Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the Chabot amendment. I would point out initially that the amount of money that we are talking about here in the funding, the $110 million, is a reduction from a substantially higher amount, closer to $200 million, which has been done as a reasonable step in conserving the taxpayers' money. I am a strong supporter of what we have been able to do with the National Endowment for the Humanities. The Delaware Humanities Forum is an organization which funds the humanities in Delaware. It receives nearly 90 percent of its money from the NEH. I was in Bridgeville, DE. Let me explain where Bridgeville, DE, is. If anyone has their senses about them, they are going to go through it on the way to Rehoboth, DE. That is how you get there, you go right through, on your way there. It is a lovely farming community in Sussex County, DE. I was there on October 18 of last year with most of the elected officials locally and in the State of Delaware. It might have had something to do with the fact that the election was a couple weeks later, too. It was for the world premier of this movie, ``If You Lived Here You Would Be Home Now,'' which is a slogan they use and which other towns use. It is a film about the life and work of a painter whose name is Jack Lewis. Jack Lewis came to Bridgeville, DE, as part of a work project many, many years ago, in the thirties. He is 82 years old now. This is an incredible film. It was shown in the high school gymnasium; 700 people showed up to see this film because of their pride in Jack Lewis. They had to have a second showing, and I understand that was almost sold out as well later in that particular evening. Mr. Chairman, the movie is interesting. I will read what it says on the back of the container for it. It says: In Bridgeville, Delaware, a town known mostly for the amount of scrapple, apples, and chickens it produces, New Deal artist Jack Lewis has integrated his art and murals into the lives of its citizens, and empowered these working people to express themselves on their own. By following how this artist has touched the lives of people who would not normally be exposed to art, the film explores larger issues about the role of the artist in society, public funding for culture, and cultural elitism, all from the perspective of a small town. I can tell the Members that the people of that town, to a man or woman in that audience, embraced that movie as they have embraced this artist who has taught the children, has taught the disabled, has taught the disenfranchised young people that had no place to go, has been in our prisons, has done so much for Delaware. It has been shown all over the State of Delaware. We have tried to get it, and may still do it, on public television. A review in the Washington Post said that perhaps there is a lesson in that story there about learning to love what is all around you, which is how Bridgeville has come to love art; it is everywhere you look. Because of Lewis, it has seeped into the lives of the barbers, dry cleaners, firefighters, undertakers. This was $50,000 that was put in by the Delaware Humanities Forum, which they say gets its money from the National Endowment for the Humanities to help make this film which has pleased so many people in my State, and in my judgment could please people around the country if they had a chance to see it. In short, Mr. Chairman, like everything else there is some risk, and there are some things that perhaps should not be funded, but the bottom line is so many wonderful things have happened through the National Endowment for the Humanities. I would strongly urge every single person on the Republican and Democratic side of the aisle to reject this amendment, to realize that we have already made sufficient cuts, and to realize that if we manage the National Endowment for the Humanities well, it can do a wonderful job in teaching us so much about our history and all the other things that other speakers have spoken to. I strongly embrace the National Endowment for the Humanities funding as put forward by the committee, and I would urge everybody to oppose the Chabot amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I believe the arts and humanities are important to the cultural life and diversity of our country--to people of all ages, to people in our inner cities, in our suburbs, and in our rural communities--and support efforts to promote the arts and humanities because of what they make possible in Delaware. For example, funding for the NEA and the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH] helps the Delaware Division of the Arts and the Delaware Humanities Forum provide grants for many community and school activities, productions, and initiatives. In addition, the NEA provides direct funding to the Delaware Symphony Orchestra, the Delaware Theatre Company, and OperaDelaware. Americans of all ages, race, and income levels can benefit from the educational and cultural opportunities of the arts and humanities, fostered through the NEA and the NEH. Our State agency does tremendous work in enabling the arts to flourish in our State--in the schools and throughout our rural communities. I would have liked Members of the House to have had the opportunity to cast an up-or-down vote on funding for the NEA. Unfortunately, the rule crafted did not permit a fair and open debate on this important issue. And the only amendment permitted was one that would eliminate the NEA and instead provide $80 million in funding to States and schools for arts programs. While I do think the block grant concept is one that deserves consideration and further review, I am opposing the amendment offered by Representative Ehlers of Michigan because I think it is a late and harried attempt to partially address the situation while still killing the NEA. I would support holding congressional hearings on his proposal and learning more about how it would work. At this point, we have no idea what the impact would be on States' arts agencies; how specifically the funding formulas for distributing grants to both the States and the schools would work; whether it would warrant a new bureaucracy within the Department of Education to administer these grants to