Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I agree to some degree with the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] who just spoke. I do not think either of these bills is going to be the be all and end all in terms of solving the problems with respect to poor people or people in housing in general. But we have to look at which one would do better, and I come down strongly on the side of H.R. 2. I believe that we should look back to the welfare reform bill last year in which there were dire predictions by many people on this floor that this would be a disaster for the poor; if we pass this piece of legislation, they would be held poor forever and perhaps even poorer, and there would be all manner of problems in this country. Now I seem to read more and more articles and hear more and more people begin to say it has given hope and opportunity to individuals, and that may not be universally true, and I am sure it is not, and anecdotally there are probably stories against it. But the same thing is true, I think, of this housing bill. I have visited housing in Delaware many, many times, I have spoken to the people running it, and I frankly think they need more flexibility in terms of how they are running housing authorities there and across this country. I believe that a greater mixture of individuals, both by neighborhoods and who lives in particular areas, is extremely important in trying to help with the development of the community. I happen not to be opposed to the community service. I believe that is an opportunity for individuals and so becomes important as well. I think some of the operating formula incentives are going to make housing authorities better than they are now. It is going to make them think a little bit more and, I think, manage better. And there are a lot of things that we can talk about here, Mr. Chairman, as we look at this bill. We go down and compare details to details, and I give a lot of credit frankly to both sides because I think people care a lot about housing. But I believe that the bottom line is that we truly need to introduce change into the housing programs in this country. They have been without change now for years, in fact decades, and the time has come to provide that opportunity, and I think H.R. 2 does that. And I think that the minority side has been listened to. There are a lot of amendments in this legislation. Most of them are from the minority side. Most of them I think are good, by the way. They have been adopted and are part of the bill. So for that reason I would encourage support for H.R. 2 by everybody, once we have taken care of the amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The Individuals with Disability Act has been in existence since 1975 to ensure that all children have access to a free and appropriate public education. Prior to the enactment of IDEA, disabled children were often denied adequate public education. This legislation is critically important to millions of disabled children in America, not to mention their families, their friends, and their teachers. This law, however, has had unintended and costly consequences. For example, it has resulted in children being labeled as disabled when they were not. It has resulted in school districts unnecessarily paying expensive private school tuition for children. It has resulted in cases where lawyers have gamed the system to the detriment of schools and children. It has resulted in unsafe schools where teachers and administrators cannot discipline or remove violent disabled students. While this consensus bill does not contain everything I would like, I give it my strong endorsement. It contains a number of important reforms that address some of current law's unintended and costly consequences. To save Members the trouble of reading this 100-plus page bill and pulling out specific reforms themselves, I have compiled the following top 10 list of reasons to support the bill, and I would deliver it David Letterman style: No. 10. This bill encourages use of mediation, promoting cost- effective resolution of conflicts. No. 9. This bill makes it harder for parents to unilaterally place a child in elite private schools at public taxpayer expense, lowering costs to local school districts. No. 8. This bill sends more money to local schools, alleviating their financial burdens. No. 7. This bill modifies attorneys' fees, reducing litigation and eliminating the incentive that lawyers have to try and game the system. No. 6. This bill makes changes to the formula, reducing incentives to overidentify children. No. 5. This bill prevents the identification of children as disabled if they actually have reading problems instead, also reducing overidentification of children with disabilities. No. 4. This bill eliminates the two-track disciplinary system in schools, making schools safer and more conducive to learning. No. 3. This bill gives parents access to more information, empowering parents to become more involved in their child's education. No. 2. This bill reduces paperwork requirements, lessening the amount of time wasted filling out mind-numbing forms. No. 1. This bill protects the rights of disabled children to receive a free, appropriate, public school education, assisting them in their efforts to become productive and fulfilled adults. The committee had an important opportunity to approve IDEA and build on its previous successes, and it worked in a bipartisan manner to achieve this goal. I want to commend the committee leadership and staff for its excellent work in drafting this bill. I urge my colleagues to give this bill their support.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding the time. I want to make it clear from the beginning that I am a strong supporter of higher education. The productivity and performance of our economy is inextricably entwined with the investments in education that we individually and collectively make as a nation. Clearly, higher education is a valuable commodity, and it behooves us to make it readily available to our young people, our veterans, and to all Americans. Put simply, I want everyone who possibly can to have the opportunity to pursue higher education, but I fear that college may be eluding many Americans because of the costs of attending. College tuition is one of the most important determinants of student access. Unfortunately, it has been rising at an astronomical rate. Over the last 3 years tuition costs have been rising at roughly 6 percent or twice the rate of inflation, which is a vast improvement over prior years. Years of unchecked growth and not entirely necessary growth have left a legacy of inefficiency in many of our colleges and universities which should be reviewed. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 914 authorizes a short-term commission to study the rising costs of higher education and to recommend possible solutions. I would hope that this commission focuses on identifying plausible solutions rather than identifying the problem. I think that anyone who has spent time looking at this issue knows what the problem is and could identify causes. That is the easy part. The tough part is asking the tough questions and developing creative and reasonable policies to fix the problem. Do colleges and universities need to examine and refine their mission? What is a critical mass of academic programs, of professors, of support staff and of students necessary to sustain a college or university as a viable institution? What can colleges and universities learn from the numerous examples of corporate restructuring in the 1980's? Can they grow smaller without compromising the richness and depth of their academic programs? Should they carve out a niche and specialize in a few areas? What exactly are the components of a quality education? As a former Governor I know well the challenges facing presidents of colleges and universities who seek to restructure the system, make it more efficient and reduce costs while maintaining support from their constituencies professors, administrations, and students. It is no easy task, and I would urge us all to support the commission bill.

