Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do not offer an amendment at this time, but I would like to just discuss generally the subject of the intelligence budget and also a specific item under that which I think needs to be understood by the Members of this Congress. I am new to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in that I joined it in January of this year, and, quite frankly, I had no idea, as my colleague and many others in this body may, of the scope of what the intelligence community in the United States of America and beyond the United States of America actually does because of the nature of the information with which we deal. Obviously a lot of this is not discussed publicly, and I would encourage every Member, particularly the newer Member of Congress, those like me who are serving in our second term and the first-term Members, if they could possibly, to visit the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence rooms to learn as much as they can about this extraordinary process. I think it is very, very important to our national security and something we should all understand. I would like to congratulate the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], and all the members actually of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the extraordinary devotion. They have been great mentors and teachers to me. They are as devoted as any group of individuals I have ever met to this subject and deserve, I think great congratulations. They do speak at times in acronyms, and I cannot understand them all the time, but I am trying to fight my way through that as well, as I cannot say enough about the staff itself, an extremely talented group of individuals and, again, one which is ready to help all the Members of this Congress when we have, when the Members have, an opportunity to understand better what we are doing in intelligence. I did want to discuss one subject, and that is the subject of the satellites that we are dealing with in the intelligence side of the space program. Pending results of the committee's IC 21 studies, which of course is what is going to happen in the 21st century, the bill before us makes no radical changes save in one area, and that area is satellites, where we took a number of substantial initiatives, for two primary reasons. First, the rationale for these actions is that current, well-published plans to reduce the number of intelligence spacecraft on orbit will leave us even more vulnerable to denial and deception. A second reason is that space budgets have become unsustainably high. without major reductions in space program costs, we will be faced with truly unpalatable choices. We will have to devote a still greater percentage of the intelligence budget to satellites. Or we will have to forego or eliminate some much-needed satellite capabilities in order to fund other overhead collection programs. The space budget situation within the National Reconnaissance Program is little different from that encountered by others, such as NASA. And, our solutions sometimes will have to be similar to those now being pioneered by NASA--cutting spacecraft weight and launch costs, building satellites more rapidly and getting technology on orbit faster, taking full advantage of rapidly advancing commercial technology, and so on. Advancing technology and management changes could allow us to have more capability for less money. We are pushing these programs very hard, and I am pleased to see that, and we are pushing the programs, as I said, and the methodologies, which will in a few years--could permit a large and enduring for the future cost reduction. So we are confident that we are dealing correctly with the present and rapidly coming future technology which will ultimately help the taxpayers of the United States of America. I just close again by thanking, congratulating, those who put in a lot of hours without television cameras or some of the normal glare and publicity that comes with this particular job because it makes a huge difference, and I think without it our country would suffer.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] for his support of what I have spoken to and also his kind statements about me. I concur with the gentleman. The costs; I think satellites have a tremendous place in intelligence and security for this country. On the other hand we all know that the cost of satellites and the whole space costs are tremendous, and I think we have to work diligently and constantly to make sure that the reward that we get from this is worth the costs that we are putting into it, and never can we really let up on that. My view, after seeing this up close, is that this is a particularly difficult, but important, area, one that should take a substantial percentage of our time, and I agree.