Joseph Hoeffel

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the unilateral withdrawal of American forces from Yugoslavia. This is a wrong idea at a wrong time. This effort represents a modern day isolationism that would be wrong for America, just as wrong as isolationism was at the First World War and the time of the Second World War. A unilateral withdrawal of our troops would devastate NATO just at a time when it is showing great resolve and great unity. The role for NATO in the future is to keep the peace in Europe. No one else will be able to do that. This is not the time to destroy NATO's resolve. A unilateral withdrawal would also reward Milosevic for his barbaric activity. It would allow him to win this conflict. He is engaging in genocide. Genocide is systematic barbarity and murder of innocent, defenseless civilians because of ethnic and religious differences. That is what is happening in Yugoslavia and Kosovo today. That is what we must stop. To withdraw our troops today would undercut everything this country stands for and would remove America as one of the leaders, perhaps the only great leader, in this world today. We should oppose this resolution.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to recognize and honor Eleanor Forbes. She is the recipient of the 1998-1999 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Competition. Eleanor wrote a very moving and patriotic account of American democracy. I ask that the text of her script be inserted into the Record in its entirety at the completion of my remarks. Once again, I am proud to recognize Ms. Eleanor Forbes. ``My Service to America''--1998-1999 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Competition (Pennsylvania Winner--Eleanor Forbes) The voice you hear now is the voice of an American, a proud American. This same voice pledges allegiance to our flag every morning, and sings proudly along with our national anthem when it is played. I am fifteen years old. I do not have the resources to go out and change the world. I do not have the money to give to all my fellow Americans who need it, nor am I old enough to run for president or serve my country in a war. But these are not the only ways I can serve my country. My service to America is expressed in many other ways. America has provided me with numerous opportunities for which I am grateful. I have the opportunities of education, participation in athletics, work, art and music, among other things. It is my duty as an American to grasp these opportunities firmly now, in my teenage years, so that I can give back to my country later in life. I owe it to America to be the best student I can be, to learn how to write and speak properly, to spell correctly, and to read the intricate works of the great American writers. I must learn to appreciate the artistic and musical works of the great American artists, and learn mathematics, science and history. It is my duty to visit the numerous places that make up American history books; to climb the steep steps of the Statue of Liberty and feel the warmth of heart that the immigrants felt when they first arrived in America. I need to look at the Liberty Bell with glistening eyes and understand its full meaning. To be a good American in the future, I must learn, understand, and accept all of America's past. Right now, the opportunities to serve my country are limited, but are, by no means, small. For the land itself, I recycle, I put trash in the trashcans to keep our streets clean. I plant trees to keep our environment healthy. For my fellow citizens I keep myself clean and presentable, I work hard for my money, and buy American products. I do not judge others in an unjust manner, if at all. I abide by the great laws of the country, and I keep myself up to date with the current affairs of America. After all the opportunities and services that America will have provided me by the time I am twenty years old, I will be obliged, not by law but by choice, to give back. I feel that the best way to help America is to help others in the name of my country. I am provided with such an opportunity by organizations like the Peace Corps. Then, in my adult years, I shall be fully prepared to choose a job that will help fellow Americans. I shall work honestly, hard, and be a good citizen. I shall vote and pay my taxes on time. All these things may seem small and trivial to some, but to me, they are ways I can give back to a country that has given so much to me. America is truly the land of opportunity. My service to America is to grab all the opportunity that is thrown my way and make the most out of it, so that later in my life as an American I am able and ready to provide such an opportunity for others.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, Melvin Rice began his career in law enforcement on March 5, 1973, with the Abington Township Police Department. Melvin was a member of the last class to be held at the Old York Road Police Department. During his 25 years in the department, Melvin worked the Patrol Division and was in the Special Task Force and Juvenile Detective Division for 2 years. He became one of the first (of four) K-9 officers in the department and served in that position for the past 16 years. Melvin has received numerous citations from the department, the U.S. Police Canine Association and other departments. Melvin also has served in the Abington Township Police Honor Guard and the Abington Township Human Relations Board. It was Melvin's desire to recruit more minorities into the law enforcement field. This led him to develop the first concept of the pretesting tutoring program, which was later adopted as an ongoing process for all new recruits. The most rewarding experience came when Melvin cofounded, along with Sgt. William Hold, the Montgomery County Black Law Enforcement Officers Association, an association dedicated to minority recruitment. Melvin retired on January 24, 1999, to spend time with his wife, Georgianna, his son, Michael, and his daughter, Danielle, daughter-in- law, Misty, and grandson, Joshua. He leaves the department with many happy memories and will continue his work with the Montgomery County Black Law Enforcement Officers Association and in his community.