Joseph Hoeffel

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, we will debate this amendment Monday, known as the ``Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment.'' I look forward to the debate with the gentleman. If I would simply add, he appropriately identified the estimated cost of regulations on American business. Let me add to this debate today that Time Magazine has estimated that the cost of corporate welfare to the Federal Government is $125 billion a year, which they describe as being the equivalent of the income taxes paid each year by 60 million Americans. Or another way of looking at it, the equivalent of two weeks' pay for every working American is distributed and paid by the Federal Government in corporate welfare. So I simply stand with the Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment for the proposition that we ought to know where that $125 billion goes when we find out where the $700 billion that the gentleman is concerned about and that I am concerned about goes. We ought to see the whole package at the same time to get a clear picture.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time and I thank her for her cooperation and her leadership. I compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) the chairman of the Committee on Rules and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) the ranking member for bringing forward this bill with the rule that permits through the preprinting mechanism the opportunity for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and I to offer an amendment that we believe is necessary to improve this bill so that it really provides a good service for the American taxpayer. H.R. 1074, the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act, is the subject of this rule. As the previous speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) before him have described, this bill is designed to tell Congress and the American people how much it costs to produce regulations pursuant to the laws we pass every year. A cost benefit analysis of Federal regulation is a concept that has been debated for some time. I am pleased that this bill is before us. I think the bill needs improvement, but I think it is the right thing for Congress to address this and to make sure we have an opportunity to get the information we need to do our jobs properly and to get to the American people a clear statement of the cost of Federal regulation and the benefit of Federal regulation. I, for one, believe there are many benefits to the rules and regulations that are promulgated based upon our statutes. But we need to know the cost on business and the benefit to business in order to do our job properly. Unfortunately, I think that there are some areas of this bill that need to be improved. I will be offering, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment, entitled the taxpayer protection and corporate welfare disclosure amendment, when we have an opportunity on Monday to debate and amend this bill. Our amendment is designed to get even more information available to Congress and to the American people regarding the impact of the Federal Government on American business. If we want to find out the costs and benefits of Federal regulations, then let us also find out the costs and benefits of the so-called corporate welfare, the Federal subsidies, the tax preferences, the below market values of Federal lands that are granted to many of our corporations in this country. Historically, we have given these kind of corporate benefits to many industries, some of them mature, successful, highly profitable industries. If we are to determine how much the regulations cost these industries to get a fair and complete picture, we surely need to know the benefits, if any, of the corporate welfare they receive. Secondly, the amendment that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and I will offer will make sure that the cost of this bill will not be unlimited. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that to conduct the regulatory review of the underlying bill will cost something less than $500,000 per year. So we are putting in the Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment an overall cap of $1 million a year to conduct both the regulatory review and the corporate welfare review that the amended bill will call for. I think this is a wise and sensible limitation to make sure that, in the process of determining costs and benefits, we do not waste the taxpayers' dollars with unnecessary expenditures. Finally, the Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment will put a 4-year sunset provision on both the regulatory review and the corporate welfare review called for in the amended bill. I will ask for support of the amendment on Monday.

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

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. If I could just respond quickly to my friend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) who spoke about the ``killer Kucinich amendment''. Many people have said that I am a pretty tough guy, but no one has ever called me ``killer'' before. It is actually the ``Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment.''

