Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2614, a measure that protects the American taxpayer and maintains the integrity of the U.S. Mint's coin programs. I am grateful to enjoy the support of Representative James Leach, chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. On the other side of the aisle, Representative Gonzalez, former committee chairman, Representative Flake, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Representatives Maloney, Watt, and Frank of Massachusetts have provided their strong support for this legislation, and I appreciate their efforts. I would also like to acknowledge the valuable input and support of Representatives Barr, Lucas, Kelly, Ney, Fox, and Metcalf of the subcommittee. Representative John Olver, although not a committee member, has also provided immeasurable support and generous guidance in bringing this bill to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy has primary jurisdiction over the Commemorative Coin Programs of the U.S. Mint. This legislation reforms those programs following recommendations by the administration and the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee [CCCAC], received both in testimony before the subcommittee on July 12, 1995, and in CCCAC's First Annual Report to Congress, released in November, 1994. This bill also addresses the concerns of the numismatic collectors, who purchase 90 percent of commemorative coin issues. No longer will the saturation of the market threaten the value of their collections, nor with they be the sole support for beneficiary causes of uncertain popularity. Title I, which covers Commemorative Coin Program Reform, amends section 5134 of U.S.C. title 31, and prohibits disbursement of surcharges to recipient organizations unless and until all Mint costs for that coin have been fully recovered. With both previous and current programs, surcharges were disbursed as coins were sold, at times putting Government moneys at risk. It is our hope that this will also help to keep in check the marketing costs, undertaken by the Mint, that have been requested by recipient organizations. The maximum surcharge disbursement to a recipient organization is limited to the amount received from separate fund raising by that organization. No longer will organizations depend exclusively on surcharges for funding projects. This reform will insure that beneficiary organizations are not simply created to receive the proceeds of commemorative coins but requires that they demonstrate an adequate and independent measure of public support. Annual audits will be required of the recipient organizations, with an accounting of all surcharge moneys and verification of the authorized use of surcharge moneys. In addition, title I [[Page H 13948]] forbids any recipient organization from using surcharges for lobbying activities, thereby maintaining the original purpose of the surcharge moneys. Title I shortens the length of service for members of the CCCAC to a term of 4 years, and allows for the election of a chairperson by and from committee members. This makes for a better reflection of the appointing administration and does not extend the appointees' mandate far beyond it. H.R. 2614 calls for the CCCAC to develop recommendations for a multiyear Commemorative Coin Program, along the lines of the popular bicentennial quarter. No surcharges are collected on this type of commemorative, which makes the hobby of coin collecting affordable and accessible to the broadest public. Title II permits the issuance of plantium and gold bullion coins by amending section 5112 of U.S.C. title 31. The Secretary of the Treasury would have the authority to determine the quantity, variety, and physical specifications of these coins. The price would be that of the bullion plus cost of manufacture, with a reasonable profit added for proof versions. Minting of two or more designs of the American Eagle gold coins, with specifications determined by the Secretary, would be allowed. Title III eliminates, at the administration's request, nine political positions not filled by the current administration. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2614 goes a long way toward correcting problems that threatened to destroy the Commemorative Coin Program. Commemorative coins are a benefit, not only to numismatic enthusiasts and the recipient organizations but also by reaffirming our history, to our Nation as a whole. This bill links public funding of special projects to demonstrated private support, and discourages groups from demanding superfluous coins. It prevents the further abuse of the coin collecting community by groups lacking general public support. This bill must be passed if the Commemorative Coin Program is to survive and even flourish in the current environment with reduced levels of demand. I urge its immediate adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2614) to reform the commemorative coin programs of the U.S. Mint in order to protect the integrity of such programs and prevent losses of Government funds, to authorize the U.S. Mint to mint and issue platinum and gold bullion coins, and for other purposes.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous support for the legislation and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the words of the distinguished ranking member of this committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake]. He has been a tremendous pleasure to work with throughout my tenure as the chairman of this subcommittee. Hopefully, we will have as much peace in the world as we have had in our subcommittee in terms of getting things done. The gentleman has been very helpful in resolving problems. There was a problem here, as was pointed out to us by the two speakers from Georgia and other individuals, with the Atlanta Olympic Committee, and we recognized it. The sales are strong, but with some changes in tailoring in what we were doing, it was felt that we could move ahead. We were able to address that, and we did it in a way that will be beneficial to everybody, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to be here to help present that.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just add that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] has been tremendously helpful in the formulation of this legislation and watching over it very carefully. The gentleman calls me constantly on it, and I appreciate that. He kept us on the straight and narrow. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood], who has been concerned about this legislation.

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2336, a measure that lowers the minting levels of the Atlanta Olympia commemorative coins. I am grateful to enjoy the support of Representative James A. Leach, chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. On the other side of the aisle, Representative Gonzalez, former committee chairman; Representative Flake, the ranking member of the subcommittee; and Representative Frank of Massachusetts have provided their strong support for this legislation, and I am very appreciative of their efforts. I must also acknowledge the valued input and support of Representatives Barr, Lucas, and Metcalf of the subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the House Banking and Financial Services Committee has primary jurisdiction over the commemorative coin programs of the U.S. Mint. This legislation is supported by the Atlanta Committee, the U.S. Mint, the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee [CCCAC], and the Georgia congressional delegation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2336 amends the mintage levels in section 102 of the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games Commemorative Coin Act. The maximum 1996 minting of the two gold coins, previously authorized for 600,000 for both, is reduced to a total of 250,000. The 1996 minting of $1 silver coins is reduced from 4 million total of four designs to a sum total of 1.7 million. Half-dollar coins, originally slated for a minting of 10 million, are reduced to 8 million over 2 years. These reductions are necessary for the success of the program. Mr. Speaker, this bill is supported by the people and groups that will be directly affected; namely, the Atlanta Committee, the people of Georgia, and the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee. They realize that unless the rate of sales are increased, the Atlanta Olympic commemorative coin program will not achieve its potential. By lowering the mintage levels, collector interest should be stimulated, and the overall program would be enhanced. This bill is necessary for the success of the Atlanta Olympic coin program, and I urge its immediate adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2336) to amend the Doug Barnard, Jr.--1996 Atlanta Centennial Olympic Games Commemorative Coin Act, and for other purposes.