Mr. CASTLE

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in strong support of the Boehlert amendment which strikes a balance between protecting valuable endangered species and providing for the timely repairs to our Nation's flood control infrastructure. This year's massive flooding has been a great American tragedy, and it would be irresponsible if this House does not consider how to reduce the likelihood of such tragedies from occurring again in the future. But Congress should not use this as an excuse to undercut the Endangered Species Act which, rhetoric aside, was not responsible for the rash of flooding. The passage of H.R. 478, unamended, will not guarantee increased safety. Instead, the bill's broad blanket exemptions to the Endangered Species Act would have environmental impact far beyond the stated goal of protecting human life and property. I believe that the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] is a reasoned approach to assuring that truly needed repairs to our Nation's flood control structures are not unduly delayed by the Endangered Species Act. Today we are provided with a stark choice of one of our Nation's most important environmental policies. We can either vote to exempt millions of acres and thousands of miles of rivers from any endangered species protections, or we can vote to provide meaningful relief to those actually facing true flood control emergencies. Do the right thing. Support the Boehlert substitute.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this is an important point. I understand from talking to the chairman that the community work that we are talking about is very open-ended in terms of what it is. Is it work or is it volunteerism or whatever it may be. It may be a form of compulsory volunteerism. But it is open-ended. I think it makes a difference in terms of wages.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate, which is not dissimilar from both the debate that we had over in the committee and the debate that we had last week on this subject. I think there are legitimate issues being raised. I can understand them. I supported this concept in the legislation and I still do. I would just like to point out a couple of examples I have been through. One was in the area of welfare reform. Delaware became one of the first States to mandate having to go to classes, having to go through job training or whatever it may be, not work per se, tantamount to having to do something. I suspected that the individuals that were asked to do that would be up in arms about it. I went to the first class, there were 18 women and 1 man there, to discuss this with them. And I was really amazed at how well they had received this opportunity. Anyone who thinks that welfare recipients or people living in public housing are necessarily people who do not want to improve their lives, I think are wrong. I believe, given the opportunity, they are willing to reach out and help themselves. We have had tremendous returns on this in Delaware. We are very proud of our record under both a Democratic Governor and a Republican Governor. We think it has worked extraordinarily well. Just 10 days ago I visited two housing authorities in Wilmington, DE, and Rehoboth Beach, DE, and spent time talking to some of the individuals living there, actually in the living room in one case. They were telling me about the things they are doing which I would consider to be community work or voluntarism, whatever we want to call it, helping with kids, taking the kids to Great Adventure. Earning money for it, they were having a dance at night, teenagers were involved in it. We can call it work. We can call it voluntarism. We can say it is tantamount to work and they should be compensated, but these individuals were doing it willingly and there was a sense of community there. My judgment was that this is not as negative perhaps as it is being presented here, is the point which I am trying to make, although I think I understand the arguments that are being made at this point.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Johnson-Castle-Foley amendment, which the gentlewoman from Connecticut just spoke about, which is contained as part of the en bloc amendment, as was suggested by the sponsor of the legislation. Under the zero tolerance for sexual predators amendment I am offering with the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], housing authorities and owners of public housing would be required to reject any application submitted to them by violent sexual predators. Less than 2 weeks ago in my home State of Delaware, I spent the day with Delawareans living in Federal-assisted housing. I spoke with parents and children and got a firsthand look at life in public housing. During my visit I was approached by a little 4-year-old boy named Danny, who wanted me to toss a ball around with him. Danny's family lives in good, well-maintained public housing, working very hard to make ends meet. I thought to myself, the last thing Danny's family needs to worry about is whether he could be stalked by a dangerous sexual predator living near them in public housing. Mr. Chairman, according to HUD, there are currently over 1 million children nationwide living in public housing. In Delaware alone, over 3,500 children reside in taxpayer-subsidized housing. According to an analysis published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, two-thirds of convicted rape and sexual assault offenders said their victims were under the age of 18; nearly half said their victims were 12 years of age or younger. Mr. Chairman, our amendment would require public housing authorities to automatically reject any application received from a convicted violent sexual predator. These individuals would have had to commit the most egregious crime against a child, as defined by the Jacob Wetterling provisions passed by this House and signed into law in 1994, in order to be denied public housing. Under H.R. 2 as currently written, housing officials are given the authority to screen out applicants and their family members who are engaged in criminal activity. I amended the legislation in committee to give authorities access to State sex offender registration rolls, arming them with the most up-to-date and accurate information in order to properly screen out sex offenders. The zero tolerance amendment goes one step further by requiring public housing authorities to deny public housing to those individuals, violent sex offenders, who prey upon our children. Mr. Chairman, we believe that parents have the right to sleep better at night, knowing that housing authorities are screening out and denying housing to the most violent sexual predators. If my colleagues believe in this right also, I urge them to support the zero tolerance amendment as part of the en bloc amendment to bar violent sexual predators from our country's public housing.

