Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Lazio for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Lazio and his staff for their hard work, and for their commitment to improving public housing. I would also like to thank the chairman for recognizing that public housing authorities and programs should be evaluated on their performance. Mr. Chairman, I believe our Government has a responsibility to ensure vulnerable populations have access to safe, affordable housing, but HUD needs serious reform. H.R. 2406, the U.S. Housing Act, reforms and streamlines HUD from the top down. It empowers local authorities, benefits public housing residents, and saves taxpayers' money. Local authorities know their community's needs far better than a Washington bureaucrat, which is why H.R. 2406 replaces the current tangle of Federal strings with two funding grants for public housing. If we are going to hold local officials responsible for the quality of their community's public housing, they should have the power to implement the solutions that fit their community's needs. Delaware runs its public housing programs exceptionally well, and I believe Delaware and other successful States should be rewarded. Under H.R. 2406, 100 of the most successful local housing authorities will be empowered to develop innovative programs to help move residents out of public housing and into their own homes. This creates incentives for housing authorities to ensure their facilities are fiscally sound, physically safe, and efficiently run. H.R. 2406 continues to help us achieve these worthy goals, and I am proud to support it. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage Chairman Lazio in a colloquy. Well-run housing authorities, such as we have in Delaware, should be rewarded for their success. With the help of the chairman, during the markup of H.R. 2406, I successfully added an amendment requiring that the performance of a housing authority should be taken into account under the block grant allocation formula.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3019, the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. This bill is a fair compromise that reduces Government spending and keeps us on course to a balanced budget, while also providing adequate funding for education, environmental and other important programs. I applaud Chairman Livingston and the members of the Appropriations Committee for their hard work in forging this important compromise that allows our Government to perform its necessary duties within the limits we need to achieve a balanced budget. With the completion of this bill, we will save the taxpayers $23 billion from the 1995 funding levels. Equally as important, the reductions in this bill are more fairly distributed to allow for improved funding for education, housing, environmental and other important programs. I want to thank the Appropriations Committee for addressing a number of concerns that I and other Members had expressed about the funding levels for title I education support for disadvantaged students, antidrug education through safe and drug-free schools; fighting drugs in public housing; and funding for the Environmental Protection Agency. These programs will receive solid funding levels in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I believe the top priority of this Congress must continue to be achieving a balanced budget. Balancing the budget requires limiting spending for virtually every program. Tough decisions have to be made. I have not always agreed with the priorities and allocations made for various programs. But this bill is a truly fair compromise that meets our most important criteria--balancing the budget--but in a fair and equitable manner. Again, I applaud the work of the negotiators and the Appropriations Committee and staff. I urge passage of the 1996 omnibus appropriations bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1965, a bill to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act. Mr. Speaker, summer is rapidly approaching, marking the start of a time when an estimated 94 million people a year enjoy boating and fishing along the coast. Soon much of the Washington, DC, population as well many other people across the country and throughout my State will head to southern Delaware to enjoy our many beaches and beautiful coastline. I think the Delaware beaches truly are one of this region's most treasured assets, as many people enjoy fishing in Lewes, surf boarding at Indian River Inlet, swimming in Dewey Beach, and walking on the boardwalk in Rehoboth. The Coast Zone Management Act is one of the reasons why Delaware's inland bays, wetlands, estuaries and dunes have been protected throughout the years, thereby helping our environmental areas as well as providing a tremendous boost to tourism in the Delmarva region. This bill, which reauthorizes the Coastal Zone Management Act, assists Delaware and 28 other coastal States in developing management programs to preserve our beaches and natural areas. This bill is voluntary for States, and provides grants to those coastal States which develop programs protecting natural areas, under several Federal parameters. I am pleased that most of our coastal States participate in this program. This bill is a good example of how Federal State and local governments and communities can work together to protect the environment and ensure an environmental legacy for our future generations. This bill will help preserve the dunes, keep the water clean, safe and pollution-free, and protect coastal wildlife--all of which will make our beaches and natural areas more enjoyable for many Americans. I am proud to cosponsor this important environmental initiative, and I am pleased to see a bipartisan commitment to reauthorize and fund this important program.