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1788, the Amtrak Reform and Privatization Act. I would like to commend Representative Molinari and Chairman Shuster, who have worked hard on this legislation and who have made a commitment to supporting and protecting the future of Amtrak. Amtrak is important to our national infrastructure and transportation needs. The people of Delaware and their neighbors on the east coast depend on Amtrak for business and personal transportation. The Amtrak Reform and Privatization Act makes much needed reforms to Amtrak. Amtrak's current problems are due to the fact that Amtrak has been operating like a Government agency, not like a private business. H.R. 1788 allows Amtrak to eliminate unprofitable routes and focus on the profitable ones. Moreover, this legislation ends the practice of awarding 6 years of severance pay to employees who lose their jobs because a route is discontinued, and allows Amtrak to contract out work, like other private entities. These provisions will give Amtrak's management the much needed flexibility it desires to operate more successfully. Further, the bill authorizes the necessary funds for the next 3 years to aid Amtrak in the transition from a publicly funded entity to a privately controlled business. I am most familiar with the Northeast corridor and Amtrak facilities in Delaware. The Northeast corridor, which includes my commute from Delaware to D.C., is the most heavily traveled Amtrak route, and is the key mode of transportation for thousands of people on the east coast. The line extends from Washington to Boston with the heaviest service density from Washington to New York. The Amtrak Reform and Privatization Act replaces the current method of cost-sharing agreements between Amtrak and other operators on the Northeast corridor with one which allows Amtrak to negotiate terms with these operators. This will allow Amtrak to recoup shared capital costs that are not addressed under the current system. I believe this Nation needs passenger rail service. The Northeast part of our country certainly needs it. I believe the Amtrak Reform and Privatization Act will help provide cost-effective rail service to Americans without placing an undue burden on the Federal Government and, more importantly, the taxpayers. Again, I applaud the leadership of Representative Molinari and Chairman Shuster, and urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the conference report to H.R. 2491. It is comprehensive legislation to finally balance the Federal budget. I believe it is the single most important thing we can do for the American taxpayer and the Nation. This bill begins a true effort to end deficit spending and ultimately reduce the mountain of debt that threatens our children's economic future. This legislation completes the effort to reconcile mandatory spending with the Budget resolution's requirement to balance the budget by fiscal year 2002. It overhauls nearly every major Federal program except Social Security, and incorporates compromise versions of legislation passed earlier this year by the House, including welfare reform, Medicare reform, and tax relief for American families and businesses. Today's conference report vote is the culmination of Republican efforts to end the cycle of debt, deficit spending, and constantly growing Government that has come to epitomize the out-of- control practices of past Congresses. Republicans have shown that they can promote growth, strengthen defense, save, preserve and protect Medicare, provide working families with tax cuts, and advance personal responsibility unlike any other Democratically-controlled Congress in 40 years. Today, this new congressional majority delivers on this commitment to Americans. Unfortunately, the President and most Democrats in Congress have not participated in this historic challenge because they have no plan and no desire to turn back the tide of yearly deficit spending that has continued since man walked on the moon. Contrary to what he has publicly stated, the President does not have a detailed plan that balances the budget, and has thus been AWOL--absent without leadership on our Nation's No. 1 mandated top priority. Not only has he not been present, he has not been willing to negotiate with Congress on a 7-year balanced budget. It is fine to fight over the priorities, but we must agree on the principle. Our plan is not perfect. In fact, there will never be a perfect plan. But our plan is a real plan toward balance, with real numbers, contrary to the President's. We have accepted the challenge, unlike the President and the Democrats in Congress. The Balanced Budget Act of 1995 contains no draconian cuts. We are simply limiting the growth of Federal spending to a level we can afford. Over the next 7 years total Federal spending will increase by $3 trillion. During the 7 years from 1989 to 1995, Federal spending totaled $9.5 trillion. During the next 7 years, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 calls for spending $12.1 billion. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has estimated that if Congress did not make any changes to the budget, spending would rise by 37 percent and revenues by 44 percent. Under the plan we are to vote on today, spending will rise by about 25 percent and tax revenues by 41 percent. Stop and think about these numbers. They seem to represent a reasonable path toward an objective that most all Americans share: a zero deficit. By contrast, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the general budget outline, the President offered as a balanced budget proposal would leave $200 billion deficits as far as the eye can see. Not even one Senate Democrat recognized President Clinton's plan as a legitimate budget and the Senate defeated it 96 to 0. In 1995 Federal spending was $1.5 trillion. If current irresponsible spending policies were to continue, spending, according to the CBO, would be $2.1 trillion in 2002. That is an increase of $600 billion, or 40 percent. Under this legislation, spending will rise between 1995 and 2002 by $358 billion, or about 25 percent. This is slightly ahead of inflation if it increases 3 percent annually. Only in Washington would a $358 billion increase be called a cut. The real question for voters assessing this 7-year balanced budget is where the additional $358 billion in Federal spending in 2002 is going. The answer is entitlements: Social Security will cost $146 billion more in 2002 than in 1995, Medicare--for the elderly--will cost $86 billion more and Medicaid--for the poor--will cost $35 billion more. Miscellaneous entitlements--food stamps, the earned income tax credit, military retirement and so forth will rise $63 billion. Add interest on the national debt, and the total additional spending exceeds $358 billion. By deciding to preserve and increase these entitlements, Congress had nothing left for increasing the discretionary side of the budget, where outlays will total $515 billion in 2002, down from $548 billion in 1995. Defense comprises most of discretionary spending, and it will be flat at roughly $270 billion. Transportation spending will fall from $39 billion to $32 billion; education and training will drop from $39 billion to $35 billion; foreign aid and other spending on international affairs from $21 billion to $15 billion. Of course, I have differed on some of the spending priorities, and have worked to include a greater priority and more Federal funding for education and training, the environment, housing, tax cuts for those families who earn below $95,000, and health care. We will continue to debate these priorities. But once we decided to balance the budget, keep Social Security intact and pare back expected tax revenues slightly, the choices are fairly limited. But we have agreed on the principle. Consider Medicare. Medicare spending per beneficiary increases for $4,800 today to $6,700 in 2002. Today, the Federal Government spends $178 billion on Medicare. In 2002, the Federal Government will spend $274 billion--$86 billion higher than in 1995, an increase of more than 6 percent annually. Republicans are also making it more affordable for seniors to purchase long-term care insurance, and are providing families caring for a dependent elderly parent a $1,000 tax deduction. The President's Medicare trustees have concluded that Medicare will be insolvent by 2002 if we postpone reform. The trustees report states that the Medicare hospital insurance [HI] program is ``severely out of financial balance and is unsustainable in its present form.'' In addition, Medicare part B, the supplemental medical insurance [SMI] program, must be reformed to ensure it can meet the needs of older Americans. The public trustees ``urge prompt, effective and decisive action'' to ensure the long-term financing of Medicare SMI. Medicare part B may not be going bankrupt, because the Federal Government picks up 68.5 percent of the cost of Medicare part B premiums, and as long as the Federal Government is solvent, Medicare part B is technically solvent. On the other hand, costs in Medicare part B are increasing at a completely unsustainable rate, and the rate of growth simply must be slowed. It is growing at a rate our country cannot afford. It has grown at an average of 15 percent per year over the last 20 years. Medicare part B spending grew from $38.3 billion in 1989 to $58.6 billion in 1994. It is disingenuous for anyone to suggest that changes do not need to be made to Medicare part B. The Republican budget plan recently passed by the House would save Medicare from bankruptcy by increasing spending $1,600 over 7 years for each beneficiary without threatening the program or adding debt for our children to pay. No one--not Democrats, not Republicans--invented Medicare's financial crisis. The program has been heading toward bankruptcy for years. During the last Congress, President Clinton created a bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, on which I was selected to serve, to try to transcend politics and address entitlement programs in a responsible, bipartisan manner. In forming the Commission, President Clinton said ``This Commission will be asked to grapple with real issue of entitlement reforms * * * Many regard this as a thankless task. It will not be thankless if it gives us a strong and secure and healthy American economy and society moving into the 