Jerry Costello

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the welfare reform plan presented to this House today. This plan is another mean- spirited attack on the most vulnerable citizens in our society, who have been asked to endure huge cuts in programs to pay for tax cuts for the very wealthy. In the interest of scoring political points, the leadership of this House has offered to send the President a bill that begs to be vetoed. This bill should not go forward. I fully believe our welfare reform system is in dire need of reform. For too long, it has fostered dependence and not provided the resources or incentive for work. However, I cannot in good conscience support a bill that as a policy turns its back on poor and needy children. This bill eliminates the Federal safety net of Medicaid and food stamps for many kids, and cuts millions of dollars by denying Supplemental Security Income [SSI] assistance to the poor and disabled. And, by mandating that individuals work without providing adequate employment resources and child assistance, this bill threatens the health and safety of thousands of children who now rely on their parents care. This legislation is now responsible reform, and the real losers under this bill are the 1 million children who will be pushed into poverty under this so-called reform. I urge my colleagues to support the Castle-Tanner substitute, which represents a modest compromise that will protect children while reforming our welfare system. The Castle-Tanner proposal guarantees protections for children and provides the support necessary for individuals to move into work. Castle-Tanner is serious about moving individuals from welfare to work. It imposes work requirements within 2 years of receiving assistance and ends subsidies after 5 years. It does not however, end food or medical assistance to children whose parents no longer qualify. Further, the Castle-Tanner substitute holds fathers responsible for their children through strong child support enforcement. Castle-Tanner provides States with broad flexibility to develop successful welfare programs based on the needs of local communities. However, unlike the Republican bill, the Castle-Tanner compromise does not allow States to shirk their responsibilities to provide for their citizens. Under Castle-Tanner, States must continue to spend a reasonable and responsible amount of State dollars on assistance programs. Successful welfare reform must be a thoughtful joint partnership between the States and the Federal Government. Madam Chairman, we have a responsibility to pass meaningful reform in this House. We cannot abuse this responsibility by passing legislation that will hurt thousands of children. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Republican bill and pass the bipartisan Castle-Tanner substitute, so that we can achieve meaningful, lasting welfare reform that President Clinton can sign into law.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 7980, located in Millstadt, IL. The Millstadt post is celebrating its 50th anniversary on July 20, 1996, and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the current and former members for their contributions to the entire community. I assisted the Millstadt post in securing an M-47 Patton tank in 1989 from the U.S. Department of Defense, and it stands as a reminder of those veterans who have sacrificed a great deal to protect the freedoms we love dearly in the United States of America. It was my privilege to be present at the dedication of the tank in September of that year, and since then it has served as both a tribute and educational tool for the whole region. The Millstadt post has had a long and distinguished record of service to the community, which we will celebrate on July 20. A variety of post commanders have shepherded the post through several improvements and community projects, including services for local veterans, the purchase of American flag for area events, and a college scholarship program. I want to congratulate the members of VFW Post 7980 for their continued hard work and dedication to their fellow veterans and their community. Their example stands out as an inspiration to other organizations looking to help their fellow man in our region.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise today to praise my colleague and good friend, Bill Emerson, who died last Saturday after a brave struggle against lung cancer. Bill Emerson was a true public servant, who cared deeply about his congressional district as well as issues of global concern. Bill served with me on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and we worked together on issues of regional concern for both Illinois and Missouri. Many of those problems which affect the boot heel of Missouri are also endemic to southern Illinois; the need for new infrastructure, good jobs and public health which is accessible and affordable for the people who live there. One project in particular which Bill and I recently worked on was Federal funding for the new Cape Girardeau Bridge; I join my colleagues in asking the House to name this bridge in Bill's honor. We had the opportunity to serve together for 8 years, and over those years I learned from Bill's way of working in a bipartisan fashion. Bill Emerson knew that progress is not made with just one side of the coin; it takes balance to keep moving forward. By working with both Republicans and Democrats, Bill Emerson was able to accomplish things for the people of his congressional district as well as the Nation. And the world. Bill Emerson, along with our former colleague Mickey Leland, fought for those people who could not fight for themselves-- people in Ethiopia, Somalia, and other countries where citizens starved and were too weak to make their case to those who could help. Bill fought for food and nutrition programs, to provide essential sustenance to keep people alive. His legacy will not soon be forgotten. But his kind manner, his decency, his bipartisanship, and his commitment to caring for other people will never be forgotten.