Jerry Costello

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a balanced budget. In fact, I have consistently cosponsored and voted for a balanced budget amendment. However, I continue to be disappointed that we are in a stalemate about how to reach this goal. The Federal Government has been shut down for 21 days. This shutdown--the longest in history--has cost the taxpayers in excess of $600 million to date. Over 200,000 Federal workers have gone without pay since December 16. They, like other Americans, have mortgages, car payments, utility bills, and mouths to feed. In addition, millions of Americans depend on a variety of Government services that they have already paid for. Americans have needs that are not being met because the Republicans in the House refuse to agree on a compromise balanced budget. Today, the House will pass a resolution to provide funding for selected Government functions, including the Meals on Wheels Program; visitor services in the National Parks; passport and visa services; railroad retirement payments and unemployment insurance. While this is a small step in the right direction for our Nation, I am gravely concerned because this targeted approach does not cover other critical needs such as payments to Medicare contractors, Federal Medicaid matching funds, small business loans, worker protection, environmental protection, and Superfund cleanup. It could also lead to the ludicrous situation of paying Federal workers to do nothing. President Clinton and the majority leader in the Senate were right weeks ago when they agreed to separate the issues of funding the Government this year and finalizing a 7-year plan to balance the Federal budget. We should pass a clean continuing resolution to fund all operations of the Government, including small businesses that rely on Government contracts. Then we must focus on the people's business to get the budget balanced in 7 years. We operate in a democracy, not a dictatorship. People have paid in advance for Government services, they are not receiving. It is time to sit down and work out a 7-year balanced budget without denying the people Government services.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to articulate my position on the President's policy of sending 20,000 American troops to Bosnia. I oppose, and have voted consistently in Congress to oppose, the introduction of United States ground troops into Bosnia. I do not believe that American soldiers should be on the frontlines of a multiethnic, quasi-religious conflict that dates back several hundred years. My position has been that we should have lifted the arms embargo against the Bosnians long ago, so that they could have defended themselves against Serbian aggression and helped put an end to the slaughter. It was clear that one reason the three parties came to the table in Dayton was the increasing strength of the Bosnian resistance. I believe that this war, which has raged for 3 years with massive losses of life, is in the heart of Europe and is primarily a European responsibility. That is why I have opposed sending our soldiers into the heart of Bosnia to police the peace agreement signed in Dayton. Let me make it clear, however, that I do believe the United States has a responsibility to our NATO allies and the world to assist in this effort. This terrible slaughter can and should end, and our diplomatic efforts to bring about a peace agreement have been admirable. With a real, signed agreement at hand, our European allies would use our air support, intelligence capability, and humanitarian efforts to accomplish this mission. Unfortunately, the President believes the United States has a responsibility to put our soldiers--along with the French and the British--on the Bosnian frontlines. It is a policy I do not agree with. Today, we are voting on three different resolutions. The Dornan resolution would cut off funding to the troops stationed in Bosnia, some of which are already in or on their way to that country. The Skelton resolution would express opposition to this policy, in particular the introduction of ground troops into Bosnia, but would also express support for our troops there. Finally, the Hamilton resolution would express approval for the President's policy of sending ground troops to Bosnia and unequivocal support for the men and women of the United States Armed Forces who have been stationed there by their Commander in Chief, President Clinton. I oppose the Dornan resolution for two reasons: First, our troops are on their way to Bosnia with some already in the Balkans, and to cut off their funding while they are in Bosnia would put them in serious danger; and second, the President has said he would veto the legislation if approved by the Congress, and given that fact, passage of this particular resolution would tell our troops, our soldiers, that they do not have the full support of the American people or their representatives. That is reminiscent of Vietnam and a wrong message to send to our troops. However, given my opposition to ground troops in Bosnia, I will support the Skelton-Buyer resolution. The President has the authority to dispatch these troops just as President Bush dispatched troops to the Middle East in 1990. However, I have an obligation to let the President know that I disagree with this policy. I have voted consistently against this policy and believe it is not in the best interest of our Nation. Finally, I cannot support the Hamilton resolution, which expresses support for the President's Bosnia policy. Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the President's policy. I believe the United States should lend air and other support to our European allies, to enforce this peace agreement. However, as our troops are now stationed or en route to Bosnia, I believe the Congress has a responsibility to let the President know that public opinion is extremely wary of his policy. He should also know that at the first opportunity, we should bring home our troops and let Bosnian soldiers take their place, a policy I believe we should have implemented all along.