21st Century.'' While the final report did not endorse specific proposals, it stated, ``We must act promptly to address this imbalance between the Government's promises and its ability to pay.'' However, neither the Democratic leadership in Congress or the President took further action. In contrast, congressional Republicans have bravely confronted the issue, recognizing that we simply must control the program's spiraling growth rate to guarantee the program well into the future. Republicans held 38 public hearings on Medicare and invited seniors' organizations, provider groups, and health care experts to submit their recommendations on how best to solve Medicare's fiscal crisis. The Republican plan maintains the present beneficiary part B premium percentage at 31.5 percent of total premium cost. When enacted in 1966, Medicare part B participants paid for approximately 50 percent of the program costs through their monthly premiums. Its premium was set at 25 percent in 1982. Then in the 1990's, Congress spelled out specific dollar figures in law; the current $46.1 per month covers 31.5 percent of costs. The Balanced Budget Act would keep the percentage at 31.5 percent, and does not raise copayments or deductibles. Medicare would be restructured to allow beneficiaries to purchase a private health plan with the Government paying the premium. This will allow Medicare beneficiaries to stay in the current system or to choose from a range of HMO's, PPO's, and MSA's, without a change in copayments or deductibles. Also, the plan generates savings by rewarding beneficiaries who report incidences of waste, fraud, and abuse and imposes significant penalties on anyone who defrauds Medicare. To ensure that Medicare savings are used only to strengthen Medicare, the Balanced Budget Act contains a lockbox. This provides additional legislative assurance that Medicare savings will be used only to save and strengthen Medicare. In its entirety, the Balanced Budget Act is realistic, sensible and fair. It saves Medicare from bankruptcy and dramatically reforms the program. The Balanced Budget Act also reforms Medicaid, the joint Federal- State matching entitlement program that pays for medical assistance for low-income persons who are aged, blind, disabled, members of families with dependent children, and certain other pregnant women and children. Within Federal guidelines, each State designs and administers its own program. The program meets an important need for a safety net, and the Balanced Budget Act recognizes this. In fiscal year 1995, total Medicaid spending was $155 billion. The Federal Government spent $89 billion, and States contributed $66 billion. The Congressional Budget Office projects that 38.4 million persons will be enrolled in Medicaid in fiscal year 1966. Under current law, Medicaid costs are expected to grow at an average of about 10 percent per year over the next 7 years. CBO has projected that Federal Medicaid expenditures in fiscal year 2002 will be $178 billion. Based on current trends projected over the next 7 years, CBO estimates that the Federal Government will spend $954.7 billion on Medicaid. This cannot be sustained. Both Congress and States are interested in curbing growth because the program is consuming increasing shares of the Federal and State budgets. This conference report addresses this issue by ending the open-ended entitlement nature of Medicaid and block granting funds to the States. States have considerable flexibility to meet the health care needs of their low income citizens. Under the Conference Report, States will be required to maintain spending on poor, pregnant women and children, nursing home residents, senior citizens who cannot afford to pay their monthly part B Medicare premiums, and the disabled. In addition, States are required to pay immunization costs for poor children. The Balanced Budget Act also combats fraud and waste by instituting routine audits and State fraud units to investigate fraud and abuse. I am particularly pleased that the conference report has made significant changes to the House-passed funding formula, which was originally disadvantageous to States in the Northeast, including Delaware. Those States were only allowed to grow 2 percent a year, while other States were allowed to grow from 6 percent to 9 percent a year. Using 1994 as a base year also had a detrimental impact on these States. The conference report, however, is substantially more fair to the Northeast and I thank the leadership for being so willing to address the concerns voiced by myself and my colleagues from the so- called 2 percent States. And with regard to education, this package recognizes that education should be one of our Nation's top priorities. The productivity and performance of our economy is inextricably entwined with the investments in education that we individually, and collectively, make as a Nation. According to a study by the Brookings Institution, over the last 60 hears, education and advancements in knowledge have accounted for 37 percent of our Nation's economic growth. Higher education is the surest ticket to a better future for our Nation's citizens, as it opens their horizons and increases their earning potential. Clearly, higher education is a valuable commodity and it behooves us to make it readily available to our young people, our veterans, and to all Americans. For much of the 104th Congress, the debate on access to higher education has focused on Federal financial aid. I submit that this is an important component in making higher education accessible to students, but not the only component. I find it curious one of the most important determinants of student access, college tuition, is given so little attention. It is an indisputable fact that tuition costs are rapidly rising. I realize that over the last 3 years, tuition costs have been rising at roughly 6 percent, which is a vast improvement over prior years. Nevertheless, years of unchecked growth not entirely necessary growth, are bound to have left a legacy of inefficiency in our colleges and universities which ultimately needs to be addressed. Financial aid programs do play an important role in making higher education accessible for many Americans. The Balanced Budget Act actually increases the volume of student loans by 50 percent over the next 7 years. Eligibility and access does not change; more loans will be available next year than ever in the history of the program. This package reforms the student loan program thereby saving $4.9 billion. Students, however, are not affected by the reform--their interest subsidies continue, their grace period remains intact, and origination fees are not increased. The package reduces subsidies for leaders, thereby requiring them to streamline and become more efficient. The package also preserves direct lending, in spite of its costliness to the Federal Government. However, the benefits from the competition in student loans will hopefully outweigh costs in the long run. This conference report recognizes and preserves a national investment in higher education, while moving us toward the important goal of balancing our Nation's Federal budget. A highly educated and flexible work force, combined with a balanced budget, will ensure U.S. prosperity as we enter a new century of economic growth and competitiveness. Each year that we continue to finance the Government with debt, we essentially steal from the economic prosperity of future generations, or more concretely, from our children, our students, and our grandchildren. This is wrong. It is wrong for us to send our bills to future generations simply because we lack the will or the desire to reduce spending. So we are here today with an important task. Congressional Republicans believe that strong American families form the soul of our Nation, shaping our values while building our future. That is why this report targets the lion's share of tax relief--73 percent--to strengthen families through the most important moments of life: marriage, birth, education, illness, and the twilight for our elderly. The tax package provides good benefits to middle-income families so that overtaxed middle-income families don't have to wait for their share of the balanced budget bonus. I am pleased this report includes an income threshold for the $500 per-child tax credit for those individuals who earn $75,000 and those joint filers who earn $110,000. Twenty-nine million Americans will benefit from this credit. Tax laws should not penalize people whose filing status changes because they fell in love and married. Married couples who claim the standard deduction--generally those with average incomes of $50,000-- will receive 8 billion dollars' worth of relief from the marriage tax penalty, equating to about $217 of annual tax relief for 23 million taxpayers. More than 3 million self-employed Americans will receive a phased-in deduction of 50 percent of their health insurance costs. Republicans also know that strong families need good jobs. That's why this report provides targeted tax relief aimed at the engine of economic growth--our private sector. Unlike the 1993 Democrat plan which raised taxes in the name of economic growth, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 provides tax cuts so the private sector can create more high-paying jobs. This includes a 50 percent capital gains deduction, with a maximum capital gains tax rate of 19.8 percent for individuals. Six million of the nine million will have incomes less than $100,000 a year. This historic legislation also makes a number of beneficial changes to the Personal Responsibility Act, the welfare reform bill that passed the House. The conference report increases to $800 million over 5 years the amount of funding for supplemental grants to States for population increases--the House-passed bill contained $500 million.