Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3793, the bill just passed.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act. This historic agreement will address the health insurance needs of millions of Americans. Those who want to change jobs, or who find themselves stricken with a costly illness, or who find themselves unemployed, will still be able to purchase affordable health insurance for themselves and their families. The magnitude of the health insurance problem today is substantial-- millions of Americans are without health insurance--39.7 million non- elderly Americans, or 17 percent of non-elderly Americans, were without health insurance in 1994. This is in spite of the fact that the United States spends far more per capita on health care than any other major nation--according to 1993 estimates, national health expenditures totaled $884 billion, or 13.4 percent of the gross domestic product. There are many reasons for this high rate of uninsurance. Increasing numbers of health insurance companies refuse to insure those with pre- existing medical conditions or who work in high-risk jobs. Health care costs have driven up the cost of insurance, making it unaffordable. Rates for small businesses and the self-employed are extremely high due to their small risk pools. State mandates sometimes load up policies with unnecessary or unwanted benefits. Medical malpractice laws drive up the need for defensive medicine and expensive liability insurance for doctors. I am delighted that the Congress was able to work in a bipartisan way to achieve important health insurance reforms to address some of these problems. This bill is a composite of sensible ideas which will have a substantial impact on hard working Americans who seek to retain or obtain health insurance coverage. The conference report retains the best of the House and Senate proposals. It addresses the availability of health insurance by making sure health insurance is available for individuals moving from group to group or group to individual coverage. These portability provisions will provide important protections for the American people. It also guarantees the availability of insurance coverage to employees in the small group market, and assures people in group health plans that they cannot be excluded from coverage or from renewing their coverage based on their health status. The issue of affordability is addressed by strong anti-fraud and abuse provisions--which are particularly important given that an estimated 1 in every 10 health care dollars is spent on fraud or abuse. Some of the reforms include establishing a national health care fraud and abuse control program to coordinate Federal, State, and local law enforcement to combat fraud with respect to health plans; establish a Medicare Integrity program; increase criminal penalties for fraud and abuse violations under Medicare and Medicaid; establish a program to encourage individuals to report suspected cases of fraud and abuse in the Medicare Program; among others In addition, the bill includes administrative simplification provisions which should also reduce costs. Uniform standards for health information would enable the private sector to reduce paperwork--which accounts for an estimated 1 in every 10 health care dollars spend--make it easier to identify fraudulent claims, and make it easier for consumers to compare health plans and services. And it raises the health insurance deduction for self-employed individuals form 30 percent to 80 percent by the year 2006, and provides tax incentives for the purchase of long term care. The conference report also includes an important innovation--Medical Savings Accounts. I am extremely pleased that the conferees agreed to a demonstration program. Medical Savings Accounts hold considerable promise, as they can make consumers more cost-conscious and thereby reduce health care costs. MSA's give consumers a clear inventive to take a more active role in their health care. But before MSA's should be implemented on a grand scale, I think it makes sense to ensure MSA's don't have negative unintended consequences regarding the health insurance market or the health care choices that consumers make. For example, I imagine that none of us wants to see consumers forgoing all preventive care in order to build up their medical savings accounts. That is why the idea of a demonstration program is such a reasonable one. This bill will make health insurance more affordable for millions of Americans. It will expand the opportunities Americans have to secure health care for their families, and will provide protection in these uncertain economic times. Health insurance reform is an idea whose time has finally come, and I hope this bill will pass with a wide bipartisan margin.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call the attention of the House to the work of Christina Cabrera of Seaford, DE. Christina is Delaware's State winner of the Veterans of Foreign War's Voice of Democracy scriptwriting contest and has also been named a national winner and recipient of a $1,000 scholarship award from the VFW. I congratulate Christina, her family, and VFW Post 4961 in Seaford, DE for sponsoring this excellent program. As my colleagues know, the VFW has sponsored the Voice of Democracy Competition for 49 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 116,000 students participated in the contest on the theme: ``Answering America's Call.'' I am very proud to share with the House, Christina's excellent essay on the need for young people to answer the call and become actively involved in making our country a better place to live. Again, congratulations to Christina, the Cabrera family, and the members of VFW Post 4961 for their fine work. Answering America's Call (By Christina Cabrera) Ring. Ring. Hello. Hello, this is America calling. Oh, hello. I am calling to tell you that America as we know it is slowly deteriorating. The percentage of teenage pregnancy, alcohol abuse, and violence is every increasing. As for adults, the percentage of registered voters that actually vote is declining, unemployment is a widespread concern, and everyone seems to be pointing a finger of accusation at