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2361, the bill to change the expiration date of certain temporary judgeships established in 1990. Instead of expiring 5 years from the bill's date of enactment, the judgeships will expire 5 years from the date of confirmation. It is of critical importance that this legislation be approved and sent to the President for his signature prior to December 1. Without a change in the law, as many as 13 districts will not be able to take advantage of the temporary judgeships because of delays in the confirmation process. The temporary judgeships will enable the Federal courts to better handle their extensive workload. That is why I am strongly supporting this legislation which simply makes a technical change and allows the original intent of the law--5-year temporary judgeships for certain Federal district courts. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill so we can forward it to the President for his signature before the December 1 expiration date.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Home Health Care Month. Illinois has the distinct honor of being recognized as establishing the Nation's first Home Care Association. The Illinois Home Care Council was founded in 1960. Home care saves money and allows many elderly Americans the chance to spend their golden years at home with their families. Since its introduction, home care has received broad support across party lines. Home care has rapidly grown since its start in the early 1960's. Council members sustain its growth through frequent meetings with governmental agencies and other health care associations. By keeping abreast of current issues home care has helped shape different aspects of health care legislation. Thousands of nurses, therapists, physicians, and home care aides have devoted their lives to providing in-home health care to the sick and disabled. Please join me as I acknowledge all of them for their continued support of home care patients.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, the process of this reconciliation bill is such that I have not witnessed during my tenure on the Budget Committee. First, over half of the committees did not meet their reconciliation instructions, as directed under the budget resolution, to submit them to the Budget Committee. This has been the most convoluted process since my tenure began on the Budget Committee. At the very least, the mark-up of the budget reconciliation bill should have been postponed until all spending measures were completed and received by the Budget Committee. While I was disappointed with the process of reporting the budget reconciliation legislation, I also disagree with many parts of this enormous package. This month, the Census Bureau released data for 1994 showing the income-gap between the wealthy and all other Americans is large and still growing. I am disappointed but not surprised that the Republican leadership's agenda is to reinforce this growing disparity in economic equality. The $245 billion tax cut mostly coming from the $270 cut out of Medicare will benefit primarily wealthy Americans. More than 50 percent of the benefit of the tax cut will go to the less than 3 percent of households with incomes over $200,000. We must get our fiscal house in order before we dismantle critical programs to pay for a tax cut. I fully support a tax cut for American taxpayers; however, such relief should come after we reach a balanced budget. A tax cut that is financed on the backs of he elderly, poor and disabled in our society will not benefit our Nation. It is not good economic practice and it is clearly harmful public policy. Finally, in addition to my opposition to Medicare and Medicaid cuts, I find it outrageous that this legislation would: Repeal national nursing home standards which exist through Medicare, which provide patients a basic minimum of safety, care and training in nursing homes; Repeal the spousal impoverishment provisions of Medicaid, which ensure that spouses of long-term care patients do not become impoverished when the spouse is institutionalized; and Repeal of a program instituted in 1992 to keep the coal health benefits program solvent. Over 100,000 retired coal miners rely on this fund, which could be jeopardized with repeal of this program. For these and other reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Republican reconciliation plan.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Medicare Preservation Act. For the 30 years since it was signed into law, Medicare has been the primary source of health care coverage for Americans 65 and older. Today, I fear, we are going to put the security of our seniors' health care in jeopardy. This bill cuts $270 billion out of the Medicare Program over 7 years. Two hundred and seventy billion dollars can only come from one of two places: Cuts to seniors or cuts to providers. Either way, my district loses. People lose. Mr. Chairman, I held Medicare forums with each of the hospitals in my district. All of them, without exception, said $270 billion cuts would be disastrous to their facilities. At least two hospitals will close. A hospital in East St. Louis is the only health facility in the area that provides obstetric care. What will happen if there is no where in the city to deliver babies? The hospitals in the 12th District of Illinois have already streamlined operations. They have cut staff and services. They feel additional cuts will be so detrimental to services, they would rather close than compromise quality of care. Is this what we've come to--forcing hospitals to close and threatening the health and safety of entire communities to pay for a tax cut? If $270 billion does not come from providers, seniors are going to feel the burden of ``slowing the growth in Medicare spending.'' Haven't we asked enough of our senior citizens? Mr. Chairman, I support a balanced budget. In fact, I voted for the balanced budget constitutional amendment. However, if we are serious about balancing our budget, we should not be talking about a huge tax cut which clearly is going to benefit the very wealthy in our society. If we are serious about reforming Medicare, we should be engaging in open debate about how to keep Medicare solvent into the next century. It is hypocrisy to call for a $245 billion tax break while cutting Medicare by $270 billion. Granted, there are major problems with the Medicare Program. However, Medicare is no closer to going broke than it has been the nine times in the past that we have faced similar solvency issues. Medicare will be at a zero balance in 2002, with a debt the following year, if adjustments are not made. However, the President's Medicare Board of Trustees shows that only $79 billion is needed to keep the trust fund solvent. That means we are looking at $181 billion in unnecessary cuts. That $181 billion could go a long way in protecting seniors from increased premiums or cuts in services.