--The report, as one of my recommendations requires States, in order to receive the full temporary assistance block grant, to spend at least 75 percent of the amount they spent in fiscal year 1995 for the first 4 years--the House passed bill contained no such requirement.--It also establishes an $800 million contingency fund to provide matching grants to States with unemployment rates above specified levels--the House contained no such provision. This report also includes modifications I supported and forwarded as recommendations to the House-passed prohibitions on cash aid under the family assistance block grant. It permits States to deny aid, rather than strictly prohibiting as in the House bill, to children who are born to an individual or family either currently receiving family assistance benefits or who received benefits at any point during the 10-month period leading up to the birth of the child. It also permits States to exempt up to 15 percent--up from 10 percent in the House bill--of their caseload for reasons of hardship from the 5-year limit on receiving cash benefits, a recommendation I forwarded to the welfare reform conferees as well. Thus, there are beneficial changes that have been made as a result of this conference report. President Clinton has stated that he will not let balancing the budget serve as a cover for destroying the social compact. The truth is, if the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 becomes law, the social compact will actually be strengthened. Not only will we keep our commitment to the elderly and the poor on health care, we will also meet an even more important obligation to the public that was abrogated 30 years ago--to spend no more than we take in. This legislation demonstrates that Republicans are steadfast in our determination to do the most important thing we will ever do: balance the budget. I urge passage of the conference report and I respectfully urge President Clinton to join this effort and negotiate with Congress to enact legislation to balance the budget.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that more than 70 percent of U.S. voters said they couldn't usually trust the government to do the right thing. This is a serious problem. One of the foundations of representative democracy is citizens trusting and having confidence in their elected officials. When trust and confidence dissipates, democracy cannot thrive. We have an obligation to try and regain the public's trust. This may not be easy, as public figures are scrutinized more carefully in this media age than ever before in our Nation's history. But we must make every effort to conduct ourselves in a way that is above reproach or suspicion. We must systematically and methodically modify our behavior and our institution in ways that reassure the American people. One of the most obvious ways to strengthen our institution is to address the issue of gifts to Members and staff. The public can see that current congressional gift rules are, quite frankly, farcical. Members and staff are free to accept gifts up to a cumulative value of $250 from anyone. But meals do not count, and gifts under $100 do not count toward the $250 limit. Recreational trips such as golf, tennis, and ski tournaments, which may be charitable but also give lobbyists unique access to Members and staff, are also permitted under current gift rules. It is extremely difficult to convince the public that this unique access does not influence the policy process. While few, if any, Members or staff are corrupted by a free meal or tickets to a Red Sox game, given the low regard that Americans have for Congress simply must set higher standards for ourselves. I strongly support House Resolution 250, which prohibits Members and staff from accepting any gift worth more than $50, and from accepting an aggregate of more than $100 worth of gifts from any one source in a year. It does not make the distinctions between whether or not the gift is given here in the District of Columbia, or back home. It does not make distinctions between gifts from lobbyists or nonlobbyists. The rule is clear, concise, and simple, and therefore more likely to be followed than a rule which is cumbersome or confusing. The legislation in no way prohibits Members from performing their responsibilities to constituents. They will still be able to travel around their State and meet their constituents, eat a hamburger at a barbecue or crab legs at a crab feast, accept tee-shirts, mugs, and other locally produced products. The bill recognizes that just because we are Members of Congress doesn't mean that we have no life or personal friends, and it contains a reasonable personal hospitality exemption. Finally, the bill has passed the test of political palatability, as the Senate fought out the battle of compromise last summer and unanimously passed this bill. Congressman Burton will offer a substitute amendment to House Resolution 250 that emphasizes full disclosure of gifts rather than banning gifts. Under the Burton substitute, recreational trips would still be permitted, and Members and staff could accept gifts up to a $250 annual limit. The Burton amendment is an improvement over current law, but I believe it does not go far enough, and I intend to vote against it. Will passage of House Resolution 250 alone restore public confidence in Congress? Perhaps not, but we cannot refuse to act simply because we may not achieve our goal promptly. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Burton amendment and support House Resolution 250 so that we can show the American people that we have heard and respect their clarion call for action.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the gift ban reform bill and against the Burton amendment. I would just like to make several simple points. First, the current rules which we have are farcical. Why, gifts under $100 do not even count to the $250 cumulative limit we can achieve. No. 2, the executive branch lives by tough gift rules. Gifts over $20 are banned, and the cumulative value of gifts which can be accepted is $50. No. 3, this reform bill is not overly restrictive. Gifts over $50 are banned, and gifts under $50 may be accepted up to an aggregate of $100. Finally, and maybe this is most important of all, the public, our constituents, probably get no unsolicited gifts whatsoever. We are arguing about the amount of the gifts we should get. I think we should not be afraid to restrict ourselves in terms of these gifts. Mr. Speaker, I urge us to consider that. I would also urge us to look at the fact that the Senate passed this same bill unanimously last year. I would urge us to defeat the Burton bill, to consider the Gingrich amendment, as you please, and to make absolutely sure that we all vote for the reform bill in the name of the public when it comes up at the end of the day.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take anything close to 5 minutes, with the hour of the night and the work we have been doing. I would just like to second everything we have heard already in the rules discussion, what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has said, what the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has said, particularly in the area of not amending this legislation. I do not care how meritorious an amendment could be, it could be fatal to the passage of a very important step in progressing with true lobbying reform. We have already heard the history here of 50 years of different Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle finding a whole variety of reasons why they are not able to support the basic elements of lobbying reform, disclosure, the things we needed to do in order to make sure that we are dealing with the problem that is perceived, and I think to some degree is a reality, of dealing with lobbyists in the United States of America and in the Congress of the United States of America. I would hope we would all follow that. I believe this bill before us today meets the basic purpose of lobbying disclosure, which is quite simple: Require people who are paid to lobby Congress to disclose who is paying them, how much they are being paid, and what they are paid to lobby about. It is not much more complicated than that. I congratulate the Senate and the sponsor here for capturing the essence of this. The bill takes care of this by carefully defining who is a lobbyist and which lobbyist must register; again, something which is, in my view, very imprecise today and ill-defined in the laws of the United States of America. Of course, it makes it very difficult to follow exactly who are the lobbyists, what is the problem, and what should we be doing about it. I congratulate all of those who have put it together. The bottom line is that the House of Representatives must pass lobbying reform legislation this year that ultimately can be signed into law, and there is no reason for a delay. Through the process tonight and the votes that may be taken on other days as we deal with this particular piece of legislation, we must resist it. This is a good bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. I encourage all of us to follow it very carefully, to understand what is in it, and as we did with the gift ban reform today, which I think turned out in a way that only a few could dream about before, we can pass this, too, and we will have taken two tremendous strides in making Congress a more respected and better-perceived place by the public, as they look at what we are doing in our jobs here. Mr. Chairman, I wish the sponsor very good luck with all of this as we deal with this in the days to come, and urge its passage.