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman both for yielding and for being the manager of this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] who worked so very hard on this. They have done an extraordinary job. Mr. Chairman, budgeting in the U.S. Government is the most complex procedure I have ever dealt with in my life. With a family budget, we sit down and look at our checkbook. With a corporate budget, generally there is a committee that does it. And in State, city, or country government, there is one committee that does the appropriations and sets the basic budget tone and then it is reviewed and signed or not signed. Here in Washington, we deal with budget resolutions done by one committee, appropriations bills done by 13 subcommittees, appropriations bills, reconciliations, raising the debt ceiling of the United States of America, maybe a continuing resolution. It has taken me the 2\1/2\ years that I have been here just to begin to comprehend what it is we are doing with it. Mr. Chairman, how is it for the public? All they know is that we have a $4.95 trillion debt, that we have a deficit every year, and they keep saying to me, and all of us, I am sure, ``Why can't you all balance the budget?'' [[Page H 8844]] I think we are honestly making an effort. We have, in the last 2\1/2\ years in this House, passed a balanced budget amendment; we have passed a line-item veto, so that the President can get involved in the process on a line-item basis; we have eliminated the baseline budgeting, so that we look at the budget from the year before and calculate our budgets from that; and now, we have the lockbox concept. Mr. Chairman, it is complicated and sort of a complicated name, but it is so doggone simple in what it does. That is, when you cut something from an appropriations bill on this floor from now on, it is going to stay cut and will not be added some place else, either in that appropriation or some other appropriation. Mr. Chairman, I think that is pretty straightforward when it comes right down to it. For that reason, I rise in strong support of this legislation as part of the overall package, which I believe we need to make our procedures simpler, to make them plainer, so that we as Members know exactly what we are doing and so the public can recognize what we are doing. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can all support this legislation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], whose knowledge about ERISA is indeed encyclopedic, for yielding this time to me, and the gentleman from New Jersey, who sponsored this piece of legislation, and my feelings may not be as strong as some in this room, but I have a real-life experience that I would just like to relate to my colleagues. I rise in very strong support of H.R. 1594 because our Nation's retirees' and our senior citizens' hard-earned pensions must not and cannot be jeopardized by the Department of Labor's promotion of riskier, politically targeted investments that do not take into account our Nation's laws governing the safety of our retirees' pension investments. Now I probably did not know a lot about this issue, and, when I became Governor in 1985 of the State of Delaware, I received a call from Mr. Ernst Danneman, who had heard word that I was sort of interested in economically targeted investments, and I was. I had it in my mind that we could help with mortgages to the poor, that we could help keep jobs in the State of Delaware, that there were a number of things that we could perhaps do if we were able to use some of that money, and clearly it was a source of money at a time when we did not have a lot, and he came into my office, and he said, ``Mike, I'm not a politician,'' and it turns out he is a registered declined, does not give to political campaigns, never been involved in politics at all. He has run a business, and he ran our pension board. He was the man who was the head of the Board of Pension Trustees in the State of Delaware. And he said: I've heard what you are thinking about in economically targeted investments, and I want to tell you it is absolutely wrong. It is the most difficult job in the world to manage pension funds correctly, to compete with other managed funds out there, to be able to return the top dollar to the individuals who should benefit from the top dollar, which is the retirees and the employees that will one day be the retirees. He said, ``You should not consider this under any circumstance,'' and he proved to me by showing examples that there are States and there are corporations which have tried to do this and it has not worked particularly well. I took that to task, and for 8 years we never thought about it at all. We let our Board of Pension Trustees run our pension plan. We had, I think, two of those years the highest return of any public pension plan in the entire United States of America, all because we allowed these individuals to do it, and that money did regenerate into our economy because of course our retirees and eventually those who were to retire were able to receive funds. So, it worked extraordinarily well. It was a lesson well learned. I called Mr. Danneman yesterday--I had not spoken to him in probably over a year or two--to talk to him about this saying I would like to present this story on the floor, and he said, ``Mike, absolutely,'' and he said a couple of things. He said, ``One, the Board of Pension Trustees--and it doesn't make any difference if it is private or public, I might add--has a fiduciary duty to return as much money as possible.'' Then he said, ``Investing dollars is a single-minded effort. You can't cure the world's problems on the side.'' I think that is a very weighty statement. He pointed out the social investing does not do as well, and I realize that this has it in some protection such as a prudent-man rule, and we are supported to be able to return an investment, but even in the private sector there can be pressure from a chairman who has a wrong concept, pressure from a board that has a wrong concept, perhaps somebody will read about what the Department of Labor is doing, and I really honestly believe that we should do everything in our power to keep the Department of Labor and Government out of our pension plans and let them run it correctly.