everyone else in a childish blame game. I know all of this, but why are you calling me? I am calling you because, as a member of today's youth, you are a part of tomorrow's leaders. You are the only chance America has. This phone conversation, though somewhat silly, is more serious than it appears. Unfortunately, many adolescents and young adults are not answering the call for action to make this country an even better place than it is. Though Americans are already free, the need to be productive and successful is important as well. Americans owe it to themselves as a nation, and to the memory of those who gave their lives for freedom and made the United States the country it is today. There are several ways one can answer the call. One way is to volunteer. Community service is always appreciated by those who are being helped. Working at a soup kitchen, visiting the sick or shut-in, or babysitting for free the kids down the road whose mother is struggling to make ends meet are all simple ways to make one's community better. Another way to answer America's call is to devote oneself to a political or humanitarian cause. Help make public service announcements concerning violence or drug and alcohol abuse. Join the staff of a Planned Parenthood Clinic or a Suicide Hotline. An increasing number of persons using these facilities need someone to talk to. Many options are available, and the experience is worth the effort. A final way to answer the call is to make a big step and join the military. This provides an opportunity for one to defend one's country, an important job in today's nuclear-weapon-stocked world. It does not matter what one does, as long as one takes the initiative to help out instead of waiting for others to do so. The most important part of answering America's call is to cease playing the blame game. By making oneself a victim and shifting the blame on everyone else, one only adds to the problems plaguing our country. Instead of complaining that society treats women unfairly, join a group that advocates change. Instead of complaining that racial minorities are unequally treated, write to Congress and let them know. If change is to be brought about, it will only occur if everyone helps to make it happen. By answering the call, not only will Americans be helping the United States become a stronger nation, but will also be setting an example for others to start contributing their talents to make America a better place. When everyone begins doing their part, a magnificent nation will emerge.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Teenage Pregnancy Reduction Act of 1996. This legislation is an important commitment on the part of Congress to give local communities the resources they need to operate effective teenage pregnancy programs. More specifically, the bill authorizes $10.5 million in total over 3 years--fiscal year 1997 thru fiscal year 1999--for HHS to conduct a study of effective teen pregnancy prevention programs, with an emphasis on determining the factors contributing to the effectiveness of the programs, and methods for replicating the programs in other locations. It also authorizes the creation of an information clearinghouse to collect, maintain, and disseminate information on prevention programs; to develop networks of prevention programs; to provide technical assistance and to encourage public media campaigns regarding pregnancy in teenagers. Finally, it authorizes $10 million in total over 3 years--fiscal year 2000 thru fiscal year 2003--for one-time incentive grants for programs which are found to be effective under HHS's study described earlier, to assist them with the expenses of operating the program. Helping our communities prevent teenage pregnancy is an important mission. The United States has the highest teenage birth rate of industrialized countries, which has far reaching consequences for our Nation's teenager mothers and their children. Unmarried teenagers who become pregnant face severe emotional, physical, and financial difficulties. The children born to unmarried teenagers will struggle to fulfill the promise given to all human life, and many of them simply will not succeed. Many of them will remain trapped in a cycle of poverty, and unfortunately may become part of our criminal justice system. How bad is the problem? In 1960, 15 percent of teen births were out of wedlock. In 1970, 30 percent of teen births were out of wedlock. In 1980, 48 percent of teen births were out of wedlock. In 1990, 68 percent of teen births were out of wedlock. In 1993, 72 percent of all teen births were out of wedlock. Why do we care about this? For the simple reason that beyond the statistics, this trend has devastating consequences for the young women who became unwed teen parents, and for the children born to them. A recently released report, Kids Having Kids, by the Robin Hood Foundation quantified some of these consequences. Compared to those who delay childbearing until they are 20 or 21, adolescent mothers: Spend 57 percent more time as single parents in their first 13 years; are 50 percent more likely to depend on welfare; are 50 percent less likely to complete high school; and are 24 percent more likely to have more children. Children of adolescents--compared to children of 20 and 21 year olds--are more likely to be born prematurely and 50 percent likely to be low-birth weight babies or less than 5\1/2\ pounds--meaning an increased likelihood of infant death, mental retardation, or illness, dyslexia, hyperactivity, among others. However can we make a difference? By working in partnership with communities. At the national level, we need to take a clear stand against teenage pregnancy and foster a national discussion--involving national leaders, respected organizations, the media, and States about how religion, culture, and public values influence both teen pregnancy and responses to it. The Congressional Advisory Committee to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, which consists of 24 committed Members of the House and which I co-chair with Congresswoman Lowey, will pay an active role in this discussion. I will include for the record a list of the Members of the congressional committee. Members of