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill before us today, H.R. 2204, a basically noncontroversial measure to extend and reauthorize the Defense Production Act of 1950. In this, I am grateful to enjoy the support of Representative James A. Leach, chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. In true bipartisan spirit, our distinguished former chairman, Representative Gonzalez and Representative Flake, the ranking member of the subcommittee have also provided their strong support for this legislation and I am very appreciative of their efforts. I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge the valued input provided by Representative Metcalf, Representative Barr, Representative Chrysler, and Representative Watt of the subcommittee. Their counsel has served to improve the future exercise of Defense Production Act authorities. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the House Banking and Financial Services Committee has primary jurisdiction over the Defense Production Act, which is the primary statute used for the mobilization of civilian efforts during national disasters in peacetime and in support of the national defense during periods of national emergency. The authorization for the DPA expired on September 30, 1995. This legislation would extend and reauthorize the DPA until September 30, 1998. Title I of the DPA is designed to ensure that the Armed Forces of the United States can obtain the critical goods and services required to carry out their duties during wartime national emergencies and peacetime national disasters. It provides the President with the authority to establish an order of precedence among contracts and to require that those contracts or orders for essential goods, necessary to the national defense, take precedence over other contracts or orders. In addition, title I authorizes the President to manage the allocation of materials, equipment, and services necessary to promote the national defense. The fiscal year 1995 Defense Authorization Act redefined ``national defense'' and amended the DPA to extend the application of the authorities under title I to be used in the event of a national disaster. This is a sensible adaptation to permit these capabilities and authorities to be employed to help victims of natural disasters-- floods, fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes. These authorities have been employed to support the U.S. military in every conflict since 1950. Operation Desert Storm was a recent example of a conflict situation that arose with special needs that could not be completely anticipated and supplied through the ordinary operations of the market. Currently the Bosnian situation places actual and potential emergency equipment and logistical demands for the support of our forces. Title III authorizes the President to use incentives to establish, expand, and maintain domestic production capacity for critical components, critical items of technology, and essential industrial resources required for the execution of the national security strategy of the United States. No appropriations for DPA have been requested by this administration for fiscal year 1996 and none are forecast for fiscal year 1997. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 2204 would result in additional outlays of $80 to $85 million over the 5-year period between 1996-2000. All of these costs would be subject to discretionary appropriations. The bill is not subject to pay as you go procedures because it would not affect direct spending or receipts. Enactment of this bill will have no effect on the budgets of State and local governments. Mr. Speaker, the administration and the minority support this extension of the DPA through September 30, 1998. The other body has already passed substantially identical legislation by unanimous consent. This bill is a provident and careful provision for the unpredictable conflict or national emergency. I urge its immediate adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2204) to extend and reauthorize the Defense Production Act of 1950, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2204, the bill just passed.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce two temporary duty suspension bills. It is my understanding that they are noncontroversial. I am introducing these on behalf of AgrEvo, a company located in my home State of Delaware whose business is strictly limited to the manufacture, distribution, and sale of proprietary patented agrichemical products to American farmers. These bills will assist the company's overall competitive posture by lowering its cost of doing business. Further, duty exemption legislation will enable the company to maintain a stable and growing work force. I realize there are serious budgetary and other constraints impeding the progress of such duty exemption bills, but by formally introducing such legislation we can begin to create the necessary visibility and interest within the U.S. trade community and their European counterparts so that these issues can be negotiated. The administration has the authority to forward specific tariff reductions to the World Trade Organization to facilitate the adoption of chemical tariffs at lower levels. By allowing other countries to participate in the World Trade Organization to harmonize chemical tariff agreements, the administration would be able to address the growing demand for new duty suspensions on chemical products by utilizing existing tariff proclamation authority. This legislation would benefit American businesses, workers, and our farmers. It is my hope that these duty suspension issues can be resolved.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the inclusion of the 17 legislative riders contained in the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I have looked at this from the perspective of my own State, and I think if you magnify that by 435, because my State is, after all, a congressional district, you get some idea of the problems in this bill and with these riders. For example, in clean water, we would lose $1.8 million to treat wastewater pollution, and this means that we would have raw sewage potentially pour into our local waters reaching our beaches, and we depend upon the tourism industry, from the outdated treatment systems at 38 locations around Delaware. It would also affect recreational and commercial fishing. We are going to have next Monday a celebration of a cleanup of a Superfund site in the State of Delaware. We would not be able to start a new one next year if these riders pass. We have a problem with an oil refinery. We tried to work with them. But this rider would halt efforts to protect the health of communities living near that refinery in Delaware which emitted more than 100,000 pounds of toxic air in 1993, obviously affecting, potentially, the health of a lot of people in the State of Delaware. These riders essentially prevent a lot of things from happening in the environmental area that should go ahead. Every American should be concerned by the fact that these riders will specifically benefit certain special interests. In fact, there are winners in this, clear winners, the cement kiln industry, the oil industry, the paper and pulp industries, and there are losers. The losers, as far as I can ascertain, are practically everybody else in America, individuals and some corporations. These riders undermine laws that prevent harmful exposure to lead, arsenic, and other toxins and can literally affect the quality of our air and our water. The bottom line is that, as written, these are not reasonable reforms but special breaks to a few industries. The antienvironmental riders are bad policy, bad politics and bad for the health and safety of the American people, and they should be dropped from this bill. If the riders are allowed, the bill will be an environmental disaster and a special-interest bonanza. I would encourage all of us to vote ``yes'' on the previous question to support the Stokes motion to instruct.