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kasich-Dellums- Obey amendment to cut $493 million from advanced Air Force procurement for additional B-2 bomber funding. My opposition to additional B-2 funding is based largely on the great fiscal constraints facing our Nation and the reality that these budget limits may eventually require that we revise our adherence to the current two-war strategy. The most pressing problem facing the Federal Government is the $5 trillion national debt and the need to balance the budget. Given the pressing need to reduce the deficit, it will be very hard to maintain current defense spending, much less increase it significantly. Therefore, I believe it will be very difficult to properly fund our current strategy to fight two major wars simultaneously. I agree we would need closer to 30-40 B-2's for this strategy,but given a lack of an imminent global challenge from a competing superpower, let alone a likely scenario under which we would have to fight two major concurrent wars, I cannot at this time support additional funding. I am also swayed by two 1995 studies commissioned by the Department of Defense at the direction of Congress, which found that there are other, more cost-effective options for improving U.S. military capabilities than buying additional B-2's at this time. According to these credible reports, the currently planned bomber force can meet military requirements for fighting two major regional conflicts through a mix of B-52's, B-1's, and B-2's. It would be more cost effective to buy additional precision-guided munitions for the bomber force and to upgrade B-1's than to build more than 20 B-2;s. Lastly, my opposition to additional B-2 funding is not based on the supposition that we may never need to use them. Indeed, we might. It rests more in part on the notion that we need a better understanding of the military capabilities of the different blocks, or types, of B-2's. The recent General Accounting Office report on the B-2 claiming unsolved technical shortcomings concerns me greatly. And while Pentagon Acquisition Chief Paul Kaminski rebutted the report, he did not advocate the purchase of more B-2's. While we might be able to afford the additional funds the Appropriations Committee has proposed this year, as we move down the road to the year 2002, and toward a balanced budget, agreeing to further funds to procure twenty more B-2's--at a potential total cost of close to $40 billion--will most certainly be a budget buster. Funding more B-2's this year could lead us unwillingly toward procurement of further B-2's in future defense budgets that cannot support them without cuts in funding for the operation and maintenance of our troops and other weapons systems. Funding more B-2's while we are trying to balance the budget could also result in unfair cuts in other areas of the budget as well. Althouh I am a strong support supporter of a robust and fully well- rounded defense posture, at this time of fiscal restraint, I find it hard to justify such an expenditure. The billions of dollars required to sustain such an effort is not a necessity and is not affordable. I have great respect for those who support the B-2. To be sure, it is an awesome aircraft that I am sure will contribute greatly to our defense needs. But given the aforementioned factors that are weighting on me, at this time I cannot support additional funding.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I recommend the following essay by Janelle Jones, winner of the Voice of Democracy Scholarship Program, to my colleagues. ``My Vision for America'' ``Where there is no vision, the people perish.'' Never has this saying from the Book of Proverbs been more true than for our country, right now. Imagine, you are traveling through time to the year 2020, but instead of the high-tech world of thriving businesses and prospering families, you see ransacked, decaying cities. The former United States, once strong and powerful, is now bankrupt both financially and morally, a mere shadow of its former self. The world leader that once generously gave to needy nations must now beg for help. How has the American dream become this nightmare? Since this is a nightmare, and not reality, I am so thankful that the vision for America is still ours to shape. Will Durant said, ``The present is the past rolled up for action, and the past is the present unrolled for understanding.'' In 1776, a vision for America was already unfolding. Let's sift out the gold from the rubble of history and rediscover our beloved country in the process. We can dust off the bedrock principles that guided our Founding Fathers then, and still keep us on course today. What are these principles? We must first know them, understand them, and embrace them before we can be willing to live by them and die for them. Lives have been put on the line, fortunes risked and, sacrifices made by a long line of patriots, from the signers of our declaration, to the many brave veterans of conflicts today. The inner fire that drove all of these was fueled by belief in certain rights and principles as set forth in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. They are simple, yet profound. Among them are the right to own property, to worship as we see fit, to meet and speak freely, and to be free from any undue government interference. The dignity of human life, common decency, personal responsibility, and a free enterprise system were treasured as necessary to freedom. These have been hard-won, and hard-kept. The price of freedom is not apathy, but constant vigilance. Seeing the brilliance of gold from the past, I can say that my vision for a strong America includes a resurgence of unashamed pride and love for all that this country stands for. We