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the bicentennial anniversary of Randolph County, IL; 200 years ago, on October 5, 1795, Gen. Arthur St. Clair, the Governor of the Northwest Territory, proclaimed the southwestern one-third of present day Illinois as Randolph County, with Kaskaskia as the county seat. Randolph County, IL is recognized as the oldest organized government west of the Allegheny Mountains. The county has sent forth numerous legislators and leaders to serve in the early days of both the State of Illinois and the U.S. Government. Its rich history also reflects a strong French influence. The two oldest French forts in the United States are located within Randolph County. Fort Kaskaskia and Fort de Chartres both overlook the Mississippi River and the city of Kaskaskia. In addition, the Liberty Bell of the West, cast in France in 1741, is located on Kaskaskia Island. I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging Randolph County and celebrating its historic heritage on the event of its 200th anniversary.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sam Muchnick, a name familiar to many of my colleagues who represent constituents near the St. Louis metropolitan area. Thousands of the people I represent have loved Sam Muchnick for many years as a neighbor, friend and community spirit whose roots in the Metro East are strong. Sam Muchnick has been one of the greatest sports promoters in all America. For over 50 years, he served as the Nation's premier wrestling promoter until his retirement from the sport in 1982. Known as Mr. Wrestling, Sam has been a good friend to me and was a very close friend to my predecessor, Congressman Melvin Price. Sam got his start in the sports business as a writer following Cardinals baseball for the St. [[Page E 1725]] Louis Times. He got into the wrestling business as an assistant to promoter Tom Packs and found his niche. He served for more than 25 years as president of the National Wrestling Alliance, which consisted of promoters from coast to coast. During his career as Mr. Wrestling, Sam Muchnick spent many days relating his sporting stories to me and other young people growing up in the Metro East. He still stops by and talks to Jack English, George Silvey, Bob Burns, Eddie Moran, Bob Bregg and other friends in the sports business during a visit to English's Tavern in Belleville. Today, I bring to the attention of my colleagues the long and popular career of ``Mr. Wrestling.'' I know they join me in congratulating Sam Muchnick for the years of enjoyment he has provided to wrestling and entertainment fans in the United States.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my comments on H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995. I support reforming our telecommunications industry so that it can move into the future and help all American consumers. I consider this legislation one of the most important bills we will vote on this year, perhaps this entire session, since it will impact every single American consumer. From the beginning of this session, the intent of this legislation was to free up competition in local markets, to allow long-distance companies to begin competing with local Bell companies for local service, and allow the Bells to enter the long-distance market. That was the thrust of the legislation which was passed several weeks ago by the Commerce Committee. However, early this week, Speaker Gingrich directed the chairman of the Commerce Committee to alter the bill, in an amendment approved today. It makes drastic changes to the telecommunications legislation, changes which saw no hearing and upset the careful balance achieved by the committee bill. This legislation now repeals the regulations on cable companies which are intended to keep rates low, meaning we could see a return to the late 1980's and early 1990's when cable rates skyrocketed. In addition, it removes any role of the Justice Department, which should have a hand in ensuring that monopolies are not created by this bill. My intent is to pass legislation which enhances technology access and provides the consumer with a wider range of telecommunications opportunities at a reduced cost. However, this bill as written is weighted too heavily against balanced competition, which is essential to benefit the consumer, the Bell companies and the long-distance telephone companies. Mr. Speaker, I want telecommunications reform. However, I will vote against final passage of this bill in its current form.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews]. I will not go into the merits of the program. I think that has been discussed by both the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation and the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. Let me say to my friend from New Jersey that he cites a couple of problems within the program that the GAO has indicated in their study, and he indicates that he agrees with the GAO report. Let me just cite for a second a case in point as a model example under this program. Scott Air Force Base, in my congressional district in southwestern Illinois, was one of the first military airports funded under this program. In the last 3 years, Scott Air Force Base has received over $20 million in order to move forward with a civilian airport at Scott. Let me also say that this $20 million has been used as leverage by the State of Illinois and local officials, and the State now has committed a substantial amount of money from the State of Illinois and the county of St. Clair. In addition, Mr. Chairman, the FAA has made substantial commitments to the civilian airport at Scott. Let me tell the Members that without the MAP program, Scott Air Force Base and Mid-America Airport at Scott would not be under construction today. Because of the MAP program, we will have a new civilian airport at Scott Air Force Base. Mid-America Airport is due to open in November of 1997, which will provide relief to St. Louis International Airport and create thousands of jobs in the St. Louis metropolitan area. I assure my colleagues that we would not have seen the progress that we have seen so far in Mid-America Airport had it not been for this program. Mr. Chairman, let me finally conclude by saying that we have, through the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, acted on the 1994 GAO report. As my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the committee, has indicated, they have acted upon the report. I would ask my colleagues to join the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], and others to oppose the amendment.