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 7 year Balanced Budget Act. My commitment to balancing the budget is based on personal experience. I have lived through disastrous times in my own State when we did not balance our State budget and I have seen the tremendous economic recovery that occurred when the State took the tough steps necessary to balance its budget. In the 1970s, the State of Delaware was an economic basket case. We had the highest personal income taxes in the country--19.8 percent--but the State could still not balance its budget because it was spending too much; businesses were leaving the State as fast as they could get out. In short, Delaware's State government operated the way the Federal Government operates today. Delaware finally decided to face the music, we passed a balanced budget amendment and began to get our economic house in order. Since that time, Delaware has been one of the economic showplaces of the Nation. We have balanced our budget 19 straight times, reduced taxes 6 times; we have created more jobs on a percentage basis than virtually any other State; reduced poverty more than any other State during the 1980's. This would not have happened if we had not balanced our budget. It's time for the Federal Government to do this for the entire Nation. Mr. Chairman, I know from my experience as a Governor, balancing a budget is not easy. Tough decisions have to be made. This legislation makes those decisions in a fair manner. I have not agreed with every provision and have worked hard to modify some of them. I strongly support the inclusion of the Castle-Upton-Martini deficit reduction certification and monitoring provision in the bill. This requires a process of that will ensure that we stay on path to a balanced budget each year until 2002. I also appreciate the efforts that have been made to improve the Medicaid funding formula to ensure that all States are treated fairly in the necessary effort to reform the Medicaid System. Whatever particular differences we have with specific provisions of this bill, we can not and should not overlook the larger and most important goal of balancing the budget. Simply put, because of its deficit spending, the Federal Government is eating up money that would normally go to businesses and individuals. This year the Government will pay $233 billion in interest on the debt, more than the $160 billion deficit for this year. If we don't change we will be paying $340 billion in interest by 2002. If the Government stops depleting the pool of money available for savings, it would lower business's costs of borrowing and enable them to invest in the equipment that makes their employees more productive and increases their paychecks. Earlier this year, a private economist estimated that balancing the budget would raise our national output an extra 2.5 percent over the next 10 years. That would mean an average of an extra $1,000 a year for each American family. The economy would create 2.4 million more jobs by 2005 than if we do nothing about the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that enactment of balanced budget legislation will result in lower interest rates that will save the Government over $170 billion in interest payments by 2002. Tearing up Uncle Sam's credit card allows the private sector to grow and affects us all from lower home mortgages to more business expansion. Balancing the budget is good for us now and it is great for our kids and the Nation's future. I urge passage of the reconciliation bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, I rise in opposition to the main Gingrich Republican substitute amendment and in favor of what we call the coalition proposal that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and others have worked out. Balancing the budget is not an issue everyone is for, reducing the deficit is not an issue everyone is for, and our section in agriculture though bears a tremendous burden, more than the norm. We have always provided in the past 10 years over $50 billion. If every other committee had done what the Committee on Agriculture has done, we would not be worrying here about reducing the budget or balancing the budget. We have done it. We have done our fair share. But in this case the process I must object to. We have not had a hearing on the freedom to farm, we have not had any discussion. We have had votes in the committee where everything failed. Basically the freedom to farm that is in this proposal has not and does not have the approval of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, I strongly suggest that it might be well for us in the agriculture sector, in the areas where we impact negatively on Medicare, on Medicaid, that this is not the proper procedure, and I had to go to the Committee on Rules to say, ``We have not had the opportunity to handle this. I hope that you do something for us.'' Unfortunately they did not. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2491, and in support of the Democratic substitute. Mr. Chairman, the process of the development of this reconciliation bill has brought us a season of surprises: First, in a year when the No. 1 fiscal priority of the American people is to balance the budget, the Gingrich Republicans propose a $245 billion tax cut: Second, when a primary concern for many Americans revolves around providing health care for their elderly parents, Republicans cut Medicare by $270 billion; and Finally--because of Republican conflicts over their own priorities-- national farm policy for the next 7 years has been written in the House Committee on Rules. Mr. Chairman, the 1995 reconciliation process has turned into the sole forum for establishing national farm policy for the next 7 years. In past years, we have had the opportunity to prepare comprehensive farm policy in a deliberative, all-inclusive manner. When we've been required to comply with budget reconciliation instructions, the House Agriculture Committee has complied to the tune of $50 billion in savings from 1981 through 1993. The confusion this year of the policymaking process with the deficit elimination process has led to paralysis in the Agriculture Committee. For the first time ever, the House Agriculture Committee has failed to meet its budget reconciliation obligations. As a result--Mr. Chairman--Speaker Gingrich and his Rules Committee were given the task of writing farm policy that will take us through 2002. I do want to commend Chairman Roberts for his efforts this year. He was placed in an impossible position. The Gingrich Republicans are requiring a 25 percent reduction in agricultural spending in order to provide a $245 billion tax cut. Mr. Roberts fought hard earlier this year for that tax cut to be scaled back, but to no avail. We agree that the tax cut is inappropriate and that it leads to farm program cuts so deep that the viability of our Nation's food production system is threatened. Mr. Chairman, Americans are the best fed people in the world. They have a stable and abundant supply of nutritious food, and pay a lower percent of their disposal income for food than any other nation in the industrialized world. I like to think that the House Agriculture Committee--on a bipartisan basis and in spite of what editorial writers say--has played a constructive role in that success story. Nevertheless, Speaker Gingrich, the Republican leader, and the Republican whip wrote a letter to Chairman Roberts last month. That letter dictated to the Agriculture Committee--in no uncertain terms-- the specific policy option the committee was to choose in order to meet its reconciliation savings. No room was left for the committee to deliberate--for the committee to obtain the views of farmers, of consumer groups, of the administration. Mr. Chairman, the Freedom to Farm Act included by decree of Speaker Gingrich in the bill now before the House, was first introduced as a bill in August. Our committee has not held one hearing on it. The details of the dairy portion were only made available in September: same story--no hearings. Mr. Chairman, farmers in every region of this country have very grave concerns about the agriculture provisions before the House. They represent a sudden and dramatic abandonment by the government of its roll in sharing the farmer's risk. Farmers are particularly concerned that this sudden withdrawal of the Federal Government from sharing their risks may make the difference in their fight to stay on the farm. Yes, they may know that each year they will get a cash payment, but if prices collapse next year, will that payment be enough? If wheat prices fall to $2.50, how many wheat farmers will be out of business in Kansas, in the Dakotas, in Washington? If cotton prices fall back down to 45 cents, how many cotton growers--spread out all over the South-- will survive? If corn prices are under $2, where will the corn belt be? What if milk prices fall to $9, how many of New England's dairy farmers can make it? Mr. Chairman, farmers will hope for the best. But if the best doesn't materialize, and a substantial base of our food and fiber production capacity is lost--will we feel that it was worth the risk, to have incurred that loss in order to provide a $245 billion tax cut? All these questions, Mr. Chairman, and we have no answers--not even opinions. All we had in the Agriculture Committee this year were a few votes. No discussion. No consideration of the views of the farmers, the consumers, the businesses that thrive on the products of agriculture-- those hearings on which we've always heavily relied. The policy before the House was not aired out in the Agriculture Committee, it was dictated by Speaker Gingrich and Republican Leader Armey. Mr. Chairman, it is not easy to figure out where we went wrong this year but I do know this: The most basic needs of our society are at stake and we are nowhere near to a consensus on where we should go. The paralysis of the Agriculture Committee and the dissension within the majority party make it clear that we need to start over again. We need to support the Democratic substitute and if that fails, we need to vote this bill down and start again. The American people don't want this bill and many American farmers will not survive this bill. A right-thinking bipartisan majority defeated this proposal in the Agriculture Committee. Many of my colleagues on the Republican side know that the agriculture title in this bill is wrong. I urge them to resist the Speaker's pressure and to join with us; to oppose this bill today; and to work with us in trying to reach a consensus on a balanced budget that doesn't undermine agriculture. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Chairman Lazio and Congressman Blute, who have worked hard on this legislation and who have made a commitment to supporting and protecting older Americans. As a member of the Banking Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development and a cosponsor of this bill, I am pleased that we are voting on this legislation today. The Senior Citizens Housing Safety and Economic Relief Act addresses a problem that has arisen both as a result of a national housing policy which allows for the mixing of elderly and disabled populations in public housing; and a 1988 law that expanded the definition of disabled to include former abusers of drugs and alcohol. Senior housing units were created to aid older or disabled people who needed a place to live by. By expanding the definition of disabled, we have virtually made seniors prisoners in their own homes. They are afraid to leave their own apartments due to the harassment, intimidation, and even physical abuse that they must endure at the hands of some so-called disabled residents who are living at the expense of American taxpayers. I have visited housing complexes in Delaware, and when I toured Electra Arms high-rise apartments and East Lake family housing complex, I heard time and time again from both the housing authorities and residents that other than weapons and crime in some of the lower income housing, they thought this was the single greatest problem which they face. Just last week, a female, a mentally disabled resident with a history of drug dependency who is not elderly, but is [[Page H 10656]] living in the elderly-only Crestview Apartments in Wilmington, set fire to her 8th floor unit. The fire was set intentionally, and did considerable damage before being brought under control. Thankfully, no one was hurt. But, unfortunately our country's seniors endure incidences such as this every day. Seniors should feel protected and secure in their homes. This bill takes us one major step closer to making public housing communities safer and bringing peace of mind to residents. Again, I applaud the leadership of Chairman Lazio and Congressman Blute and urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Medicare Preservation Act. This is a realistic proposal which addresses the serious problem of Medicare's pending bankruptcy. For the last 6 months, I've traveled throughout Delaware, held town meetings, and visited with senior centers to talk about this important program, which provides health care for roughly 100,000 aged and disabled Delawareans. Delawareans want to know that this critical program will be there for them in the future. They recognize that the Government cannot afford to continue the Medicare Program as it currently exists. [[Page H 10382]] Medicare, created in 1965, is comprised of two parts, part A and part B, which provide hospital coverage and doctor coverage for 99 percent of all older Americans. President Clinton's Medicare trustees have clearly and succinctly stated that the program is in financial dire straits. Why? The Medicare Program grew at a rate of 10.5 percent last year--three times that of inflation and twice as much as private sector medical costs. Further, the General Accounting Office [GAO] has estimated that as much as $44 billion a year is wasted on Medicare and Medicaid fraud, and about 30 cents of every dollar is wasted or lost due to mismanagement by a Federal agency. Thirty-seven million people depend on the Medicare Program, and it is frustrating to see the program politicized. No one--not Democrats, not Republicans--invented Medicare's financial crisis. The program has been heading toward bankruptcy for years. During the last Congress, President Clinton created a bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, on which I was selected to serve, to try to transcend politics and address entitlement programs in a responsible, bipartisan manner. In forming the Commission, President Clinton said ``This Commission will be asked to grapple with real issues of entitlement reforms. . . . This panel, I expect, will ask and answer the tough questions. . . . Many regard this as a thankless task. It will not be thankless if it gives us a strong and secure and healthy American economy and society moving into the 21st Century.'' While the final report to the President did not endorse specific proposals to reform entitlement programs, it stated ``We must act promptly to address this imbalance between the government's promises and its ability to pay.'' However, no further action was taken by the Democratic leadership in Congress or the President. In contrast, Republican leadership in Congress has bravely confronted the issue, refusing to be thrown off track by those who are trying to turn Medicare reform into a political hot button. The Republican proposal recognizes that we simply must control the program's spiraling growth rate to guarantee that the program is maintained well into the future. The proposal does not bow to the political pressure of those who want a feel-good proposal that only scratches the surface of reform in order to provide a quick fix until after the next election. Having said that, I think it would be naive to throw unconditional support behind any proposal that modernizes a 30-year program. Reforming Medicare is complicated business, and we do not have crystal balls allowing us to predict perfectly the outcome of these bold reforms. I do have some reservations about the proposal. For example, I am concerned about the potential impact of the ``look back'' provision that allows additional savings to come from doctor and hospital reimbursement rates if the amount of savings predicted under the bill do not measure up. I want to ensure that nursing homes continue to be a safe place for our seniors. I want to ensure that some of the deregulatory provisions in the bill don't ultimately increase costs, like those relating to physician self-referral. Given the stakes here, however, the good cannot be set aside while we try to achieve the perfect. In its entirety, the proposal is realistic, sensible, and fair. The proposal saves Medicare from bankruptcy and recognizes that dramatic changes must be made and new options must be provided to this important program. Next year, the Federal Government starts spending more on Medicare than it takes in and in 6 short years, the Medicare Program is insolvent. Under the Republican plan, Medicare is preserved until 2010, benefits will continue to grow and patient choice is not only maintained--it is expanded. Older Americans receiving Medicare can stay in the current system, with their current doctor, without having to choose another health care plan. Or, they can choose a private sector plan that offers more benefits, like prescription drugs or eyeglasses or put their funds into a medical savings account. Under the Republican plan, there are no cuts in spending--spending goes up 40 percent over 7 years, with per beneficiary spending increasing from $4,800 today to $6,700 in 2002; there is no increase in Medicare copayments; there is no increase in Medicare deductibles; and there is no change in the current rate of Medicare premiums. Today and tomorrow, premiums are 31.5 percent of Medicare part B costs. They will continue to be calculated that way. In addition, the bill cracks down on waste, fraud, and abuse that pervades the current system, enacts tough malpractice reforms to end runaway spending and frivolous lawsuits, and allows doctors and hospitals to join hands in providing health care in a provider network arrangement. Lastly, the Medicare Preservation Act clearly states that the savings from slowing Medicare's growth rate must go back into the health care system in a lock box and cannot be used for any other purpose. Enacting a bold Medicare preservation plan is not only absolutely necessary; it is the responsible action and the least we can do for the 37 million Americans who depend upon Medicare now and for the millions of Americans who will depend upon Medicare in the future.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on the Agriculture appropriations bill. The conference report is almost $5 billion less than the 1995 level, so it is making a significant contribution to reducing spending to get to a balanced budget. These are real cuts. In making these cuts, I realize Chairman Skeen and the members of the committee had some very difficult decisions to make. During House consideration of the Agriculture appropriations bill, I and many other members who represent rural areas expressed concern over the size of the proposed reduction in the section 502 Rural Housing Program. At that time, Chairman Skeen and Representative Durbin promised that they would try to provide adequate funding for this program during the conference with the Senate. They have made good on that promise. In the original House bill, the committee was forced to make almost a 50-percent cut in the 502 Rural Housing Program. Because of the changes made in conference, the bill will now provide $1.2 billion in loans to help low-income Americans in rural areas purchase their own homes. The 502 Direct Loan Program is the only affordable homeownership program that serves low and very-low income families in rural areas. The typical direct loan borrower is working and is making $15,165 per year. These are hardworking people trying to achieve the American dream of owning their own home. The 502 Direct Program is the most effective program to help them make that dream a reality. This program works. It helps people who would otherwise be unable to afford a home, make the step to homeownership. While these families have very low income, they pay their mortgages. There is currently a 2- to 3-year waiting list for these loans. Construction of these homes provides new jobs, an expanded tax base for schools and other investments and increased sales and other tax revenues. A single family 502 direct home generates 1.75 jobs, $50,201 in wages, and $20,560 in annual tax revenues to rural America. In short, the program not only provides homes to low-income rural families, it provides jobs and tax revenues to rural communities. The conference committee has done a good job in balancing priorities among all our agriculture and rural programs. I strongly support the conference report and urge my colleagues to approve its passage.