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution offered today. This conference report represents a continued attack on the health, safety, and well-being of the majority of the American people. While not as drastic as the budget proposed by the Republican majority last year or the House-passed version of the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution, this budget conference agreement also is too extreme. By cutting Medicare and Medicaid, the safety net for vulnerable populations--the elderly, disabled, and poor children and families--will be in jeopardy. I cannot support a budget that includes massive Federal spending for new tax breaks while other critical programs--including Medicare, Medicaid, and the earned income tax credit--are greatly weakened. This is not a realistic budget. We cannot, and should not, enact a budget such as this that promises to both cut spending and cut taxes. If we are serious about reducing the deficit--as I am--we should make the hard choices to bring our Federal spending in line. This budget, however, promises to make life easier for the affluent, while balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and disadvantaged. I support a balanced budget. In fact, I have cosponsored and voted in favor of amending the U.S. Constitution to mandate a balanced Federal budget. However, while the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution conference report achieves balance on paper, I cannot support the callous and irresponsible policy assumptions it uses to achieve these savings. The policy implications have very real consequences to the citizens of this Nation. I am especially concerned about the deep cuts in discretionary spending included in this budget. Certainly, we must take serious steps to carefully scrutinize every portion of our Federal budget in order to control Federal spending and bring our deficit under control. However, the cuts in discretionary spending included here are too harsh and will have a serious impact on millions of Americans, most notably the vulnerable populations that continue to be left behind as we change our Federal priorities. For example, the cuts in education leave me very concerned about the future of this Nation. The education of our children must be a top priority. The education our children receive should be adequate in keeping the U.S. economy competitive as we move into the next century. American children rank dismally in math and science achievement compared with students from other Nations. The proportion of young people completing high school has remained stagnant for a decade, despite the ever-increasing demands for education in the job market. Having all our students starting school ready to learn, increasing the high school graduation rate, teaching every adult to read and keeping drugs and violence out of schools are not goals we should abandon. While our deficit needs to be eliminated, we must not decimate the education of future generations, in particular cutting $4 billion from our Nation's student loan program. In addition, a well-maintained transportation network is essential for economic development. If highways cannot be maintained, our goods cannot move in commerce. Similarly, without continued attention to our Nation's airports, delays and other difficulties will slow our economy's growth. In addition, transit funding provides immediate benefits for economic development, carrying low-income people to their place of work and reducing congestion in metropolitan areas. This conference agreement would cut transportation funding in 1997, lower than its funding level this year. Transportation should not bear higher cuts than other programs. The House budget phases out Federal assistance the operation of mass transit systems, and the conference agreement takes no position contrary to this stance. Operating assistance is essential to transit systems across the Nation. Transit systems are already taking serious steps to cope with Federal operating cuts of nearly 50 percent in fiscal year 1996 and 12 percent in fiscal year 1995. Transit systems, by necessity, are operating more efficiently yet still must cut services and increase fares. The complete elimination of operating assistance would have a drastic impact and could eliminate necessary public transportation in communities across our Nation. The cuts in transportation funding is just one example of the hypocrisy of this budget. As this budget pushes people into the workforce it takes away their means of getting to work. This budget is unfair and should not be passed by this House.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. COSTELLO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American, a dedicated public servant, a devoted family man, and a good friend, Nelson ``Nellie'' Hagnauer of Madison County, Illinois. Nellie passed away last Saturday, May 18, at his home in Granite City. In the days ahead, the thoughts and prayers of Nellie's friends are with his family--Bernie, Nip and Mary, Susy and Ron, Jamie, Molly, Ched and Janet, Ruth, and other relatives who loved and will always love Nellie Hagnauer. Nellie was an outstanding public servant. He served on the Madison County Board for 41 years, 24 as its chairman. He was also the Granite City Township Supervisor, serving in that position since 1961, and was elected chairman of the Madison County Transit District, serving in that position since 1988. He was always humble about his accomplishments and service, but his legacy to the people of Madison County and the entire region is enormous. Nellie spent most of his life in public service--or as he called it, ``politics''--and he loved every minute of it. He knew what Tip O'Neill knew, that all politics is local. He was proud to be the Democratic Committeeman in his precinct, proud to be the county board member from his district, and to serve the people of Granite City as their township supervisor. Nellie was recognized throughout the state by leaders in government, politics, and business as a man with significant power in the state, county and region. People wanting to run for national and statewide office came to Nellie to seek his advice and counsel. I know--I was one of them. Nellie always