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the House- Senate Republican budget conference report. This proposal, a compromise written by the House and Senate Budget Committees, would give the very wealthy an enormous tax break [[Page H 6591]] while at the same time devastating Medicare and other vital programs. I voted against this package as a conferee and will vote no on final passage in the House. The goal of this budget proposal is one I share: balancing the federal budget by the year 2002. In January, I voted for a constitutional amendment to balance our federal budget. I believe we must end the continued policy of running billion-dollar deficits every year which add to the national debt that must be paid by our children and grandchildren. But we should not balance the budget by cutting student loans, Medicare, Social Security, funding for veterans and infrastructure while offering a $245 billion tax cut. This outrageous cut will give the wealthiest families a cut of over $15,000 while giving most middle- income families an average of only $500 in tax relief. We must also balance our budget in a way which does not put such a tremendous burden on our nation's elderly. Last fall, during town meetings with my constituents, I talked about the ``Contract with America,'' and its potential impact on Social Security and Medicare. I suggested that if the Republican plan were enacted, our seniors would see huge Medicare cuts, higher Medicare premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and an effort to cut Social Security. If you examine the Republican budget closely, it does all three. It cuts $270 billion from Medicare over seven years, meaning that the service currently provided by Medicare will be significantly less in 2002. By cutting the Medicare program by 25 percent in 2002, out-of- pocket costs for seniors will increase by over $1000 in 2002. And, this budget begins the dangerous concept of reducing Social Security cost- of-living-adjustments, beginning in 1999, by altering the Consumer Price Index. This will reduce the average benefit by $240 per person. The Republicans have also suggested this plan will actually balance the budget in 2002. Unfortunately, their proposal relies on unsound economics and budget gimmicks to reach a balanced budget. This budget assumes a $170 billion ``economic bonus'' between 1996 and 2002 for attempting to balance the budget. This is based on a rosy scenario that our financial markets would react to lower interest rates by an optimistic 2 percent in 2002. Without this bonus, the budget is not balanced, and the promises behind this budget remain unfulfilled. Mr. Speaker, I support a balanced budget. I believe if we got rid of the $245 billion tax cut for the wealthy and used those funds to help keep Medicare solvent; if we asked the very wealthy instead to pay their fair share; restored some funding for some of our most needed initiatives, such as student loans; and did not tamper with Social Security, we would reach this goal. Unfortunately, a majority of my colleagues did not agree with our efforts to make these changes in the Budget Committee. Therefore, I intend to vote against he Kasich budget plan on the floor of the House.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in my comments today. I want to express my disappointment in the budgets we are considering. I am concerned the budget resolution passed by the House Budget Committee and adopted by the full House, while potentially successful in reducing the deficit, is irresponsible fiscal policy. I did not support the House budget resolution which gives enormous tax breaks to the wealthy while cutting critical Government programs--including a virtual assault on Medicare. And I cannot support a compromise crafted here which furthers these priorities which are inconsistent with the priorities of the majority of my constituents. I fully support getting to a balanced budget. In fact, I have voted for an amendment to the Constitution mandating a balanced Federal budget. I believe we must end the continued policy of running billion- dollar deficits which add to the national debt that must be paid by our children and grandchildren. The budget resolutions for fiscal year 1996, however, cut crucial programs at a time when our Federal belt- tightening will mandate a greater need for certain programs. I am especially concerned about the deep cuts in education, health, and infrastructure. This budget is too extreme. It is unfair, and it asks too much of the majority of Americans. I firmly believe we must continue on a serious path toward real deficit reduction. Our $4.7 trillion dollar debt is not a legacy I, in good conscience, can leave to my children and grandchildren which I why I think we cannot afford a tax cut until we reach a balanced budget. However, as we reduce Government services we must protect those who will be hardest hit by such reductions. I believe if we get rid of the $340 billion tax cut for the wealthy and used those funds to help keep Medicare solvent; if we ask the very wealthy instead to pay their fair share; restore some funding for some of our most needed initiatives, such as student loans; and do not tamper with Social Security, we could reach our common goal of a balanced budget and a healthy economy and a prosperous and bright future for all of our Nation's citizens.