must preserve and communicate these values without compromise. Former President Ronald Reagan said, ``The family has always been the cornerstone of American society . . .'' and that ``. . . the strength of our families is vital to the strength of our nation.'' Our family structure, where these values are taught and nurtured, must be supported by our society, laws and institutions. Children snuggled on our lap can be read the thrilling stories of all our American heroes, learning that there is a moral law, and that the truly brave live by it. My vision for America's future includes a hard look at the present, not as hopeless hand-writing, but as calls to courageous action. It is our duty to participate as citizens, not as passive bystanders. If the government is to be of the people, by the people and for the people, then there must be involved people. It takes very little time to call a congressman, to vote, or to attend a town meeting to voice an opinion. This vision of Future America beckons to me with great hope and anticipation. The crumbling structures of our land have been reinforced with a fresh appreciation for our tradition and heritage. Any fog of confusion about our nation's identity has been pierced with the light of truth. The shackles of helplessness have been opened with the key of principled thinking and responsible citizenship. Our foundation of freedom is once more visible, and the spirit of our forefathers recaptured. The pollution of compromise is clearing from our purpose, and now all that is right and true and lasting comes into focus once again. As Americans, we will see the bright gold of restored vision for our country, and will know that this nation, under god, indivisible, still has liberty and justice for all.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to speak very briefly about three areas of concern that I have. I think, first of all, it is probably not the end of the world that we are making some cuts in education. I think we can probably live with some of that. But there are areas about which I am concerned. [[Page H 8343]] I believe the goals panel, the national goals panel is a very, very important step we should reinstate. I am talking about $3 million or some relatively small amount of money. But those goals are not standards, they are not telling anybody how to do anything, they are goals that we need to reach by the year 2000 and I do not think we are doing it. I would hope at some point as this goes through the Senate and goes through conference, we will look at the safe and drug-free schools, and hopefully we can restore that money, because I think that program has worked so significantly well. Also, if there is anything left over, I think that the chapter 1 program has by and large worked effectively in the United States of America. I realize that we have to make the cuts, and I realize we are going to have to make a lot of tough decisions, but I also believe these are programs we should look at. So I would urge all of us as we continue this to take a look at those particular programs.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, but I could not support this colloquy more, and all Members should. Mr. Chairman, this panel has ultimately set goals for America which are extraordinary. The Governors support it. It is across all of the States. Just because there has been some confusion about what is in the goals, it does not mean that the panel should not continue to exist. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the tremendous effort by the gentleman from California. I am sure that every single Governor in the country and every child in America does as well.

Mr. CASTLE

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

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will be very brief. I rise in support of the Stokes-Boehlert amendment. I went home too, and we need to understand what this bill does. Basically the bill itself cuts funding for the EPA by 34 percent. It cuts funding for enforcement by the EPA by 50 percent. But the amendment before us would make sure that we do not cut 17 programs, because the bill itself also has in it 17 programs that will not be enforced by the EPA if the amendment does not get passed. We would not be able to enforce standards of air emissions, storm water runoff, wetlands, sewer overflows, and another 13 or so numbers which are in that particular bill. Mr. Chairman, the time has come for us to pay attention to our environment. This bill as it is written now effectively eliminates environmental enforcement on a Federal level. America must not tolerate this. We must support the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we know that Europe is moving away from using cement kilns to burn toxic waste. The hazardous waste cement kiln industry wants to move to the United States. That is incredible to me, that they are not allowing this in Europe now and now they want to move all of this to the United States. Then we in Congress are going to take the additional step of allowing them to be exempted from laws that others who do the same thing would not be exempted from. This will cost 6,000 jobs in the commercial hazardous waste industry because it will become economically nonviable. Obviously it has a huge impact on our economy as well as a huge environmental impact across the United States of America. It is for all these reasons that I support this amendment. I would urge everybody in Congress to join us in supporting the amendment.

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

Mr. CASTLE. I would consider that excessive, sir.

Mr. CASTLE. I would.

