry, business, and home economics. It targeted students with special needs such as displaced homemakers and single mothers, and today we realize mandating specific uses of dollars at the federal level does not necessarily add up to a quality vocational education. It is time for Federal policy to give more discretion to States and local districts, which are and always have been the true laboratories of reform. I just like to share my experiences in Delaware, which has an outstanding vocational education program. In fact, one of our State's three vocational-technical high schools, Sussex Technical High School in Georgetown, DE, was honored as a U.S. Department of Education blue ribbon school of excellence. This occurred after the school went through a paradigm shift similar to the paradigm shift we are seeing in the legislation we are considering today. It transformed itself from a center serving part-time students into a full-time technical high school offering a rigorous integrated program of academic and vocational studies to kids who actually choose to attend. In 1988, students from this school scored at the bottom of the heap on standardized tests, and enrollment had declined 35 percent in 10 years. After a massive restructuring effort in 1988, Sussex Tech became a full-time comprehensive high school with a challenging program of study organized around relevant career clusters. The result has been a dramatic improvement in SAT scores and in the number of students taking the SAT, a dropout rate of less than 2 percent, soaring enrollment in college prep level math courses and a 100-percent increase in percentage of students enrolling in postsecondary education. The bill we consider today encompasses the main principles of this paradigm shift which I was able to witness in my own State. It strengthens the academics of vocational-technical education students, broadens the opportunities of vocational-technical education students and sends more dollars to the local level for vocational-technical education programs, and I encourage each and every one of us to support this very outstanding piece of legislation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1818, the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act. This bipartisan legislation provides us with a balanced approach to addressing juvenile crime, and endorses the concept of holding juveniles accountable for their crimes while also providing for prevention programs that can help young people turn their lives around. This legislation is particularly important for States that have large rural areas like Delaware. Under current law, States are required to remove juveniles from facilities which also house adult prisoners. While present law provides a limited exception for rural areas, in some instances it requires juveniles in rural areas to be transported great distances to facilities far from their families. Under this legislation, juveniles can be held for longer periods of time if their parents and the court agree and the judge believes the placement is in the best interest of the juvenile. Though this provision will probably see limited use, it provides long-needed relief for rural areas like those in my State. This bill also contains a provision that I am particularly proud of. H.R. 1818 incorporates a bill I sponsored to give the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children funds to serve as the Nation's primary resource center for child protection. For more than 13 years, the National Center has been instrumental in locating and recovering missing children and preventing child abductions, molestations, and sexual exploitations. The center has worked with clearinghouses in all 50 States in locating over 35,000 children and preventing child abductions, molestations, and sexual exploitations. One of the National Center's success stories hit very close to my home. Just last month it assisted local authorities in the recovery of two missing Delawareans, who were located in Florida. Mr. Speaker, by adequately funding the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, we can solidify our resources, hone our message and assure every family and every law enforcement agency that we are committeed to long-term child protection. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1818.