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

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] and their staffs for hard work on this legislation and for their commitment to improving the future of the residents of public housing. In particular I would also like to thank Chairman Lazio for addressing my recommendations to improving H.R. 2, especially my concern that the performance of well-run housing authorities be taken into consideration in determining the formula allocation. Mr. Chairman, if housing authorities are going to be able to best serve the interests of their residents, they will need flexibility in managing Federal funds. Most important, we need community-based solutions. On the one hand, public housing officials must aim to rid residents in overcoming poverty and unemployment. At the same time they must work to preserve the interests of the elderly and disabled who rely on safe and well-managed housing. H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act, is a big step in the right direction in empowering housing authorities to meet these diverse needs. H.R. 2 would empower local authorities by deregulating Federal public and assisted housing programs and substantially increasing local control over those programs and decisions about who benefits from them. This bill will allow well-run housing authorities, such as the ones we have in the State of Delaware, the authority to develop creative ownership programs that allow for more flexible solutions for residents and communities. The bill deregulates and decontrols housing authorities to create environments that are fiscally sound and physically safe, and eliminates the disincentive to work. This bill also addresses the financial crisis plaguing the Nation's most distressed authorities by providing the new management structures and effective Federal and State partnerships. The long term success of public housing will depend upon the housing authorities' ability to work with local governments and community organizations to better allocate the Federal resources available for community and economic development. I support this legislation and look forward to the continuing debate on the floor. I hope we can come closer to a meeting of the minds with respect to it because I happen to think it is as important as anything that we can in Congress this year do other than balancing the budget, and I thank the sponsor again for the yielding of the time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I encourage the passage of the legislation, and I, too, yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], we have some time over here and if I could, if the Speaker would allow us to yield time to him to sing whatever he would like of Frank Sinatra's works. I even have a tape that my chief of staff said was his best, ``Only the Lonely.'' We could put that on and the gentleman could sing for a while. We would appreciate that.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] has done an admirable job on this legislation. It is not easy to get 300 signatures of the Members of Congress to anything, for all that matters. We did sort of crack the whip on it, he has worked on it a long time, and I do congratulate him. This is a great day for him as well as the Sinatra family. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. King].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 279) to award a congressional gold medal to Francis Albert Sinatra.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking and Financial Services be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 305) to authorize the President to award a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to Francis Albert ``Frank'' Sinatra in recognition of his outstanding and enduring contributions through his entertainment career and humanitarian activities, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This afternoon, I rise in support of H.R. 279, the bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Francis Albert Sinatra, a man who is perhaps better known to many Americans as Old Blue Eyes, the Chairman of the Board, or simply the Voice. Mr. Speaker, the standard for a Congressional Gold Medal is that the recipient must be someone 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. Frank Sinatra's career in music and entertainment clearly meets and exceeds this standard. Frank Sinatra is perhaps the greatest singer of popular American music of this century. His career spans over 6 decades. Sinatra's style, phrasing, timing and of course his voice have influenced and set the standard for American singers since World War II. In my home State of Delaware and across the country, there are radio stations that for years have devoted weekly shows of 3 hours or more to the music of Frank Sinatra. There are few musicians or singers whose music can inspire and sustain that type of long-term interest and enthusiasm. From his big band days with the Harry James and Tommy Dorsey orchestras to his seminal work on the Capitol label with the Nelson Riddle orchestra in the 1950's, Frank Sinatra became the preeminent American popular singer. He made the swinging Sinatra style of the 1960's and the 1970's the standard and continued to gain new fans in the 1980's and 1990's. Frank Sinatra helped define what Americans listen to and what people all over the world consider to be American music. From his own contemporaries to rock musicians today, everyone recognizes the impact Frank Sinatra has had on American popular music and culture. Mr. Speaker, this legislation did not materialize overnight. It represents the hard work of a number of Members, particularly the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], the sponsor, with bipartisan help from his colleagues the gentleman from New York [Mr. King], the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono], and others. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] has been a longtime advocate of a Congressional Gold Medal for Frank Sinatra. This legislation has not received any special treatment. I told the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] that it must demonstrate broad support by getting 290 cosponsors in the House. To their credit, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], the gentleman from New York [Mr. King], the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono], and other Members went to work to develop the support necessary to give Frank Sinatra the highest civilian honor this Congress can award. The bill has 302 cosponsors, including bipartisan support from Members of the House leadership, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] wants to be a sponsor, too. He just asked me. Mr. Speaker, before the ranking member of the subcommittee is recognized, I urge the House to show its high hopes, think of a summer wind, say I get a kick out of you and make 1997 a very good year by awarding this gold medal to the man who did it my way. I urge the immediate adoption of H.R. 279. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my sincerest condolences to the family, friends, and coworkers of John Jensen. An employee for 20 years at the Amtrak facility in Wilmington, DE, John Jensen lost his life in a senseless tragedy. He leaves behind his beloved wife of 16 years Bonnie, 14-year-old daughter Virginia, father Miller, and brother James. John Jensen was a family man who found time to coach a little league girl's softball team, and took pleasure in boating and fishing. He was a solid member of his community, and well respected by his neighbors as a friend. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues who rely on Amtrak service can attest, the employees of Amtrak are in many ways a family. The long hours that these individuals spend ensuring that millions of Americans across our country have safe and efficient rail transportation results in a bond of kinship. While there are many questions left unanswered in the wake of tragic events in Wilmington, what is certain is that the Amtrak family has lost a valued member. John Jensen was a foreman universally respected by his coworkers as a dedicated, conscientious, and well-liked member of the facility. He will be painfully missed by his colleagues for a long time to come. John Jensen was a man of fine character, great perseverance, and true kindness. While I know no words can lessen the pain felt by the Jensen family and the Wilmington community, it is my hope that from this tragedy some good will come, it is my hope that John Jensen's memory will inspire others to live as he did--dedicated to his family, involved in his community, and committed to his work. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by extending my hopes and best wishes for a speedy recovery to Jonathan Fedora and John Morrison, two dedicated Amtrak employees who were needlessly wounded during this tragic event. Hopefully, both Mr. Fedora and Mr. Morrison will be returning to work in the very near future.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, my primary concern has been the cost of mailing franked mail. I have been a staunch supporter of reducing the franked mail appropriation and am very pleased by the effort that has been made in recent years to rein in these costs, mostly under the gentleman's tutelage. The cost of mailing franked mail as presently reported does not differentiate between unsolicited mass mail and constituent response mail. Thus watchdog groups which report on how much of a Member's franked mail budget is used are unable to make this distinction, which I believe is an important one. It is the responsibility and obligation of Members to respond to their constituents, and I think the public supports this use of taxpayer dollars. Unsolicited mass mail falls into a different category. Yet the public has no way of knowing how much Members are spending to mail unsolicited mass mail. This is the issue I was trying to address with my amendment. The other body's administrative system makes it easy for that body to report its Members' mailing costs and production costs of franked mail. However, given that the House does not yet have a system set up to do this and given that production costs were not the target of my amendment, I believe that Members should not be required to report production costs.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding to me. My amendment provides for greater disclosure of franked mass mail costs than is currently provided. It requires that the statement, ``this mass mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense'' be printed on each mass mailing. It requires that on a quarterly basis the total number of pieces and the total cost of such mass mailings sent by each Member of Congress be disclosed to the public. It also provides for piece and cost comparisons based on the number of addresses that are in each district.