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Maloney amendment to H.R. 472, the Local Census Quality Control Act. The Maloney amendment would allow local governments to get involved in reviewing census plans in their area in a fashion which will allow the Census Bureau to execute its plan on schedule. The Census Bureau studied its 1990 procedures and have proposed updated methods which will be more accurate and more efficient. The Maloney amendment is compatible with these recommendations, and will allow the Census Bureau to produce the most accurate count possible of American citizens. An accurate count is critical to every state, district, and town in this country--including my own district in Pennsylvania. As my constituents know, an inaccurate count has real effect on real people. In the Norristown Area School District, inaccurate procedures employed during the 1990 census undercounted the number of poor children by 60 percent, dropping the count of impoverished students from 1,375 in 1980 to 541 in 1990. But Norristown administrators experienced a different reality: not 541, but 3,348 kids received free and reduced lunches each day--that's 1 out of every 2 students. This undercount resulted in real budget cuts for Norristown schools: Federal assistance to Norristown dropped each year from $1.4 million in 1992-93 to $652 thousand in 97-98. That's only 47 percent of the original budget--less than half. These cuts have resulted in actual reductions of Title I services to students. The Norristown school district was forced to reduce its number of Title I teachers, and the number of students they served. Title I programs provide special instruction in reading and math to the kids most in need of help, so they have a chance not to fall behind, but to excel. So the end result of the 1990 census' undercount: If we cut out disadvantaged children from the census, we cut out their opportunity to get a solid education and a promising future. Congress should not allow this to happen. H.R. 472 ignores the expert advice of the Census Bureau and keeps the same 1990 procedures, which unfairly excluded these impoverished children in my District. I cannot support the underlying measure. What should our criteria be for a good census? The census should be accurate: Congress allow the Census Bureau to use the methods that produce the most accurate results: statistical sampling. The Bureau is following the recommendations of the scientific community and other experts. The census should be efficient: The 2000 census will cost $4 billion with modern statistical methods, and $7.2 billion without them. H.R. 472 would also add at least nine weeks to the counting process. That doesn't make sense. Most importantly, the census should be fair: In our democracy, to be uncounted is to be voiceless, and to be voiceless is to be powerless. We should not overlook children, minorities, and the poor. In 1990, the undercount of African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans was three times that of the general population. Congress can and should correct this. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Maloney Amendment to H.R. 472.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say regrettably that the Republican budget we are considering falls far short of what the American people need and what they deserve in terms of environmental protection. We need to prepare our country for our children and their children. We need to prepare an America that has clean and vibrant cities, that has suburban areas not choked with automobiles and strangled by shopping malls. We need an America that has rural areas that are prepared to handle the necessary but dangerous pressure of development. Simply put, the Republican budget does nothing to preserve our environment. The House Republican resolution for fiscal year 2000 provides $22 billion for discretionary natural resources and environmental programs. Our budget provides $23.6 billion. The Republican level of funding is $1.3 billion less than this year's level of funding, and over 5 years the Republicans would cut funding $5.3 billion below 1999 levels. The Sierra Club estimates that the Republican budget would stop up to 135 toxic waste cleanups under the Superfund program and would eliminate funding for the clean water action program. The Democratic proposal gives our children a chance to grow up and raise their children in cities that are clean and safe, in suburbs that have coherent development patterns and provide park land and green space instead of chaos and confusion. A recent series in the Philadelphia Inquirer demonstrates in the Philadelphia region that one acre per hour is being lost to development. In the last 30 years, the population in the Philadelphia area grew 13 percent; development grew 80 percent. The Democratic budget would provide the tools for better regional planning, to improve water quality, to help local governments preserve open space, to reduce traffic congestion and clean the air. Our proposal does not promote Federal planning. It does not promote Federal zoning. It is a good proposal, and I ask for support.