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes, it certainly will, Mr. Chairman. I thank you very much for your leadership on this and your cooperation and that of your staff, and this will certainly help to address a problem of great concern in my district.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding this time to me, and I thank the ranking member for leadership on this bill and his assistance to me. Mr. Speaker, will the chairman of the committee yield for a colloquy? I rise today on an issue of great importance to my district, which is a lack of information regarding antique firearms' use in crime. I first became aware of this problem after a 48-hour hostage standoff in Norristown, Pennsylvania, which is part of my district. Mr. Chairman, I am seeking to require the Department of the Treasury to collect statistics and conduct a study on the use of antique firearms in crime and to report its findings to the Congress within 180 days. Very few or no statistics exist on the use of antique firearms in crime, and no Federal agency is responsible for tracking those statistics. This study would begin to fill the information void left by this lack of jurisdiction. I wonder if the gentleman could accommodate my concern.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would simply conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying it is critically important that we get this State aspect of the Land and Water Conservation Fund back into business so we can provide the matching funds to State governments to provide those local recreational opportunities that are so important to all Americans.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern-Campbell-Hoeffel-Holt amendment and urge its adoption. I listened very carefully to the comments of my friend from Pennsylvania and understand very well his concern about the fossil fuel research and development program that is being used as an offset for the proposed $30 million to be directed to the state-side program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I know that a number of my friends and my mentors from Pennsylvania have a concern about this amendment because of the offset. It is only a partial answer to say to them that the offset represents 8 percent, certainly not a majority, 8 percent of the fossil fuel funding. A better answer, I believe, is that this amendment is not about fossil fuel research and development. As everyone knows, budgetary rules require us to have an offset. This is about restarting the state-side part of the land and water conservation program. If the fossil fuel program is as good as they say, and I have the belief that if it is as good as they say, then funding will be restored, funding will be provided. They currently receive $360 million for the fossil fuel program, and the state-side part of the Land and Water Conservation Fund gets zero. If Members believe in the development of parks at the State and local level, if they believe in the development of recreational opportunities at the State and local level, we must pass this amendment to get this program back into business, and the fossil fuel programs supported by my very good friends will certainly attract their own level of support. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been the most successful of all Federal programs to direct Federal funding toward the acquisition of open space and parkland and to develop recreational opportunities. It is premised on very sound notion that when the nonrenewable resources on the Continental Shelf are developed for profit, that some share of that generated wealth should be given back to the Federal Government and the State governments to enhance recreational opportunities. It is the State part of that equation for 5 years that has not been funded at all. That is what we are trying to generate funding for through this amendment. These recreational opportunities are really the workhorse of our recreational opportunities in this country. The programs to be funded by this State and Federal share would not be the parks with the grandeur of the Tetons or the vastness of Yellowstone but they would be the parks and recreational opportunities that people would use every day, the ballfields, the local parks, the swimming pools that all Americans need access to and that all Americans use. Even if they cannot afford a vacation out West, even if it is not accessible for them to go to Yosemite or Grand Teton, they can use these local recreational opportunities. That is what we are trying to restore. This State aspect of the Land and Water Conservation Fund worked well for a number of years although the entire fund has not been allocated the funding that it deserves, but for the last 5 or 6 years the program has not received funding at all.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of his motion to recommit. Of course we should commend the troops. Of course we should commend the President. Of course we should commend the Secretaries of State and Defense and all of the NATO leaders and all the NATO countries and all the front-line States that stood up to this terrible situation in Kosovo. What astonishes me is that it was bad enough that the effort here in this House was not bipartisan to support our effort in Kosovo and today we do not have bipartisan support to commend the effort in Kosovo. We have to resort to this parliamentary effort to get a vote to commend these terrific achievements. And I think it is a sad day. My father and grandfather, lifelong Republicans, taught me that politics ended at the water's edge. Well, I am afraid to tell the gentleman and the House that this Republican party is not my grandfather's or my father's Republican party. Something has gone wrong here. But we had strong leadership. NATO did the right thing. I support the motion of the gentleman.