used his power to help other people, and his influence can be seen throughout this entire region. As he often said, it was his desire to be firm, but fair. It was Nellie's vote on the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, where he had served as Chairman, that helped bring MetroLink light rail to the region. It was Nellie's willingness to get involved that helped us save Scott Air Force Base and keep the Charles Melvin Price Support Center open in Granite City. And, it was Nellie who pushed me to bring Federal funds ``home'' for a new Clark Bridge in Alton. Locally, Nellie's leadership was responsible for the new county Administration building, and a new county jail in Edwardsville. And, because of his dedication as head of the transit district, we have excellent transit service for the people who need it in Madison County. And, let's not forget the Township Building. He was so proud that he was able to bring a new building for the people of Granite City Township--particularly for the senior citizens--they held countless events in it since its opening in 1978. I guess what I admired about Nellie Hagnauer as much as anything was that Nellie was always Nellie. If he was being inducted into the Softball Hall of Fame, sitting at his desk in his Edwardsville or chairing a county board meeting, he never changed. Not even in a meeting at the State House, or at the White House with President Clinton, or for that matter, needling his friends at a local get- together--Nellie was always Nellie. The only thing he loved more than public service or politics was his family and friends, in that order. He never forgot where he came from or the people who helped him along the way. We will remember him for who he was, as a public servant, husband, father and grandfather--and as a good friend. Mr. Speaker, several of my colleagues in the Illinois congressional delegation knew Nellie Hagnauer as well, and I know they join me in asking the other members of the United State Congress to recognize the contributions of one decent, honorable and hardworking man--my good friend, Nellie Hagnauer.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of an increase in the minimum wage. The 90-cent increase that is being considered today by the House of Representatives will begin to address the erosion in American workers' purchasing power. If the minimum wage is not increased, it will fall to its lowest level in 40 years. Mr. Speaker, this is essential legislation that directly impacts millions of American workers. Over 500,000 of these workers are in Illinois. Because the majority of American workers who are paid the minimum wage are over 20 years old, the increase will aid these workers in supporting themselves and their families. As we encourage people to find jobs instead of relying on public welfare, we must work to ensure that the minimum wage is a living wage. As a result of the reduction in turnover, the employer's costs of recruiting and retraining are lower. Raising the minimum wage is expected to immediately lift 300,000 families out of poverty. My colleagues who charge that a 90-cent increase is nominal and unnecessary probably are not aware that a 90- cent increase in the minimum wage could pay for 7 months of groceries, rent or mortgage payments for 4 months, or a full year of health costs. These are real expenses that working people have and that can be addressed by a minimum wage increase. Many of my colleagues also charge that the minimum wage increase will result in lost jobs. However, many economists dispute this claim. In addition, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10 million jobs have been created since the last increase in the minimum wage. These are among the reasons why I strongly support a 90-cent increase in the minimum wage and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the increase.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3415, and I would like to submit for the Record a recent op-ed I wrote regarding the gas tax. Election-Year Politics on Gas Tax Will End Up Costing Us in the End Frustration over rising gasoline prices unrelated to federal transportation or energy policy has resulted in a typical election-year tactic: how to use an unfortunate situation to partisan advantage. Sen. Dole and President Clinton are currently engaged in a battle over who can most equitably ease the pain on gasoline consumers, but efforts to repeal the 4.3-cent per gallon addition to the federal gas tax will only end up hurting those same consumers. The 4.3-cent per gallon tax was part of the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, proposed by President Clinton and opposed by every Republican in Congress. I supported this legislation, because deficit reduction is one of my major goals as a Member of Congress. I support a Constitutional Amendment to balance the federal budget, and I supported the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act because of its balance in spreading the pain of deficit reduction. It raised income taxes only on the very wealthy, cut spending, and asked all consumers to pay a little more at the pump to reduce the deficit. It's also been a success. For three straight years, for the first time since Harry Truman was President, the deficit has gone down. Compared to the growth in the economy, the deficit is now at its lowest level since 1979. And, as I noted when I voted last week for an additional $23 billion in spending cuts as part of the 1996 federal budget, we are continuing on a path toward a zero deficit in the year 2002. That is, unless Congress begins to roll back this progress by repealing the balanced package we passed in 1993. ``Partisan panic'' has set in throughout Washington, D.C., and I predict in the days to come we will see a variety of competing packages on which party can move most quickly to try and lower gasoline prices. It's wrongheaded for these reasons: Cutting the gas tax is no guarantee for lower gas prices. Because gasoline prices are market-driven and unrelated to federal policy, if we repeal the 4.3-cent gas tax, I predict that gas prices will remain the same, with no windfall for the