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call the attention of the House to the work of James F. Cosgrove of Wilmington, DE. James is Delaware's State winner of the Veterans of Foreign War's Voice of Democracy scriptwriting contest and has received a $1,500 Edward A. Nardi Scholarship award. I congratulate James, his family, and VFW Post 3257 and its Ladies Auxiliary in Wilmington, DE for sponsoring this excellent program. As my colleagues know, the VFW has sponsored the Voice of Democracy Competition for 50 years to promote patriotic and civic responsibility among our young people and to help them attend college through the scholarship awards. The competition requires students to write and record a 3- to 5-minute essay on a patriotic theme. This year, over 109,000 students participated in the contest on the theme: ``Democracy--Above and Beyond.'' I am very proud to share with the House James' excellent essay on the need for young people to become actively involved in making our country a better place to live. Again, congratulations to James, the Cosgrove family, and the members of VFW Post 3257 and their ladies Auxiliary for their fine work. Democracy--Above and Beyond 1996-97 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Program (By Delaware winner James Cosgrove) The phone rang. The caller quickly told me to turn on CNN. Although confused, I turned on the television. I was soon shocked to hear what Wolf Blitzer had to report. The United States of America, under the direction of President Bush, had attacked the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. As the initial shock subsided, a dread thought invaded my mind. Would my father be sent to fight as well? At that time my father was a Lieutenant Commander in the Navy stationed at Camp Pendelton, California. If the fighting continued, he too would be among the masses of Marines being deployed from the base. The war raged on and the weeks passed. An air of tension enveloped our household since that first day in January when the telephone rang. We were anxious about what was to become of our father. As the war continued, I became increasingly frustrated with my government. They were endangering the life of my father on behalf of Kuwait, a country that I had not heard of in the six years I had been attending elementary school. For me, each day of stressful waiting increased my level of disenchantment. A few months later, the phone rang a second time. It was my father's commanding officer, informing my dad that he was scheduled to join the next shipment of Marines as a member of the medical corps. The will was written. The bags were packed. The family was morbid. At first I wanted to cry as my mother so often did. I decided instead to follow the example of my father's serene confidence and sense of duty. His air of determination comforted me and gave me hope that he would emerge from the Gulf unscathed. It was then that I realized what sets our nation apart from all other nations. The American people are what establishes our system of government above and beyond all other forms of government. People who vote. People who own their own businesses. People who feel such a strong devotion to their country that they would be willing to lay down their lives for it. People like my father. The system of democracy places the power to pass laws, support the economy, and protect the country in the hands of the people. This trust, an essential element of democracy, is what truly makes our government excel. Everyone can flourish in an environment where they receive the respect, trust and power necessary to make their government ``by the people and for the people.'' Such is the case of the United States of America! Thankfully my father was not deployed overseas. Instead, he was assigned to a stateside medical facility. As a sixth grader, I was not conscious of the fact that the democracy in which I lived was the model government. I was not able to comprehend that the freedom and individual rights that I experienced were not present in other countries. Greed and corruption may infest other governments but for 220 years have not been able to control democratic America. Americans should feel pride in being the key ingredient in a recipe that has produced the greatest nation in the world! A nation governed by a philosophy that is above and beyond that of all other nations.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire for yielding and congratulate him on his work in this area. I do rise in support of the resolution, but I really take the floor not so much because of this resolution, which I do not consider to be either dilatory or a waste of time, because it is getting its focus on what I think we should be talking about here in the U.S. Congress today, and that is balancing the budget of our country. I think it is absolutely vital. Let us not forget that people such as Mr. Greenspan has said that we will reduce interest rates by 2 percent if we can balance the budget. We are all talking about balancing the budget, and I think we should go with doing it. I think this is a good exercise to put some of these issues on the floor. I am not critical of the White House. As a matter of fact, I had a very good meeting this morning with Mr. Franklin Raines, the budget director, and Mr. Gene Sperling of the White House, and about a dozen of us to talk about the budget issues, the numbers. I think they showed some flexibility in terms of revisiting, relooking at some of the numbers which are here. However, I do become concerned when we do not move forward, and I do become concerned with some of the numbers that we are dealing with with respect to this particular budget. I think, first and foremost, it really has not recognized the parameters of using the Congressional Budget Office estimates and assumptions, and I think we should get to that point so we can at least argue from the same set of numbers. I realize there will still be some differences, but we did promise to do that. I think without the same economic baseline and numbers used for comparison purposes, it is too difficult to decide which is more and which is less. It simply allows no political accountability under the President's assumptions as we have now. I do congratulate, by the way, the Blue Dog Coalition budget makers. I think they did an extremely good job of recognizing the issues before us that are making the kind of hard decisions that I think each of the 435 of us should make and the President and his advisors should make with respect to balancing the budget. I might point out that it is not only the Republicans that called on the President to issue a balanced budget, but the nonpartisan Concord Coalition as well, that concurs with the Congressional Budget Office that his budget postpones most spending cuts until after the year 2000 and after he actually leaves the White House. So we have some serious problems with the delays, and I think we need to address these and deal with it, and I hope we can keep moving forward.