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I rise in support of this constitution amendment which we are talking about, and it has been stated here several times that amending the Constitution is a serious matter. Well, raising people's taxes is also a serious matter, and taxes are high in the United States of America, particularly if we look at the range of about $30,000 to $60,000, and we consider Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, personal income taxes and all the local taxes which, after all, are part of the taxation that people face. The important thing here is it is the taxpayers' money we are talking about, and for that reason I believe that we should have a higher standard before we appropriate the taxpayers' money by passing tax legislation in the Congress of the United States. The history of this Congress is to spend too much, and then in later years to tax to try to make up for that. We had the same problems in my State of Delaware. Back in 1980 we had 19.8 percent personal income taxes. we had businesses leaving the State, we were not balancing our budget, and we came along and we said we have got to do something about it, and we passed a balanced budget amendment, and we passed a supermajority to increase our taxes, and we passed a line-item veto, and since that time we have balanced our budget 19 times, we have cut taxes 6 times, we lowered poverty more than any other State in the United States of America. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the entire United States of America. It has worked, and it has worked well. A tax limitation amendment is not a magic solution to our fiscal problems, but like the balanced budget amendment and the line-item veto, it will make a real contribution to putting the Federal Government on a permanent path to fiscal responsibility. Without a constitutional mandate, we may have some short-term success in limiting the growth of government, but we will never change the fundamental problems that lead to continued growth in Federal programs and spending. The only way to change business as usual in Washington is to make it more difficult for this Government to raise taxes and continue deficit spending. We owe it to the people of this country to send this amendment to them for ratification. The easy decision is to vote no. The tough decision and the right one is to vote yes. Mr. Speaker, I urge its passage.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding this time to me, and let me just say I support this legislation in every aspect of it. I think many, many good things are happening here. I only have a minute and a half. I want to talk about the line-item veto. I think we need to look at the record first of all. Congress over the years, Republicans and Democrats, have spent a tremendous amount of money, more than, perhaps, we should have. I think this country really wants mechanisms in place which are going to help us reduce that burden of spending, and I believe strongly the line-item veto will do it. I have listened to this whole argument today because I am interested in it. As a Governor of a State for 8 years, I had the line-item veto. We are one of the 43 States which has it. I can tell my colleagues it was beneficial in my State from both points of view. It caused us to get into a room together and to discuss our budgets, and to make absolutely sure we were in concert with each other and we were doing what was in the best interests of the State. It was beneficial, without a doubt, to the budget process of the State of Delaware and I am convinced it will be beneficial to the budget process of the United States of America. We, in my judgment, are not yielding power to the President absolutely. We are allowing the President to become involved in the budget process. But we also retain the right to override vetoes in the circumstances in which they arise, and, quite frankly, if we have a President who for political reasons, ideological reasons, political reasons, whatever it may be, decides to make an issue of all of this, we have the ability to just as easily point out that it is politics and that it is wrong. What will really happen in this process is that we will be able to sit down together to negotiate things that are absolutely in the pork barrel category. They can be eliminated. So for the reasons of that and the rest of this very good bill I hope we will all support it here in a few minutes.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 3103. Approximately 17 percent of our nonelderly population does not have health care insurance coverage in the United States of America. This very important piece of legislation decreases that rank of the uninsured, that 17 percent, by making health insurance more readily available and affordable. Many things we should have done many years ago: Guaranteeing the portability of health insurance for workers changing or leaving jobs, limiting the ability of insurers to use preexisting conditions to deny health insurance coverage, making health insurance more affordable by reforming malpractice laws and cracking down on fraud and abuse, and several other measures which are here. This focused reform bill compliments the efforts of States to expand health insurance coverage within their borders rather than superseding them. I would like to say a word or two about those who argue that this would kill Kassebaum-Kennedy. This bill does not kill what our colleagues in the Senate have accomplished. This bill builds upon the sound principles to expand availability contained in Kassebaum-Kennedy, but also addresses affordability, which is not addressed in that bill. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of us to support this excellent piece of legislation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Almost 2 years ago this House debated and passed the semiautomatic assault weapon ban. It made eminent sense to pass that legislation then to keep these weapons of war from falling into the hands of criminals. It makes even more sense to keep the ban now. The ban is working. It is fighting crime. It is helping our police officers, and it is protecting our law-abiding citizens. Since its enactment, the number of assault weapons used in crime has dropped 18 percent, and that will increase as fewer and fewer are available. Assault weapons are harder for criminals to get. The price of these has tripled in that same period of time, and after many decades of rising crime in America, we have finally started to reduce our crime rate. The assault weapon ban is strongly supported by law enforcement officials. It makes their job safer. Every major law enforcement organization supports the ban. The ban is supported by 80 percent of the American people, who strongly feel criminals should not have assault weapons. This also is a public safety issue. It is an anticrime issue. We must vote to continue the ban.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Elsmere Fire Company on the occasion of its 75th anniversary of leadership and service to the community and the town of Elsmere in my home State of Delaware. For myself, and on behalf of the citizens of the First State, I would like to thank the Elsmere Fire Company for its many years of dedicated service. As is typical of the fire departments in Delaware, the Elsmere Fire Company is comprised of dedicated men and women who volunteer their time and talents to help prevent or battle fires and perform emergency medical services for our citizens. In today's world, many fire departments find it difficult to recruit and retain volunteers. With the pressures of work and family, many find it had to complete the rigorous fire service training. Yet the Elsmere Fire Company has remained a vital and integral part of its community with strong support that has allowed it to grow with the needs of its community. I am particularly grateful and proud of this community's efforts. At a recent fire company banquet for the volunteers, many were recognized for various areas of service with the department, and many others were honored for decades of service. It is important that the Elsmere Fire Company continue to be able to recruit and retain young men and women who are committed to this outstanding form of public service. The support for the Elsmere Fire Company is strong and the tradition of service is solid. Although I have not listed all the members of the Elsmere Fire Company, I hope that they all realize how deeply their efforts are appreciated. This company can be proud of its 75 years of dedicated service. Your community tanks you for your commitment and concern.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, not only for yielding time to me, but for his tremendous work as the chairman of the committee in drafting the antiterrorist bill, which I think is a very strong and needed piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Barr amendment. I do not know if it weakens the bill or if it eviscerates it or guts it, as some of the other speakers have said, but there is no question it deletes it in some way or another. Mr. Chairman, we must try in this country to prevent every act of terrorism we can. We must do all that is legal to apprehend and convict perpetrators of such acts, to protect the American people. We must give law enforcement every tool possible. That is what this bill does. The amendment, for reasons stated by many speakers, and I do not have the time to enumerate them here, takes away some of the ability of law enforcement to enforce acts dealing with terrorism in this country. Mr. Chairman, I look at the problems that have happened in Ireland and England, I look at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. I know that the individuals who have committed these acts, terrorists, are international terrorists. We know they take airplanes, they have contacts in various places. We do not want them to come to our shores. We want them to know that we have the strongest possible law. So for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I support the legislation, the antiterrorist legislation, and hope we will all oppose the Barr amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Congregation Beth Shalom from my home State of Delaware. Two years ago, Congregation Beth Shalom, located in Wilmington, initiated what is known as ``Mitzvah Day'', a day when congregation members of all ages devote their time and energy to assist others in the community who are less fortunate and are in need. Mitzvah is the Hebrew word for commandments, and signifies righteous acts by individuals that are considered to be virtuous, kind, and considerate. In the Jewish faith, individuals are expected to carry out a mitzvah every day. In fact, in the Torah, which is the first of five books of Moses, some 613 mitzvot are listed to which Jews can aspire. Mitzvah Day is Congregation Beth Shalom's way of reminding the faithful of their obligations to their fellow man. This Sunday, March 17, 1996, will mark the third annual Mitzvah Day, and I am pleased to join the good people of Congregation Beth Shalom for ceremonies signaling the start of another day when people will reach out to their neighbors to say they care and want to make life a bit more enjoyable for all. Those who will participate this Sunday and those who have helped others in previous years are known as mitzvah mavens; people who are concerned about their fellow human beings every day. Before Mitzvah Day is over, they will have collected and sorted thousands of food items for the Food Bank in Newark; they will have baked bread and cookies for the families at the Ronald McDonald House in Wilmington; they will have cooked and served lunch to the clients at the Sojourners Place in Wilmington, who are overcoming drug and alcohol dependency; they will have visited and played bingo with the assisted living or nursing care residents at the Kutz Home and Parkview Nursing Home in Wilmington; and, they will have conducted numerous visits or had meals with congregation members who are homebound because of sickness or disability. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, the mitzvah mavens will have done all of this, and by Sunday evening, when the sun goes down, hundreds of Delawareans will feel just a bit better about themselves, some will have enjoyed one more meal than they thought they might, and Delaware will have had its quality of life improved that much more. All of this because the Congregation Beth Shalom in Wilmington, DE, encourages and supports kindness toward others and actions which can truly improve people's lives.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, it has been argued this is not an abortion issue, and it is true that the law today allows for abortion in cases of rape or incest. People argue it is a States rights issue. Let us take a look at that. If you are poor, a very poor woman in the middle of a large State, let us say Oklahoma, and you have a State law which does not allow you to get an abortion, if you have gone through rape or incest, it means that individual must live with having that child, having to raise that child in that society. If you are in another State, say Kansas, which does allow for that abortion to take place in cases of rape or incest, it means that they would be allowed to have an abortion. Is that fair to that poor woman in the first State, in the State of Oklahoma, in that particular instance? I think the answer is no. This is not a matter of States rights. This is a matter of the rights of the individual woman, the poor defenseless woman, to be able to live her life as she pleases, and I believe we need to support this amendment. It comes down to the issue of fairness. I urge everyone to support the amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I must vote against passage of H.R. 3019, the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. I support the bill's goal to provide funding for Federal agencies for the remainder of fiscal year 1996 at a level consistent with the goal of achieving a balanced budget. However, I have several concerns regarding the bill and I'd like to elaborate on them. First, I object to the inclusion of abortion riders in appropriations bills. The rider in this bill, in particular, was grossly unfair to poor women who are the victims of rape or incest. Each year, thousands of American women are brutally raped, or are the tragic victims of incest. Their emotional and physical burdens are compounded when they find themselves pregnant as a result. I do not believe that the rights of States outweigh the rights of poor, Medicaid-eligible women who are pregnant as a result of heinous crimes committed against them, and I strongly oppose the language in the bill which would deny a woman the right to choose in these instances. I oppose the inclusion of the provision to require nonprofit Federal grant recipients to report their lobbying expenditures because it is unclear whether this will be a burdensome regulatory requirement for charities, which typically do not have the personnel resources to devote to this. At a time when we are expecting charities to meet additional demands, and we are trying to reduce regulatory redtape on all sectors of our society, I felt this amendment was contradictory to these goals. While there are certainly organizations whose lobbying activities should be questioned, this amendment is still too broad and would unfairly impact many legitimate charities. I also object to the level of funding provided for education. Education should be one of our Nation's top priorities, and that simply was not reflected in this bill. Education programs would have received a $3.3 billion reduction in funding, which is simply too high. I voted against the fiscal year 1996 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill because of the education reductions as well as the abortion language I mentioned above. Mr. Chairman, I agree that education programs need to be reformed and consolidated, and I emphatically agree every program needs to be on the table for spending reductions. But drastically cutting funding is neither education reform now an equitable way to stay on track for a balance budget. Finally, I support the goals of our major environmental laws in this country. For example, I believe that we must ensure that the air we breathe and the water we drink and swim in is clean. And, although this agency is far from perfect, I believe we must fund the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] at a level that enables it to enforce these and many other important environmental laws. Like I mentioned above, no agency or program can be devoid of reductions. But we must work to ensure that these reductions are fair and equitable--and this bill made absolutely no improvements to the original VA-HUD appropriations bill that I voted against for the same reasons. In conclusion, to achieve a balanced Federal budget, all areas, including education and EPA will have to contribute to this effort. However, I could not support House levels of funding or the legislative riders. Lets fund these necessary programs at an appropriate level without adding controversial issues to an already difficult process.