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say it has been sort of a strange day here today. We had an earlier amendment--and sometimes it is hard to separate the sides here--we had an exemption for oil with respect to air pollution but we did not for the chemical industry. Now we have a situation in which we are dealing with several competing industries, we are dealing with a hazardous waste incineration cement kiln industry but we also have another industry, the commercial hazardous waste incineration industry, which has to live under different standards. Essentially this amendment would allow the cement kiln industry to escape stringent dioxin emission standards that other hazardous waste combusters must comply with and do so willingly because they want to, of course, have safe environmental practices. It is very strange to me. I do not know why we are doing it. According to data suppled to the EPA by the cement kiln industry itself, in almost all cases the concentrations of heavy metals from 12 hazardous waste burning cement kilns exceeded superfund site actions levels in soil. Thus the creation of more Superfund sites will be virtually guaranteed. This would not only add to Federal cleanup costs but would also unnecessarily increase air and ground water pollution imperiling public health. The commercial hazardous waste incineration industry, the other side of this, has been a leader in investing in advanced pollution control technologies. This will cease, if cement kilns, many of which are foreign owned, are provided regulatory relief that widens their competitive advantage over commercial incinerators. The United States would thus have to dispose of dangerous toxic and carcinogenic chemical wastes using antiquated highly polluting cement kiln technology.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stokes-Boehlert amendment. I oppose the addition of these legislative provisions we have talked about, these 17 dealing with important and complex environmental issues to the spending bill. Let me point out one thing which I really have not heard in this argument today. That is that we are reducing the funding for EPA by 34 percent on top of everything else that we are doing in this legislation. When you combine that with the 17 limitations on enforcement which are the subject matter of discussion of this amendment, you find that EPA is being rendered almost wholly ineffective in the areas of fighting the environmental problems of the United States of America. This is not regulatory reform but basically an abrogation of our responsibility. I think back over my experiences as the Governor of the State of Delaware and the various things that we dealt with. One of those was our only oil refinery. We had problems with that oil refinery almost monthly, sometimes several times in the course of months, with emissions standards for toxic air pollution. Yet that is one of the prohibitions; any Federal help with enforcement of those particular problems would be included in this legislation. I think about Rehoboth Beach where many people from Washington have gone to vacation, when we actually had to close the beaches because of the storm sewer overflows which occurred there. We also remember another time when we had to almost close the beaches because of sanitary sewer overflows in States to the north of us and having to go along our beaches to do that. We have been able to cure those problems with the help of the Federal Government. I think about Superfund, the Army landfill in the State of Delaware, the second largest of the landfill problems in the country, which needs to be addressed, which is cut dramatically by what happens in these particular provisions, or the Clean Water Act. I remember when the Delaware River up near Philadelphia actually caught on fire. We always think of Pittsburgh, but it happened in Philadelphia as well. We had the exact same problem. We have cleaned that river up. In fact, President Bush, when he was campaigning, used that river to demonstrate how you can actually use the Clean Water Act to clean up a river. I worry about drinking water. Our water in Wilmington, DE, comes down from the Brandwine. It comes down from Pennsylvania, and I remember fighting with towns in Pennsylvania which wanted to build different areas that could pollute and we had to overcome that. I would suggest to every single Member of this body who is paying any attention to this, which may be the most important amendment that is going to be offered in many a day here in this Congress, to do something right now. Call home. Call your environmental secretaries. Call your Governors. Call your constituents, if you have time to do that before this vote. Find out from them exactly what their understanding of each of these 17 is. At least read the legislation and understand what these restrictions are. You will understand what I am saying here today. That for the good of America, we must support the Stokes-Boehlert amendment. For the good of America, we must make sure that this is not disguised as regulatory reform but is pointed out for what it is. It is a destruction of our ability to be able to enforce the environmental laws in a proper way of the United States of America. I agree that EPA needs to be fixed in some ways. But I think just removing all of their ability to carry out any of their responsibilities is the wrong way to go. I would encourage everybody to support this amendment in a few minutes.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the housing provisions in the manager's amendment. I made no secret of the fact I am concerned about the environmental cuts and the housing cuts in this particular piece of legislation, but I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that we must balance our budget. I supported the budget resolution and I fully understand that difficult choices have to be made to achieve our goal of balancing the budget by 2002. However, as we made the spending reductions needed to move to a balanced budget, these cuts must be allocated fairly. Unfortunately, I believe that housing programs have taken a disproportionate share of the cuts in the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill. Here are the facts: The overall funding for this bill is about 14 percent less than fiscal year 1995. However, HUD is receiving a 25-percent cut in its funding. Only EPA receives a larger cut in this bill. By contrast: The VA receives a 1-percent increase over 1995. NASA receives a 4-percent cut from 1995. I am not critical of these agencies at all. In fact, I support