Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, the numbers on this are on the Consolidated Farm Service Agency, after this cut, and this is not the bill cut in that it is only $3 million, it simply freezes it at the 1995 level. The Natural Resources Conservation Service, my amendment would still provide a $22.3 million increase over this year. In the grants program on transportation, the title 2 grants, my amendment would provide over $801 million for this program, an increase over the request and only 3 percent cut from 1995, while this program is facing cuts of 45 and 44 percent in each of the last 2 years. I do not think they are even comparable.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment that is based on two principles. One is that encouraging homeownership is good for our economy and society and, two, in the effort to balance the budget, spending cuts must be allocated fairly. My amendment would restore $200 million of the $400 million cut in the section 502 direct loan homeownership program made by yesterday's manager's amendment. The program was cut 45 percent last year and now the bill before us would reduce the 502 rural housing program by another 42 percent. Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and I know he is a supporter of rural housing. The Appropriations Committee originally recommended a level of $900 million for the 502 program. However, after the committee found that it could not include savings from certain mandatory spending programs, the chairman felt he had to make an additional $400 million cut in the 502 direct program. I understand the difficult choices the gentleman from New Mexico has had to make. This budget is extremely tight and it has to be. I am not seeking to restore the 502 program to its fiscal year 1995 level or even to the level originally recommended by the committee. My amendment will still leave the program with $233 million less than its current year funding, a cut of 25 percent from last year. Mr. Chairman, what do these numbers mean to real people in our rural communities? They mean a lot. 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 hard-working 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 home ownership. While these families have very low income, they pay their mortgages. The 30-day delinquent rate is only 6.8 percent and the 90-day rate is 1.6 percent. There is currently a 2- to 3-year waiting list for these loans. We are not meeting the need with the current level of funding, much less with the cut proposed in this bill. A loan level of $900 million would assist about 14,000 new homeowners. Cutting it to $500 million would provide only 7,800 loans. Mr. Chairman, my proposed amendment would allow us to help almost 11,000 families in rural areas across the Nation. Remember, the actual appropriations for this program are much lower than the loan levels they provide. In fiscal year 1995, an appropriation of $228 million provided $933 million in loans. Under this bill, we would appropriate only $102.6 million to provide $500 million in loans. My amendment would add a modest $40 million to an appropriation of $142.6 million and $700 million in loans. In southern Delaware, like many rural areas, affordable housing is scarce and often substandard. The economy in these communities is often more sluggish than more populated areas. When families can buy homes, they give the economy of the entire community a shot in the arm. Construction provides new jobs and expanded tax base for schools and other investments and increased sales and tax revenues. A single family 502 direct loan generates 1.75 jobs, $50,201 in wages, and $20,506 in annual tax revenues in rural America. In short, the program not only provides homes to low-income rural families, it provides jobs and tax revenues to rural communities. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a matter of fairness. The rural housing 502 direct loan program is taking a disproportionate cut in the effort to balance the budget. My amendment would simply restore some funding for home loans to low-income rural families. The amendment is budget neutral. Most important, it would help more rural families achieve the American dream the American dream of home ownership. I urge my colleagues to approve this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I believe the humanities agencies are important to the cultural life and diversity of our country--to people of all ages, to people in our inner cities, in our suburbs, and in our rural communities. There are many, many positive effects of these dollars and what they help fund--for example: In Delaware, we are fortunate to have tremendously well-run and highly effective division of the arts, State Arts Council, and Delaware Humanities Forum. These organizations, which receive a combined total of about 75 percent of their funds from the national organizations, help fund such diverse exhibitions and events as: The Delaware Symphony Orchestra, that provides concerts in all three of our counties. Operadelaware which provides musical education programs statewide; The visiting scholars program, that brings University of Delaware professors into 137 Delaware classrooms to talk to 60,000 school children about American Presidents, and many other topics; The beautiful and historic Winterthur Museum and Gardens; Exhibitions, lectures, films about World War II and its impact on Delaware, which are offered throughout the State; The Georgetown Possum Point Players, a local theatre group; The Mid-Altantic Chamber Music Society; The Nanticoke Powwow in Millsboro, DE; Second Street Players, a community theatre group in Milford; The Dover Art League; and, The Southern Delaware Chorale. This is only a sampling of the many positive, quality programs or exhibits these organizations, fostered by the NEA and the NEH, help provide throughout the State of Delaware. I support a Federal role in funding the arts and humanities, but I do not believe that in a time of tremendous budget deficits and an enormous Federal debt, that virtually any program should be spared from budget cuts or restructuring. Having said that, the arts and humanities have not been spared. In fact, they have felt the edge of a heavy axe. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to support the Appropriations Committee actions by voting against any efforts to eliminate or cut further these organizations. They have fared far enough. Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. Cutting the budget of the National Endowment for the Humanities by 40 percent next year is bad enough. This amendment, however, defies all sense of reasonableness. In a nation of such wealth and cultural diversity, this amendment is a tragic commentary on our priorities. The total budget for the NEH costs each American less than the price of a can of soda, and it leverages funds many times over that in private dollars. At a time when we are funding B-2 bombers that we don't even need, why must we slash one of the most modest and cost-effective investments that our Government makes in society? The National Endowment for the Humanities provides funding for student essay contests, teacher seminars, museum exhibitions, documentary films, research grants, public conferences and speakers, and library-based reading and discussions programs. Throughout all of these programs, the NEH helps to provide a greater understanding of our Nation's history and culture. Before you cast your vote, I urge my colleagues to heed the words of Ken Burns, producer of the highly acclaimed Civil War and Baseball series on PBS. Testifying before the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee earlier this year, Ken Burns declared emphatically that his Civil War series would not have been possible without the Endowment's support. I dare say the majority of my constituents would be willing to sacrifice the price of a can of Pepsi every year to pay for programs like the Civil War, not to mention all the other programs the NEH supports. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will harm our Nation's schools and damage our cultural heritage. It must be defeated.

Mr. CASTLE

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

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from California with whom I have discussed it, and by the way I cannot congratulate him enough on taking this issue and trying to run with it because I think he is doing absolutely the right thing, and I have no disagreement with that, but I do not think this is midstream. I believe that the franking privilege has lurked around this Congress at numbers well beyond anything that the public comprehends and certainly would be willing to live with it if they understood what those numbers are, and I think any time we can diminish those numbers we should. Quite frankly I wish I had a amendment accepted that would have cut it even more than ultimately what my amendment will be, the $4.6 million. We are going to a representational allowance, and I agree with the chairman. It is wonderful that he has done that, but still that provides for some extra costs too, $9.3 million, and this is merely a taking away of a very small part of that. So for all of these reasons I feel very strongly that what we are doing here today should happen today. It in no way deters the steps which the gentleman from California has taken or that those who advocate his position would want to do, and, as a matter of fact, I stand behind that and would encourage our pursuing that in every way we possibly can. Amendment Offered by Mr. Castle as a Substitute for the Amendment Offered by Mr. Newman

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect for the chairman of the subcommittee, all the work he has done, and he is absolutely doing the right thing, and anything I say to rebuttal to this, or anything anyone else might say, is in no way critical of that because they really are going in the right direction. But I must state, ``If you look at the second chart I have here, which shows our outgoing mail versus our ingoing mail, it is just absolutely evident to anyone who has ever examined these accounts that quite frankly there is a great deal of room to reduce the costs that we have, and it is correct that this particular Congress has taken very strong and good measures and intends to take more, which I know about, in order to address this problem, but the bottom line is that we are dealing with a relatively small reduction, a relatively small number, that hardly cuts into the outgoing mail.'' Mr. Chairman, if I had my druthers, we would go much further than we are at this particular time. I would have clearly supported the first amendment before us right now, the Neumann amendment, and clearly the amendment which I will offer as an amendment to that, the Castle amendment which reduces it even more. I think it is one which should be supported, so I am in support of that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas]. Mr. Chairman, I just simply say that because of the representative aspects of the way this is done we can only cut the office budgets as a whole, but clearly every office can take this money as a portion. Over 435 Members is $4.6 million out of the money they would use for franking; it is that simple. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss both what he was doing and an amendment which will come to his amendment shortly after this particular debate is concluded. There will be other speakers on this. The issue of the franking privilege in the Congress of the United States is one we have all wrestled with at one time or another. I have been working with some like-minded people to try to reduce the cost of the taxpayers of the United States of America in the area of franking. Now, let me just say, because I believe there will be some opposition to our amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], that the individuals who are working on this, on the Republican side, I think have done a remarkable job. Both the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee and the Committee on Appropriations, I think, have done an outstanding job of trying to deal with this particular problem. However, I feel that we should go even faster. I have here before us a couple of charts, if I may, Mr. Chairman, and the first of these charts shows the expenditures in an election year, and I think it is self-explanatory. I have always stated that, as far as the franking privilege is concerned, it is a tremendous boost to the incumbent because the incumbent can spend much more money on mail, either for town meetings, or questionnaires, or newsletters, or just mail in general during the course of an election year, and, as we cycle this, it shows completely that this can take place, and that is what the chart demonstrates, and I think that is a significant number to keep in mind. What we are trying to do here is to reduce the overall Members' representation allowance which has now been lumped together, and I think that is a good idea, too, with other office expenses, by $4.6 million, and essentially it reduces it to where it was last year, at a sum of some $41 million. Now, as the Member who spent less than anybody else in this Congress last year on the franked mail, I can tell my colleagues that for sure we can answer all of our mail for this amount of money, and I say to my colleagues, if you want to give notices of town meetings, you can probably do that. You can probably have a statewide mailing in addition to that. But you are going to reduce some of these costs, as far as the margins are concerned, and that is essentially what we are attempting to do. So we have indeed put together this effort. We believe it is reasonable, we believe that it does not overreach in terms of the reductions which are in order, and even though there is some added costs to the Members' office because the folding room will no longer be a part of this and some other costs, I think it leaves a great deal of latitude to handle whatever mail is necessary to be handled in the Congress of the United States and indeed to allow the various Members to communicate fully with their constituents. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. parliamentary inquiry

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, in this debate of about 20 minutes these charts have never been answered. We are sending out more mail in election years than at any time, and we are sending out a lot more mail from our offices than we are receiving. The cut we are talking about, which is $4.6 million, is a very small amount. To the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, I am proud to say, I spent $10,000 out of $400,000 over 2 years. I did my part to return it to the taxpayers. This bill is endorsed by the National Taxpayers Union as a key vote, it is endorsed by Common Cause, it applies to all of the accounts of Congress. But if you want to, you can make sure it comes out of your franking portion of your account. There are no questions about that. Basically it still leaves $4.5 million after we reduce it by $4.6 million in order to accommodate any extra costs which are added in with respect to [[Page H 6189]] some of the other aspects of the House which are being closed down. This is a very simple amendment. It is not a large sum of money. It will not deter in any way the progress we want to make on making deeper cuts. But I believe we should band together to make absolutely sure we are ending or at least reducing this practice, which has been very objectionable. I encourage Members to vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act and applaud the committee's efforts on four major themes: maintenance and quality of life for military families and troops, operational readiness, equipment modernization and financial operations, including structural reform. I think this bill makes significant progress in each of these areas. However, I rise in support of the Kasich amendment to delete the Committee on National Security proposal to include an additional $553 million in advanced procurement for long-lead funding for additional B- 2 bombers. I do not think the debate should be about whether it is these are good airplanes or not, but whether or not we can afford it. You are looking at a relatively small sum of money now, but as the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has appointed out consistently today, it grows to a large sum of money. It is in the tens, twenties, even the $31.5 billion which has been referenced here. Cost is a major issue as we try to balance the budget by 2002. This is a significant factor. I would also say I have seen no real agreement among the military whether or not we really need this. Admittedly, there are those who say we do. Just as admittedly, there are those who say we do not. There is even some question about the concurrent war strategy, two concurrent war strategies. So, for all of these reasons, I would suggest at this time we delete that provision. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of fiscal year 1996's National Defense Authorization Act, and applaud the committee's efforts to focus on four major themes: maintenance and quality of life for military families and troops; operational readiness; equipment modernization; and financial operations, including structural reform. This bill makes significant progress in each of these areas. I wanted to briefly comment on the Kasich amendment to delete the National Security Committee proposal to include an additional $553 million in advance procurement for long-lead funding for additional B-2 bombers. To be sure, the B-2 bomber is an awesome aircraft, and I wish we could afford to build another 20, or even more. But there are two facts to consider: one, that buying more B-2's means that you agree that we face such a sufficient threat that warrants having the bomber capability to fight two simultaneous regional conflicts, and two, that we can afford additional B-2's. I agree we would need closer to forty B-2's for such a military strategy, but disagree with this dubious strategy, and believe the likelihood of facing such a scenario is extremely low. We no longer face an immediate or