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. In my 1 minute I would like to make several points. One is, who is an environmentalist? I have yet to find anybody who does not believe in clean drinking water. would not like to see clean water in general. Everybody wants clean air. You talk about environmentalists, but the trust of matter is about 100 percent of the United States of America is in one way or another an environmentalist. Second, who owns the land? About 50 percent of the land in America is owned or controlled by our farmers and our ranchers. That is a very important commodity in terms of how we are going to impact our environment. Next our agricultural interests, also our environmental interests, I have not met many farmers, ranchers, or anybody who deals with that area, who is not interested in the environment. Finally, there is a very close tie-in between the environment and our agricultural interests. I know in my State of Delaware, in our inland bays where Rehoboth Beach is, which many people know about, we have a lot of farm interests. We have studied those inland bays and realize the impact of fertilizers and other products on them. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage all of us to support the program.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the hard work of Chairman Pat Roberts and my colleagues in this area. We all agree on the need to reform Federal farming programs, and this bill does make significant improvements in many farm programs. Unfortunately, while some changes are made in the Peanut Program, it will continue to cost the consumer by pricing that commodity at artificially high levels. I strongly support this amendment because the Peanut Program is a 1930's program that benefits a small group of growers while penalizing the American consumer of the 1990's. At a time when we are moving toward market solutions, as this farm bill rightly attempts to do, why on earth are we continuing the antiquated status quo for growing peanuts? Mr. Chairman, you'd have to believe in Peter Pan to believe that this program works well and helps consumers and small farmers. As a result of this peanut subsidy, the hard-working American consumer pays up to $500 million more per year in higher food prices for peanuts and peanut butter. And the Peanut Program is not just unfair to the American consumer. It is unfair to many farmers. Believe it or not, two-thirds of those who own peanut growing licenses are not even farmers. If any farmer wants to grow peanuts for domestic sale--he can not because there are a limited number of quotas that are owned in many cases by wealthy nonfarmers. We need to ask ourselves why we are allowing a Government program to protect this special group from fair competition? The peanut subsidy is a bonanza to a select few, who certainly are not America's hardworking family farmer. Mr. Chairman, the facts are clear: This subsidy is completely outdated and has outlived its purpose. If you want to help working families, American consumers, and small farmers, vote for the Shays- Lowey-Castle-Jacobs-Neumann-Torres amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, the volunteer fire service community and the entire State of Delaware suffered a tragic loss recently with the death of Jonathan Newton. Mr. Newton, at the young age of 31, was the consummate volunteer firefighter. At the time of the accident, he was en route to a fire safety program at a local middle school. It was not uncommon for Mr. Newton to volunteer his time and energy to programs that heightened public awareness about fire safety. In fact, his community education work earned him recognition as Firefighter of the Year for the Hockessin Fire Company. When a firefighter in Delaware suffers a tragedy, it is felt by the entire fire service community. They are like a family, a unique group of individuals who take great pride in their heritage of volunteer service. Friends and family members alike spoke of Mr. Newton's altruism, and fondness toward children, as he devoted so much of his time to educating them about fire safety. What is most tragic about Mr. Newton's death is that he leaves behind a family. He has a wife who is 7 months pregnant and two children--all of whom will always have a special place in the Delaware volunteer fire service family. Mr. Newton's legacy of commitment and dedication as a volunteer firefighter will find a permanent place in the Delaware volunteer fire service mantra, reminding future volunteer firefighters of the importance of their mission. On behalf of the citizens of Delaware, I offer my condolences to Sharon Newton and the entire family on the untimely and tragic death of a true American hero, Mr. Jonathan Newton.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Lazio for the opportunity to speak on this legislation, and for his efforts to reform Federal housing programs. I rise in support of S. 1494, the Housing Program Extension Act, with the House amendments this bill will extend a number of necessary housing programs for this fiscal year. In particular, I support the inclusion of H.R. 117, the Senior Housing Safety Act in this bill, to protect the elderly in public housing from young people with a drug or alcohol problem. As we all know, HUD is sorely in need of restructuring. The bill before us today is a temporary step to keep programs operating for this year. It is critical that we take the next step and completely reform public housing programs. Last November, the House Banking Committee passed H.R. 2406, the U.S. Housing Act. This bill will fundamentally reform, restructure, and streamline Federal housing programs to provide greater flexibility to local housing officials and start the process of giving tenants the opportunity to move out of public housing as soon as they are able. Mr. Speaker, I support this short-term authorization bill, but I urge the House to take up fundamental housing reform, H.R. 2406, as soon as possible. We owe it to the residents of public housing and the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding adjournment of the House until Monday, February 26, 1996, the Speaker and the minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that for the legislative day of today, all Members be permitted to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in that section of the Record entitled Extension of Remarks.