the Congressional Advisory Panel to the National Campaign To Reduce Teenage Pregnancy are: Thomas M. Barrett, Michael N. Castle, Co-Chair; Eva M. Clayton, Vice Chair; Richard J. Durbin, James C. Greenwood, W.G. Hefner, Stephen Horn, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Nancy L. Johnson, Vice Chair; Jim Kolbe, James A. Leach, John Lewis, Nita M. Lowey, Co-chair; Susan Molinari, James P. Moran, Constance A. Morella, John Edward Porter, Deborah Pryce, Tim Roemer, Peter G. Torkildsen, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Christopher Shays, Karen L. Thurman, and Edolphus Towns. At the local level, communities need to develop programs targeted to the characteristics, needs, and values of its families. Communities know what their needs are and what will be most effective with their teenagers, so it is critical that they design and implement the programs, not the federal government. This legislation will assist efforts of communities, and I hope that my colleagues will join me as a cosponsor. Our goal to reduce teen pregnancy is challenging and difficult. But if we work together we can make a difference.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider the vote on the table.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I cannot thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] enough. At a time when somebody had to listen, he did. We do not always do that in this building, and it is just a tremendous honor to him that we are passing this bill today. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, Congressman John Tanner, not a finer person to work with I know in the House, who acted in a bipartisan way when I think we needed that in order to bring this bill into line. I thank the President, who I understand is going to sign this legislation. I believe he is doing the right thing for a variety of reasons. I believe the safety net was put back into place that we have talked about in several ways in the area of Medicaid, food stamps, and the ability of States to set up voucher systems after 5 years. I think they can deal with that. I have believed strongly, in my fight for welfare reform for 12 years now, that this is the opportunity. Everyone talks about this in a very draconian sense. I believe this is opportunity for women, for children, in some instances for men, and for families. It is opportunity because we are going to take people who have not had a true chance to live the American life in terms of their education and background and we are giving them that chance. It is an experiment. We may have to come back to it, but I congratulate everybody.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the bill. We stand today at a historic divide, a defining moment that separates the past from the future, one which pits personal responsibility, work, and State flexibility against the largely failed welfare policies and practices of the past. Today marks a turning point for all of us, the Congress, our constituents, and perhaps most importantly, those welfare recipients. I am pleased that the bipartisan Castle-Tanner reform proposal has provided some very positive changes and provisions that will help shame welfare reform for the better. Perhaps the most important provision we helped retain was current law on guaranteeing Medicaid eligibility to all welfare recipients and those who may be eligible in the future. Also, the food stamp optional block grants and the child welfare block grants were dropped, thus retaining minimum Federal standards and preserving these national safety nets. On balance, we have achieved what we can all support. With this legislation we have finally begun the process by which America's underclass problem can be solved, and break a generational cycle and culture of dependency and poverty. Congress is now the shepherd of welfare reform, not the President, and it is up to us to review and improve upon this proposal. I, for one, stand ready and committed to revisit it, if need be, to make sure welfare reform is going to work. Mr. Speaker, we stand today at a historic divide, a defining moment that separates the past from the future; one which pits personal responsibility, work, and State flexibility against the largely failed welfare policies and practices of the past. Today marks a turning point for all of us--the Congress, our constituents, and perhaps most importantly, those welfare recipients. Just as our Nation was formed, we stand ready to forward a bold experiment in reforming our Nation's welfare system. But like most experiments, we will most certainly have to revisit our decisions. Though we have tried, there may not be enough resources for children's care, or to adequately fund the work program that is the centerpiece of this legislation. There most likely will be economic downturns that force Governors and the Congress to reevaluate. States may require more flexibility in meeting the stringent work requirements. There are innumerable potential pitfalls. As a coauthor of the bipartisan Castle-Tanner welfare reform proposal, John Tanner and I have helped forward some very positive changes and provisions that will help shape reform welfare for the better. Perhaps the most important provision I helped retain was current law on guaranteeing Medicaid eligibility to all welfare recipients, and those who may be eligible in the future. The food stamp optional block grant and the child welfare block grant were dropped, thus retaining minimum Federal standards and preserving these national safety nets. Protecting children in families that lose cash assistance is a high priority. Although I would have preferred mandatory in-kind assistance after a 5-year time limit on cash assistance, I am mostly satisfied that a provision could be added that would ensure that States can utilize Federal funds from the social services block grant for the care of the child. Furthermore, we were successful in ensuring that a higher State maintenance of effort on State spending could be included in the conference report. We also were successful in including language that would require that Congress review in 3 years the work program to ensure its success. Last, Castle-Tanner has had a moderating