consumer. Repealing a few cents at the pump will certainly increase the deficit. By rolling back 4.3 cents per gallon, we instantly add $5 billion to the federal deficit this year, and if we extend the repeal beyond 1997, we could add $35 billion to the deficit by the turn of the century, making our task of balancing the budget by 2002 that much more difficult. Gas prices should fall without any intervention. According to industry experts, gasoline prices will fall on their own during the summer. By the time Congress passes legislation to try and reduce gasoline prices, they may already be lower than our targeted goal. It's a bad precedent. If we begin to unravel the progress on the 1993 budget agreement, picking it apart, what's next? Will Congress move to repeal the tax on the wealthy? After all, wasn't the goal of the ``Contract with America'' a balanced budget by 2002? In the end, middle-income consumers will pay more. Repealing the gas tax adds to the deficit, putting more debt (and interest on that debt) on the backs of tomorrow's generation. Who will pay that tab? We already know--the young people of tomorrow, and families of today. Believe me, I don't like high gasoline prices. If Congress is going to pass any legislation, it should first examine whether there has been any price gouging at the pump and take action to force oil producers to reduce their prices. But for years, we have became accustomed to gasoline prices that have made it affordable to buy larger, less fuel-efficient cars. We need to keep in mind that in the U.S. we pay substantially lower prices for our gasoline than other modern countries. Finally, the American people need to get out their hypocrisy meters when they watch this debate unfold. If Sen. Dole is proposing repealing the 4.3-cent per gallon gasoline tax passed in 1993, why not repeal the 10-cent federal gas tax he proposed which was signed into law under President Reagan and Bush? Isn't the ``Dole Dime'' as important to deficit reduction as the ``Clinton Nickel?'' Of course it is, which is why we should repeal neither.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution offered today. The fiscal year 1997 budget resolution represents a continued attack on the health, safety and well-being of the majority of the American people. While not as drastic as the budget proposed by the Republican majority last year, this budget also is too extreme. By cutting Medicare and Medicaid, the safety net for vulnerable populations--the elderly, disabled, and poor children and families--will be in jeopardy, I cannot support a budget that includes massive Federal spending for new tax breaks while other critical programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and earned income tax credit--are greatly weakened. This is not a realistic budget. We cannot, and should not, enact a budget such as this that promises to cut spending and cut taxes. If we are serious about reducing the deficit--as I am--we should make the hard choices to being our Federal spending in line. This budget, however, promises to make life easier for the affluent, while balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and disadvantaged. I support a balanced budget. In fact, I have cosponsored and voted in favor of amending the U.S. Constitution to mandate a balanced Federal budget. However, while the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution passed by this committee achieves balance on paper, I cannot support the callous and irresponsible policy assumptions it uses to achieve these savings. The policy implications have very real consequences to the citizens of this Nation. I am especially concerned about the deep cuts in discretionary spending included in this budget. Certainly, we must take serious steps to carefully scrutinize every portion of our Federal budget in order to control Federal spending and bring our deficit under control. However, the cuts in discretionary spending included here are too harsh and will have a serious impact on millions of Americans, most notably the vulnerable populations that continue to be left behind as we change our Federal priorities. For example, the cuts in education leave me very concerned about the future of this Nation. The education of our children must be a top priority. The education our children receive should be adequate in keeping the U.S. economy competitive as we move into the next century. American children rank dismally in math and science achievement compared with students from other nations. The proportion of young people completing high school has remained stagnant for a decade, despite the ever-increasing demands for education in the job market. National education reforms under President George Bush's Goals 2000 program pointed our Nation in the right direction. This budget, however, eliminates Goals 2000. Having all our students starting school ready to learn, increasing the high school graduation rate, teaching every adult to read and keeping drugs and violence out of schools are not goals we should abandon. While our deficit needs to be eliminated, we must not decimate the education of future generations. Under this budget, the Legal Services Corporation is cut drastically in fiscal year 1997--a large step toward the total elimination of the program by 1999. The Legal Services Corporation is a good example of a Federal program that is effectively being administered at the local level. The leadership of this House claims to want to expand the role of state and local authority while shrinking the size of the Federal Government. The Legal Services Corporation is a prime example of how local control of a Federal program is working. The creators of the LSC recognized that decisions about how legal services should be allocated are best made not by officials in Washington, but at a local level, by the people who understand the problems that face their communities. The LSC provides funds to 323 programs operating over 1,200 neighborhood law offices. Together they serve every county in the Nation. LSC programs provide services to more than 1.7 million clients a year, benefiting approximately 5 million individuals, the majority