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, Members may recall that in the past week or two, we passed H.R. 2657, which was a bill to award a congressional gold medal to Ruth and Billy Graham. Members on both sides of the aisle, with the exception of one, voted for this. It was supported almost unanimously in this body, 403 ``yes'' votes at that time, and there was no known opposition. Mr. Speaker, tonight the Senate amended H.R. 2657 deleting section 5, and it is a small change to the legislation. But because it takes some time to get this ready, they wanted to run this through tonight to get it done. Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the change and wanted to put it before the House tonight.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2657) to award a congressional gold medal to Ruth and Billy Graham, with the Senate amendment thereto and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents the first comprehensive overhaul of our Nation's communications policy since 1934. Telecommunications technology has advanced beyond the wildest dreams of the visionaries of 1934, and yet the regulatory structure has remained unchanged. The present regulatory structure restricts competition in telecommunications markets and industries, thus stifling innovation, raising costs, and delaying the introduction of new products and services to consumers. Government regulators, rather than consumers, determine which companies can offer which services, and, in some cases, at what price. This bill will unshackle the telecommunications industry from the tenacious grasp of Federal, State, and local regulations, thus unleashing a broad array of new telecommunications services at lower costs. This profoundly important and far-reaching legislation recognizes the legacy of decades of regulation, and thus does not simply eliminate all regulations overnight for a brutal battle in the marketplace. While on first examination this may appear to make sense, the present regulatory structure has positioned some industries to do remarkably well under such a scenario, while others would find themselves severely handicapped. Thus, immediate and total deregulation could possibly inhibit competition rather than encourage it. Instead, the legislation has sought to ensure that different industries will be competing on a level playing field. This legislation is the product of years of analysis and negotiation, and is a fair and realistic bill which promotes and encourages competition in cable and telephony markets. In Delaware, for example, the local phone company will be able to offer consumers long distance services and other telecommunications products. The local phone company, however, will no longer operate as a monopoly, and will face competition from other companies. For the first time Delawareans will have a choice of telecommunications providers, and as companies compete for their business, they will reap significant benefits. I also support provisions that would ensure our Nation's schools and libraries have affordable access to educational telecommunications services. Schools can use telecommunications to ensure that all students, regardless of economic status, have access to the same rich learning resources. Libraries can ensure that every community has a publicly accessible means of electronic access to support classroom instruction, to communicate with the world-wide library community, to facilitate small business development, to access employment listings and Government databases, among other uses. It is in the Nation's best interest to ensure that all schools and libraries, even those in rural areas, are active participants in the Information Age. The impact of this legislation, of course, extends far beyond the borders of Delaware. Everyone, from an elementary school child exploring the world beyond his or her local community, to an elderly person benefiting from the expert advice of a physician 1000 miles away via Telemedicine, to a business seeking to become more efficient, to a parent wishing to telecommute to work, to a couch potato channel surfing through 500 channels, to an innovative entrepreneur seeking to provide new telecommunications services--everyone stands to benefit enormously from this legislation. Consequently, I give it my strong support and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, February 28, 1996.