impact on the burdens that the noncitizen provisions will put on our Nation's future citizens, primarily in the health care area. While Castle-Tanner included stronger protections for children and families under the cash block grant, increased funding for the welfare-to-work programs, significantly smaller food stamp cuts, and less severe immigrant cuts, its fingerprints can be readily identifiable on this conference report. Nevertheless, on balance, we have achieved what we all can support: with this legislation, we have finally begun the process by which America's underclass problem can be solved, and break a generational cycle and culture of dependency and poverty. This is not a perfect experiment, but then experiments usually aren't. Congress is now the shepard of welfare reform--not the President--and it is up to us to review and improve upon this proposal. I, for one, stand ready and committed to revisit this as it is implemented, and as we gain empirical evidence that our effort can be successful in making work pay more than welfare. And only then will we be truly able to say that we have ``ended welfare as we know it.'' It's worth taking some risks to end it.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to share some thoughts I have on welfare reform. I support all the concepts of the motion to instruct conferees. I think the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has done a good job here, but I would just like to point out where we have gone in the welfare reform package. We had it coming out of committee, we took it to the floor of the House, we made some amendments to it which I think made it a better bill. It went over to the Senate, they acted on it. I think they have added some aspects to it or reaffirmed what we have done in the House, which makes it a better bill. Hopefully the conferees can sit down and meet and also make some of the improvements along some of the lines that have been discussed here to make it an even better bill. I think we are going to have welfare reform in the United States. I think we need to be very serious about what is going to be in it. Quite frankly, I think we have worked hard to actually make this a very good piece of legislation. I could not agree more, we should not have unfunded mandates. We have now preserved Medicaid coverage almost completely in this bill. We need to protect that. That is a very important point which is made here. I also believe we need to deal with the vouchers for goods and services, and I think maybe we are a little further long that line than even I thought after some further research. Hopefully we can develop that a little bit more too, as well, as we look at this. Obviously I believe we should have whatever savings we can possibly have, but the bottom line is right. So many people have spoken here today and before on welfare reform. We need to put into place a system which will change it. There are job opportunities being created in America. The President of the United States says that constantly. Our economy shows that. We think these individuals ought to have the opportunity to go out and work where they can. We believe some should be protected, the 20 percent who cannot work. I think this is all coming together. I congratulate all the Members of the House. Sometimes we do not listen to one another. I think in this instance we have been listening to one another. Hopefully we will listen to this motion to instruct conferees, go to conference and have a good welfare reform package.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment. The numbers are pretty simple. In fiscal year 1995 there was $400 for the Legal Services Corporation. In fiscal year 1996 we properly, I think, cut it to $278 million, and we added restrictions on what they could do. If the bill passes as it is today, it would be $141 million, a 65-percent reduction from fiscal year 1995. With the amendment, it is still a reduction to $250 million or a 37\1/2\-percent reduction from fiscal year 1995. We should support this amendment. We do need Legal Services for the poor. They simply cannot afford it otherwise. I urge everyone to support the amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Chairman, I will say very briefly, because we do not have much time, it has been a tremendous pleasure working with the gentleman and the others who worked on this for many, many months, in what is truly a bipartisan and bicameral piece of legislation, to resolve the problems of welfare in the United States of America. It was a bipartisan problem, and I think it is going to take a bipartisan solution to get there. The differences between the Castle-Tanner proposal and the Archer legislation have been, I think, overstated as I have listened to the debate. Both are very tough, they end welfare as we know it, and they require work. There is unanimity of opinion that we need to reform welfare. I think what I need to do in the brief time which I have is highlight some of the differences between these two pieces of legislation so people can make up their minds which they are going to support, or, as in my case, if they are going to support both. First in the case of vouchers, Castle-Tanner continues benefits that can be used for the care of the child after a State-imposed time limit, be it up until the time of a job, 2 years, 5 years or after 5 years, while the Archer legislation strictly prohibits it. That is a highly important change, and, quite frankly, that has to be done before we pass any welfare reform bill. Our bill has an additional $3 billion for work funding. There simply is not enough money in the Republican proposal right now to make it work. Maybe it can be put in later, but let us do it now. It is authorized in the Republican bill. It is committed in this particular bill. The lack of money for the work requirement also gives States flexibility in terms of being able to put together programs to put people to work. There just is not sufficient money, and what we have really is an unfunded mandated if it goes to that level. The maintenance of effort is extremely important. We are requiring the State spend at least 85 percent of what they spent in 1994. The States are doing very well