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the TEAM Act, and want to thank Representative Gunderson for all his good work on this important legislation. My colleagues, if we are truly concerned about our ability to successfully compete globally in the 21st century, the TEAM Act should pass. The House passed the CAREERS Act last week which assisted in preparing our national workforce; today, we will pass the TEAM Act which will help modernize the workplace. Global competition has caused many American companies--including those in the State of Delaware--to abandon top-down decisionmaking in favor of giving employees a greater voice in the company's operations. Unfortunately, employee-employer cooperation is illegal under current law--section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations AcT. The TEAM Act enables our companies to compete in the world marketplace that demands and requires the intellectual engagement of everyone involved-- especially the employees. Employee empowerment in the workplace is not just a luxury, but a necessity. To be sure, America's businesses will face great challenges from our global competitors as we move into the integrated marketplace of the 21st century. We will face these tests head-on. But, we cannot afford to remain encumbered by perhaps the biggest rival of all, Depression- era labor laws that inhibit productivity, cooperation, and the ability to promote employee job security. Let's pass a commonsense act which will make today's often practiced employee-employer cooperation legal.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1617, the CAREERS Act, because I believe it is a good step forward toward repairing our Nation's existing fragmented, disjointed, and overlapping work force preparation program. The CAREERS Act is a good faith, bipartisan effort to simplify and improve Federal employment training efforts by consolidating or eliminating over 150 existing education, training, and employment assistance programs into four consolidated grants to the States. In doing so, this legislation allows for the development of creative and comprehensive work force preparation programs designed to meet the specific needs of local communities. The bill provides Governors with unprecedented flexibility to address the work force requirements in their own States, and institutes a one-stop delivery system uniting employers and training centers with prospective workers and trainees that has worked so well in Delaware. If we are to remain globally competitive, a comprehensive work force training program that allows on-the-job training and placement services must exist. I am confident that if this legislation is enacted, it will establish a work force preparation system that will allow us to reduce the number of dislocated workers and people on welfare, and keep our competitive edge in the world marketplace. The CAREERS Act consolidates 35 categorical education and job training programs for youth into a single comprehensive career preparation grant for youth. Clearly, the Federal Government can play a constructive role in helping States educate and prepare our young people so that they can be productive participants in tomorrow's economy. America's future hinges on the successes of our youth today. The Federal Government has directly supported vocational education since 1917, with the Smith-Hughes Act, which supported programs in agriculture and home economics. Since then, laws have been passed creating additional programs, establishing new priorities, and increasing funding for special populations. However, it is clear today that these programs are not achieving their intended goals. Evidence suggests that the programs need to be consolidated and woven into a seamless system to help youth move from school to jobs and further education. The CAREERS bill accomplishes this. It encourages the education community to join with local business, community leaders, and parents to reinvigorate old programs. The two principles which undergrid CAREERS are: 1. Vocational/career-related education should become an integral part of a reformed American system of education and training. A comprehensive system would provide all students with access, multiple entry and exit points, clear education pathways, quality programs, high standards, information and linkage to the labor market. 2. Vocational/career-related education should be high quality, and competency-based, with industry involvement The bill authorizes $2.3 billion in fiscal year 1997 for the youth development and career preparation consolidation grant that provides opportunities to State and local governments to design programs to assist high school age students with job training and vocational education. The reporting committee, the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, of which I am a member, originally included a controversial section on vocational rehabilitation. The overarching goal of this section, title 5, was to transform the system into a flexible and consumer-directed system, focusing on employment, empowerment through choice and vouchers, and results by improving rehabilitation results for those disabled through competition among providers. I believe this change in focus was overdue. I am concerned that the unemployment rate of severely disabled Americans continues to hover close to 80 percent. Many factors affecting this high rate of unemployment need to be addressed by Congress; CAREERS was the committee's first step, good faith attempt to solving this urgent problem. The public rehabilitation system has evolved over a 75-year history and has developed a degree of expertise and success in serving those individuals with the greatest needs. However, serious shortcomings exist in the centralized service delivery structure--shortcomings that are becoming more glaring as the need for rehabilitation among Americans with disabilities becomes more acute. H.R. 1617, as reported out of committee, maintained current funding for rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities. To be certain that the specialized expertise for disability services would be built into the new system, the bill provided for a gradual transition phase from the current system to the new system over a 3-year period. H.R. 1617 also built in many safeguards to ensure that individuals with disabilities have their special needs properly addressed in a revised and restructured job training system. Some members of the disability community were told that under H.R. 1617, individuals with disabilities would lose access to vocational services. I believed this system would provide high quality general and specialized rehabilitation services that would help many more Delawareans with disabilities enter the work force and become contributing, productive participants in society. H.R. 1617 allowed Delaware to continue to play a role, in coordination with the local system, for delivering direct services when necessary, and would have permitted to Delaware to maintain separate rehabilitation agencies for the blind. In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Select Education in 1986, James Gaschel, director of governmental affairs for the National Federation of the Blind, testified: This sense of growing frustration with the current system of vocational rehabilitation has led many of us in the National Federation of the Blind to give thought to alternative system of services rather than using the traditional vocational rehabilitation State agencies. One plan would be to install a free market system where clients could pick and choose among rehabilitation agencies who would, in a sense, be competing for their patronage. This would be a step beyond and outside of the institutionalized State vocational rehabilitation agency system. It would provide a rehabilitation benefit in a sense of portable funding available to a handicapped individual for use at any agency capable of providing the services. Maybe we are ahead of our time in proposing such a concept, or even thinking about it, but we think Congress should consider it. In conclusion, based on input from consumers and others over many years, the State-run rehabilitation system is not nearly as efficient in the use of resources as it should be, is slow to respond to individual needs and aspirations has very little accountability for outcomes, and allows very limited market forces of competition to improve the quality of services to individuals with disabilities. I believed it to be essential, in the development of a statewide work force preparation system under H.R. 1617, that vocational rehabilitation be a full partner in the system. It would have allowed disabled individuals to gain access to specialized rehabilitation and employment services through a new, locally based, one-stop career center system. The choice before Congress is clear. It can allow the status quo bureaucracy to continue its mediocre performance in helping individuals with severe disabilities. Or, Congress can take the next logical step in reform of vocational rehabilitation by making the system more focused on real employment outcomes, empowering individuals through direct choice and service vouchers, and getting better results from vocational rehabilitation providers. I look forward to continuing to work on this legislation to improve it as it moves through the legislative process.