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] for this opportunity to just address for a few minutes the issues of budgeting and balancing the budget here in Congress. One point I thought of as I was on my way over, and I hope my colleague did not make it because I was on my way over, is that there are so many Members of this House of Representatives, and actually the U.S. Senate as well, who are focusing on balancing the budget. It is not just John Kasich, God love his soul. He is a wonderful person. Or Newt Gingrich and a few others. There are groups of moderate Republicans that we might belong to. There are groups of Blue Dog Republicans and Democrats that are conservative Republicans and Democrats. There are all kinds of groups in this Congress who realize how important it is, and I think sometimes we do not state that enough. There is a view that maybe one or two leaders are trying to drive the need to balance the budget. The freshman class of the Republican Party has taken some lumps, but they came down here with a concept to make Government more efficient. I think they deserve tremendous credit for that. Then I hear the pundits and a lot of critics out there saying, well, Congress can never balance its budget because of entitlements and because of interest payments and various reasons. I say that is absolutely wrong. I come from Delaware, and for 8 years Pete du Pont was Governor of Delaware. He was the one who made up his mind that we could balance the budget in Delaware. We had not done that, and then we did it. I was Governor for 8 years, during that period of time, and it continued on with Tom Carper, the Democratic Governor of the State of Delaware. We not only balanced our budget; we have had a series of tax cuts, and we have two rainy day funds on top of each other. We take care of almost every possibility in terms of being able to keep in balance from year to year, and I am absolutely convinced that it can be done. I would tell my colleagues that there is a lot of protection, not just in this Congress, but by constituent groups on the outside, and particularly by the press, who try to protect the status quo. They do not welcome true innovation or change. In just one area of tremendous concern, people will say to us, why do not you cut your salaries, and you can balance the budget? That is 100th of 1 percent of the budget. Or cut foreign aid. That is a small percent. But get into Medicaid and Medicare, which is the fastest growing segment of the budget, 17 or 18 percent collectively between them now in the budget of the United States, and there is an area which has grown from zero about 30 years ago to where it is today, which is growing faster than everything else which we need to address. I do not know of any Member of Congress, if these seats were all filled, who would not say ``I want health care for the poor and I want health care for our senior citizens.'' We all feel that way. So the question is, how can you reduce those expenditures in those particular programs but still provide the health care. There is a very simple lesson. Look at today's newspapers. Today's newspapers brought us the news that there was a slight increase in the cost of health care to the private insurers last year. I think it was about 2 percent or something. When you had HMOs, it was actually a decrease in the amount they spent. When you had regular health care, it increased by about 2.5 percent or something of that nature. Yet, we have these Government programs which are still going up at the rates of 10 percent or 11 percent or 12 percent. That is well beyond population growth. The truth of the matter is that we deliver health care at the Government level exactly the way we have done all along, and perhaps we should innovate. There are innovations out there. There are HMO's. The medisave account is something which could work. We do not know that for sure. But if you are doing what some people have talked about doing here, I am sure they are going to cut into health care, and they might do some of the things you are talking about. You can get your prescription eyeglasses, perhaps, or your pharmaceuticals which you need as part of the plan you get into because we let people expand and go to a market-based system. I am convinced we can do this same thing with welfare. We have done this in Delaware. We have basically told people they have to start going to school, that they had to get a job after a period of time. They started going to school. I thought it was going to be a very difficult thing to do. We went down and visited these people, and they were perhaps the most contented citizens I visited in the whole time I was Governor. They were being given an opportunity. One-third of those people are working today, and one-third are off of welfare altogether as a result of that. That is a pretty good result. I would like it to be a 100 percent, we all would, but that is a pretty doggone good result. But I think there are ways in which we can come up with creative and good opportunities for people to improve their lives and still provide the same services we have today, but do them in a different way, and balance our budget. Yes, we have to work at it, but there are a lot of experts in this room. I think given that opportunity, that could happen, and we could really do what we have to do, which is to balance the budget in 7 years. It is tough, but is not impossible. We should be doing it.

Mr. CASTLE. If the gentleman will continue to yield, just briefly, I could not agree with the gentleman more. I worry a little bit when I read in the press that some of the leadership here in both houses and even the White House are beginning to say, ``I do not think we can get to a balanced budget.'' I certainly have not given up on that. I think this is the time to do it. People do not realize how close we are. We have really narrowed the differences. Yes, there are some policy differences that need to be resolved as well, but from a numbers point of view, we are as close as they have ever been to do this. I think to give up on it now would be a huge mistake. I hope we push hard in the remaining weeks of this spring and hopefully get this done sometime before we go too much further into the fiscal year.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Heineman], another distinguished Member of the House. (Mr. HEINEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)