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues the outstanding service to our Nation of Mr. John F. Long, of East St. Louis, IL. John Long served as a U.S. soldier from the 125th Infantry, who served his country during World War II. Mr. Long, originally from Cairo, IL, entered the U.S. Army in October 1941, and fought a number of World War II battles in Italy. Those conflicts included Rome, Arno, the Appennines, and the Po Valley. Private Long's bravery won him the Good Conduct Medal, World War II Victory Medal, American Defense Ribbon, American Theater Ribbon, European African Middle Eastern Theater Ribbon with three Bronze battle stars, and one service stripe. John Long, who will turn 76 on June 15, was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army in November 1945. This year commemorates the 50th anniversary of his World War II service, and I am confident he watched, as we all did, the recent commemoration of V-E Day. On this glorious day, 50 years ago, John Long joined his fellow servicemen to accept the surrender of the Axis Powers to the Allied victors. His Army service in the battles of Italy was part of this victory, a contribution we honor in the House today.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues a historical structure in Marissa, IL, which stands as a monument to education and pride for southwestern Illinois. I recently had the privilege to attend a dedication ceremony sponsored by the Marissa Historical and Genealogical Society in Marissa on May 21. Several months ago, the society's president, Don Jones, began working on a project to have this building declared a national historical place. By gathering historic documents, Mr. Jones and other members of the society prepared their application to the National Park Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior for historical designation. I am pleased to tell my colleagues that the Marissa Academy Building, located in the village park, received a certificate announcing its listing on the National Registry of Historic Places effective October 28, 1994. According to a recent edition of the Marissa Journal-Messenger, the academy was started in 1886 and served students originally as a preparatory school. It was used until 1900, when classes shifted to Marissa Township High School. Later, it was used again as a school while the new elementary school was being built. Over time the building's structure degraded, and since it was the last academy building in Illinois, the community rallied to have it restored. In 1969, the village leased the building to the Marissa Historical and Genealogical Society. It is now a library and museum open to the public. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Marissa Historical and Genealogical Society for its hard work in making the Marissa Academy Building one of our Nation's newest addition to the National Register of Historic Places. It was a privilege for me to participate in the commemoration of this public recognition, for a building that will stand as a learning and historical tool for generations to come.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the House Republican budget plan. This proposal, put forth by House Speaker Gingrich and Budget Committee Chairman Kasich, would give the very wealthy an enormous tax break while at the same time devastating Medicare and other vital programs. The goal of this budget proposal is one I share: balancing the Federal budget by the year 2002. In January, I voted for a constitutional amendment to balance our Federal budget. I believe we must end the continued policy of running billion-dollar deficits every year which add to the national debt that must be paid by our children and grandchildren. But we should not balance the budget by cutting student loans, Medicare, Social Security, funding for veterans and infrastructure while offering a $353 billion tax cut. This outrageous cut will give the wealthiest families a cut of $20,000 while giving middle-income families only $555 in tax relief. We must also balance our budget in a way which does not put such a tremendous burden on our Nation's elderly. Last fall, during town meetings with my constituents, I talked about the ``Contract With America,'' and its potential impact on Social Security and Medicare. I suggested that if the Republican plan were enacted, our seniors would see huge Medicare cuts, higher Medicare premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and an effort to cut Social Security. If you examine the Republican budget closely, it does all three. It cuts $283 billion from Medicare over 7 years, meaning that the service currently provided by Medicare will be significantly less in 2002. By cutting the Medicare program by 25 percent in 2002, out-of- pocket costs for seniors will increase by $1060 in 2002. And, this budget begins the dangerous concept of reducing Social Security cost- of-living-adjustments, beginning in 1999, by altering the Consumer Price Index. This will reduce the average benefit by $240 per person. The Republicans have also suggested this plan will actually balance the budget in 2002. Unfortunately, their proposal relies on unsound economics and budget gimmicks to reach a balanced budget. This budget assumes a $170 billion ``economic bonus'' between 1996 and 2002 for attempting to balance the budget. This is based on a rosy scenario that our financial markets would react to lower interest rates by an optimistic 2 percent in 2002. Without this bonus, the budget is not balanced, and the promises behind this budget remain unfulfilled. Mr. Chairman, I support a balanced budget. I believe if we got rid of the $340 billion tax cut for the wealthy and used those funds to help keep Medicare solvent; if we asked the very wealthy instead to pay their fair share; restored some funding for some of our most needed initiatives, such as student loans; and did not tamper with Social Security, we would reach this goal. Unfortunately, a majority of my colleagues did not agree with our efforts to make these changes in the Budget Committee. Therefore, I intend to vote against the Kasich budget plan on the floor of the House.