by this in terms of saving money, maybe even better than the Federal Government. This is a minimal requirement in my opinion, and something we should do. There is a contingency fund. I can tell Members that the Archer legislation does not provide a safety net if the contingency fund is wiped out by recession. Ours is more responsive to economic downturns. It gives people an opportunity. There will be economic downturns. Welfare will never get better than it is now in terms of people not being on it with respect to the economy we have. Transferability is important, for example. We want to limit the transferability to some degree between these different block grants which are being created to make sure the children receive the benefits of that. I believe our bill does that better. Medicaid linkage is important. If you qualify now, you qualify later. People should have access to medical care. In the area of food stamps, our bill ensures the food stamp safety net is not cut off if people are not working after 4 months, even if job slots are not available. There are other changes in our legislation. There are many things which address this. But, overall, we have the same fundamental focus of ending welfare as we know it. I think we have carefully crafted the safety nets in a variety of areas to help the States carry out their programs, to give them flexibility, to make sure particularly the children, but those who are in the situation in which they cannot take care of themselves, are served by the piece of legislation we have before us. I do not know what the will of the House is today. My preference is to pass this legislation, but I would be satisfied in passing the Republican legislation. But we must move forward with a concept of welfare reform. I hope before anyone votes on this, they will look at it carefully and decide this is the best way to do it, and support Castle-Tanner.

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I admire the Agriculture Committee chairman greatly, but the Castle-Tanner bill requires all able-bodied food stamp recipients to work within 6 months of receiving benefits. Unlike the Republican leadership bill, Castle-Tanner does not deny food stamps to individuals who are willing to work but are not able to find a job. Participation in the food stamp program is a fair program.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to address my comments this morning strictly to this rule, rather than either to Castle-Tanner or to the bill itself, because the rule is a little bit different than some of the rules we normally take up here on the floor, in that it has a self-enacting amendment in it that has some substantive concerns that I think we really need to at least bring forth. Let me just say first and foremost, and I think this is vitally important, I very much appreciate the very good work which the Committee on Rules has done. They have allowed, in a freestanding way, the Castle-Tanner legislation, which is the Gephardt substitute in this rule, to come to the floor. There will be no objections as to dollars. There is a dollar differential; it is $53 billion versus $60-some in the Republican bill, but it will be allowed to be considered. That was a concern of mine, and it was a concern of a number of my contemporaries on the other side of the aisle, and I am very pleased that was able to be worked out. That is important, I think, for the whole process of hearing and voting in this Chamber. And, of course, I am supportive of that legislation. I want to point out, however, that there are some changes in the rule that we should pay some attention to, and there are five that I have singled out here that we need to look at. One is the review of the implementation of the State work programs. It would be an understatement to say that this is going to be simple. When we require people to work for a number of hours, and we require up to 35 hours a week, when we require a percentage of the population, up to 50 percent of the welfare population, to be able to go to work, we have to keep track of that. We have to determine what work is. We have to go through definitional phases. Benefits can be lost or whatever it may be. I think it is extremely important that we make sure that is going to be able to work. And one of the amendments here states that 3 years after enactment, the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services shall conduct hearings and other appropriate activities to review the status of these areas. And that is before they get into the greater demands, because it is on an incremental basis. That is a very important change. Another important change is the limitation on amounts which can be transferred to the title XX programs. This is a social service block grant. There are several block grants being set up; most of them deal with welfare: The TANF, the transitional aid to needy families, the child care, and the child welfare. We are all for transferring to child care where necessary. It allows the 30-percent transfer. But when we get into social services, there are certain areas that are not as welfare oriented, and it also points out that all funds so transferred into the social service block grant must be services for children or their families, so that it keeps that money in welfare, so that States cannot all of a sudden fund other programs away from welfare. We thought that was a very significant change to make, and we did get it. It also states very clearly there will be no limitations on State spending beyond the 5 years. I am not totally happy that some of the Federal benefits are going to be eliminated all together, although I am an absolute believer that welfare should cease after 5 years, but I think there are certain vouchers and other things that should be continued. They are not going to be, but I want to make sure that States would have the ability to do that with their own money, and it does state that very clearly. The maintenance of effort has been raised by what the States have to do. I am also concerned the States are going to step back, and we have raised that to 80 percent in this legislation, or 75 percent if the States do a good job. So that what they have done starting