them, but the numbers speak for themselves: HUD is being cut 25 percent from the current level. Except for EPA, no other account is receiving more than a 6-percent cut from fiscal year 1995. Having said that, I support the improvements made in the manager's amendment. I want to thank Chairman Lewis for working with Congressman Lazio and those of us who believe that the original bill did not provide adequate funding for housing for the elderly, disabled, and others with special needs; as well as assistance for the homeless. I think the manager's amendment is an honest compromise. While special needs housing and homeless assistance are still receiving large reductions, this amendment does restore over $400 million for special needs housing and $100 million for homeless assistance. Mr. Chairman, the section 202 program for the construction of housing for the elderly is one of the most successful programs operated by HUD. It provides affordable housing and support services for our low- and moderate-income seniors. There is clearly a shortage of affordable housing for the elderly and the disabled. I am pleased that the manager's amendment restores half of the original cut. I can tell you from personal experience that the section 202 program for the elderly works and works well. These developments are boon to our low-income elderly and there are waiting lists for these developments whenever they can be built. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage us all, regardless of where we stand on final passage, to support this amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to myself in response. The guaranteed loan programs do not serve this population. They serve a population at twice the income of this. Mr. Chairman, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, we have heard numerous times, maybe 50 times in the course of all of these amendments, that we want to send somebody a message. It is stated in a variety of ways, generally dealing with small amounts of money in some way or another. I think we send the most confused message possible with respect to our tobacco policies in the United States of America. We indeed have support systems for crop insurance, for extension and for various other aspects, but it would indicate in that way that we bless the growing and the selling of tobacco and the Federal Government is a part of it. On the other hand, we condemn it. The Surgeon General condemns it, we have studies which have condemned it, we have proclamations which do so. We do know a few things. We know tobacco is very deadly, that it can create great mischief in our society, but we know there are huge costs attached to this well beyond the $23 million we are talking about here tonight. We have other costs. When we look at Medicare, Medicaid, we look at lost productive time in our economy, there are all manner of ways in which we can measure the cost in terms of what has happened with tobacco. We know our children suffer because of tobacco. I did not even know what Joe Camel was. I thought it was sort of a joke when I heard about it. Then somebody pointed out to me that it was appealing to children, and was a very serious problem in terms of tobacco is concerned. I believe even if the Federal Government removes itself from the ring, the big tobacco companies will probably move in and help out with the small farmers. I do not think there will be any loss there. I think at that point the Federal Government will be sending one clear message to everybody in the United States of America, and that is that we are not going to be involved in tobacco; that if you are going to smoke, smoke with great caution; that we can sell the programs of trying to make sure we go out and point out the problems to the people of the United States of America. It is for this reason that I support the Durbin-Hansen-Smith amendment. I hope that all of us would, and all of us would realize the problems caused by tobacco. Tonight we can start to make the changes in this country that will be in the best interests of all of us.

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, it is a very interesting amendment. I have never presented an amendment on this floor or anywhere else for that matter. Everybody got up and said, ``Gee, it is a great program, it is a great idea to fund it more. This is one of the best things we do in the United States of America, but we just simply can't do it.'' And I understand everyone's good will and am not being facetious at all when I say that, but the bottom line is I think we can do it. I think this amendment is the best vehicle in which to do it. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentlewoman from North Carolina, but the bottom line is fairly simple. The FSA concern, we are reducing that by $3 million. In the Natural Resources Conservation Service my amendment would still allow $22.3 million increase over this year, and we only have a 3-percent cut in the title II grants for the various services to foreign governments on food grants. This is in comparison, my colleagues, to a 45-percent reduction last year in this wonderful program we run, a 42-percent reduction this year if we do not do anything about it, which is simply incredible in light of the fact that we have people standing in line, the program works, people pay back their loans, practically everybody supports it. Mr. Chairman, in my judgment this is a program which seems to meet all the litmus tests we want of trying to balance our budget, give people an opportunity and particularly help in our rural areas where we have good people who are out there working, earning a small income but enough to be able to buy a home. I have been in these homes, I have been at these settlements, I have seen how this program works, and it is an excellent program, and I am just worried if we wait until some other time we will not be able to resolve all the problems before us. So, Mr. Chairman, I would encourage us to go ahead with this amendment and perhaps that will be the jumping-off point for future negotiations, and I hope we would all support the Castle amendment to help keep this program we all agree is outstanding alive.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to rebut what the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] said. Three million dollars is the reduction in FSA in this particular amendment, $3 million, and yet we are looking at a program that is almost savaged in terms of the cuts which are going on. I think the comparison makes ours fair. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].