imminent global challenge from a competing superpower, let alone a likely scenario under which we would have to fight two major concurrent wars. Furthermore, two 1995 studies commissioned by the Department of Defense at the direction of the Congress have found that there are other, more cost-effective options for improving U.S. military capabilities than buying more B-2's. According to the 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 bombers than to build more than 20 B-2's. While we might be able to afford the additional funds the committee has forwarded now, as we move down the road to the year 2002 and toward a balanced budget, agreeing to further funds to procure 20 more B-2's-- at a total cost of almost $40 billion--will most certainly be a budget buster, and could lead us unwillingly toward procurement of further B- 2's in Defense budgets that might offer little prospect of buying more B-2's. While I am a strong supporter of a robust and fully well-rounded defense posture, at this juncture in our budgetary debates, and at this time of fiscal constraint, I find it hard to justify such an expenditure. The billions of dollars that would be needed to sustain such an effort are not affordable, nor is the very real possibility, according to the General Accounting Office, of cost overruns. I urge passage of this bill, and of the Kasich amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding the time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 67, the House budget resolution, and in opposition to the Gephardt substitute. Let me just say I think it is a tremendous effort by those who believe in the necessities to cut budgets that they have put this forward, but I happen to believe that the right vehicle is the Kasich budget which we are working on here today. As one who has balanced budgets eight times, as one who has seen the States of the United States of America address this problem of deficits and realize that the only way to manage the economies of the States and the economies of the United States of America is to balance the budgets, I stand here pleading with each and every one of us to support the budget resolution, which we are ultimately going to go to today. We all talk as politicians about tough choices and setting priorities, and then when it comes down to it and you really are starting to make tough choices and you really are starting to set priorities, people start to say well, we are cutting too much. It hurts the young people too much, it hurts the old people too much, it hurts the colleges too much, or whatever it may be. The bottom line is what has hurt the United States of America is the tremendous of the payments on that debt and the impact which that has on the economy of the United States of America. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] last year, to his everlasting credit, came forward when a lot of Republicans said do not do it and presented a budget that would eventually have us in balance by the year 2002. This year he is in the majority and he has done so again, and he has put some very tough choices in there, and I recognize that and I think that is vitally important. There is discussion of taxes. And as some Members know, as the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] knows, three of us got together and worked with others to make absolutely sure that we would not have tax reductions until such time as we had the full budget reconciliation in place, and there has been some question raised about that. But I want to assure the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] in particular that I have talked with our leadership on a number of occasions about the importance of that, the enforcement of that, and that it should not happen and will not happen regardless of how we separate reconciliation. So I am convinced that there will be no tax cuts until we have the balanced budget in place. I congratulate the gentleman. I do not stand in support of what the gentleman is doing today because I do support the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. I think it is the way to go. But I congratulate the gentleman's side for coming forward with this, but I think we need to move forward with the process that well could go for 4 or 5 more months, and hopefully at the end of this we will have done what we were sent here for, to start to balance the budget of the United States of America, and if we do that I hope we receive the credit we deserve for it. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 67, the House budget resolution and in opposition to the Gephardt substitute. First, let me say that I have the highest respect for Mr. Orton and Mr. Stenholm, the authors of the Gephardt substitute. I believe they are truly committed to balancing the budget. Their work is a good faith effort to put forward an alternative budget resolution. However, I find it very troubling that this is the first time that Mr. Gephardt and the Democratic leadership have endorsed a balanced budget plan. I cannot help believe that if the old leadership were still in control of this House that the Stenholm-Orton budget would not have had the support of the Democratic leadership and probably would not have been permitted to be offered. The fact of the matter is that the Republican Party has listened to the American people and has put forward a real plan to balance the budget. The Democrats have been forced to scramble to say ``me too'' to the American people. I applaud Mr. Stenholm and Mr. Orton for their alternative, but does it have the honest support of the Democratic Party? Let's remember that the 1993 Democratic budget resolution relied overwhelmingly on tax increases to achieve deficit reduction and that the President's 1996 budget simply gives up on deficit reduction and would accept $200 billion deficits for the next 5 years and higher deficits after that. Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with every aspect of the House budget resolution. There are some areas of the budget I would allocate more funding to and some I would cut more from. I may even agree with some of the proposals in the Stenholm-Orton budget. But, John Kasich and the House Budget Committee have been true leaders in the effort to put forward an honest budget that gets us to balance in the year 2002. This is a historic and tremendously difficult task and they have done it. Politicians love to talk about making the tough choices and setting priorities. Now we have finally arrived at a point when tough choices are being made and priorities are being set. Now what we hear from the other side is that the choices are too tough and the priorities are wrong. The House budget resolution is an honest plan to get this Government to a balanced budget by the year 2002. I do not agree with every part of the budget, but am willing to take up the task of making these decisions and finding alternatives to the choices I do not agree with. I support the Kasich budget resolution. There is another issue I would like to address. I am one of the authors of the Castle-Upton-Martini amendment to the recent tax relief bill. This amendment commits the House to ensuring that no tax cuts will become law until Congress passes budget reconciliation legislation to put the directions of this budget resolution into effect. Our commitment to that process has not changed. Despite the assertions of some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, no tax cuts will become law until all parts of the budget reconciliation process is completed. While the reform of the Medicare Program will take some additional time this year, the other budget decisions and potential tax cuts will not become law without action on Medicare. I will work with all interested Members on this issue as the reconciliation process proceeds. Mr. Chairman, the House budget resolution is the first step on the vital journey to a balanced budget. I urge its approval and rejection of the proposed substitutes.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the motion to take S. 4 from the Speaker's desk and insert the text of H.R. 2, the Line-Item Veto Act passed by the House earlier this year. The line-item veto should be enacted as soon as possible, and I believe that the line-item veto legislation approved by the House is stronger and more straightforward than the Senate's version. H.R. 2 would give the President the power to eliminate all or any part of spending in an appropriations bill or any targeted tax provision in a tax bill. Congress would have to disapprove the President's cuts by passing a resolution of disapproval and then override a Presidential veto of that measure with two-thirds of the House and Senate. The American people are tired of their tax dollars funding screw worm research, commemorating the Lawrence Welk birthplace, and many other questionable projects that benefit only a select few districts or States. By themselves, these projects may not add up to much of the Federal budget, but they are a slap in the face to the American people who want their tax dollars spent wisely and in the best interests of the entire Nation. They have asked the new Republican majority to stop needless pork barrel spending. The line-item veto will help do just that. I am concerned that the Senate line-item veto bill, which would require the separate enrollment of each individual spending item as a separate bill, may be too cumbersome. We should indeed support Chairman Clinger's effort to advance the process. The line-item veto is not a magic solution to the budget deficit, but it is an effective tool which should be given to the President. House Republicans believe reducing unneeded spending is so important that we are willing to give a Democratic President the authority to stop spending on special interest projects and end tax breaks for a select few. My experience as governor of Delaware is that the line-item veto helps bring all parties--Republicans, Democrats, the Executive and legislators to the table to negotiate fiscally responsible spending bills that are in the best interest of the taxpayers. The line-item veto will bring more openness and sunshine to the spending process. Believe me, the mere existence of line-item veto authority will make every Member of Congress take a harder look at every project and program. The red-face test will prevent many unnecessary projects from being added to spending bills in the first place. I strongly support every effort to ensure that the House and Senate complete action on line-item veto legislation. President Clinton says he wants to cut spending. Let us give him the line-item veto and let him prove it.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the issue of wetlands is a tremendously difficult issue. I think both sides have done a good job of actually trying to improve a piece of legislation that has had some difficulty in the area of the definition of wetlands. But I learned something, and that is development is forever. I saw a man at Rehoboth Beach, DE, one day. He said, ``Mike, have you ever seen a shopping center converted into a park?'' The answer, of course, is ``No,'' and I would ask, ``Have you ever seen a wetland which has been used for some other use ever converted back to a wetland?'' And the answer to that is also, ``No.'' Sometimes we talk about substitute wetlands. The bottom line is once you lose them, they are lost forever. There are some problems, I think, with the present legislation. There are costly delays and vague regulations. The farmers and homeowners do properly, I think, complain about wetland permit decisions and the time it takes to get them. The availability of general permits for projects having minimal impact on wetlands should be expanded, and I believe the Boehlert amendment addresses each of these very, very well. The amendment adopts the National Governors' Association proposal on wetlands. The Governors' proposal would help coordinate protection efforts in the most efficient use of States' scare resources and minimize inconsistency between State, Federal, and local programs. Wetlands management should be integrated with other resource management