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 259, H. Con. Res. 94, I erroneously voted ``aye.'' My vote should have been in the negative.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to start by thanking the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) for their leadership on this important legislation. I particularly want to compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for an extraordinary effort to bring this matter forward, for his kindness in reaching out to me as soon as I took office in a bipartisan fashion to work together on this bill, and to compliment him on the best congressional hearing I have ever attended, that he put together with schoolchildren from Malvern, that the gentleman from Utah presided over and the gentleman from Puerto Rico. It was a great day, a great day for schoolchildren to be involved in celebrating American revolutionary history, and now we are seeing the fruits of the gentleman from Pennsylvania's efforts here on the floor. I also want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for his cooperation and efforts on that day as well. The PATRIOT Act, which is before us, is a very good piece of legislation. It would authorize $1.25 million for the purchase of the Paoli Battlefield. It would authorize $3 million for the purchase of the Brandywine Battlefield. It would authorize the National Park Service to work together to plan an aggressive and effective interpretation of those battlefields for the benefit of American citizens. And it would authorize the National Park Service to enter into a joint agreement, a private-public partnership, with the Valley Forge Historical Society to build a new visitors center at the Valley Forge National Historical Park to be run by the Park Service and a Valley Forge Museum of the American Revolution to be run by the historical society, hopefully under one roof, in a way that would make the best possible experience for visitors to Valley Forge, with a new, up-to-date visitors center run by the Park Service and what will be an outstanding Valley Forge Museum of the American Revolution run by the Historical Society of Valley Forge. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has set forth very effectively the importance of what we are trying to save. The land that was involved in both the Brandywine Battlefield and the Paoli Massacre is truly land that was the beginning of the American revolutionary fight for freedom. It is true that the American forces lost at Brandywine. They were overrun by the British, although they did buy additional time to protect the city of Philadelphia a little while longer from the British invasion. And it is true that at Paoli, Americans were massacred at night and it truly was another disastrous defeat for America. But in those two military operations was forged the beginning of a winning spirit. Several months later, the American army under the leadership of General Washington retired for the winter to Valley Forge. We are all familiar with the history of the Valley Forge encampment. As far as I am concerned, that is where the American Revolution was truly won. No shots were fired. But because of the American army that arrived there tired and hungry and ill-clothed and ill-trained and ill-equipped emerged 6 months later, after the support of French military officers and Prussian military officers with the tremendous leadership of George Washington and American officers, the American forces emerged from Valley Forge in June of 1778 as an effective fighting force that went on to win our independence. So we are memorializing here and saving and preserving the two battlefields that led to the encampment at Valley Forge, and we are offering an opportunity to give a far more impressive experience at Valley Forge with a new, revamped visitors center and a greatly improved opportunity for historical artifacts to be presented through a Valley Forge Museum of the American Revolution. We will offer better education for the valor and the determination and the courage and the resolve that Americans showed at both those battle sites and for the 6 months where they survived a bitter winter at Valley Forge and emerged as an effective fighting army. We will preserve those battlefields so that future generations can appreciate the sacrifices that were made there. And the Park Service will be asked to interpret those battlefields and come up with a plan that is a meaningful description of the history and importance of those sites for the benefit of all Americans that visit. The museum that is proposed at Valley Forge is desperately needed. The Valley Forge Historical Society was founded in 1918. They have a museum in the park now. It is not adequate. It does not have the space needed. It does not have the climate control to safely store all of the artifacts that they possess. And as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has pointed out, additional artifacts are available for a new museum if a proper museum is built. It is a very exciting opportunity that the historical society and its President, Jean-Pierre Bouvel, have presented to the Park Service, a public-private partnership that will really make a difference and provide an excellent opportunity under one roof for a new visitors center and a new museum. I urge all my colleagues to support this project. It will be a remarkable preservation, not just of open space but of historical open space that is fundamental to our national history and a remarkable partnership with the private sector through the Valley Forge Historical Society to better present the history of the American Revolution to all Americans. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).