both the States and the schools; whether or not underserved communities would benefit from these grants; whether lifelong learning programs and programs benefiting older Americans would continue; and a variety of other questions and concerns. Because this amendment, while offered with good intentions by Vern Ehlers, is poorly understood, should not have been the only alternative, was offered as a quick fix to a spending bill, and was terribly manipulated from a procedural point of view, I opposed the rule to bring this bill forward and must at this time oppose the Ehlers amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the arts but in strong opposition to the Ehlers amendment which at its best is an untested way of handling arts funding. The NEA is indeed a lightening rod. It has some basic good ideas. I give them a lot of credit for that. But this concept is less than 24 hours old at this point. It has not been tested across the country. Virtually nobody really understands what is in it. In addition, it is a travesty that we are not in this body voting on NEA funding, which every single Member knows would be reinstated to the exact amount it got last year if we were given that opportunity, because of legislative process and procedures that has been avoided. The bottom line is that most groups in this country that I have been in touch with through fax, by telephone call, whatever, are in opposition to this amendment. That goes all the way from the Conference of Mayors to arts groups in general to business leaders to State arts agencies, all of whom are saying this is not the way to proceed. So it is a dilemma for those of us who support the arts. I oppose the Ehlers amendment. I believe that we must move ahead with good arts funding by the Senate and by the White House.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to call your attention to a great contribution to science, technology, and progress made by the people of ILC Dover in Dover, DE. I offer my appreciation to the hard work and dedication of this company which developed the airbag system that allowed Pathfinder to land on Mars and reduced the cost of the Mars mission. ILC's success in aerospace technology dates back to their development of the Extra Vehicular Activity spacesuits used for space walks during the Apollo missions. ILC Dover's reputation as a cost-effective engineering firm with its core technology of developing high-tech inflatable systems, made them a logical contractor to team with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. ILC designed, tested, and produced the material development used in this highly visible project. ILC Dover has proved themselves a leader and model in the aerospace industry by providing technology in accordance with NASA's new focus: better, faster, cheaper. I am confident that ILC Dover will continue to provide innovative and cost-effective aerospace technology necessary to continue important missions such as Pathfinder in exploring our world. I applaud the people of ILC Dover and wish them continued success in their endeavors.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I too rise in strong support of the Porter- Kennedy amendment. When I came to Washington after the election in 1992, one of my goals was to work to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful government programs, and I believe many of my colleagues, if not most of them, came here with this very same goal. Well, today presents to us a golden opportunity. I am a cosponsor of the Porter-Kennedy amendment to eliminate logging roads subsidies because of a very simple reason. Federal construction of logging roads is a wasteful, unnecessary program that is a bad deal for the taxpayers and the environment. It is such a bad deal that a unique coalition has formed in support of this amendment. Republicans and Democrats from across the entire political spectrum have joined forces in support of this reasonable amendment. Let me make something very clear. I do support responsible logging in our national forests, but saying that does not mean I support asking the American taxpayers to spend millions and millions each year so that big-profit timber companies do not have to pay for their own roads. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not affect recreation or general purpose roads for fire safety or affect jobs. But what it will affect is the American people's confidence in this Congress' ability to cut wasteful Federal spending as we work to balance the budget and make the tough decisions on which programs receive Federal funding and which should not. It makes good sense to target subsidy programs that waste taxpayer dollars and harm the environment. I ask my colleagues to support the bipartisan timber roads amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I rise in strongest support possible of H.R. 2015, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This budget deal explicitly outlines the parameters by which this Congress will balance the Federal budget and reduce the deficit to zero by the year 2002. This is a truly historic achievement which demonstrates that, when we work in a bipartisan fashion, we can achieve the mission of fiscal restraint our constituents elected us to achieve. Our constituents have become increasingly cynical about government, and agreement will help restore confidence in the institutions and processes of government. It represents a triumph of the political system and a fulfillment of the voters' 1996 command to Congress to help solve our budget problems in a bipartisan fashion. Passing the first balanced budget since man walked on the moon is a solid and constructive beginning. We need to look no further than the States which started this process about 25 years ago and in that time has started to balance their budgets, improve their economies and receive ratings of excellent or very good for all their budgetary restraints and have done a superior job. Our constituents will benefit from this. It has been said by Alan Greenspan that interest rates may lower by 2 percent, and that is tremendous when we look at investment returns, lowering credit card and car loan rates, reducing mortgage payments, lowering consumer products' cost and creating more jobs and of course producing a better environment in which to provide tax relief. With this 5-year budget we begin a long-distance marathon which will require us to remain steadfast in our desire to ensure that this budget agreement translates into a budget that delivers on its promise of less spending, a smaller government and tax relief for all Americans even after the year 2002. While I am concerned that stronger budget enforcement mechanisms were not included to ensure the deficit revenue and spending targets will be met, I am pleased that the Republican leadership has agreed to address this issue in July. This is a solid step forward and will help show the American people that now more than ever the Congress is engaged and committed to achieving a balanced budget.