programs, and I cannot stress that enough, such as flood control, allocation of water supply, protection of fish and wildlife and storm water and nonpoint source pollution control. Wetlands delineation criteria and management policy should recognize the significant regional and even State variants of wetlands, and land use regulations are traditionally a State and local function, and decisions on wetlands management should be made at the local level. They really differ. They differ from my State of Delaware than from California or Texas or Maine. They differ give that authority back to the States and the Governors where we can, and I believe that made a lot of sense when they came up with that particular program which addressed all of these issues. In addition to that, the Boehlert amendment implements a fast track permitting process for minor and general wetlands permits that is absolutely needed in America and provides technical assistance. For all of these reasons, I would encourage each and every one of us to consider this amendment. Look very carefully at it.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert substitute here today. I would like to say why because I have a great deal of respect for the sponsor of the bill itself. of Delaware, I have seen that of all the pieces of environmental legislation which I think have actually worked, that the Clean Water Act probably stands at the top. I believe that the substitute does more to support that original piece of legislation, but correcting or remedying some of the problems which existed, than does the actual bill before us. I believe that the substitute deals with the problems of wetlands, it gives more control to the States, but it does not give up the wetlands which are a valuable source of nutrients, as we know. I believe that it preserves the Coastal Zone Management Act, which is extremely important. We have the Delaware River and Bay in my State, and I cannot tell you how important that is to the environment of our State. The revolving loan fund is extremely important for infrastructure as far as water is concerned. The financial and technical needs of the farmers are something else that sometimes we overlook. That is a very dramatic problem that they are dealing with, and they are right on the edge of the water in many instances. The stormwater program, which would be repealed by H.R. 961, is of vital importance. We have had to close our oceans, I have had to actually close down swimming in Rehoboth Beach, DE, because of stormwater runoff, and the same thing is true of non-point source pollution. It is the exact same thing. We get to the point where we actually have to close swimming and take other measures because of pollution caused by non-point source pollution. It does not have what I consider to be an onerous takings provision. For all of those reasons, but mostly because ultimately when you are managing these kinds of programs and trying to create clean water in your jurisdiction, you have to take all these different aspects and you have to add them all up. In the aggregate, eventually you begin to clean your water and you get rid of the burning rivers and you get rid of where the fish could not live. Eventually you get to the point where waters are swimmable, and you get to the point where our children can enjoy it for some period of time into their futures. For all those reasons, I do support the bipartisan substitute. I would encourage all of us to do it.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoekstra-Castle amendment. The Coast Guard has proposed closing 23 bases and reducing 13 bases to seasonal subunit status. Many bases are outdated or inefficient. The intent of the amendment is not to oppose base restructuring--but to elevate community participation in the planning process. In Delaware, the Coast Guard has proposed closing the station at Roosevelt inlet and reducing the station at Indian River to seasonal duty. As you may know, the Commandant of the Coast Guard recently indicated they intend to prepare transition plans for communities affected by base closure. This amendment supports and expands on this promise. The Hoekstra-Castle amendment requires the Coast Guard to: First, work in cooperation with communities affected by base closures or base reduction to seasonal duties. Local communities should be active participants in the policy making process. Currently, Coast Guard plans do not necessarily include any further consultation with local communities. Second, develop a transition plan to ensure safety needs are met. Currently, transition plans will not be prepared for bases reduced to seasonal duties. The amendment requires transition plans for both base closures and reductions to seasonal subunit status. A written plan will better identify the roles, responsibilities, and requirements necessary for a safe and smooth transition. It is important to note that this amendment does not increase costs. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the amendment will not change the scoring of the bill. The base restructuring initiative will still save $6 million.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, on April 29--May 1, 1995, more than 1,200 students from 49 States and the District of Columbia will be in our Nation's Capital to compete in the national finals of the We the People--The Citizen and the Constitution program. I am proud to announce that the class from Caesar Rodney High School will represent Delaware. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals by winning local competitions in their home state. The distinguished members of the team representing Delaware are: Ben Alexander, Lori Arellano, Samantha Batista, Andrea Bourey, Jason Cooke, Nick Davenport, Dawn Deakins, Stephen Eggan, Angela Foor, Matt Harker, Jennifer Hitzig, Cindy Houghtaling, Lisa Huang, Barbara Jandasek, Megen Kelly, Danielle Kiefer, Erica Mahar, Molly McGinty, Lisa Moller, Adam Perza, Katie Queen, Robin Reinhard, Alison Robinson, Jayne Ruggles, Kealy Russell, Theresa Siemanowski, Jessica Tenney, Angel Tucker, Matt Welch, Sean Whaley, Huei Wong, Alison Woodall. I would also like to recognize their teacher, Bill Windett, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the team. The district coordinator, Diane Courtney, and the State coordinator, Lewis Huffman, also contributed a significant amount of time and effort to help the team reach the national finals. The We the People--The Citizen and the Constitution program, supported and funded by Congress, is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 3-day national competition simulates a congressional hearing in which students' oral presentations are judged on the basis of their knowledge of constitutional principles and their ability to apply them to historical and contemporary issues. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program, now in its 8th academic year, has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels for more than 60,000 teachers, 22,000 schools, and 20 million students nationwide. The We the People program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain an informed perspective about the history and principles of our Nation's constitutional government. I wish these young constitutional experts the best of luck and look forward to their future participation in politics and government.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to lift an arbitrary, necessary and outdated regulatory burden from well-run financial services companies that provide much needed credit to American consumers. My colleague, Mr. LaFalce of New York and I are sponsoring this legislation to lift the 7-percent growth cap on the annual asset growth of limited-purpose banks. We are pleased to have Representatives Bill McCollum, Richard Baker, Barney Frank, Peter King, Ed Royce, Carolyn Maloney, Dick Chrysler, and Jon Fox join us as original cosponsors of the Limited-Purpose Bank Growth Cap Relief Act. Limited-purpose banks are specialized lenders--most of these banks are credit card lenders operating on a national basis. They make consumer credit more available to all Americans. The growth cap on these banks was imposed under the 1987 Competitive Equality Banking Act [CEBA]. At the time of CEBA's enactment, it was argued that because limited-purpose banks could be affiliated with firms whose businesses were not permissible for bank holding companies (securities, insurance and commerical enterprises) they had a competitive advantage over full- service banks. The cap was intended only to be temporary, and Congress would lift it when interstate banking and branching and expanded bank activities were approved. Interstate banking and branching became law in 1994, Federal regulators have already greatly expanded approved bank financial activities, and Congress is providing regulatory relief to commercial banks. Limited-purpose banks are not a competitive threat to commercial banks. The growth cap has become an unprecedented restriction on a healthy, well-regulated industry and it no longer serves any useful purpose. The cap is actually forcing these banks to turn away customers. Will lifting the growth cap give these banks an unfair edge over their competitors? No, the CEBA banks are still subject to many other restrictions not applicable to commercial banks. For example, they cannot accept checking and demand deposits or engage in commercial lending; they can only accept savings or certificates of deposit of $100,000 or more; and, they cannot cross market financial services with their affiliates. We are not proposing to lift those restrictions, but simply to lift the growth cap for the 23 existing CEBA banks. The original fear was that a proliferation of limited-purpose banks would be a competitive threat to full service banks. This was addressed in CEBA by prohibiting the creation of new limited-purpose banks. Allowing the assets of the surviving CEBA banks to grow by more than 7-percent annually will not result in the creation of new banks, change the limitations to which the grandfathered banks are subject, or otherwise threaten full service banks. This legislation will simply allow limited-purpose banks to grow in response to their customers' needs. It will not undermine the safety or soundness of any institution or pose an unfair competitive threat to any other financial institution. If you believe in regulatory relief and allowing well-run companies to fully serve their customers, we hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation to lift the 7-percent asset growth cap form all limited-purpose banks.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] with respect to the motion to recommit last night. This was presented, it is a 10-minute debate, then we vote on it, and that could become part of the legislation. It was presented in such a way that it was very appealing to some of us who had some concerns about certain aspects of the tax bill. We found out in the middle of all this that it was 16 pages. We went over, and we researched it, and in a short period of time we learned exactly what the gentleman from Ohio has represented here today, and that is that it basically gutted all aspects of the tax bill. It did much more than the four things which were on the placard here. I do not know why this happened in this particular way; that is to be answered some other day in some other way. But the bottom line was it was a deceptive approach to how that motion to recommit was handled. Maybe we have problems with motions to recommit, maybe they need to be filed sooner, maybe we need to have a longer time in order to digest them, but certainly we should not be in a situation in which deception is being practiced in this building. I put into the Record last night in a 5-minute appearance all the mistakes that were presented on the floor and the correct version of what was actually in that 16-page motion to recommit. From now on I hope we can pay more attention to this particular problem.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. I would ask unanimous consent to have Mr. Smith of Michigan's time yielded to me in his absence tonight.