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

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would simply like to add to that long list of thank yous that the gentleman just read a thank you and compliment to Jon Pierre Bouvel of the Valley Forge Historical Society for his leadership in marshalling local support for this public-private partnership; and also thanks to Paul Decker, the Executive Director of the Valley Forge Convention and Visitor Bureau and a number of Montgomery County officials who have been in strong support of this public-private partnership at Valley Forge. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McCarthy amendment. Congress needs to act in three areas to restore sensibility and workability to our gun laws. First, we need to close the gaping loophole that permits unregulated and undocumented sales of guns at flea markets and gun shows. Secondly, we need to restore a three-day waiting period that would permit a cooling-off period and also permit law enforcement to do proper background checks. Third, we need to increase accountability and responsibility, requiring manufacturers to use the latest technology of child safety locks and load indicators that would indicate whether guns are loaded, and we could tell at a glance, and require more accountability from parents to safely store their guns. The McCarthy amendment would restore the background checks and bring gun show sales into compliance with recordkeeping and background checks. These improvements will reduce juvenile access to weapons. We should restore sanity, protect kids, and pass McCarthy.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the NATO mission in Yugoslavia has prevailed over the brutal dictatorship of Slobodan Milosevic. NATO has shown tremendous resolve, tremendous persistence, throughout this crisis. Now that this diplomatic resolution has been reached on NATO's terms, on NATO's terms, this is not the time to show weakness, to cut funding or to damage the unity of the western democracies. What can the proponents of this bill be thinking by cutting funding for peacekeeping? This is not the Republican party of my father or the Republican party of my grandfather. I learned around the dinner table that the primary rule of foreign policy was politics ends at the water's edge. The modern Republican Party in this House seems to have forgotten that lesson. They seem to be setting foreign policy on personal considerations and a personal hatred for the President of the United States. Important challenges continue to face us in Yugoslavia. We have got to return the refugees and house them and clothe them and feed them by winter. We have got to avoid partition of Kosovo. We have got to make sure that Milosevic does not receive immunity for his war crimes, and Serbia must not receive international aid until Yugoslavia becomes democratic. What we have achieved is that NATO has shown it is willing and able to keep the peace in Europe. Until now they have been a defensive alliance. For the first time they have had to act militarily, and they have succeeded, they have prevailed, and they will keep the peace in Europe. The central question here all this century has been do free peoples in democracies have the self-discipline to prevail against dictatorships and all the coercive power they can bring to bear? In this century we have answered that question affirmatively, in two world wars, in the Cold War, and now in Yugoslavia. It is no time to step back. Support the Skelton amendment.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding efforts of three elementary schools in Pennsylvania's Thirteenth Congressional District, which I am proud to represent. On behalf of the entire Montgomery County community, I congratulate these schools for winning a national competition to earn recognition as Blue Ribbon Schools of excellence. The U.S. Department of Education recently named Cheltenham Elementary School in Cheltenham, Pennsylvania; McKinley Elementary School in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania; and Thomas Fitzwater Elementary School of Willow Grove, Pennsylvania as 1998-1999 winners of the prestigious Blue Ribbon Schools Award. The Blue Ribbon Schools Program was established by the U.S. Secretary of Education in 1982 with three goals in mind: identify and recognize outstanding public and private schools across the United States, offer a comprehensive framework of key criteria for school effectiveness, and facilitate the sharing of best practices among schools. Over the years, the program has developed a reputation of offering a powerful tool for school improvement in addition to providing recognition. Before winning the national Blue Ribbon Schools Award, Cheltenham, McKinley, and Thomas Fitzwater Elementary Schools all were named as Pennsylvania Blue Ribbon schools and were nominated for national recognition by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. Each school had to work very hard to earn the Blue Ribbon status, going through a demanding self-assessment experience that involved the entire school community, including students, teachers, parents, administrators, and business leaders. Each of these schools have been judged particularly effective in meeting local, state, and national goals. In addition, each school displayed strong leadership, clear vision and a sense of mission shared by the entire school community, high quality teaching, challenging and up-to-date curriculum, policies that ensure a safe environment conducive to learning, family involvement, and equity in education to assure that all students are helped to achieve high standards. Blue Ribbon schools do not rest on their laurels. Each is committed to sharing best practices with other schools, and to helping to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Special