in 1994, in terms of funding, would have to continue as far as the future is concerned. We have made in the modifications to the legislation in this rule, specifically in this rule, not as a separate amendment to come up, we have made some positive changes which makes the bill more palatable even to those who might object. I understand that some may object otherwise. At least there has been consideration of various areas that I think needed to be examined if we were going to be able to support the legislation. I think with the combination of being able to allow Castle-Tanner to come to the floor to be debated, with the changes which are here, the rule is a good rule. That does not mean you have to agree with the underlying legislation. That is up to everyone here. I happen to be very supportive. Obviously, it is Castle-Tanner and I will support the Republican proposal, too. But it does mean that we will have the opportunity for full and open debate. I also appreciate the fact that there are 2 extra hours so that everyone's views can be aired. This is a very, very important subject. It is not simple. This legislation is not simple. The interactions with these families and these children are very complicated. Putting the programs in place in the States is also very complicated, and we need to do this very carefully. I think this rule at least gives us that opportunity. I support the rule and would urge everybody to do so.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas for yielding this time to me, and I thank those that said nice things about the bill I presented, I have sponsored with the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], and I support both the Castle-Tanner proposal and the Republican welfare reform proposals, and I will speak probably of the Castle-Tanner more tomorrow. But I would like to share with my colleagues my strong beliefs in the need to improve welfare, but also what I believe is tremendous hope and opportunity for people in America. Now, I learned this from practical experience. When I was fortunate enough to be Governor of Delaware, I worked with the Governor of Arkansas at that time in 1988 with the Governors, heading up a group to work on welfare reform, and that was Bill Clinton, and from that came the Family Support Act. And I got into it, jumped in with both feet, and I said we are going to do this in Delaware, and we did something not many States had done at that time. We wrote letters to people in which we said, ``If you're going to continue to receive welfare, you're going to have to come to our classes,'' and I shuddered a little bit at some of those reactions, and I went to the first class after about 4 or 5 weeks. It was 18 women and 1 man, as a matter of fact, and I remember it vividly. But I was stunned by the fact that virtually everyone I spoke to, I think everyone I spoke to that day, said very positive things about the fact that we have given them opportunity. I expected them to be very upset and disconcerted by the fact that we had said that they would have to work. And I found from that and then from going back to graduations and then from talking to many of these people who I saw on the street thereafter that this truly was opportunity for them. It truly lifted their self-esteem, it truly gave them family pride because their kids realize that they were given that opportunity, and they could go forward. And I think it has made a difference in Delaware. About a third of the individuals in Delaware have now been able to go to work in some way or another. I have a letter here today from a lady in Bridgeville, DE, and I am not going to read the whole thing. It might seem a little bit self- serving, but she said: ``In 1992 I found myself on food stamps and thrust into your First Step program.'' She did not like it, I guess at that time. When I graduated from First Step, I found myself on the stage with you at Del Tech, each giving our speech. To me it was perhaps the turning point in my life. Because of your faith in me and in humanity, I found myself enrolled in Delaware State University. I was fortunate to participate in several of the welfare reform panels, and that led to a most wonderful woman who saw my picture in the paper and who was my benefactor for books and school supplies for my college education. An unusual story, but a story of an individual who is able to be educated and is now out in the workplace and is supporting her family. And this has happened on many occasions. It is not going to happen on every occasion. But our welfare reform bills, the ones we have before us, give that opportunity, and they tell people that they are going to go out and they are going to get a job, and I would just tell those who are concerned about this being draconian and hardhearted that I think it does provide a lot of opportunity. On the other hand, these bills are not easy. We are going to change welfare. We are going to change it as we know it today. We are going to limit benefits for certain able-bodied adults to 2 years of assistance without work, and we are going to limit their lifetime benefits to a maximum of 5 years. People need to understand there is going to be change. But let me just make it clear that in both of these bills about 20 percent of those people would be accepted. There are many other good aspects to it, but I would encourage all of us to consider welfare reform. It is in the best interests of this country.