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues today to commemorate the 80th 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. The Armenian people have maintained their cultural and historical identity with perseverance and pride despite the oppression they endured. That is why I have joined a number of my colleagues in Congress in cosponsoring H. Con. Res. 47 to call on the Republic of Turkey to acknowledge and commemorate the 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, tonight, the House is being asked to approve large and growing tax cuts that make the goal of balancing the budget farther and farther out of reach. The Republican ``Contract with America'' promised to balance the budget. However, it does not make sense to make drastic and painful cuts in order to provide a tax break to wealthy Americans before we get serious about deficit reduction. While this bill pays for the tax breaks over a 5-year period, after five years the costs explode, and the federal deficit will actually increase. The long-term result of this bill will be an increase in the deficit by $630 billion over 10 years. This would be the second largest deficit increase in history, behind only the 1981 tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, this is epitome of hypocrisy. If Republicans were serious about deficit reduction, as they claim, the spending cuts included in this tax package would be applied to the deficit, rather than financing a huge tax break for the wealthy. This tax-and-spending-cut package will cut programs for the most vulnerable in our society to pay for tax breaks that will largely benefit wealthy American citizens. This bill has been called the ``crown jewel'' of the Republican ``Contract With America,'' but it appears most of the crown jewels will only go to the rich. To reduce our Federal budget deficit, we must cut every area of our discretionary budget. However, to make these very difficult cuts only to give the savings to wealthy Americans does not make sense to me. That is why I oppose this ``crown jewel'' of the ``Contract With America.'' I believe we must restore fiscal sanity to our budget process. We have an obligation to put an end to the huge interest payments that are eating away at our children's future. However, the solution to this problem does not lie in handing over our nation's ``crown jewels'' to those who need them the least.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Peace Lutheran Church in Steeleville, IL. On August 9, 1996, the church will celebrate its 100th anniversary. I would like to congratulate the Peace Lutheran Church and its pastor, Rev. Dr. James R. Little, on this momentous occasion. The community of Steeleville has greatly benefited from their inspirational efforts. The church has been diligent in its commitment to the work of the Lord, and the good news gospel. Peace Lutheran Church works for the good of the community by servicing its congregation as a member of the southern conference affiliated with the central Illinois senate of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. I ask my colleagues to join me as I acknowledge Peace Lutheran Church on their 100th anniversary and for their selfless dedication to their community.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, the hour is late. I am sure that all of the Members, realizing this is the last vote, we want to go home, but let me just reiterate a few points that were made earlier by some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in particular the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard]. You know, we are always talking about partnerships as opposed to the Federal Government putting up all the money for projects. This is truly a partnership between the private sector, the State of Illinois, and the Federal Government. Let me also say that I think the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard] referred to the fact that the Governor of Illinois, a Republican Governor, sent a letter to our delegation saying that he realizes that we need to cut the Federal budget, but this is a priority project for the State of Illinois. The State is willing to put up the money and do their part. Let me also say that if this rescission goes through this evening, we are not talking about rescinding $4.8 million, we are talking about killing this project. This is a project that is under construction right now. I am sure that the gentleman from California, in fact, very few of the Members who spoke on this issue, other than me and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], have been actually to the coal park, to the construction site. I can tell you the project is under construction. If you rescind this money this evening, the project is dead. If, in fact, the project is not rescinded and we go forward with this appropriation, it will be completed. Let me close by saying that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] referred to the fact that it would take $3 million to close the project down, and I would ask Members to keep that point in mind. The State of Illinois is willing to do their part. The Republican Governor and the Republican legislature, they are willing to put the money up. It is a good project. I rise in opposition to the amendment, and ask my colleagues to vote against the Rohrabacher amendment.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern over legislation under consideration in the House today to place into statute guidance for takings allowance under the fifth amendment of the Constitution. While I support efforts to offer this guidance, I am concerned the original bill proposed by the majority goes too far. This bill would require Federal agencies to reimburse private property owners if 10 percent of their land is affected by any Federal regulation. While the intent of this bill is good, the potential cost to the Federal Government for a 10-percent diminishment of property value is enormous. In addition, the bill's basic provisions are unworkable. For instance, if the Federal Government raises the speed limit on a rural highway, property owners adjacent to the highway could claim their property has been devalued by at least 10 percent due to increased noise from greater automobile traffic or higher speed limits. They could then demand reimbursement from the Department of Transportation for that diminished land value. I have made efforts to work with my colleagues to try and raise this threshold to a more reasonable level. I have voted for amendments to raise this threshold beyond the 10-percent level, to one which builds on current legal precedent but which is not too narrow. In addition, I am working with my Democratic colleagues who also favor protecting private property rights to narrow the bill to instances of likely takings--for wetlands protections, for example--instead of every Federal regulation. Making Federal regulations more reasonable is my goal, which is also why I have cosponsored wetlands reform in the past. An effort was made to try and narrow this bill, but it did not go far enough. The amendment offered by Representative Tauzin would have gone beyond just a wetlands provision to include rights of western water use, mining and other use western lands. It also raised the threshold to only 50 percent, one which I feel is still too unworkable. That is why I opposed the Tauzin amendment. One amendment I did support would have required a private property impact assessment by an agency prior to any taking. This would have written into law an Executive order signed by President Ronald Reagan, that would allow property owners to seek compensation based on this assessment. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected by a majority of my colleagues. However, this bill has improved as it has moved through the House, and it is my hope that in supporting this bill on final passage we may move it to the Senate and reach common ground to protect private property rights, and our Nation's critical environment areas, in a final package.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the resolution before the House which would ask the President to provide, within 14 days, a broad range of documents relating to the financial rescue package the President is extending to Mexico. I have opposed the Mexico loan bailout since the day it was proposed by President Clinton and endorsed by Speaker Gingrich and Senate majority leader Dole. I still believe there is significant evidence Mexican officials improperly inflated the peso to ensure positive economic results from our passage of the North American Free-Trade Agreement. This was just one of the reasons I opposed NAFTA. Unfortunately, it could now mean that U.S. taxpayers' dollars are at risk. This resolution will enable the appropriate committees to examine the documents the Clinton administration and Mexican officials recently signed through the Treasury Department's exchange stabilization fund. It is important that Congress, in its oversight role, have an opportunity to closely examine the documents involved in the $20- billion assistance package.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the legislation before us on the House floor which would spend $3.2 billion on various overseas military expeditions and pay for it by cutting both defense and domestic programs. It is the first time in my memory where Congress has cut domestic programs--like clean coal technology, worker retraining, and new school construction--to pay for our invasion of Haiti, missions to Bosnia, our withdrawal from Somalia, and Cuban refugee programs. This legislation takes money from potential job-creating initiatives like clean coal technology and worker retraining and instead funnels into wasteful programs such as paying back our allies for equipment they used to help with our invasion of Haiti. There is no reason why other defense programs, or our foreign aid program, cannot be cut to accommodate this supplemental appropriation. It makes no sense to me to cut or eliminate programs which actually help people find jobs in order to help the Pentagon balance its budget. Two programs in particular will, if eliminated, be very detrimental to my congressional district. The Clean Coal Technology Program faces a $200 million cut from 1996 and 1997, a program which is essential to exploring future markets for high-sulfur Illinois coal; and the $100 million new school construction fund, which will be eliminated under this bill. This program is one from which the Carterville School District is interested in vying for funding for construction of its new school. Mr. Chairman, to shift domestic funds to pay for overseas military operations is a troublesome precedent. I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided bill and vote for the Obey substitute, which will pay for this supplemental by using defense funds and not cut into domestic programs.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a group of individuals who have been of great service to me during the past 2 years. This group is the Agriculture Advisory Board for the 12th Congressional District of Illinois. The Ag Advisory Board met several times throughout the 103d Congress, including one meeting where members met with then-Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy. The last 2 years were challenging ones for the agricultural community. In the summer of 1993, nearly every county in my district was declared a Federal disaster area due to severe flooding. The flood, of course, had a major impact on the agricultural community. While my office was helping individuals deal with the disaster associated with the flood, I was thankful for the vital role each advisory board member played in being an ambassador for me by sharing information about flood relief to other farmers in their community. A major success for agriculture in the 103d Congress was the inclusion of ethanol in the reformulated gasoline program. The increased use of ethanol in cities that are not in compliance with Clean Air Act standards will help increase the value of corn, our State's most abundant crop. The Ag Advisory Board members led their peers in contacting administration and congressional officials about elevating the role of ethanol. I commend each member for giving of his time and insights to help me make well-informed decisions. The members of my Agriculture Advisory Committee during the 103d Congress were Mike Campbell of Edwardsville, John Deterding of Modoc, Lawrence Dietz of DeSoto, Edwin Edleman of Anna, Greg Guenther of Belleville, Craig Keller of Collinsville, Marion Kennell of Thompsonville, Vernon Mayer of Cutler, Dave Mueller of East Alton, Larry Reinneck of Freeburg, Bill Schulte of Trenton, Jim Taflinger of Cache, and Lyle Wessel of Columbia. I am pleased that these gentlemen will be staying on the Ag Advisory Board during the 104th Congress. Because of a limited amount of Federal dollars, each member's input will be critical to me as I review the various Federal programs contained in the farm bill. I look forward to working with each member on agricultural matters during the 104th Congress. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing these individuals.