congratulations are due to Cheltenham Elementary School for designing a curriculum that encourages students to research their community. Cheltenham students take field trips to historic homes, the police station, the township building, the library, and the local judge. Their learning also makes the students aware of needs of the less fortunate through activities such as providing food baskets and visits to nursing homes. As a result of these projects, Cheltenham students have gathered money to build a wall for a school in Ecuador and to purchase materials for a school devastated by a hurricane in Florida. They have also written letters to governments officials on behalf of a Native American group. Cheltenham students are learning civic responsibility at a young age. McKinley Elementary School has demonstrated excellence in creating a safe school environment. The McKinley community understands that academic success can only grow in a violence-free class-rooms, and has been a leader in these issues. They have taken a proactive approach to violence prevention by developing non-violent conflict resolution strategies, peer mediation program, parenting workshops, and school and police collaboration. The importance of McKinley's work in this area has been underscored by recent tragedies in schools across the nation. Thomas Fitzwater Elementary School has taken special steps to meet the needs of all students. This commitment to have every child experience success is exemplified by the programs and accomplishments such as Thomas Fitzwater's Support One Student initiative, a child advocacy program to assist at-risk students. Each identified student is matched with a volunteer staff member. These members include professional, custodial, secretarial, and cafeteria staff. Regular personal contact by caring and supportive staff member promotes a positive environment and guides the student away from inappropriate and possibly destructive behavior. Another example of Thomas Fitzwater's inclusive policies is the collaboration between the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit special education classes and the regular education classes in our school. Throughout the county, the Intermediate Unit provides classes for children with low-incidence handicaps. Four of these classes are housed in Thomas Fitzwater's school building. Regular education children assist in these classes and are very sensitive to these exceptional children's needs. As a result of this collaboration, many special education students have been integrated into regular education classes. McKinley sets the bar high with its motto, ``Success for All Students,'' and every school in the country should endeavor to meet this standard.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of a High School in my District, Pennsylvania's Thirteenth Congressional District. On behalf of the entire Montgomery County community, I congratulate Abington Senior High School in Abington, PA, for being selected by the Corporation for National Service as a National Service-Learning Leaders Schools. Abington is one of only two schools in Pennsylvania to receive this honor, and has been selected as part of the first-ever class of Service-Learning Leader Schools. This designation is only awarded to schools that have broad-based service-learning activities throughout the school, and who have thoughtfully and effectively integrated service into school life and curriculum, promoted civic responsibility, improved school and student performance, and strengthened the surrounding communities with their participation. National Service-Learning Leader Schools do not simply hold an honorary title. Along with the honor, Abington accepts responsibility for helping other schools integrate service into their curriculum. During Abington's 2-year term as a Service-Learning Leader, it will serve as a model of best practices to other schools and actively help them incorporate service-learning into their school life and curriculum. Specifically, Abington will lead, mentor, and coach other schools by sharing materials, making presentations, and participating in peer exchanges. As part of its Service-Learning Leader activities, Abington will send representatives to Washington, DC this June in order to attend a Leader Schools Leadership Institute, during which delegates will receive specific training on establishing service programs in their schools, and in helping other schools to do the same. Once again, congratulations to Abington Senior High School. The entire Thirteenth District is proud of them, and commends them for their excellent work in instilling civic responsibility in students and for serving the community.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I introduced the Valley Forge National Cemetery Act. This bill would establish a new national cemetery for our nation's veterans on land within the boundaries of Valley Forge National Historical Park. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the entire Pennsylvania delegation. The National Cemetery Administration is running out of space for the burial of deceased veterans of military service to the United States. New cemeteries must be established for our veterans. The Philadelphia National Cemetery in Pennsylvania and the Beverly National Cemetery and Finn's Point National Cemetery, both in New Jersey, are no longer open for in-ground, full casket burials, other than those who already have existing plots. There is also no national cemetery in the State of Delaware. Thus, the need for an additional national cemetery in our area is immediate. Current population figures from the Department of Veterans Affairs show a population of 574,584 veterans in the 11-county Philadelphia region. The next decade will challenge the National Cemetery Administration to accommodate World War II and Korean