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, page 26, line 9 has very binding language as far as the CDC funding is concerned. It says as follows: Those funds may not be used to advocate or promote gun control. They will not be used for that purpose. As far as the rural health care argument is concerned, that particular budget, before this amendment which would add $2.6 million, before the change in appropriations, is going to go up 12.8 percent. With the additional money, it would go up 23 percent. All we are trying to do is to have the CDC budget stay the same. As to politically correct study aspects, the CDC has been dealing in these issues for a long time: Motor vehicle crashes, fires, drownings, falls, poisonings, suicide, and homicide. The Center's research has led to all manner of recommendations in this country with respect to helmets, with respect to storing guns and bullets separately, in dealing with all of the problems of injuries in this country. More people are dying by injuries every year in this country. We simply need to do something about it. There is a place for CDC to do this. There is a place to look at what we can do to prevent injuries and deaths from guns. It is not gun control. Please vote for the amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] for yielding this time to me. I obviously rise in support of the Lowey-Castle amendment, and I listened carefully to the always articulate comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] about this, and I would just note that right now the National Center For Injury prevention and Control, which is getting a reduction in this, is actually getting a reduction to less than 6 percent of their budget from last year, whereas the health education center he talked about is going up to 23 percent, and if we are able to succeed in this amendment, that would still go up 12.8 percent, and this particular agency that we are dealing with here would go down by some 5 percent. So no matter how we look at this, the very cause that he is talking about is being well treated. This is a modest amendment. I would simply, as we know, restore the funding for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. But this is very important, and what they do is important, and I do not think they should be involved in gun control, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] pointed out very carefully it is very specific in this piece of legislation right now that they cannot be involved in any advocacy with respect to gun control. I do not have a problem with that. I absolutely concede that. They should not be, and in fact I think one can even make an argument that they have not been in the past. They rejected studies that try to do that. But the bottom line is that it is important because injuries kill over 85 children and young adults in the United States every day and cost our country more than $224 billion in the last decade in terms of direct medical care and rehabilitation costs as well as lost wages of the individual and productivity losses to the Nation. This agency, the NCIPC, collects and analyzes data about a wide range of injuries including motor vehicle crash, fires, drowning, falls, poisonings, suicide and homicide. They have saved lives. They have prevented injuries from happening in this country. The centers research has led to a number of important recommendations in a variety of areas, from wearing helmets while riding a bicycle to storing firearms in the home separately from bullets to installing fire detectors in homes. These are major safety changes. They probably had as much influence on saving lives as any agency in this country, and I think to reduce their funding would be a tremendous mistake. It does also collect and analyze data about firearm injuries because they are the second leading cause of injuries of Americans between the ages of 10 and 24. Firearms are the cause of approximately 37,900 deaths in this country as well as all manner of other problems, including 3 times as many serious injuries. Ten States and the District of Columbia now have more people dying because of firearms than they do in automobile accidents. By the year 2000 there are going to be more people dying because of firearms and automobile accidents in the United States of America. The cost of gun shot violence in the United States amounts to $20 billion, a fifth of which is medical expenses. That is $200 per family that we are paying for these injuries to people and deaths to people because of the use of guns in the United States. They have done many things. My short time does not allow me to go into all the things which they have done. They are not advocacy, they are changes which they have made, and I would encourage each and every one of us to support this amendment. I think it is absolutely the right thing to do. It is not a gun issue. It is a safety issue in this country.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the Appropriations Committee on its fair FY97 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill. Crafting an appropriations bill while balancing the priorities of 435 Members of Congress is no easy task, and I recognize the constraints the Appropriations Committee faces. I believe that the Committee made a good faith effort to address labor, education, and health needs of our nation. For example, in the area of higher education, the bill increases the maximum Pell Grant award to $2,500. For our elementary and secondary schools, it continues funding for Safe and Drug Free Schools and Title 1, and increases funding for Head Start and Impact Aid. In the area of health and human services, the bill increases funding for medical research and preventive services, as well as the Violence Against Women Act. The bill also continues funding for Title X and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program. Let me reiterate that the bill does not reflect all of my priorities as strongly as I would like, and I will support improvements in the level of education funding as the bill moves through the legislative process. Last year, I opposed this Appropriations bill because I felt that the cuts in education were too severe, and I worked to increase funding for education programs. This year, the Committee has made a sincere effort to provide adequate funding for important programs that benefit our young people, the elderly, and those with limited incomes. This was accomplished within the limits necessary to continue on the course to a Balanced Budget which is critical to our children's future and the economic health of our nation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the head of the Committee on House Oversight for what I think is an extraordinary job of dealing with this issue of franked mail. I think we really have in a bipartisan way responsible addressed this particular issue in this Congress and he is absolutely right on some of the numbers. We are just trying to refine this at the end.