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. I have long supported this legislation and was a cosponsor of mandate relief legislation during both the 102d and 103d Congress. This legislation is aimed at reducing the growing number of mandatory regulations we impose on State and local governments. These mandates have become a tremendous burden on local officials. As a former St. Clair County board chairman, I understand how Federal mandates can create pressure on State and local governments to raise taxes in order to comply with onerous Federal regulations. This bill will make it more difficult for Congress to pass bills continuing unfunded Federal mandates onto State and local governments. It would be against the rules of the House to pass any legislation containing any intergovernmental mandate, and would require an analysis of any mandate on the private sector. In effect, it would prevent the House from passing a mandate except when a majority of Members vote to waive the rules, or if the funding is provided to pay for the mandate itself. The bill also requires not just the Congress but Federal agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulations on State and local governments, as well as the private sector, and to publish a special analysis before issuing any new regulation which may result in aggregate costs of $100 million or more. The measure requires each agency to establish a process to ensure local input into the development of regulations with significant Federal mandates, and establishes a commission to review unfunded mandates and provide recommendations on reducing them. This measure does make exceptions to certain Federal laws which are designed to give basic rights to our citizens. The mandate legislation would not apply to provisions of Federal law or regulations that implement or enforce individuals' constitutional rights, Federal civil rights antidiscrimination laws, or accounting or auditing procedures for Federal grants. Mr. Speaker, there are some mandates--such as safety standards in the workplace--which should be mandated. However, there is no reason why Congress cannot work with American companies and provide the funding to comply with these mandates. This mandate relief legislation is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. COSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a good friend and former colleague, Ed Madigan, who passed away in December. Ed Madigan served his constituents in the State of Illinois with dignity and competence in the U.S. Congress, and served the Nation ably as the 24th U.S. Secretary of Agriculture under President George Bush. Ed Madigan, as a Member of Congress, fought hard to protect the agricultural way of life in Illinois. As a long-serving member of both the House Agriculture and Energy and Commerce Committees, he fought hard to speak on behalf of small business owners in the Midwest and those needing quality health care. In his 10 terms in the U.S. House, Ed Madigan distinguished himself as a Member who worked diligently but quietly, with a friendly bipartisanship but a solid belief in those issues he considered important. His battle with lung cancer went all but unknown to the public until he was near the end of his life, a testimony to his grace and demeanor. I join my colleagues today in honoring his memory. I considered Ed Madigan a very good friend, and his work here in the House and his legacy as a fellow human will be long remembered. [From the Pantagraph (Bloomington, IL), Dec. 9, 1994] Ed Madigan's Leadership Emphasized Personal Touch Ed Madigan was a leader who didn't have to shout. His actions spoke for him. The adjectives describing Mr. Madigan, who served as state and U.S. representative and U.S. secretary of agriculture, will be numerous in the days to come: honest, charming, low- key, consensus maker, skilled player, quiet, effective, insightful, sincere, enthusiastic to serve, politician's politician, tactful and master strategist. Most people saw Ed Madigan the same way. He was not a politician of many faces. He knew the art of compromise, but wouldn't cave in. Just as he didn't cave in without a struggle to lung cancer, whose complications eventually took his life Wednesday. He was also a man who had a knack for putting things into perspective. You didn't have to know him well to know that at the top of his list was family. He loved to talk politics, but he could also spend considerable time talking about how his wife, Evelyn, gave him the support that was really important. That was especially true when he made the move from the Illinois House of Representatives, where he had served since 1966, to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1972. He had become an influential member of the state House in just six years, but he passed on a chance to run for lieutenant governor to seek the U.S. House seat because he wanted to be more involved with people. His initial comments to a Pantagraph reporter who visited him in Washington, D.C., a few months after he was elected weren't so much about the nation's capital and all of the political power. He talked more about making sure he would be known as a man of his word and not a ``flapmouth''; the high price of housing; and how his family would have to adjust. It said something about his roots. Mr. Madigan memorized a book containing the names and pictures of his colleagues so he could call them by their first names. By calling them by their first names, he said it forced them to find out who he was. But Central Illinois was first and foremost for the Lincoln native, even coming home to fight the biggest challenge of his life. He remembered the farmers of Illinois in one of his more significant roles in Washington, D.C., as he helped amend the 1985 farm bill to ensure that it favored the free-market approach instead of imposing production limits. He also helped craft the final compromise on clean-air legislation that encouraged the use of ethanol. Challenges were what Mr. Madigan seemed to thrive on. With a few exceptions, he used his soft-spoken, behind-the-scenes style of compromise to get things done, rising to become the fifth-ranking Republican in the House as chairman of the House Republican Research Committee. Perhaps one of Mr. Madigan's more disappointing times in Washington came when he lost the race for House Republican whip to Newt Gingrich of Georgia in 1989. He would not change his approach to match the fire-brand, confrontational ways of Gingrich. He carried that same style into his job as U.S. agriculture secretary when he was appointed by President Bush in March 1991. He served until Bush was defeated the following year.