War veterans, as well as veterans from the Vietnam era. Each of our veterans deserves the honor of burial in a national cemetery. In order to best be able to honor and remember their loved ones, families need to have access to those gravesites within a reasonable distance from their homes. The best opportunity to meet this need in the Philadelphia area is to dedicate existing federally owned property in the Valley Forge National Historical Park. The Valley Forge National Historical Park is dedicated to the earliest American military veterans and the long winter of their suffering during the War of the American Revolution. Although no battle was fought on this land, it is nevertheless symbolic of our Nation's military valor and triumph over adversity. The bill will designate 100 acres of the 3,600 acre National Park for use as a national cemetery. The section of land north of the Schuylkill River would be the ideal location for the national cemetery. This area contains no historical markers and is separated from the rest of the park by the river. Dedication of this portion of the Historical Park as a national cemetery would thus add a solemn and appropriate place to honor and remember those who have served this country in the military. Mr. Speaker, I urge swift consideration of this bill as an important and timely opportunity to honor our nations' military veterans.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. This bill is unnecessary, it is unjustified. It addresses a phantom problem. It would seriously damage our country's continued participation in important international efforts to protect valuable land around the world. But worst of all, it caters to the suspicions and the conspiracy theories of extreme organizations and individuals, and it leads directly to scare tactics such as those used by the American Policy Center in attempts to alarm American citizens and frankly, to raise money under false pretenses, and this bill ought to be opposed and defeated. I would like to read from a letter from the American Policy Center which I will include for the Record at the end of my statement. This is a letter written by the American Policy Center, signed by Tom DeWeese, the president, urging citizens to send money in to pass this bill, H.R. 883, to ``stop the U.N. land grab of American soil,'' a land grab, Mr. Chairman, that does not exist; urging citizens and this Congress to stop the U.N. from designating any more U.S. soil as World Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves. The U.N. does not make those designations, Mr. Chairman. It identifies a U.N. land grab of American soil; calls for the Congress to stop liberals from terminating the United Nations' influence on 51 million acres of U.S. park land. Mr. Chairman, the U.N. does not have influence over 51 million acres of United States national park land. It says that liberals know this bill will lead to the end of international treaties and agreements that give the U.N. control over development of American soil. There are no such international treaties and agreements, nor should there be, nor would this Congress vote for, nor would any President negotiate such international treaties. It is just bogus. The letter talks about radicals like Al Gore and Bruce Babbitt that enforce treaties in a way that give the U.N. authority over our land and our private property every day. Gore and Babbitt are not radicals and they are not doing any such thing. This letter talks about open warfare in coming weeks to pass this bill. Mr. DeWeese talks about meeting with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and saying that the American Policy Center will back him all the way in the battle to pass this bill. Of course, then Mr. DeWeese goes to the heart of the matter and asks for any contribution from $17 to $1,000 to help the American Policy Center in their efforts. Mr. Chairman, this bill is not needed. We should oppose it. It is nothing but scare tactics from the right wing. We should vote ``no.'' American Policy Center, Herndon, VA. Dear Friend of APC: I have just come from an emergency meeting on Capitol Hill, and I have important news for you. I was meeting with several national leaders to plan a strategy to pass Congressman Don Young's ``American Land Sovereignty Protection Act'' (H.R. 883). As I'm sure you remember, we were successful last year in passing this bill in the House of Representatives to stop the UN land grab of American Soil. But we were stopped cold in the U.S. Senate. We didn't even get a hearing on the Senate version of the Bill. Because the Senate did not act, we have to start all over again and pass it again in the House, while we build strength in the Senate. We intend to win this time. We intend to pass the Bill in both Houses of Congress and stop the UN from designating any more U.S. soil as World Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves. We believe Congressman Young has the votes to pass it again in the House. In fact, he already has 158 co-sponsors, with more joining each day. He also has the support of new House Speaker Dennis Hastert. The problem, again, is in the Senate. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado has again agreed to introduce the ``American Land Sovereignty Protection Act in the Senate. The Bill number is S. 510. But Senator Campbell has only been able to sign on six co- sponsors. Without more support, S. 510 will again die in the Senate. You and I can't let that happen. Not again. You and I need to storm the Senate. Here's how. First, I have enclosed a ``Legislative Petition'' to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. He will be key in the fight to build support in the Senate. Frankly, without his support there can be no floor vote on