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that the leadership of the Republican Party in total was involved in this. I think that is very important to understand. They were very accommodating. It has always been agreed that if this were able to be passed on the floor of the House of Representatives, and by the way, there is no commitment to actually support this bill from any of the leadership, but if it did pass, it would become part of the House conference package in terms of dealing with the reconciliation bill with the Senate which I think is important as well.

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

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 437. In 1966, Congress established the National Sea Grant College Program in order to encourage the wise stewardship of our marine resources through research, education, outreach, and technology transfer. Today, there are 29 sea grant programs, one in every coastal State and in Puerto Rico, working in partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Each program has a common goal: To foster the wise use, conservation, and management of marine and coastal resources through practical research, graduate student education, and public service. The University of Delaware, designated the Nation's ninth sea grant college in 1976, conducts research in marine biotechnology, coastal engineering, environmental studies, fisheries, marine policy, and seafood science--all vitally important to promoting coastal economic growth and improving the quality of coastal environments. It plays a key role in training graduate students in marine studies and its outreach staff provides a variety of groups, from business owners to school teachers, with a wealth of timely, objective information and assistance in addressing coastal problems and opportunities. Delaware's Sea Grant Program and others like it across the country are focused on making the United States the world leader in marine research and the sustainable development of marine resources. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the National Sea Grant College reauthorization and help make that goal a reality.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, on any given night, you can turn on your television during primetime and watch someone commit assault, murder, or any other act of violence. While you and I know that the violent world depicted nightly on our television screen does not reflect life accurately, all too often our children take what they see as truth. Children are particularly sensitive to the world around them, as they notice and absorb everything they see and experience. Study after study for decade after decade has confirmed the commonsense intuition that when children view violence their behavior becomes increasingly violent. The American Psychological Association estimates that a typical child will watch 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence before finishing elementary school. However, the harm caused by viewing violence is broader than the encouraging of violent behavior. Studies have found that viewing violence increases mistrust of others and fear of being a victim of violence, and desensitizes viewers to violence resulting in calloused attitudes and apathetic behavior toward violence. Over the years, Congress and broadcasters have sporadically tackled this issue. For example, in 1990, Congress passed the Children's Television Act to increase the amount of quality educational programming for children. The recent rewrite of the telecommunications bill included a requirement that television sets be manufactured with a computer chip that would allow parents to screen out programs, rated by the broadcast industry, that are inappropriate for their children. And more recently, the broadcasters have agreed to work out an industrywide compromise on generating a content based rating system. I support these efforts. Yet I believe more needs to be done. It is useful to put up signs warning others if a river is polluted, but it is even more useful to clean up the river. That is why I am introducing a resolution, with 11 other Members of Congress, expressing the sense of the House that broadcasters should not air excessively violent programming between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Cleaning up television will not resolve all of the Nation's ills. But as former Education Secretary William J. Bennett points out, in recent years we have seen an explosion in moral pathologies: Abused and abandoned children, out-of-wedlock births, drug use, violent crime, and just plain trashy behavior, as well as the vanishing of the unwritten rules of decency and civility, social strictures, and basic good manners. He attributes this to the fact that the good requires constant reinforcement, and the bad needs only permission. Turning the tide, reinforcing the good will ultimately take a massive collective effort, one that engages our families, our civic leaders, our religious leaders, our teachers, our community leaders, all levels of government, neighbors--everyone in society. But the media, too, with its enormous role in the socialization process, must join us in this effort.