of them children living in poverty. The phase-out of the LSC represented in this budget eliminates a much-needed program and threatens the life and well-being of every poor or near-poor person in this country. A well-maintained transportation network is essential for economic development. If highways cannot be maintained, our goods cannot move in commerce. Similarly, without continued attention to our Nation's airports, delays and other difficulties will slow our economy's growth. In addition, transit funding provides immediate benefits for economic development, carrying low-income people to their place of work and reducing congestion in metropolitan areas. Transportation should not bear higher cuts than other programs. This budget phases out Federal assistance the operation of mass transit systems. Operating assistance is essential to transit systems across the Nation. Transit systems are already taking serious steps to cope with federal operating cuts of nearly 50 percent in fiscal year 1996 and 12 percent in fiscal year 1995. Transit systems, by necessity, are operating more efficiently yet still must cut services and increase fares. The complete elimination of operating assistance would have a drastic impact and could eliminate necessary public transportation in communities across our nation. The elimination of funding for mass transit is just one example of the hypocrisy of this budget. As this budget pushes people into the workforce it takes away their means of getting to work. This budget is unfair and should not be passed by this House.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to the Polish- American War veterans in my congressional district, who are celebrating their 50th Anniversary as a veterans organization in the Metro East and will celebrate that distinguished anniversary on June 1, 1996. This local Polish-American War veterans organization was formed immediately after World War II, when so many local Polish-Americans living in Southwestern Illinois left their homes and families to fight to free Europe and preserve democracy here in America. Upon their return, these veterans decided to form their own local PAWV organization. According to the local organization, these original ideas were nurtured at the S.M. (Steve Mizulski) Tavern in East St. Louis, where planning sessions took place. The PAWV was subsequently chartered in May 1946 by the State of Illinois. The first officers were Stanley Gula, President; Stanley Boryczko, Vice-President; Joseph Skowron, Secretary; Michael Bartosz, Treasurer; and Adam Wondolowski, Sergeant-at-Arms. Other active leaders were Walter Kolczak, Les Kloczak, Aloysius Szablowski, Edward Cich, Ed Wondolowski, as well as John Radon, Ted Skrabacz, and Ben Nieciecki. Over the years, events were staged throughout the Metro East, with its 25th Anniversary celebrated on October 2, 1971, at the Catholic Knights and Ladies Hall in Belleville. Under the leadership of Albert (Butch) Rolek and other committed members, a permanent site for the PAWV was found in 1979 on North 81st Street in Caseyville. The PAWV sponsors a variety of community events every year, including the annual Father's Day program, ethnic celebrations, children's events, as well as national and State holiday observations. The Ladies Auxiliary, a group of dedicated wives and mothers, supports the activities and continues to work to foster an understanding and love of the Polish community. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the PAWV on its 50th Anniversary.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the debate team at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, located in my congressional district. This team of outstanding young students has distinguished itself yet again by winning the National Championship Tournament of the National Cross-Examination Debate Association. The contest was held March 29 through April 1, 1996, at California State University at Long Beach, with each of the teams arguing the benefits and detractions of the U.S. foreign policy in Mexico. For the first time in the championship's 11-year history, judges handed SIU the tournament victory after the final debate between SIU and Fort Hays University of Fort Hays, KS. The SIU debate team has an excellent history in debate competitions, winning the national championship from 1986 to 1989. This year's victory shows the team's ability to put together a winning performance with a talented group of individuals. Their championship victory is a testament to the outstanding scholarship and dedication by the SIU debate team. I want to congratulate the member of the SIU debate team, including Zachery J. Anderson; Sean M. Featherstun; Jason E. Griffith; Melissa D. Horn; Glenn P. Frappier; Matthew M. Moore; Zachary A. Sapienza; Bill M. Shinn; Joseph M. Vuglia; Jeremy J. West; and Wendy D. Woolery. I also want to congratulate Faculty Director Greffory D. Simerly, Assistant Coaches Stephen K. Hunt, Edwin D. Phillips and Yuri V. Kostun, as well as Dean John Jackson of the College of Liberal Arts. I ask my colleagues to join me in offering congratulations on a job well done in this prestigious academic competition.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues today to commemorate the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide. In 1915, Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders were arrested and executed. The campaign of genocide began with this act and resulted in the deaths of over 1.5 million Armenians by 1923. April 24 is the symbolic day of remembrance for the Armenian community to join together and remember the horrible events of their ancestors. Residents of Armenian heritage in my congressional district believe remembering the past will prevent the world from forgetting. In addition, because some try to argue the Armenian genocide never occurred, calling attention to the tragedy is particularly worthwhile. Denial of genocide harms the victims and their survivors. That is one reason why I have joined a number of my colleagues in Congress in cosponsoring House Concurrent Resolution 47 to honor the memory of the victims of the Armenian genocide. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering the tragedy of the Armenian genocide and in renewing our commitment to human rights. The Congress must stand firm in its resolve to oppose violence and repression against humanity.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for the bill, H.R. 842. As a cosponsor of this important legislation, I believe taking the self-financed trust funds off budget is not only appropriate but necessary. Currently, the accumulated cash balanced of the highway trust fund, the airport and airways trust fund, the harbor maintenance trust fund and the inland waterways trust fund exceeds $30 billion and will reach as high as $77 billion by the year 2002. When these trust funds were credited, the users who contributed to the funds believed their taxes would go toward necessary improvements and maintenance of the Nation's transportation system. Because of the direct connection between the tax imposed and the benefit derived from improvements in transportation infrastructure, taxpayers strongly support the payment of transportation user fees. This support will not continue to exist if the trust funds continue to be used to make the Federal deficit appear smaller. Taking the transportation trust funds off budget will restore faith with the taxpayers. But this issue is not only about tax fairness, it's also about jobs and economic productivity. Every dollar spent in highway, transit and aviation construction improves a nationwide system upon which the people and commerce of the United States depend. Our transportation system continues to be our Government's best investment. Since the 1950's, as much as 25 percent of America's productivity growth can be credited to infrastructure improvements. For example, recent Department of Transportation studies show that every $1 billion invested in highway construction and enhancements yields 42,000 good high-wage jobs. These are among the reasons why I am supporting H.R. 842 and why I will work for passage of this important legislation.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2630, legislation to extend the deadline for beginning construction on a hydroelectric project in southwestern Illinois. The Federal Power Act requires construction of a hydroelectric project to begin within 2 years after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] issues a license. FERC can grant one additional extension, which it has already done. This bill will extend the time period in which construction must begin by 2 years. This project is important to meet the energy and economic needs of southwestern Illinois. This region of my district has seen tremendous job loss and a shrinking tax base due to reduced job opportunities in manufacturing. Royalties from power sales will provide revenue to the local city for capital improvements and other projects which will positively impact area employment. The project has been planned in a way that addresses potential environmental concerns. The current proposal utilizes a turbine design, which will reduce the plant's impact on fish and other aquatic life. In fact, the fishways to be constructed upstream and downstream from the plant will actually improve fishing access for anglers. I urge my colleagues to support this extension of time allowed to construct a hydroelectric power facility in southwestern Illinois.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Kennedy- Kassebaum substitute to be offered by the Democratic leader, and in opposition to the bill as a whole. Unfortunately, radical members of the majority conference have hijacked this bill and turned it into a special-interest Christmas tree, which could very well jeopardize its passage in the Congress. Health insurance reform is long past due. Millions of Americans are still routinely denied health care coverage because of preexisting conditions. Some are forced to remain in stagnant jobs and turn down promotions or other job opportunities in order to insure the continuation of their employer-sponsored health care benefits. The Senate has introduced legislation with wide bipartisan support to address the issue of portability of insurance. That legislation, the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, ensures health insurance portability when individuals move from one employer to another. President Clinton voiced his support for this legislation during his State of the Union Address. In the House of Representatives, my colleague, Representative Roukema has introduced similar legislation, and 192 of my colleagues have joined me in cosponsoring Representative Roukema's legislation. With the broad bipartisan support of this health insurance reform, it is a disgrace that the Republican leadership has sabotaged the enactment of this legislation by adding controversial provisions to the bill. Some Members in the Senate have suggested these provisions may end the chances of passage of this legislation, which is why I will vote for the Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema substitute and against final passage. This issue is too important to let partisan politics jeopardize the health care of the American people. We have waited for too long. The time is now to pass and enact a clean health insurance reform bill that will assure the portability of health insurance when individuals change jobs.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the product liability conference report. This bill effectively condones egregious misconduct, carelessness, and greed of manufacturers which produce and sell defective products. This bill makes it cost-effective for some companies to put profits ahead of safe products. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. The unfortunate victims of the repercussions of this legislation are the American consumers. I object to the provisions in this bill which arbitrarily limit the amount of punitive damages injured person may recoup when harmed by faulty or dangerous products. Punitive damages should serve as a deterrent to manufacturers who knowingly build and sell dangerous products. Punitive damages force companies to fix dangerous products. For example, punitive damages have been effective in making safer children's pajamas and baby cribs, automobiles, and medical devices. Without the threat of these large damage awards, manufacturers have an incentive to settle with individuals hurt by dangerous products rather than correcting their wrongs. We cannot actively condone and promote such unconscionable business practice. Proponents of this legislation argue for the need to limit punitive damages to $250,000 because without such caps juries have awarded ridiculously high punitive damage awards. This is simply not true. The National Center for State Courts reports that only 600 of the 1 million tort actions filed each year result in punitive damages. It should further be noted that most of those are reduced on appeal. It is easy to talk about the outrageous $2.7 million award to the woman who was burned by the hot coffee at McDonald's. However, let us examine the facts. This grandmother had to undergo extensive skin grafts for her burns. McDonald's had ignored 700 prior complaints about too-hot coffee and, in fact, the judge reduced the punitive damage award to $400,000. How many burns must it take to have a company change its harmful ways? The unfortunate fact remains that business usually comes down to dollars. Mr. Speaker, it cannot pay to make dangerous products. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the legislation sponsored by Congressman Jim Chapman which would repeal the assault weapons ban included in the comprehensive anti-crime package of 1994. Voting on this issue is not difficult for me, because I strongly believe that my position on this legislation is correct. I opposed the assault weapons ban in 1994 when it came up as part of the crime bill, and I still oppose the ban. The ban, one of the most controversial parts of the 1994 anticrime law, was ill-conceived and poorly drafted. The ban has burdened the rights of the American people to own guns, but has had no effect on crime. This bill not only repeals the onerous ban, it also gets tougher on criminals. Instead of imposing more limits on law-abiding citizens, the bill goes in the other direction and slaps tougher penalties on criminals who use a firearm while committing a violent Federal crime. The current ban arbitrarily restricts certain weapons, since it is virtually impossible to distinguish a semiautomatic assault weapon from other semiautomatic weapons that are used for sport and hunting. The features designated in the 1994 crime law that define which weapons are banned and merely cosmetic, and have no effect on the action of the firearm. Any firearm--banned or not--is equally capable of being abused by criminals or madmen, or used by law-abiding citizens for self protection or hunting. And, according to the FBI, all types of military-style weapons are involved in less than 1 percent of all murders and less than 1 percent of all serious crime. No matter how much we all want to halt violent crimes committed with firearms, the fact is that banning certain firearms will do nothing to stop these tragic crimes. Studies overwhelmingly show that gun control laws--like those which ban all guns in Washington, DC, which has a very high gun-related crime rate--have no impact on stopping criminals from obtaining whatever firearm is necessary for perpetrating their crimes. The ban on semi-automatic assault weapons simply kept certain guns from law-abiding citizens, but has done nothing to disarm criminals. Mr. Speaker, as a former police officer and the father of a police officer, I can testify that unlike the current ban, this bill will take steps to get violent criminals off the street. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the Chapman bill.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 78, of which I am a cosponsor. This legislation is necessary to give enforcement authority to the Bi-State Development Agency, the local organization that operates the mass transit system in the St. Louis metropolitan region. Bi-State was originally established by the States of Illinois and Missouri and approved by the U.S. Congress. However, that compact did not give Bi-State the authority to appoint or employ a security force or to enact rules and regulations governing fare evasion and other conduct. As Bi-State has expanded from providing transit via buses to the large-scale and widely known success of the MetroLink light rail system, its needs have changed. With its growth and new responsibilities, the agency now requires more authority to enact rules and regulations on fare collection and to employ a security force. MetroLink passengers currently pay fares through a barrier-free, self- service, proof-of-payment system. This system, while successful, needs a consistent enforcement policy to ensure fare compliance. The agency does not currently have the authority to enact these rules under the original compact approved by the U.S. Congress. Because both the Illinois and Missouri Legislatures have acted to extend Bi-State's authority and because local officials and Members of Congress from the region support the change, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Agriculture Marketing Transition Act. Agriculture is a vital industry in our Nation and in my southern Illinois district. This legislation is sensitive to the budgetary goal of balancing the Federal budget in 7 years. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] estimates that the bill would result in reductions of direct spending of $5.4 billion between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2002. I am pleased that today's bill reauthorizes such important programs as the Conservation Reserve Program, the Export Enhancement Program, and Market Promotion Program. These programs help preserve our lands and assure that there are markets abroad for American crops. Expanding our opportunities internationally is of vital importance to me. In fact, I supported an amendment which states directly that if USDA does not meet the goal of $60 billion in exports and increased world-market share by 2002, the authorization for USDA export programs would automatically expire. Despite my support for the package, I have some concern over the production flexibility contracts section of the bill. These payments, set at specified decreasing amounts each year for the next 7 years, will replace our current system of deficiency payments, which pay farmers based on market conditions. Producers who have been enrolled in the Federal farm program in at least one of the past 5 years are automatically eligible to sign up for a 7-year contract. I am concerned that this criteria may allow those not actively farming over the 7-year period to receive Government funds for which they would be ineligible. Also, the bill states that those wishing to sign up for the 7-year program must do so before April 15 of this year. This precludes participation by younger farmers. Current USDA data shows that younger people, even in rural areas, are not choosing agriculture as a primary occupation. By making it more difficult for them to enroll in a Federal support program, even more younger people will become disinterested in this industry. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleagues for their efforts to put together such an omnibus piece of legislation. Despite my opposition to the production flexibility contracts, I feel the bill is in line with our Federal budgetary goals and will work to increase agriculture's role in the world market.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in honoring our colleague, Congressman Kweisi Mfume, as he prepares to leave Congress to take over the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP]. I have had the privilege of serving with Kweisi for many years, and can testify to the fact that he has had an enormously positive impact on the U.S. House of Representatives. He has well represented his constituents in Baltimore, and has been an aggressive advocate for the causes of human rights and urban development. As the former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Kweisi was successful in raising the profile of the caucus agenda, and speaking for millions of African-Americans who look to the caucus for leadership. By becoming chief executive officer of the NAACP, Kweisi will continue those efforts and represent that organization with the same vigor and competence as he represented his constituents in Maryland's Seventh District. Mr. Speaker, I know many of my colleagues join me in bidding Kweisi best wishes on his new challenge, and will be working closely with him on issues of concern to all of us in the future.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleagues to joint me in honoring a prominent community in my district which is celebrating its 100th anniversary. On March 9, 1996, Granite City, IL, will celebrate its centennial at a special banquet at St. Gregory's Armenian Center. The residents of Granite City make up a very proud community, one with a diverse ethnic makeup and hard-working reputation. The city is home to steel factories, medical centers, and meatpacking houses, as well as the Charles Melvin Price Army Support Center and a variety of excellent small businesses. It has been my pleasure to represent Granite City in the Congress since I was elected in 1988. The local officials and residents are committed to making their community a better place to live, with improved schools, enhanced infrastructure, and opportunities for area residents to make a living and care for their families. Together, we have worked to make the Price Center a strong military facility; secure funding to improve the McKinley Bridge; help area steel companies expand their factories; struggle through the great flood of 1993; and create more opportunities for local companies at the Tri-City Port District. As Granite City looks to the future, its next 100 years, we can be assured that as long as the community continues to work together to achieve progress, opportunity lies ahead.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on the telecommunications reform bill. I originally opposed the measure when it came before the House last August because I felt the manager's amendment weakened the standards to promote effective competition and provide fair, reasonable rates for consumers. I am pleased that the conference report includes a reasonable checklist of requirements and requires that a FCC public interest test be met before applying for long distance entry. I commend the committee and its leadership as well for including language urging the FCC to give substantial weight to the views of the U.S. Justice Department in determining Bell entry into long distance. I feel that judgment from outside the regulating agency is critical to making a fair decision that is in the best interest of the individual market served. One of the main reasons I voted against the bill last summer was the way in which it would have weakened consumer power in keeping cable rates in check. It has taken several years to effectively implement the Cable Act of 1992, legislation which has worked in many ways to keep cable rates from skyrocketing. I did not want to see Congress's proconsumer efforts weakened. I am pleased that the conference report, while not perfect in this area, has made better strides than the original House bill toward keeping consumer protections in regard to cable prices and rates. I am pleased that the conference committee retained the House position on installation of the V-chip on all 13-inch and larger television sets. The average American child watches an estimated 27 hours of television per week, and one study estimates that before finishing elementary school a child will watch over 8,000 murders and 10,000 acts of violence on television. The inclusion of a V-chip will give parents an additional safeguard to protect children from objectionable or qusestionable programming. This is the most comprehensive communications bill since the 1930's. As we move toward the 21st century, the ability to communicate in a rapid, cost-effective manner will continue to be important to all Americans. I am pleased that working together we have achieved a framework, while not perfect, that will serve to guide our communication policy both now and in the future.