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order today.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join a number of my colleagues this evening in reporting on the benefits to our congressional districts of the TCSP grants that were awarded last week by the Secretary of Transportation and by the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration. The TCSP grants stand for Transportation, Community and System Preservation grants. These are a vital part of the transportation program as part of the administration's livability agenda. Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, the 13th District of Pennsylvania, received a grant of $665,000 to promote a transit-oriented development along a proposed rail line. I would like to talk about that in some detail, but first it is clear to me in my travels around the district, in my town meetings and meetings at supermarkets, that the questions of suburban sprawl, of gridlocked traffic, of overdevelopment are the very highest issues facing the suburbs throughout this country and certainly the suburbs of Philadelphia. We need to do a better job in managing our growth, in fighting traffic gridlock, in fighting sprawl, in making sure we plan for the orderly growth and development in our suburban communities. These transportation grants are a very important way of doing that. We are trying to restore train service that was stopped 15 years ago from the City of Philadelphia through Montgomery County, my district, out to Reading, Pennsylvania. This train service, if restored, would allow for both commuting into the city and reverse commuting from the city every day. It would take shoppers to the largest mall on the East Coast. It would take shoppers to the Reading discount markets. It would allow access to cultural and historical benefits and assets, such as Valley Forge National Park. It would do a number of very beneficial things in my area. The question is, why did passenger service end on this train route 15 years ago? Why was ridership so low? It is because we were not doing a very good job in promoting that service or making it attractive to people. The Transportation Department, through its transit-oriented development grant, is trying to promote the expansion of this commuter service along what will be called the Schuylkill Valley Metro by urging municipalities to plan for adequate parking at train stations to allow dense development so that there can be residential opportunities and retail and commercial opportunities surrounding the proposed train stations. We need to make commuting by rail not only attractive to those who would drive to a station and park their car but to create an area where people would be attracted to come and live, to rent an apartment or buy a condo around a train station with all of the commercial amenities and recreational amenities that a small town can offer, so that people would be attracted to live there and drive their cars there as well, to use the transit program. This is an exciting opportunity and one that we have to aggressively market if we are going to help reduce the traffic gridlock around Philadelphia and make people come back to trains and come back to a place of living and working, where they can walk to their train station from their apartment, they can walk to commercial and retail opportunities. If they are driving to the train station from a more remote area, they can do shopping, they can drop off their dry cleaning or get their hair cut when they come back from work, whatever it takes to make life more manageable and more livable and improve the quality of life while, at the same time, getting people off of highways. This is the goal. This sort of transit-oriented development encouraged by the Secretary of Transportation will help to fight sprawl in the suburbs. It will encourage smart growth strategies so that we can have a more livable community. It will ease traffic congestion and help to end some of the traffic gridlock that make our suburban areas so difficult. And it would also encourage what is called location-efficient mortgages. This is an exciting aspect of this program that will encourage lenders to lend more money to folks that live in these transit areas because they will not need to have the high expense of owning a car that many Americans have to face. So if they can live in an area where they can walk to a train station and take the train to work, a lender will be encouraged to give more money in terms of a loan to that prospective homebuyer or condominium buyer so that he or she can buy more house for the same income than they would if they had to factor into their expenses the cost of owning two or three cars and living in a remote suburban community. Fundamentally, this will reduce pressure on green space. It will allow us to save open space, preserve farmland and make all of the suburbs a more livable area for all of us. So the transit-oriented development to be encouraged by this transportation grant is exactly the right sort of thing that we should be promoting to improve livability throughout the suburbs and throughout this country. General Leave

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I am here to recognize and honor Scout William Goltz of North Wales, PA. He is the recipient of the 1999 Boy Scout Heroism Award. This award recognizes a Scout for showing skill and heroism for saving or attempting to save a life. Last year, Scout William Goltz was the first at the scene where a man had a heart attack. Without hesitation he began CPR, which he performed tirelessly until paramedics arrived. CPR continued in the ambulance. In spite of Scout Goltz's efforts, the man later died. William instinctively took charge of the situation and followed his training, but the damage to the stranger's heart was too severe. It should be noted that Scout Goltz was 15 at the time. I am proud to recognize Mr. William Goltz.