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 84, the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution that outlines the parameters under which this Congress will balance the Federal budget and reduce the deficit to zero by the year 2002. This is a truly historic achievement that proves that when we work in a bipartisan fashion, we can achieve our goals of a smaller Government, lower spending, lower taxes, and a balanced budget that our constituents elected us to achieve. There is no such thing as a perfect agreement, but this plan is the best agreement we could develop, and is a tremendous step forward not only for the Congress, but more importantly, for the American people. This agreement demonstrates that by working in a bipartisan fashion, we have the capacity to govern and to compromise--and to listen to the voice of our constituents, which has clearly called for fiscal restraint. Though our constituents have become increasingly cynical about Government, this agreement will help restore confidence in the institutions and processes of government, and it represents a triumph of the political system and a fulfillment of the voters' 1996 command to Congress to solve our budget problems in a bipartisan fashion. Passing the first balanced budget since man walked on the Moon, for all its faults, is a solid and constructive beginning. We need to look no further than the States to find evidence of precedent for this balanced budget accord. In almost every State where a balanced budget requirement exists, their economies are rated ``excellent'' or ``very good''. The States have set the trend for this, and it is time the Federal Government began to operate in a similar manner and live within its means. Our constituents will benefit unlike at any time in recent history if we truly place ourselves on a path to a balanced budget. The economic impact that the balanced budget agreement will have manifests itself to the typical family by lowering interest rates by up to 2 percent, raising investment returns, lowering credit card and car loan rates, reducing mortgage payments, lowering consumer product costs, and creating more jobs. In March, when the budget talks seemed to be breaking down, I introduced a balanced budget outline that showed that we could achieve a balanced budget essentially by splitting the difference between the President's 1998 budget and the 1997 Republican budget plan. I am pleased that this budget agreement reflects many of the goals and principles I outlined by using budget principles like a deficit reduction glidepath to zero with the deficit declining each year, reforming entitlement programs that preserve and protect Medicare and Medicaid, using Congressional Budget Office economic estimates, assumptions and scoring; introducing no new taxes; and forwarding tax cuts that are affordable and permanent--I forwarded a net tax cut of $77 billion; the agreement is for a net $85 billion tax cut. Though we have a good starting point, we must remain steadfast in our desire to ensure that this budget agreement translates into a budget that does not inflate the deficit or tax cuts, and does not undermine the carefully crafted plan before us. I am concerned that we are including tax cuts without the assurance of a balanced budget, and am also concerned that stronger budget enforcement mechanisms were not included to ensure that the budget reaches balance by 2002. Though this legislation continues ``pay-go'' budget rules and discretionary spending caps, there are a number of other additional enforcement mechanisms that should have been included that would assure us that spending and revenue fulfill their estimates in the agreement so that deficit targets will be met and the budget can finally be balanced. Congress must not rest on the initial success of this agreement, but must move forward--using the same framework used to reach this accord-- to better address the long-term concerns of further entitlement and budget reform. We have some time to prepare, but we must begin that work soon. I am proud to have played a part in facilitating this agreement and to have the opportunity to see that it is properly implemented, that important Federal priorities continue to be met, and that the budget reconciliation process includes additional budget enforcement mechanisms that will place us, more firmly than ever, on a course to a balanced budget by 2002.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1377, the Savings Are Vital to Everyone's Retirement Act. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Fawell], and the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. Payne], for providing leadership on such an important issue for the House to consider and for forwarding this timely piece of bipartisan legislation that I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of. Unfortunately, too many retired Americans today have misjudged their retirement savings needs and today's youth are following in their footsteps as well. These problems pose a significant risk to the future well-being of millions of soon to be retirees as well as the countless baby boomers who will retire after the turn of the century. Just as the long-term solvency of Social Security remains a vitally important issue that must be addressed by Congress very soon, so too must we also address the looming crisis in private retirement savings by reaching out to all Americans and informing them of this enormous problem. If we fail to do so, the impending retirement of the baby boomers will severely strain our already overburdened entitlement system, necessitating increased reliance on pension and other personal savings. The SAVER Act would do just that. Studies have shown that less than a third of all Americans have even tried to calculate how much they will need to have saved by retirement, and that less than 20 percent are very confident that they will have enough money to live comfortably throughout their retirement. By passing this legislation, we can help advance the public's knowledge and understanding of retirement savings and its critical importance to the future well-being of American workers, and provide for a periodic bipartisan national retirement savings summit, in conjunction with the White House, to elevate the issue of savings to national prominence, and initiate the development of a broad-based public education program to encourage and enhance individual commitment to a personal retirement savings strategy. Highlighting this national problem is one of the best things this Congress can do. Enact the SAVER Act now. The retirement time bomb is ticking.