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

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

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 8.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to start my congratulating the chairman for what I think has been an excellent job of trimming the legislative appropriations, and particularly in the area that I am going to talk about, which is the taxpayer funding of franked mail. The fiscal year 1997 level of funding will be 40 percent lower than the 1996 level of funding. That is an impressive reduction. I do not even know if the chairman is aware of the reductions over the course of years, but starting in the year I was first elected to this body, before I came here in 1992, it was $59 million. In 1993 it went to $47,711,000. In 1994 it went to $40 million, in 1995 to $31 million, in 1996 it went up to $35,630,000, and this year is an appropriation of $20 million, so it really is an extraordinary job that the chairman has done and that the Committee on House Oversight has done in addressing this particular situation. In recognition of that, I do not intend, as I have in the past, to introduce an amendment to try to further reduce that funding. I think there are a couple of areas for which there is still room for improvement. Too often the franking privilege is not treated as a privilege and is abused. For example, the volume of outgoing franked mail vastly outpaces the volume of incoming mail. In 1995, the House sent out four times more mail than it received. If the House had responded only to letters it received, franked mail costs would have been only $12.4 million, saving $18.6 million or 60 percent from actual mail costs. Also, use of the frank increases cyclically during every election year. During the 102d Congress, the House spent $31 million in 1991 and $54 million in 1992, and during the 103d Congress, $24 million in 1993, and $42 million in 1994. The 104th Congress again has addressed and narrowed this gap in total spending, but the irresistible temptation for individual Members facing tough reelection campaigns to use their franking perk extensively in election years remains. I think Members have a legitimate need to respond to the increasing concerns of their constituents and the franking privilege does facilitate this. I think the public understands this and would support that use of taxpayer dollars. Unsolicited mass mail from Members, however, I think fails into a different category. I believe that most Americans do not want to receive all the unsolicited mail they get from Congress, particularly if they are aware of the fact that they as taxpayers pay for it themselves. Some Members here, I am certain, would disagree and would argue that the newsletter contains valuable and useful information. I am not trying to prevent that from being used. But I think we should give the public the information it needs to make the determination. This is what the amendment, the taxpayer's right to know amendment, will do. It has two components, both of which are based on procedures which the Senate already follows. The first component would require all mass mailings to contain the disclaimer, ``This mailing was prepared, published, and mailed at taxpayer expense.'' This will encourage Members to be more judicious in the mass mailing they send to their constituents, and it is entirely consistent with this Congress's attempt to let sunshine disinfect the policy process. The second part of the amendment would require the CAO's quarterly Statement of Disbursements to publish to total number of pieces of mass mail mailed during the period involved and the total cost of those mass mailings on a per-residential-address basis. Currently there is no way for the public to get information about the amount Members spend on unsolicited mass mailings versus constituent response mail. My amendment will allow this comparison to take place and I think the public has a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent. The bottom line here is that this simple amendment will provide information to taxpayers about franked mass mail. It does not ban mass mailings or change the definition from current law. It simply requires public disclosure about the use of frank for mass mail. I urge Members to pass this amendment.

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

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] for his really fine work on this appropriations bill. I would like to take this time to voice my concerns regarding Amtrak's funding levels. Perhaps we can discuss it for a minute. I am very disappointed with Amtrak's funding levels included in the House transportation appropriations bill. If enacted, these cuts in the operating capital funding for fiscal year 1997 will force Amtrak to close a number of routes and curtail infrastructure investment. Such drastic cuts will not allow Amtrak to reach its goal of self- sufficiency. To successfully accomplish this goal of self-sufficiency, while preserving the national passenger rail system, Amtrak must be provided with a secure and reliable source of capital funding. My colleague, the honorable gentlewoman from Connecticut, Nancy Johnson, has introduced H.R. 2789, the Intercity Passenger Rail Trust Fund Act, of which I am a cosponsor. This bill would establish a dedicate trust fund which would allow Amtrak to decrease its reliance on Federal operating capital more rapidly. This trust fund is not a new tax, nor would it contribute to the deficit. Instead, H.R. 2789 would redirect one-half cent from the existing gasoline tax in the mass transit account of the highway trust fund into a dedicated capital fund for Amtrak. Without a dedicated funding source, Amtrak will be completely dependent upon the less than certain actions of Congress. This uncertainty hampers the corporation's ability to enter into long-term contracts and move towards fiscal self-sufficiency. In order to enhance safety, increase reliability, and reduce operating costs, Amtrak must be able to rely on consistent funding. It is clear we all agree that Amtrak should be free of operating support and should have less dependence on Congress for its funding. However, without adequate capital funds or an alternative funding source now, Amtrak will forever be dependent on Congress and the taxpayers.