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 36. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 36 to approve the Presidential finding regarding international population planning programs. At issue is whether the money will be released on March 1, or whether it will be further delayed by 4 months, until July. It is my determination that a delay will cause serious irreversible and unavoidable harm. In balance are the lives and the well-being of many thousands of women and children, and American credibility as the leader in family planning programs around the world. The logic behind delaying the release of the funds as agreed to last year is convoluted to me and many of my colleagues. Wouldn't the delay in support for family planning, even by 4 months, deny safe and effective contraception to couples who depend on these programs? Has it not been documented that we will surely see a rise in unintended pregnancies and maternal deaths, and could we see a return to unsafe and unsanitary methods to terminate those pregnancies? It seems illogical that those groups and members who oppose the proper release of these funds would indeed believe that we are actually promoting or funding abortion. We are not, and have been prohibited by law since 1973 from doing so. The fact is that a delay in funding will have the exact opposite effect of what those who would restrict these funds would have you believe. The delay in releasing these funds will result in increased abortions, increased overpopulation, and an adverse impact on the environment and our resources. I urge this body to go about our business of releasing these important family planning funds now, as agreed to in last year's legislation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, the 1996 elections highlighted a number of problems with our present system of camping finance--the power and influence of outside organizations, the tendency of wealth candidates to dramatically jack up the costs of a race, the ineffectiveness of the Federal Election Commission, and the wily resourcefulness of candidates and parties to raise the funds that they need. At this point, I think most Americans and Members in the Chamber would agree that there is a problem with our system of financing campaigns and that the present system should be changed. However, there is significant disagreement on the best method for actually reforming the system. Enacting campaign finance reform legislation will not be an easy task, in spite of its necessity. In the interest of moving campaign finance reform forward this year, I have agreed to cosponsor the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act sponsored by Congressmen Shays and Meehan. This bill has the momentum to move through the cumbersome legislative process, and by moving forward, the bill keeps the issue of campaign finance reform alive and on the agenda. In addition, while I have reservations about some provisions, the legislation makes many important reforms that will do much to address campaign finance abuses of recent years. For example, it equalizes PAC and individual contributions at $1,000 per election; it improves disclosure, thereby bringing sunshine on the spending practices of outside groups to influence Federal elections; candidates may match outside group spending without having that spending count toward their spending limits; it bans mass mailings in election years; it strengthens the Federal Election Commission's enforcement mechanisms; it bans soft money and bundling; and it enhances the power of small contributors by prohibiting candidates from raising or spending more than 25 percent of the spending limit-- $150,000--in contributions greater than $250, among other provisions. It also includes provisions to address the matter of wealthy candidates--if a candidate spends more than $60,000 in personal funds toward an election, then the candidate's opponent's spending limit is increased and the amount PAC's and individuals can contribute to the opponent doubles to $2,000. However, there are some things I'd like to see modified in the bill. For example, I'd like to see a requirement that at least 40 or 50 percent of a candidate's contributions come from within the State. I'd like to see stronger franking reforms, like changing the definition of a mass mailing to 250 pieces of mail or move rather than the present level of 500 pieces. I'd like to see a significantly lower contribution level for wealthy candidates--the bill allows candidates to spend up to $60,000 in personal funds toward the election. Furthermore, I have questions about the efficacy of spending limits, and whether they serve to hinder, or to assist, challengers. At this point, it is less important to draft the perfect campaign reform bill than to make sure that campaign finance is firmly established on the congressional agenda. There will be ample opportunity to discuss other campaign finance reform provisions once Congress is committed to cleaning up Federal election campaigns. This bill makes an outstanding contribution to the campaign finance reform debate and has the momentum to move through the legislative process. I urge my colleague to give it their careful consideration and cosponsorship.