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to recognize that uncontrolled sprawling development is an economic disaster that wastes human resources and uses human and financial capital in inefficient and wasteful ways. Our Democratic proposal contains a livability agenda that does not promote Federal planning or zoning but embraces local control, providing Federal vision with tools to municipalities and counties and States to better prepare themselves for the 21st Century. The Democratic budget puts greater power, more money and enhanced decision-making authority in local hands, to fight sprawl, clean up the environment and protect the legacy of our land. Some of the tools in this livability agenda include the proposed Better America Bonds, which would allow State and local governments to borrow up to $10 billion to preserve green space, protect water quality and reclaim brown fields. The regional connections initiative will promote regional smart growth strategies across local jurisdictional lines. The community Federal information partnership will provide communities with grants for easy-to-use information to develop strategies for local growth; and the lands legacy initiative will provide $1 billion to significantly expand Federal efforts to save America's natural treasures and provide new resources for State and communities to protect local green spaces. Mr. Chairman, it is wasteful and inefficient and harmful to our economy to permit sprawling, unmanaged growth, to sit in traffic jams, to pave over good farmland instead of reclaiming and reusing brown fields. We must save the American landscape. We must provide future generations with livable communities. We owe it to America to support the democratic proposal.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the final minute of my time. This clearly is a good resolution that deserves all of our support, Mr. Speaker. We all support our fighting forces at this time of their need. This military action is the right thing to do for at least three reasons: First, we need to stop this brutal dictator, Milosevic, from plunging Europe into an even deeper cycle of unrest and instability and violence; secondly, we need to prevent a humanitarian crisis from deepening, affecting the innocent civilians in Kosovo; and thirdly, we need to act to support our national credibility and NATO's credibility in this measure. We all support the resolution, compliment our fighting men and women, and wish them God speed.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today I will vote for H.R. 4, which declares that it is the policy of this country to deploy a national missile defense system. I am concerned that this bill is too narrow and could have been much better. I believe, in declaring this national policy, we must also consider the following: Secretary Cohen has stated that a national missile defense deployment might require modifications in the ABM Treaty. Such a modification may upset our delicate diplomatic balance with the Russians, who have already indicated opposition to such a move. We must be in a position to continue negotiations with Moscow to cut our nuclear arsenals, and amendment to the ABM Treaty would threaten that effort. A national missile defense policy must also not undermine or compromise the military preparedness of our troops or the planned deployment of theater missile defense systems by redirecting much needed resources. Mr. Speaker, this body should have had an opportunity to debate those issues. We must have sufficient defense for our borders. As North Korea and Iran expand their capabilities, we must be prepared, but we must not let the steps we take, designed to bolster the security of this country, undermine the delicate international security balance at the same time. Mr. Speaker, I believe it should be the policy of this country to deploy a national missile defense. This bill should have gone farther to address these additional concerns. The safety and security of this country depends, in large part, on how well we are prepared to deal with decentralized military power as well as with a number of rogue states. A policy supporting a national missile defense is a step in the right direction.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for this resolution and for the attempts to bring peace and stability to Kosovo. While valid questions have been asked whether or not this is a reasonable time to debate this issue, we now must act and send a message to Milosevic and to the world community that enough is enough. The U.S. must demonstrate leadership. We can only help bring about democracy, peace and stability, the cornerstones of our society, if we engage, if we send troops, as part of a NATO peacekeeping force. Mr. Chairman, our purpose in sending troops if a peace agreement is reached is clear, to help implement and enforce that peace. We must not shrink from this responsibility. We must not allow politics to undermine our leadership abroad. We must stand tall. Just yesterday, as I sat as a member of the Committee on International Relations, I heard Ambassador Kirkpatrick say that it is important for Congress to vote yes. I urge all of my colleagues to do so. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman). (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. This would allow all 50 States to take advantage of statutory and regulatory flexibility for their educational programs in exchange for greater accountability. I am proud to be a cosponsor, and I have spoken with a number of educators and administrators in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and have learned of their support for this bill. If allowed to participate in Ed-Flex, in the Abington School District in Montgomery County, they would have the option of using Title I money to hire more reading consultants for a ``reading recovery'' remedial education program. Rather than being forced to create a new program with redundant administrative overhead, the school district could use Title I money to add to an existing program. This would be more efficient and better for the kids. In the Norristown Area School District in Montgomery County they could use Eisenhower Professional Development funds to complete more teacher training in reading and writing competence. Now they use those funds for mathematics skills, but they could now use it to flex into reading and writing support as well. I rise in support of H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Delaware and the gentleman from Indiana, for their leadership on this issue. It is due to their bipartisan commitment to improving our nation's educational system that we can take up this important issue today. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 800 would allow all 50 states and U.S. territories to apply for statutory and regulatory flexibility for their education programs in exchange for increased accountability. This bill will provide the regulatory room to allow those who are closest to the problem--states and school districts--to exercise their educational judgement about the best use of scarce resources. In the states which have already participated in Ed-Flex, this innovation has yielded promising results: Oregon schools were able to pool resources to create a technical education consortium that graduated more students than the schools had individually; Maryland schools cut in half the number of students-per-teacher in math and science classes, and provided additional instruction time for each student; In Texas, school districts with waivers increased student scores on statewide aptitude tests by several percentage points in both reading and math. African-American students made even bigger gains. I am aware that some of my colleagues are critical of H.R. 800 and would like more rigorous standards for state accountability. I also understand there is concern this legislation may provide too much leeway for spending of Title I program funds. Both of these concerns are legitimate, and both of these concerns are addressed by amendments that will be offered here today. We should work through these issues and do all that we can to strengthen the educational opportunities we offer the nearly 1.8 million children in Pennsylvania public schools today, and the 56 million children in public schools nationwide. I welcome this discussion and look forward to hearing my colleagues' comments. Mr. Chairman, I am glad we are starting off the 106th Congress with this bill because education is one of my top priorities this Congress, and is a top priority of many families in my District. I am also glad we are addressing this issue in such a constructive manner. I urge my colleagues to take note of the bipartisan teamwork of Representatives Castle and Roemer that brought this bill to the floor today. The Parties can work together; Congress can find common ground; and we can apply new and innovative solutions to solve problems which are of great concern to the public. I hope we set the direction and the tempo for this Congress with our actions here today. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the bill.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because we stand on a threshold of a truly remarkable time, a time when we will be able to do wonderful things for this country and for our children. In fiscal year 2001, we will have for the first time in decades a surplus in our budget, in the general fund budget. What we do with this surplus will tell a great deal about us, about our resolve, about how serious we are in providing a strong, fiscally sound country for those who come after us. Some would have us spend this surplus on a multitude of well- intentioned programs and initiatives. But this is a time for restraint, not largesse. Others would have us return the surplus to the American people in the form of broad, across-the-board tax cuts. But for the average taxpayer, that would provide a small short-term gain when we have the ability to provide a much longer term and larger benefit. That benefit can be provided if we use this projected surplus over the next 15 years to keep the budget balanced and pay down the national debt. Under the administration's debt reduction program, our debt payments will be reduced from today's level of 14 percent of the national budget to only 2 percent by the year 2015. The numbers are huge. We owe in public debt $3.7 trillion. Under the President's debt reduction plan, that would be reduced to $1.3 trillion by 2015. This would be an immense gift to the American people, and it would benefit all Americans, families, farmers and businesses. It would provide a real long-term benefit to almost every economic level of American society, unlike a broad, across-the-board tax cut as proposed that would mean little more to the average American than $100 a year in a tax cut. The biggest effect of paying down our debt would be a further reduction in interest rates that would save homeowners thousands of dollars in mortgage payments. The burden of loans shouldered by our college students would be greatly alleviated. Our farmers would be able to save thousands of dollars on their equipment purchases which in turn would allow them to be more efficient and increase their yields. With lower interest rates, industry would have more to invest in new technologies and there would be more money to invest in education, in transportation and other infrastructure improvements that would make the America of the 21st century even stronger than the last. The importance of reducing the debt, however, can be measured in more ways than just dollars and cents. If we show courage and restraint, if we demonstrate that we too can finally live within budgetary guidelines, if we only do in Washington what American families have to do every day at home, we will restore much of the trust that has been lost in government by the American people. We talk about bipartisanship. Now is the time to begin practicing it. I urge all Democrats and my friends on the Republican side of the aisle as well to do what is prudent, to do what is right, to do something for their children and grandchildren that will be a lasting legacy. Keep the budget balanced and use the surplus to pay down the debt.