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1306, which will clarify the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking Act to protect the viability of the State banking charter. Our Nation has always had a dual banking system. A bank can choose a State charter or a national charter. As a former Governor, I can tell you how important maintaining a State charter is. An attractive State bank charter helps attract banking and business to a State. It helps produce jobs and revenue that help all citizens. This has been important to the success of Delaware and many other States. As we enter the age of interstate banking and branching it is necessary to ensure that State banks can compete fairly with national banks as more banking is done between States and across the Nation. This legislation will ensure that there is a level playing field between State banks and national banks. At the same time, it will protect consumers and maintain all necessary safety and soundness standards for all banks. This is an excellent bill that enjoys bipartisan support. I congratulate the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], the chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], ranking member, and the members of the committee and urge its passage.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1650) to authorize the President to award a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to Mother Teresa of Calcutta in recognition of her outstanding and enduring contributions through humanitarian and charitable activities, and for other purposes.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I rise in support of H.R. 1650, the bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Mother Teresa, a woman who is perhaps as close to sainthood as anyone this Congress is likely to meet. Mother Teresa of Calcutta has set a standard of selfless dedication to humanity and charitable works for nearly 70 years. She founded the order, the Missionaries of Charity, which now includes over 3,000 members in 25 countries who devote their lives to serving the poor with no material recompense for their sacrifice. Among many other humanitarian awards, Mother Teresa has received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom 1985. Mother Teresa of Calcutta is most renowned for devoting her life to the sick and dying, the poorest of the poor. She lives with them and ministers to their physical and spiritual necessities, seeking to influence the rest of us by setting an example and defining charity. This example must cause us all to reevaluate our lives in the light of her wholly admirable life. Mr. Speaker, the standard for a Congressional Gold Medal is the recipient must be someone one who has performed an achievement that has an impact on American history and culture that is likely to be recognized as a major achievement in the recipient's field long after the achievement itself. Mother Teresa's career embodying the principle of charity clearly meets and exceeds this standard. H.R. 1650 complies with Committee on Banking and Financial Services rules regarding the authorization of congressional gold medals. Although a committee markup was not held, a majority of both committee and subcommittee members are cosponsors. There is no known opposition from Members of Congress or the U.S. Mint. Mr. Speaker, this legislation may have set a record for the attraction of 325 cosponsors in a matter of hours. I understand that the sense of urgency is due to the desire of the House to present some tangible representation of this award during Mother Teresa's visit to the Capitol in a few weeks. The Congressional Gold Medal is the appropriate award, since it is the highest civilian honor this Congress can bestow. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to encourage everyone to support this. We will be asking for rollcall votes so people will have an opportunity to vote for it.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and solely to thank those who were the sponsors of this legislation. The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen] referenced this, but they did an extraordinary job of getting more signatures in this Congress in support of something than maybe anybody in the history of the Congress, for all I know, in a remarkably short time. So I congratulate them both on that. Obviously, the cause was extremely justifiable, which we have all learned here today, and we appreciate that, too. I also want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] who continues to be a wonderful ranking member to work with on this committee. Hopefully, we will have some success again today as we have before. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1650.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, on April 26-29, 1997, outstanding people from 50 schools throughout the Nation came to our Nation's Capital to compete in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. I am proud to announce that the class from Woodbridge High School in Bridgeville represented Delaware. These young scholars worked diligently to reach the national finals by winning local competitions in their home State. The distinguished members of the team representing Delaware are: Stephanie Adams, Gwen Bishop, Janelle Cannon, Josh Chaney, Mark Curlett, Sonya Dean, Maria Diaz, Jammie Dougherty, Leslie Elliott, Jane Kroeger, Stephanie Lane, Melissa Moore, Doug Neal, Jared Pinkerton, Justin Pinkey, Tammi Quillen, Billy Rust, Daniel Stogner, Allison Tatman, Randi Toomey, Christy Vanderwende, Roy Walder, and Crystal Yoder. I would also like to recognize their teacher, Barbara Hudson, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the team. The district coordinator, Diane Courtney, and the State coordinator, Lewis Huffman, also contributed a significant amount of time and effort to help the team reach the national finals. The We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program, supported and funded by Congress, is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 3-day national competition simulates a congressional hearing in which students' oral presentations are judged on the basis of their knowledge of constitutional principles and their ability to apply them to historical and contemporary issues. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People . . . program, now in its 9th academic year, has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels for more than 60,000 teachers, 22,000 schools, and 22 million students nationwide. The We the People . . . program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain an informed perspective about the history and principles of our Nation's constitutional government. I wish these young constitutional experts the best of luck and look forward to their future participation in politics and government. Congratulations again to the team from Woodbridge High School of Bridgeville, DE.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] for yielding. But more than that, I thank the gentleman for his tremendous work on a very difficult piece of legislation. He and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] have done an outstanding job. I do rise in support of H.R. 1385. I have heard some of the speeches here, and I will not try to reiterate what has already been said. But this really is a good-faith bipartisan effort, in my judgment, to simplify and improve Federal employment training by consolidating and eliminating over 60 existing programs. It was needed, sorely needed. I think it took a tremendous effort to do it, and I congratulate everybody. I do want to mention a couple areas that are of particular interest and concern to me in this bill. First of all, I worked to ensure that eligible activities under section 402 include single-purpose grants for training and technical assistance for housing and related facilities for migrant, seasonal farm-workers. In Delaware this fund uniquely enables the National Council on Agricultural Life and Labor Research and other locally based nonprofits to provide technical assistance that improves housing conditions and develops new housing in their agricultural community. I also supported changing the bill in committee to ensure that groups like Goodwill and Kent Sussex Industries, two community rehabilitation providers in Delaware, are included in the redesign process and are included on the regional work force development boards. Of particular concern to me is language that the committee adopted that would effectively preempt State law to give State legislatures unprecedented and sweeping authority over how Federal work force block grant funds are spent. The provision specifically requires that these Federal funds be subject to the State laws and procedures that apply to State funds. Delaware does not make specific authorizations for Federal funds now, and the JTPA and Private Industry Council continue to work very well, and have worked well in the past, including under my past administrations. Now, under this legislation, the law would be changed to require that all moneys be passed through the legislature, and I am very concerned that funding decisions will become mired in politics. There will be no assurance that objective criteria will be used in selecting training providers, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the funding system could be seriously compromised. The current system is more productive and provide Governors much- needed flexibility. There is no benefit to the Federal Government mandating that all States administer JTPA in exactly the same way, when we in Delaware have proven that a small State can make a big difference when given the power to choose our own way. I understand this issue will try to be worked out to the satisfaction of all sides involved, and it is something I will be working on as well as we move to conference. Otherwise, this bill is a giant step forward to help train our workers in a comprehensive way so that we can continue to remain competitive in an increasingly globally competitive environment. I congratulate the sponsors and ask everyone to support this legislation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I will not take long here because this issue will carry on with this whole business of this section 601 and this applying for the paper of the currency of the United States. I have been involved with this argument as the chairman of a subcommittee that deals with this particular issue, and this issue is much more gray than it is black and white. Essentially what is attempting to be done in the legislation now, and the reason I support the rule, is it is an effort to make sure that we will have fair competition for this particular contract. It is as sole source a contract right now as we can have in the United States. There is a special sweetheart provision demanding 91 percent American ownership. This is far beyond the Traficant amendment. It would fit under the Traficant amendment the way it is trying to be fixed. It would still be an American-owned company that would have to do this, and it would be a company which would have its paper made here in the United States of America. What they are asking for, what they have had for several years now, is a super buy-America provision, and we are trying to eliminate that and provide a fair opportunity for everybody, including, I might add, the present contract with the Crane Paper Co.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. To help put this in perspective, I obtained Consumer Price Indexes for selected items between 1984 and 1994. In this 10-year timeframe, the price of cereals increased by 34.8 percent, the price of sirloin steaks increased by 37.5 percent, the price of coffee increased by 40.4 percent, the price of housing increased by 44.8 percent, the price of transportation increased by 34.3 percent, the price of energy by 4.6 percent, medical care increased by 111 percent, and the price of college tuition increased by 149 percent. Clearly, the issue of rising tuition as it relates to affordable higher education needs serious and careful consideration. H.R. 914 would do this. It would lay out the problem for us and the solutions, and I encourage each and every one of us to support it and to help all of our young people get a college education.